Moderator: longfxukxnhair
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.express wrote:Would Marshall ever think about reissuing the SLX and also correct the issues that the amp had.
Except the price, LOL!donnyboiler wrote: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.
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.GuitarGuy10 wrote: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.express wrote:Would Marshall ever think about reissuing the SLX and also correct the issues that the amp had.
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 wrote: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.
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.donnyboiler wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests