Musicians Roadhouse

Tnjpekar wrote:pedal schmedle, dime that sucker and just ride the volume control on the guitar like real men do :draw

:-)

One thing in this thread that concerned me - is anybody saying you can achieve the same sound you get with your guitar volume at 10 in the low range by switching to the high range and turning your guitar volume down to 3 or whatever?

I don't think you can because the level of your guitar pickups's volume has more influence on the sound than just gain/volume - doesn't it?

Dream Amp:

Why not just go all the way and duplicate all the knobs? That would avoid the problem of common EQ and reverb levels, if you want different settings. It's not actually difficult once you go down the switched-control route... that's how the JVM works - it's not really a four channel amp in terms of the audio signal path through the valves, it's more like a single-channel amp with four different control networks and some preset gain and tone changes. Marshall have all the technology in place to make this work really well now, it would just be a question of deciding exactly which combination of circuits and features to use.

What would really make it for me would be channel-assigned power stage and valve rectifier switching - so it could be a valve-rectified JTM45 on the 'overdrive' channel giving the guitar-controllable compressed distortion and a solid-state rectified JTM100 on the 'clean' channel giving the high headroom - and preferably with switchable bias so it could run either KT66s for the JTM sound or EL34s for the same thing but JMP-flavour. Now *that* might be a Marshall I could own... "Vintage Modern II"? :-)

(In case you didn't know, there is a certain other company that already does this type of power stage switching, and whose amps I use at the moment... but it would be nice to have the same sort of thing in a Marshall!)

ClubAndCountry wrote: What would really make it for me would be channel-assigned power stage and valve rectifier switching - so it could be a valve-rectified JTM45 on the 'overdrive' channel giving the guitar-controllable compressed distortion and a solid-state rectified JTM100 on the 'clean' channel giving the high headroom - and preferably with switchable bias so it could run either KT66s for the JTM sound or EL34s for the same thing but JMP-flavour. Now *that* might be a Marshall I could own... "Vintage Modern II"? :-)

(In case you didn't know, there is a certain other company that already does this type of power stage switching, and whose amps I use at the moment... but it would be nice to have the same sort of thing in a Marshall!)

Now that would be fantastic. Even just a 1959-type "clean" channel and a 2203-type dirty channel—both solid-state rectified, separate tone and volume controls for each—would be great.

C&C, doesn't Mesa have a USA patent on the type of "rectifier tracking" (as I think they call it) that you mentioned?

I'm sure they do, since they seem to take out patents on just about every aspect of amplification, whether or not they invented it or have any justifiable claim to it - but whether they actually hold water in reality is another matter, it's very simple to get around things like that with only small circuit changes and do it in a slightly different way. Patents for electronic circuits are quite detailed, you can't just patent a concept. I believe they actually hold a patent on their first cascaded-gain preamp, which is just ridiculous when you look at pretty much any other modern amp, including Marshalls. And I know other companies use manually switchable rectifiers - which Mesa also patented - although I don't know of any that are channel-assigned yet. I'm not against protecting intellectual property at all, but it does get silly when someone tries to lay claim to things which are entirely logical extensions of existing ideas... (in my opinion)

At least I've found someone else who wants a 1959/2203 as well! :-)

Instead a new VM (which I doubt that it will ever be produced), why not 2 VM's? :D

It will solve everyone's "problems"!

Cheers,

DogFalcon wrote:Instead a new VM (which I doubt that it will ever be produced), why not 2 VM's? :D

It will solve everyone's "problems"!

Cheers,

DogFalcon wrote:Instead a new VM (which I doubt that it will ever be produced), why not 2 VM's? :D

It will solve everyone's "problems"!

Cheers,

That is the answer!!!! Can't get better than two VMs.

I'm aim to buy another VM 2266 and a 425 cabinet. Thinking of a stereo rig or swtching between two amps/channels.
If Marshall does a 2ch VM it will kill the mystic of the amp.
Nobody wants a JTM45 with two channel's, for instance!