Is the 50w and good as the 100w?

[ItsChrispyTv]

In store i tried out a 100w and really liked it. But it looks like i can only afford the 50w for now. Is it still the same beast just quieter? or is it a completely different amp?
Thanks
Chris

[record335]

Hi there,

I have got the 50W head and 425a cabinet and really love it. I am not gigging or playing it cranked so really don't need the extra wattage. I suppose it depends on what kind of setup you have and also the venue you are likely to be playing. Either way, the amp sounds fantastic and is another testament to Marshall design and engineering. I think there are a fair few guys on here with the 100W head, which is wise if you are playing a lot of shows. I think if you can stretch to the 100W head then go for it. Otherwise, the 50W will more than likely suffice (dependant on venue).

Regards

Mark

[Bailz]

As far as I'm aware the only real difference is headroom, i.e. how quickly the amp distorts turning up the master volume.

There's perhaps a slight volume increase but nothing significant.

P.S. I have a 50W

[Licks61SG]

Considering I have to do most gigs in pubs/clubs on no louder than MV 4 (HDR) with 100W, then I'm fairly sure that 50W would be perfectly fine.

[Slashwannabe1]

Well to be honest the math doesn't look like much of an advantage for the 2466 100 watt, but let me tell you 100 Watts is unmatched. I hear people here and there say that their master volume needs to be pretty high in a band situation with the 2266 50 watt and that sometimes its muddy with a loud drummer, while I know where my 2466 starts to drown out most bands I've jammed with and its sooner on the volume than a lot of 2266 owners state. I also don't hear many if any complaints about a muddy mixes with 2466 users.

The big difference is in clean headroom, the 2466 has a lot more of that. I also think the 2466 is fuller and definitely more powerful.

If you're looking to do smaller gigs or are a single guitarist in a band the 2266 is a great match, but I would say the norm for a lot of bands is to have 100 watt heads so you'd need to at least have 100 watts to compete with a lot of situations.

[Dave W]

I have had both the 50 and 100 watter. I prefer the 100 watter. More clean headroom for sure.

I think the 100 watter sounds different too. Not necessarily better, but different. That may be due to pushing the speakers harder and other factors. Not much cost difference between the 2 so save a little and wait a little. Both are excellent amps though.

[MKB]

The 100W has to sound different than the 50W for several technical reasons:

1) Higher B+ in the 100W. The voltages on tubes has a lot to do with their tone. This affects the power amp and preamp.

2) Different output transformer construction; lower impedance primary means less turns of larger diameter wire, more metal in the core.

3) The larger power transformer will most likely have some sonic effect.

4) Multiple power tubes in parallel on each side of the push-pull power circuit will affect the tone in subtle ways.

That being said, I have not compared a 2266 to my 2466, but have compared many 1959 heads to 1987 heads, and there is a world of difference. IMHO, without exception, Marshall 100W amps just sound better than their 50W counterparts. In the case of the 2466, the actual 80W clean is just about right, but a tiny bit on the loud side, where the 30W clean of the 2266 might not be enough in some cases. The 2466 is not as brutally loud a beast as a 1959 or 2203. Also, it is easier to knock a bit of power off an amp (attenuators, less efficient speakers) than it is to make a too quiet amp louder.

[TubeStack]

Having had both, I prefer the 2466 100W version. As others have said, fuller, more headroom, more punch. Sounds like the tone is filling the speakers more, if you will, bigger and more present. It seems to me to be the perfect "big Marshall," as it's got plenty of volume when needed but is not as crushingly loud as a 2203 or 1959.

[ItsChrispyTv]

well im not really gonna be using it for clean sound, just distortion and if it hasn't got enough power surely you can hook it up to the PA? and i've had a few amps with different wattages 15-40w and they were loud enough to gig with easily.

[Slashwannabe1]

plenty of volume when needed but is not as crushingly loud as a 2203 or 1959.

I think it was Surf who did a test recently and got 128dbs out of his 2466 Vintage Modern! Thats more than a DSL100s 119db and a few db's more than somebody who did a 2203 test recently as well (I'll have to find the article and post later). The smooth sound makes the VMs volume deceptive, where as a JCM 800 has a high amount of treble & mids and "appears" louder also the fact that the volume control on a JCM 800 jumps in volume more than the VM's more managable Master Volume Control. Think of it this way...JCM 800s volume control basically goes to 6 and the Vintage Moderns goes to 10 (or 11 if you're a Spinal Tap fan!). Theres not much more volume past 6 on a JCM 800 in my expeirence.

I gotta say I was at a Rock N Roll Revival show where some guy was using a DSL100 Half stack and that thing was LOUD at that show, my ears were ringing! So its definitely some food for thought to think that the 2466 Vintage Modern is louder than that!.

[MKB]

plenty of volume when needed but is not as crushingly loud as a 2203 or 1959.

I think it was Surf who did a test recently and got 128dbs out of his 2466 Vintage Modern! Thats more than a DSL100s 119db and a few db's more than somebody who did a 2203 test recently as well (I'll have to find the article and post later). The smooth sound makes the VMs volume deceptive, where as a JCM 800 has a high amount of treble & mids and "appears" louder also the fact that the volume control on a JCM 800 jumps in volume more than the VM's more managable Master Volume Control. Think of it this way...JCM 800s volume control basically goes to 6 and the Vintage Moderns goes to 10 (or 11 if you're a Spinal Tap fan!). Theres not much more volume past 6 on a JCM 800 in my expeirence.

I gotta say I was at a Rock N Roll Revival show where some guy was using a DSL100 Half stack and that thing was LOUD at that show, my ears were ringing! So its definitely some food for thought to think that the 2466 Vintage Modern is louder than that!.

The total sound level from an amp is totally dependent on the efficiency of the speakers. You can only successfully compare the two amps if your speakers are the same between the two amps. That should account for at least some of the difference in sound levels.

[Wildone]

If your afraid 50 watts might not cut it down the road then save and go for a 100 watt head. I find my 100 watt head to have great volume and punch when I call for it at my guitar, would't want less that's for sure.

[TubeStack]

plenty of volume when needed but is not as crushingly loud as a 2203 or 1959.

I think it was Surf who did a test recently and got 128dbs out of his 2466 Vintage Modern! Thats more than a DSL100s 119db and a few db's more than somebody who did a 2203 test recently as well (I'll have to find the article and post later). The smooth sound makes the VMs volume deceptive, where as a JCM 800 has a high amount of treble & mids and "appears" louder also the fact that the volume control on a JCM 800 jumps in volume more than the VM's more managable Master Volume Control. Think of it this way...JCM 800s volume control basically goes to 6 and the Vintage Moderns goes to 10 (or 11 if you're a Spinal Tap fan!). Theres not much more volume past 6 on a JCM 800 in my expeirence.

I gotta say I was at a Rock N Roll Revival show where some guy was using a DSL100 Half stack and that thing was LOUD at that show, my ears were ringing! So its definitely some food for thought to think that the 2466 Vintage Modern is louder than that!.

Well, speaker efficiency is an element to consider, as MKB said. Also, with all due respect to Surf, I don't know if his test should be considered the all-defining, irrefutable answer. It's interesting and notable, for sure (and he's a very cool dude with a great site, of course ). But again, in my experience, even a 50W JCM800 shook the foundations more than my 2466.

And that's a good thing! The JCM800 and 1959SLP were virtually un-usable without an attenuator or some other such BS. I far prefer the 2466's tone and overall volume than either the JCM800 2204/2203, or 1959SLP, in my experience. And if it is a trick-of-the-ear due to voicing, frequency emphasis, etc, it's still a good thing.

With regards to my earlier post, I should add that I did love the tone of the 2266 and it's obviously a killer amp if that's what suits one's needs. People have different playing situations and preferences and for some the 2266 is the better amp. I want to buy a 2266c combo myself, at some point.

For my main amp, one of the big reasons I need the 2466 is not so much the extra volume, but what it delivers on big, low-string riffs. The 2266 I had was very compressed when playing low-string riffs loudly.

For example, after the descending, high-range guitar intro to ZZ Top's "Nasty Dogs & Funky Kings," the low-string, response riff that comes in with the drums and bass, on the 2266 would get lost. With the 2466, it pumps through punchy and clear. For me, that's important, for others, not such a big deal and they'd prefer to have an amp on which you can get the MV into the 7-8 range, which I'm not often able to do with the 2466 (it sits at 5-6, sometimes up to 7), but which you can definitely do with the 2266.

Anyway, they're both killer amps and I eventually want to own the 2266c, too.

[fortress]

well is speak from experience, i have a 50W, playing in a band with a second guitarist. Our drummer is playing loud and i dont have any problem with the amp lacking in power. Don't have problem playing gig too

[Tnjpekar]

Have the 100, played the 50 side by side, at similar volume
levels I prefer the tone and overall sound of the 100 for
most any amp.
Especially the VM, but thats my opinion.
Just sounds punchier and bigger to my ears.
I also like the chime when you roll back on the volume with the
100 watter, you don't lose as much volume, but for some tasty
licks it can't be beat