Marshall reissue SLX ???

[donnyboiler]

Yeah, I always thought the Marshall clean worked great with humbuckers.

Touch sensitivity - what I mean is, you always lose something to the switching logic in a multi channel amp even if everything else is the same. I's like the difference between plugging straight in with a short cable, and using a long cable run with pedals. There's no way round it, you put something in your signal path, shit changes.

[GuitarGuy10]

Would Marshall ever think about reissuing the SLX and also correct the issues that the amp had.

The 4100 and 2500 MK III are better sounding so I don't think they would choose the SLX which sounds too thin, harsh and bright.

[GuitarGuy10]

Yeah, exactly what you said. I really like the normal JVM but the HJS is superior in every way for classic rock through to hard rock. I don't like making definitive statements like that, but that's the simple truth. Great great amp. Think of it like a 6100 clean, a 2203, an AFD, and maybe a slightly more refined SLX, all in one box, and you've got it. It really is that good. You do lose some touch sensitivity to the four channel arrangement and the 6100 clean is a trad Marshall skinny clean, but it is absolutely perfect at everything it sets out to do.

Except the price, LOL!

I LOVE the JS but I would be just as happy with an old 900 2500 MK III, that I would not feel bad about modifying over time! :)

[donnyboiler]

Would Marshall ever think about reissuing the SLX and also correct the issues that the amp had.

The 4100 and 2500 MK III are better sounding so I don't think they would choose the SLX which sounds too thin, harsh and bright.

User error. 4100s and 4500s are thin. 2100s, both types, are fat and warm with plenty of Marshall gritty highs if you want them. Sigi has both types at the Marshall museum and according to him everyone who plugs into both comes away preferring the SLX.

I can never understand anyone saying the 4100s sound warm. They are the thinnest, brightest Marshall I've ever played, with the possible exception of a 2210 at low volume, which was just painful. 4100 and 4500's bass controi does almost nothing. Don't get me wrong, there are people that make them sound good (Tesla's Bust a Nut springs to mind) and the clean channel is quite good cranked, but they are the thin 900, everyone knows that. Get all three on the same day, through the same cab, with the same guitar and you will agree.

[Mats A]

I've had them all and the Dual Reverb is not thin sounding. If so ju must have the treble set very high or something. It is really quite fat sounding. The SL-X can sound a bit toppy and bright if you set the preamp volume low.

[donnyboiler]

I had treble on 2, bass on 10, presence around half. This was a 4500 and I had it up against a TSL and a 6100 and other amps too, all good and loud in a big room. I was amazed by the lack of bass response. My 2500 by comparison had truckloads of bottom end and it could certainly get gnarly and bright bit never thin. I'm astounded, maybe the 4500 needed new tubes. The bass control did next to nothing.

[Anitoli]

Yeah, I always thought the Marshall clean worked great with humbuckers.

Touch sensitivity - what I mean is, you always lose something to the switching logic in a multi channel amp even if everything else is the same. I's like the difference between plugging straight in with a short cable, and using a long cable run with pedals. There's no way round it, you put something in your signal path, shit changes.

I'll argue that switching causes signal loss. If the pre amp is designed right there shouldn't be any thing other than more gain stages in the path. Switching amps can be every bit as efficient as single channel ones. There is more "touch sensitivity" in a 6100 than I ever felt in a 2203, plexi, 1959, jubilee, 2204, ect. It all depends on how its designed.

[donnyboiler]

I agree with you on the 6100, but that amp has a discrete signal path per channel, right? The TSL, JVM, and most modern channel switchers don't. I love the 6100.

[Mats A]

I don't think the channel switching in itself affects the tone on the TSL or JVM either. It's just that the signal takes another path in the circuit. The switching is only affecting things when switching.

[donnyboiler]

Anything in the signal path affects tone. That's why expensive hi-fi amps have no tone controls and as little switching as possible. Each relay that's in the signal path sucks tone just like a longer guitar cable or more pedals in your chain sucks tone. That's one of the reasons the 6100 cleans up better and feels more touch sensitive than any comparable Marshall channel switcher - it has a discrete path per channel so fewer relays in your chain and each signal path directly feeding the power amp. Newer channel switchers switch in and out individual 12AX7 gain stages to achieve different gain structures, therefore more relays and more tone suck.

That's always been my understanding anyway.

[Mats A]

But sucks tone is an often used expression. What is it really? If someone think something sounds good what then? Most say that a wah wah sucks tone. But i always have my wah wah connected even when testing amps. I´m used to the tone with the wah wah in the signal chain. That´s how i like it.

[donnyboiler]

Yeah totally. Hendrix liked curly cables cause they rolled off highs. Some guys like their tone controls rolled off to 7 or 5 or whatever. So it's only "tone suck" if it takes away from what you want. I personally like things as clear as possible going in, so that I can remove treble later. Some guys use buffers to get round this, I prefer a true bypass box. There's totally a strong argument for doing whatever suits you.

I don't think many people would argue that a JVM or a TSL is more touch sensitive than a 6100 though, and I'm pretty sure the purer signal path has a lot to do with that.

Having said all of this, I'm currently using a 5153 almost exclusively. I love the tones but one thing it lacks is touch sensitivity when rolling off. Currently looking at other options, may go back to Bogner XTC...

[Anitoli]

Anything in the signal path affects tone. That's why expensive hi-fi amps have no tone controls and as little switching as possible. Each relay that's in the signal path sucks tone just like a longer guitar cable or more pedals in your chain sucks tone. That's one of the reasons the 6100 cleans up better and feels more touch sensitive than any comparable Marshall channel switcher - it has a discrete path per channel so fewer relays in your chain and each signal path directly feeding the power amp. Newer channel switchers switch in and out individual 12AX7 gain stages to achieve different gain structures, therefore more relays and more tone suck.

That's always been my understanding anyway.

That can be the case but if you really study a 6100 for example there is a LOT between the pre amp and the PI. Once the signal leaves the pre amp it goes through a switching array for the fx loop passing through at least 5 op-amps, then it gets sent to the control board for the fx loop control then back to the power amp board. From there it goes to the MIDI board where it goes either through an internal loop or through the series line in/out loop and back the power amp. From there it gets sent back to the control board for the MV control and then back to the power amp to the PI. Through all this that amp still remains alive. Its all a matter of engineering.

I will agree with you about the TSL. I didn't like it. That amp was a lousy follow up to the 6100. It fell way short in terms of everything. From features to tone, it just didn't have it. And I would apply that to engineering.

[Mats A]

I think the JVM can be very touch sensitive. It also depends what you mean with touch sensitive. My brother have had i believe 3 6100 in the 90's and all had some kind of issues.

[Anitoli]

Just curious what were the issues that he had with the 6100's?