Fender vs. Marshall

[Tim73]

Originally Posted by Durtdog

I'd keep the Super, you may regret selling it some day.

Sound advice

[e-merlin]

Since you love the SR you better keep it. You'll never find another one you can afford. You'll miss it terribly if you get rid of it.

I don't know what your budget is, what kind of music you play, ect. but if you want to try something different, look to the used market.

I'm going to make a suggestion that may be laughed at from a lot of the guys around here, but it might be a partial solution. Look for a nice, used Peavey VTM 60 head and a decent sounding cab to go with it. It's not exactly a Marshall, but it will give one a run for the money. They are great sounding amps, and often compared to Marshalls when it comes to tone. They are also as loud as a freight train.

Of course, you need to pair it with a good speaker cab, since, IMO, speakers are about 75% of the amp's sound. A lot of guys buy an amp because it sounded good in the store, but buy a different, cheaper, cab to save money. Then they wonder why it sounded great in the store but now it sucks. You can make a not-so-good amp sound good through a great speaker, but you'll never make a great amp sound good through a crap speaker.

[fierce_carrot]

I have an 18watter, and a 36 watter (Ceriatone Trainwreck Liverpool) and both are based on the EL84 tube. I love the tones, they do exactly what I want but these are EL84's, NOT EL34's and thats the pure Marshall tone that most people identify with from 50 watts on up. The 18's don't have alot of headroom but thats not what makes them great. It's the ability to dime the little mutha's and get those power tubes glowing like chernobyl and moving into power tube distortion territory at useable volumes.

If you want a big Marshall, then go get it. I would suggest Ceriatone, contact Nik and ask about building you an amp with a half power switch and a PPIMV master volume so you can use the 100watter in all different kinds of gigs. What you are going to really hate tho, is carting around 1 or 2 (ugh) 4x12 cabinets. There are some great companies out there building empty cabinets and then you can load them with the speakers of your choice and still save big bucks not buying fully loaded Marshall cabs.

[Rocks]

Originally Posted by Durtdog

I have an 18-watter now that I use for some gigs. It is not similar to the Bluesbreaker I had before. The 18 has very little head room, and is not capable of any clean tones with a full band.

These threads always go the same way, "You don't need and shouldn't have anything over 12-15 watts, that would be ridiculous. No one can play a bigger amp cuz it's too loud." Well, my car will go 140 mph, but that doesn't mean I drive it that fast.

People around here will hint pretty strongly that you're an immature idiot if you want anything more. I sometimes feel like a fish swimming upstream, but if you want any clean head room, you need more watts. If you just want to dime it and play creamy overdrive, get a low wattage amp, an 18 watter will do Marshall cream very well...but not much else.

You must not have read where he said:

Originally Posted by Justinvs

In all honesty, volume has never been a problem with the SR, in fact just the opposite. If I've ever had a complaint about the amp it's that it sounds thin at low volumes, which unfortunately is where I have to set it to keep from blowing the rest of the instruments out. It would be nice to have something with a master volume/gain control, but beyond that, you're right. The SR has always been way more than I need as far as output goes.

[Durtdog]

Originally Posted by Rocks

You must not have read where he said:

I read it.

Just went off and had a little rant of my own.

[Rocks]

thats cool, we are all entitled to a rant now and then Just so you know, I have nothing against higher watt amps, its just that in most clubs around here you can't crank a 50 watt tube head without being asked to turn down.

[Justinvs]

Hey, thanks for all the great advice, everybody! This is the kind of stuff I was hoping to hear about.

Justin

[wierdOne]

Originally Posted by Rocks

thats cool, we are all entitled to a rant now and then Just so you know, I have nothing against higher watt amps, its just that in most clubs around here you can't crank a 50 watt tube head without being asked to turn down.

ahh.... how i wish we were living in the days of hendrix and the who.....

it's like they were trying to communicate with life from another planet.... and they probably were... :)

[boozer]

100 watts is soooo much power.
my super reverb is all i'll ever need for power, if i need more, i can mic it. you may never get the sound you want out of the marshall unless your playing where you are permitted to dime that baby

[Rocks]

Originally Posted by wierdOne

ahh.... how i wish we were living in the days of hendrix and the who.....

it's like they were trying to communicate with life from another planet.... and they probably were... :)

And their amps only went to 10, just think if they had amps that went to 11

[Gr8tfulEd]

Not that you haven't probably got a feel for where folks are leaning on this board But I thought I'd offer my .02: Supers also make great pedal platforms. You might keep the Super and invest a few hundred in some nice boutique pedals that cop the Marshall sound. I've been fixated on the Pigtronix Polysaturator of late.

[Tim Swartz]

Originally Posted by wierdOne

Stick with the Super Reverb.... hand wired... awesome amps.... EASY for a tech to repair...

Same as an old Marshall or recent HW model.

IF you're looking into getting into the marshall sound... Try a vintage bassman head... you'd be surprised how great they are... and cheap... The original marshall circuit was based off of the Bassman circuit (if i remember correctly)...

Bassman heads bear little resemblence sonic-wise or circuit-wise to Marshalls.

oh... the best "marshall" type amp i ever played was an 18 watt Reinhart head..... awesome... VERY awesome amp..... try one of those out...

I'm sure those are very nice. There is no shortage of basement brewed Marshalls out there.

but... 100 watts isn't necessarily going to be that much louder than your 40 watt Super Reverb....... it's just going to respond differently.... but, try a bassman out.... still get the great fender clean channel, with the marshall like high gain channel...... of course.. you won't get eddie van halen with a bassman... but it's kind of a best of both worlds type thing....

A 100w Marshall will completely drowned out a Super Reverb (I've owned many examples of each).

or... you can look into modding your super reverb's high gain circuit... there's a ton of options....

Leave it alone.

I'm not a fender snob by any stretch of the imagination... in fact... I think the two amps that every guitar player should have are not produced by fender at all...

If you can swing 2 amps, a Marshall (or clone) would be a nice way to change it up (I'm personally very fond of the 20s, but also own a few 50s and 100s). If you can't swing both, keep the Super Reverb. After playing it all those years it is probably like an apendage.

[Tiki]

A lot of the guys over at the Les Paul Forum are stoked over a device called the Ultimate Attenuator. Evidently, these guys are able to play their high wattage Marshalls and Vox's with the amp set to the sweet spot and they can control the volume with the UA with ZERO loss of tone. What this means is if you have the UA, you don't have to restrict yourself to small amps.

I don't have the UA. I'm just reporting what others have posted.

[wierdOne]

Originally Posted by Tim Swartz

If you can swing 2 amps, a Marshall (or clone) would be a nice way to change it up (I'm personally very fond of the 20s, but also own a few 50s and 100s). If you can't swing both, keep the Super Reverb. After playing it all those years it is probably like an apendage.

Hmmm...

good call on the old marshalls being hand wired... i was thinking (should have typed it) about the new marshalls.... because I was assuming that the original poster did not want to pay thousands of dollars for a 60's marshall head...

Without the original bassman circuit you would have never played through a "marshall" amplifier.... in fact, i own a silverface bassman that's been modded back to tweed specs by John Landgraff... got less money in it than I would have purchasing a 60's marshall.

Reinhardt amps aren't homebrewed amplifiers... just ask Brent Mason, Mark Knopfler, and all these players about them.

loudness is more defined by speakers you're using than your wattage.....

here's a link to a website where the math is broken down, but a 40 watt amp is 94% as loud as a 50 watt amp..

If he's not using the high gain channel... why leave it alone? if it's an investment... put it up and get something you don't care about... if it's a tool... mod the crap out of it till you're happy.... we're tele players... it's in our blood.

[OaklandA]

Originally Posted by wierdOne

loudness is more defined by speakers you're using than your wattage.....

here's a link to a website where the math is broken down, but a 40 watt amp is 94% as loud as a 50 watt amp..

Ah, the oft-quoted amptone.com formula for "loudness" and watts. It's an interesting formula but it misses on a lot of points...mostly decibels.

But as you say, the speakers are going to play a bigger role. For the OP it's the difference between 40 watts through 4 - 10" speakers vs. 100 watts through 4 or 8 12" speakers that are also likely to be more efficient. As Tim said, a 100 watt Marshall will bury an SR like cement....much louder.

[JonesKY]

1) A Super Reverb is a great amp, easy to service, going up in value, AND is easy to transport!

2) A 100W Marshall (plexi, superlead, 70's era) is also a great amp, easy to service, going up in value, BUT a pain-in-the-rear to transport (especially if dealing with a full stack!). Moreover, if you're in a club, 100W will be way too stout to get the best of its tone.

If you really want the Marshall, get it IN ADDITION TO your Super Reverb. In the end you'll be glad you kept the SR in the mix.

My $.02

[Justinvs]

Thanks again or all the input, everybody. much obliged!

I think in the end I'll probably keep the SR, though I still need to find a good second amp to use on gigs, something I can replace if a drunk knocks it over or it falls out of the back of the truck, etc.

All that said, if I can figure a way to afford it, thoughts of a 50 Marshall half-stack still gets the old ticker pounding. ;)

[vjf1968]

Originally Posted by wierdOne

Stick with the Super Reverb.... hand wired... awesome amps.... EASY for a tech to repair...

IF you're looking into getting into the marshall sound... Try a vintage bassman head... you'd be surprised how great they are... and cheap... The original marshall circuit was based off of the Bassman circuit (if i remember correctly)...

oh... the best "marshall" type amp i ever played was an 18 watt Reinhart head..... awesome... VERY awesome amp..... try one of those out...

but... 100 watts isn't necessarily going to be that much louder than your 40 watt Super Reverb....... it's just going to respond differently.... but, try a bassman out.... still get the great fender clean channel, with the marshall like high gain channel...... of course.. you won't get eddie van halen with a bassman... but it's kind of a best of both worlds type thing....

or... you can look into modding your super reverb's high gain circuit... there's a ton of options....

I'm not a fender snob by any stretch of the imagination... in fact... I think the two amps that every guitar player should have are not produced by fender at all...

Slight correction. The first Marshalls were not based on the Bassman circuit IT ISthe Bassman circuit

[vjf1968]

Originally Posted by Justinvs

No, this isn't one of those 'let's pick a bar fight' sort of question, just pure curiosity. I've been bit by the Marshall bug, (never had one, always wanted one) and I've been giving some serious thought to selling my old Super Reverb and buying a stack.

Part of the reason is I worry about gigging on a vintage amp and wrecking it, especially as it's already worth more than I could afford to replace, so buying a newer amp, less collectable amp would make sense. But the down side is I love the way the old beast sounds. And, sadly, keeping both isn't really in the budget, (at least according to my wife. She thinks food and bills and such takes precedence over guitars. Hmmmph!)

So, objectively, how do all of you feel the 100 watt Marshall compares to the SR? I generally play classic rock and country/blues kind of stuff. Any opinions greatly welcome.

If you are looking for a Marshall type tone there are a whole bunck of EL34/84 clones on the market that can do the job. Why you would want a 100 watt Marshall stack does not make much sense considering you will have way to much power, more equipment to haul, and a hell of a time getting gigs. Believe me, most club owners go white when they see bands come into a venue with Hiwatt, Orange, or Marshall stacks and they don't get booked again.

You should really be looking for lower wattage amps so you can get the crunch at lower volumes.

[Guitarmoog]

+1 on both keeping the SR, and on the Marshall Vintage Modern.