| Author |
Topic: Marshall Bluesbreaker combo |
Mike Bieber
From:
New York, N.Y.
|
Posted 30 Aug 2001 2:16 pm |
|
| I've got a reissue Bluesbreaker sitting around. It sounds great with my steel. Essentially, it's a JTM-45 Marshall head with two greenback Celestions. Wondering if anyone has used one for steel. The downside is it's rated at only 40 watts and weighs a ton. Sounded great tho. |
|
|
 |
Jeff A. Smith
From:
Angola,Ind. U.S.A.
|
Posted 31 Aug 2001 1:51 pm
|
|
I've got a re-issue JTM 45 head, and a medium age 2-12 Marshall cabinent. I play an MSA S-10 through it, and to me it sounds great. Patterned after what was more or less the first amp chassis that Marshall made, you may be aware that it's kind of patterned after a Fender Bassman from that era. It sounds more like that than the typical Marshall.
I think this basically gets the warm, vintage Fender-ish tube thing that a lot of people like, but if I were to play it onstage, I'm not sure there would be enough headroom without too much distortion |
|
|
|
Buck Dilly
From:
Branchville, NJ, USA * R.I.P.
|
Posted 31 Aug 2001 3:37 pm
|
|
| I have a mid 70's Marshall COmbo. It has been altered to sound like the bluesbreaker. I have used this only in the studio. And even then I used it in stereo with a Fender Reverb amp. I have also used AC -30's in the studio. Both these amps have "get outta my way" top end that really cuts. I find the Marshall has one great clean volumn and one great (and very loud) dirty volumn. Hard to tame. Buck |
|
|
|
ajm
From:
Los Angeles
|
Posted 1 Sep 2001 7:48 am
|
|
The downside to Marshalls is that a lot of them don't have the steel essential reverb built in.
I'm convinced that they can sound clean depending upon how you set them. The new JCM 2000 series are supposed to have a very good clean channel.
I've been to ISGC and the Peaveys sound fabulous. But picture this: Tom Brumley, or John Hughey, or Lloyd Green, or (fill in the blank) on stage at ISGC with a couple of Marshall or Bogner or Mesa or Peavey 5150 half stacks, set to a normal clean volume with reverb in stereo, playing their normal set. Now THAT would give us something to talk about.
|
|
|
|
Hamilton Barnard
From:
Oro Valley, Arizona (deceased)
|
Posted 3 Sep 2001 8:54 am
|
|
Jeff, if you want to give your JTM-45 reissue a shot in the arm, dump that cheesy 5Y3 rectifier tube and replace it with a GZ34; which Marshall should have done. The Chinese ones work well...maybe $12.
ajm, yes the 2000s do have a clean channel. Have you played one? My DSL-50, and at least to my ears, sounds thin and and a sterile; but who should be surprised, with all of their diode clipping and channel switching circuits. I'm only being critical of Marshall here...not your reply.
------------------
My Marshalls.
|
|
|
|
Jeff A. Smith
From:
Angola,Ind. U.S.A.
|
Posted 4 Sep 2001 4:29 pm
|
|
I'll make a note of that, Hamilton.
I've also got a JCM 900 50W, I'd have to check and see the model no. I think it may be one of the first ones where they started to put in extra gain stages. It's a single channel, but has two volume controls you can switch back and forth between using the same EQ settings. It may be a sort of transition model before they went to the SLX series, that are even more down the extra gain road, I think. What you say about thin tone rings a bell, though, because this thing doesn't have NEAR the bottom end I would lke to have. I don't really get into much of that extra gain stuff anyway. I don't have a 4-12 cabinent anymore, just a 2-12. My last hope is that maybe a 4-12 would make enough difference in the bass response. |
|
|
|
Mike Bieber
From:
New York, N.Y.
|
Posted 5 Sep 2001 5:23 am
|
|
| Actually, the Marshall Major amp, which was manufactured from around '68 to '73 or thereabouts, would probably be a superb steel amp. It's rated at 200W but peaks at close to 300, and it's very clean. I'd love to hear a steel through one. Of course, anyone crazy enough to use one for regular gigging will certainly get a double hernia. Also, it uses six 6550 tubes--not exactly cheap. |
|
|
|
Hamilton Barnard
From:
Oro Valley, Arizona (deceased)
|
Posted 5 Sep 2001 3:01 pm
|
|
Mike, I've never played a Major but I looked in the back of one, when I saw those transformers I thought, "Man, it looks like two engine blocks sittin' in there."
|
|
|
|
Mike Bieber
From:
New York, N.Y.
|
Posted 6 Sep 2001 3:51 pm
|
|
| I just read that the late, great Mick Ronson used a Major throughout his career. Hamilton, I've never looked at the guts or chassis of a Major, but its appearance from outside reminds me of this giant shortwave radio my uncle has. If I find a used one fpr sale I just might get. How cool if it really does the job for PSG! |
|
|
|
Jeff A. Smith
From:
Angola,Ind. U.S.A.
|
Posted 6 Sep 2001 6:03 pm
|
|
Ritchie Blackmore had one that was modified for even more output.
Did they always have 6550 power tubes? I've got a 50W combo with 6550's. (The last in my humble collection of three Marshalls.) I've tried it for steel, and to my ear it's just a wee bit harsh sounding with those power tubes. They last longer than EL34's though. Great bottom end. [This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 06 September 2001 at 07:04 PM.] |
|
|
|
Hamilton Barnard
From:
Oro Valley, Arizona (deceased)
|
Posted 7 Sep 2001 10:18 am
|
|
The Majors, from conception to the end, came with three 12AX7s and four KT88s.
The lead and bass heads was offered from 1967-74 according to the Doyle book, but I distinctly remembering seeing them in the JCM-800 catalog; a series that ran from 1981-90.
Who knows...
|
|
|
|
