Marshall DSL100 clean tone question

[guitarplayr82]

So I've heard the clean tones on the DSL100 are pretty good as far as Marshall goes. I think the DSL100 is probably the amp I want to buy, but I can't really go test it out anywhere because none of my local music stores stock them anymore. I did, however, have the chance to test out a MA100H at Guitar Center today which, surprisingly enough, I liked the clean tone quite a bit on. Granted, I was playing at a semi-low volume, but it wasn't bad at all.

So my question: does the DSL100 clean sound at all like the MA100H clean? How could you describe the DSL100 clean? I'm not really into "Fender cleans", I much prefer a flatter, tighter clean sound. Could the DSL100 be what I am looking for?

 

[DrewPeterson7]

So I've heard the clean tones on the DSL100 are pretty good as far as Marshall goes. I think the DSL100 is probably the amp I want to buy, but I can't really go test it out anywhere because none of my local music stores stock them anymore. I did, however, have the chance to test out a MA100H at Guitar Center today which, surprisingly enough, I liked the clean tone quite a bit on. Granted, I was playing at a semi-low volume, but it wasn't bad at all.

So my question: does the DSL100 clean sound at all like the MA100H clean? How could you describe the DSL100 clean? I'm not really into "Fender cleans", I much prefer a flatter, tighter clean sound. Could the DSL100 be what I am looking for?

I'm not familiar with the MA100, I'm afraid.

I used to own a TSL100, and I'm going to make the simplifying assumption here that they have very similar clean sounds. I wasn't wild about it, but you might like it. The marketing literature and a lot of the initial reviews made a big deal about "Fender cleans," but to my ears what they meant was that it actually HAS a clean channel, unlike the JCM800 and 900s before it. It was fatter than the typical Marshall clean, which I'd normally describe as glassy and thin, but not in a bad way, and while you could add a bit of grit to it it stayed pretty clean.

My problem with it was it was boring. IT was fat, it was clean, but I liked the glassiness about my old Marshall JTM30 combo, and it seemed less dynamically responsive than either the traditional Marshall clean or a Fender clean. IT didn't have the depth or sparkle of a Fender, but it was really thick - maybe a lot of low mids, I guess, and not terribly bright. This is my recollection of an amp I sold back in, oh, '04, though, so take this all with a giant grain of salt.

 

[guitarplayr82]

I'm not familiar with the MA100, I'm afraid.

I used to own a TSL100, and I'm going to make the simplifying assumption here that they have very similar clean sounds. I wasn't wild about it, but you might like it. The marketing literature and a lot of the initial reviews made a big deal about "Fender cleans," but to my ears what they meant was that it actually HAS a clean channel, unlike the JCM800 and 900s before it. It was fatter than the typical Marshall clean, which I'd normally describe as glassy and thin, but not in a bad way, and while you could add a bit of grit to it it stayed pretty clean.

My problem with it was it was boring. IT was fat, it was clean, but I liked the glassiness about my old Marshall JTM30 combo, and it seemed less dynamically responsive than either the traditional Marshall clean or a Fender clean. IT didn't have the depth or sparkle of a Fender, but it was really thick - maybe a lot of low mids, I guess, and not terribly bright. This is my recollection of an amp I sold back in, oh, '04, though, so take this all with a giant grain of salt.

Thanks man I'm not sure if I should just get used to the Fender clean sound and buy something like a Twin Reverb or if I should embrace my unusual clean tone preference and get some sort of Marshall...