Marshall JCM 2000
- Thread starter RFR
- Start date
Bubba po
Tiny Stonehenge Moment
Great sounding amps, price a little high, I think - maybe $550-600? Or maybe British amps are relatively more expensive in the US than over here.
Haggle (especially if 100W version and it hasn't had a tube change in a while); I don't like the shared e.q. of the crunch and lead channels. HTH.
Is it a 50 or 100w?
They're generally good. They're modern era, but good tones in there. As bubba said, the shared EQ between channels can be a bitch, but if you treat it like a single channel amp it's fine. The Clean/Crunch channel is pretty fat, and the Lead channel is sort of thin, so you'll probably wanna teak between channels, and that's where the shared EQ rears it's ugly head. Good effects loop, OK reverb. They take pedals really well. Can be intensely loud, but it's also a modern Marshall that can do well turned down to more modest levels. Joe Bonermaster and Jeff Beck use them these days, so if you're into that sort of thing, there's two rock legends pumping out their tones on DSLs.
700 isn't a bad price if it's truly mint and has good tubes in it. If it's a little beat, it's not uncommon to see them dip to around 450-550 in price. Since Marshall has started having these amps made in Vietnam, the older UK-made original versions have gone up in value a tick, so 700 isn't too bad. I'd say lowball him at 600 and see what happens.
Bubba po
Tiny Stonehenge Moment
When I was looking for a Marshall, I had the DSL and the TSL on the table. I would say the crunch channel on the DSL is better than the TSL. Are they different circuits, Greg? They seem to be. After humming and hawing for a bit, I decided that the TSL Crunch channel was good enough and the separate E.Q. swung it for me. Unless you're playing live and want to switch channels, the shared E.Q. isn't even a problem, and lots of guitarists get along fine with it as it is. I barely use the clean channel - it's not great. If it had the glassy tones of a Fender Twin it would be my perfect amp for what I do.
I'm not familiar enough with the TSL to know if it has different circuitry from a DSL. I would bet it does since they're functionally so different and sound so different. I would say the TSL is more similar to the 6100 in sound and functionality. The DSL is more basic, has a more predictable Marshall sound..
The shared EQ is a big problem for most people, but like you said, only if you're a habitual channel jumper. If you're playing covers and need a bunch of variety from your amp, the DSL is not good for that. If you're me and can blast through a whole set on one channel only using the guitar vol for variety, then it's fine. The DSL sounds great when you settle on the sound you want from it. The problem is you're stuck with that basic sound. For recording it's no problem. For live, it can be a problem.
Thanks for the info guys..
Not sure if it's a 100 or 50 watter. But it was made in England.
Belongs to a bass player client of mine. He never uses it.
It will be in my world in the next week or so.
Plugging in, cranking it up, and flexibility on price will answer all questions and determine it's fate and future residence.
Thanks again.
Not sure if it's a 100 or 50 watter. But it was made in England.
Belongs to a bass player client of mine. He never uses it.
It will be in my world in the next week or so.
Plugging in, cranking it up, and flexibility on price will answer all questions and determine it's fate and future residence.
Thanks again.