Ditto to the original definitely not being an 81. It's an 85 or later. Horizontal inputs means later 800. It also has less filtering than the original 2203 circuit. Both sound great, but a more accurate comparison would have been an 81-84 JCM 800 vs the reissue.
I have a 1984 5 cap with horizontal input, 1984's were horizontal or vertical; the verticals still 6 cap, some 1984 horizontals also were the start of the 3 caps. I would assume there might be a handful of ones from 1983 and onwards that are a mix of anything.
Great Vid. I had in my place a friend's '81 2204 and I own a 2203x.Played them a/b many times. Unexpectedly The reissue nailed the original in every aspect. Thicker, more gain, and more clear sound.
The originals may be good or hit and miss, but you'll never go wrong with the reissue. I was just servicing mine and I'm struck by the beautiful construction and layout. This is how Marshalls ought to be made. Of course the sound is amazing with these too.
I love my 2203X! Sadly it's in the repair shop at the moment.. but I've had it since 2009 and it has totally rocked. It totally NAILS the "Screaming For Vengeance" Judas Priest tone. Also.. I'd love to get one of those 30th Anniversary TS-9s! They look so cool!
Using a ts9 achieve a judas priest or anthrax tone with a jcm800 2203 alone? Or would it require an additional pedal? My jcm800 only has clean tones as its impossible for me to obtain distortion without blowing the windows out in the basement. Any suggestions? Cheers mate.
My JCM 800 gets quite a bit of overdrive by turning the pre amp gain all the way up... even with the master way down low. You may want to try getting some new and/or different pre amp tube that have more breakup.. that way you won't have to crank the amp up so loud. But, yes, just my TS-9 and the amp (with the pre amp gain up) gets the Judas Priest tone.
davecooper360 Even at low master volume's with the preamp turned all the way up it still has a clean tone thats that becomes slightly dirty. Quite strange. What preamp tubes do you used? I might consider changing them to avoid having to crank the amp so loud to achieve natural tube distortion. I have the marshall jcm 800 4103 which is the combo version of a 2203 head if that helps any. Cheers.
I think the original sounds thicker. Are the tubes the same in both? I've been using Mesa amps since 1987. But I've been thinking about a Marshall for blending purposes. Think I'm sold. I'd probably go KT88 though.
Hi, your original 2203 is not a 1981 model due to the horizontal inputs... Earliest from 1984. You can see it on the letter in the serial number. Those 2203s are a little different than the vertical input jcm and jmp 2203s. Lover filtrering and different transformers.
Vertical inputs are included in the canadian versions only, his original amp is not the canadian version and that's why it has the horizontal inputs. It can still be from the 1981.
gender fluid Not true. Canadian models had metal toggle switches for power and standby. Lots of old JCMs with vertical inputs and the plastic rocker switches. His amp is at most a 1984.
Cool comparison, I like the grit and liveliness of the reissue. Then again I am biased since I play one. One thing I noticed "not to be rude " you should never have a tube amp powered on and unplug the speaker jack..
SteamPunk Audio Labs what Marshall Man is saying is that even though you have your amp on standby you are not supposed to have a load, being your guitar and cable, and unplug the speaker jack. Even if only for a second.
Waiting for the tubes to heat up is not better for the amp technically. It can affect the tubes, but nothing will be permanently damaged with the amp itself. Also, a lot of people really overshoot the time necessary to wait to prevent cathode stripping. I've heard up to 10 minutes is best! This is just untrue. The point is to allow the heaters some time, maybe a minute at the most if you want, for the indirectly heated cathodes to begin conducting. Turn the amp on, switch immediately from standby to on, and notice how fast it starts to make noise and then levels off in volume. That's really all the time necessary to leave on standby.
GL is partially right. You are comparing a 1985 or later 2203 with the reissue. They are not the same circuit. And here is where GL (and the rest of the internet) is wrong: it is not the filtering that causes the difference. It is the fact that the reissue (being an exact copy of the old 1981 model) runs its preamp at a lower plate voltage. Having less elcos doesnt mean less filtering, cause a many was put in series in the 1981 because they couldnt withstand the high voltage.
The distortion is different, and that's the ONLY resonable difference between the two. An amp tech can mod it back and forth. A bit of rewiring and an additional resistor, I did it on my 1995 special edition, mostly out of curiousity, cause I ended ip using pedals for flexibility.
Please, check what tubes inside. I guess the new loaded with stock marshall tubes, while vintage is something tung-sol alike. The circuit is the same as it stated by the marshall
2203 original. Tubes are probably a little sweeter. Just watched Guitarist episode 6 and Slash is using 4 2203x reissue heads on tour so they get his vote. Got to love the master.
I'd be happy with either one! Admittedly I only want one to nail the classic Morbid Angel and Obituary tones with a RAT2... Obituary's Trevor Peres tours and records with the reissues these days.
What about the TUBEs??? For a accurate test you could be using one set of tubes. What tubes where you using for this demonstration? Original USA relese 2203 came with 6550, the new reissue comes with EL34. Or do you have EL34 in the original 1981...
In my opinion, can`t be compared with this kind of recording. It also will depend on tubes(preamp and power) condition and if are the same models. As many says here the vintage one should be 85 at least....
I know this video is very old but while they are similar the original is cleaner. Perhaps slightly brighter or more high end sizzle. Whatever the difference is this video helped make a decision. I would rather save the money and get a used original.
I liked your video and went out and bought the reissue. Problem. I can't find the input jack on my guitar. I even checked inside the hole. Nope. It wasn't there either.
I actually own a 1984 JCM 800 2203 with horizontal inputs that was produced in early 1984. It does not have 3 filter caps, nor 6. It has 5! How strange eh? The only difference between it and the vertical input 2203s from 1983 or earlier is that mine doesn't have the filter cap in front of the transformer.
Thanks for the video steam punk. I have a '77 2203 I'm borrowing from a good friend. Wanted to know how close the reissues are. Pulled the trigger on one just now so I'll see. Cheers man.
Why do some people say that they're 'running through' their guitar?? You can run a guitar through an amp. You can even run a guitar through an effects unit which is, in turn, running through an amp. But you cannot run through a guitar. Well, not unless you want to smash the guitar to pieces...
Its not the original version and fefinately not an 81 model! The 81 model would have been the original version, and would have had the vertical inputs, not the horizontal ones, they came in toward the mid 80's.
The Best settings for these Old School Marshalls are Presence 10 bass 10 middle 10 Treble Between 2 and 4 Pre-amp Gain around 6 to 7 and Master Volume Wherever You Can Stand to Take....No Pedal Bull Crap ahead of the Amp! The Magic is in the Output Tubes Boys and Girls...
can crank out a shit load off either amp...JUST ASK Father Zakk...thinking to get 2203x.. i will know more after reviewing the difference to the 2203 ZW....YEAh..IM A SDMF guy.. BLEEDIN IT BLACK Horns up to the SOCIETY !
So much going on here, but first of all. Why not have both amps warmed up and on stand by just before making the comparison? It's pretty obvious that tube amps need a good 5-10 minutes to actually warm up to operating temp. Second why didn't you add an EQ to the 2203X to show what a difference it makes to have one in the effects loop? Especially considering that is the biggest difference between the two!
it seems like the original has a little bit more mids...awesome heads anyway...I have a 2203 from 1989 but it doesn't sounds so good...I don't know why mine sounds like a tubescreamer,with so much less gain. I boost it,use humbuckers,changed all tubes twice,changhed cabinet & speakers...maybe are the condenser
There is no reason to use a standby switch in a typical valve amp, unless you are using transmission valves with the appropriate HT voltages or directly heated cathode valves you will not get cathode stripping. The only reason why some guitar amps actually need to use a standby switch (notably Fenders) is that they cheaped out on the filter caps and the turn on transient voltages would exceed the filter caps rating.
It's all in the expression of the dog's face. Don't think he cares for either . . .!!?? To me it's chalk and . . . well . . . chalk! Both sound very similar and fine. Well at least in this demo they do!! But for mine, Marshall build a shitload too much of top end into almost all of their amps for whatever f'ing reason! My vision of Marshall's testing scenario is thus: 1.) place amp and cabinet in a seriously sound proof room 2.) drape 10 thick blankets over the speaker cabinet before placing recording mic in front of speaker 3.) make sure guy playing guitar through that amp NOT in same room! 4.) Make sure all guys monitoring have lost any semblance of top end in their hearing decades ago and are wearing industrial grade earmuffs 5.) Make sure guitar cable is lowest quality on the planet and 37 miles long 6.) Make sure guitar is on front pick-up with treble wound completely off then play some stuff 7.) Make record of monitoring guys concluding their testing & instructing amp tech, (cockney accent) "Nigel me ol' mate . . . Would you mind buildin' a mite more top end into the circuit please codger? It's frightfully dull!" All the backline hire co.'s in Australia carry the 2203. I'd fucking love to use them but am forced to lug my own 1970s Super Lead 100w Marshalls around. They've been modified to reduce possibility of cutting the heads off of the first 100 rows of people in the audience, not to mention the guy at the sound desk to whom the cabinets are invariably directly pointed . . .! And they STILL have all the top end, 6000DB less than the factory issue 2203, that you could ever want or need!!
If you don't have the same tubes in both amps they are not going to sound the same.And i don't mean the same brand.They need to be swapped from one to the other otherwise a comprison is totally pointless.If there's Chinese tubes in one amp and JJ's in the other it's like two different amps.
kerry's sig amp has been modded for him and that sig amp is a beast, i played one with a les paul standard and i also ran a 68 strat texas special through it and oh man i would definetly buy one if i had the money
Your Marshall is not a 1981, it is a horizontal input, those were made later and not the coveted ones. The better JCM 800's were the vertical inputs and not the horizontal. Just saying.
For all you guys bitching about recording videos with a phone..I get amazing results with my Samsung Galaxy Edge phone; check it out: ruclips.net/video/TVNAgXu4sYU/видео.html
Both sound muddy as hell, there are way better examples of these amps sounds by Leon Todd etc. Steampunk, hopefully you are doing something differently nowadays, something went wrong with this..
Wrong. Best way to do these videos are natural and raw through a regular phone mic. A " proper" mic and EQ will NOT give you an authentic sound on these RUclips vids. Went out and bought the reissue based on this video. Also, since you deleted the original comment which also made my reply go away, I thought I would re post my reply.
@@andyznuff You're wrong, you can get fairly close results with all things considered using a horrible phone mic is literally one of the worst things you can do, they're so inaccurate, if you use a mic that isnt colored like a earthworks qtc 50, or tc 20 with a defent dac daw like cubase elements or ai and then like a motu m4 interface or a focusrite 2i2 "they also have 4 channel option" or a steinburg ur 44 to provide phantom power for them, you will get good results, even dispite being omni directional they can give you better sense of space, you can even use them to record just the room and maybe a more directional set of mics to capture different places on the speaker cone like ribbons and blend them all together, even having a 4 channel interface like talking about above to be able to hook 4 separate mics in it to blend tweak the sound wouldnt be bad either, even a two vhannel interface with cheap ass mxl 990s or shure sm 57's would be better, either way those earthworksmi first first mentions are some of the most accurate in the world, i only suggested the zoom recorder because it is affordable, portable and is accurate enough to get a good idea of what you are doing, and it is eaiser to use then the above methods and is cheaper, it represents a very good value for the money, even an audio technica at2020+ usb microphone is a fantasic simpler option, sure it'll never be like hearing it in person, but you can get close enough.... yes, youtubes compression does effect sound quality, you don't have frequency response up to 20k though youtube, it's more like 15k, beyond that is literally harmonics and overtones, feel free to look up any 20hz to 20khz frequency band sweep, you will hear things start to get screwed a bit beyond that, anyway, a decent mic, WILL give you a better chance of being heard, treating your room to remove reflections WILL help things come across better, and finally what setting you used in your video production software WILL make a bit of a difference, even if the audio in your vids are lossless wav audio 441 khz 16 bit, yes, RUclips will compress it and covert it into a lossy format, BUT, you will take one extra step of compression away if you keep everything lossless up up until it is uploaded and you will actually be able to get everything you can out of it, another thing to, beyond 1080p, the audio bitrate and sampling rate will not exceed 16 bit 224 kbps or so at 441 khz.... you need to really think about what youre saying... a shitty 50 cent phone mic with a cheaply made diaphragm and bottom of the barrel dac squeezing everything into a compressed audio format only to be compressed further on RUclips cannot give you what even a cheap basic condenser mic with a half decent internal or extrnal dac daw combo can do, even that zoom h2n by itself is vastly superiour then that phone mic.... come on man...
![Tee Grizzley - Detroit (Feat. 42 Dugg) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aeKfTtt0x14/mqdefault.jpg)
Ditto to the original definitely not being an 81. It's an 85 or later. Horizontal inputs means later 800. It also has less filtering than the original 2203 circuit. Both sound great, but a more accurate comparison would have been an 81-84 JCM 800 vs the reissue.
Mmm I have a 1988 2203 with vertical input
I have a 1984 5 cap with horizontal input, 1984's were horizontal or vertical; the verticals still 6 cap, some 1984 horizontals also were the start of the 3 caps. I would assume there might be a handful of ones from 1983 and onwards that are a mix of anything.
@@matthewrobinson5511 I have a 85 vertical input with 5 caps
@@matthewrobinson5511 whats the difference in the sound? what does the caps do? that could affect the amp or sound? im curious to know
Horizontal inputs were introduced in 1983 or 1984. I'm not sure about 1983, but they were definitely there in 1984.
Finally a comparison of these 2. I've yet to see one. Thanks for that !!
Ah, kinda sounds like the cab is at your neighbors house. A for effort, D- for result.
Great Vid. I had in my place a friend's '81 2204 and I own a 2203x.Played them a/b many times. Unexpectedly The reissue nailed the original in every aspect. Thicker, more gain, and more clear sound.
Expected the reissue to fail.
Well, I was wrong. Both versions sound killer. Now I’m in the market for an 800...
The originals may be good or hit and miss, but you'll never go wrong with the reissue. I was just servicing mine and I'm struck by the beautiful construction and layout. This is how Marshalls ought to be made. Of course the sound is amazing with these too.
I love my reissue. It's amazing.
1:35 Reissue
3:27 Original
The new one definitely sounds more modern. The original is definitely more articulate. Same brand of tubes?
I love my 2203X! Sadly it's in the repair shop at the moment.. but I've had it since 2009 and it has totally rocked. It totally NAILS the "Screaming For Vengeance" Judas Priest tone. Also.. I'd love to get one of those 30th Anniversary TS-9s! They look so cool!
Using a ts9 achieve a judas priest or anthrax tone with a jcm800 2203 alone? Or would it require an additional pedal? My jcm800 only has clean tones as its impossible for me to obtain distortion without blowing the windows out in the basement. Any suggestions?
Cheers mate.
My JCM 800 gets quite a bit of overdrive by turning the pre amp gain all the way up... even with the master way down low. You may want to try getting some new and/or different pre amp tube that have more breakup.. that way you won't have to crank the amp up so loud. But, yes, just my TS-9 and the amp (with the pre amp gain up) gets the Judas Priest tone.
davecooper360
Even at low master volume's with the preamp turned all the way up it still has a clean tone thats that becomes slightly dirty. Quite strange. What preamp tubes do you used? I might consider changing them to avoid having to crank the amp so loud to achieve natural tube distortion. I have the marshall jcm 800 4103 which is the combo version of a 2203 head if that helps any.
Cheers.
I suggest some Electro Harmonix 12AX-7 ... or Tung Sol... or J.J. ... any of those should work.
Theoneandonly88able He's running a tube screamer with the amp! That's not just amp gain. Lol
I like the Reissue more, sounds more raw -)
AGREE! The original is like more calm like an old guy but the reissue is like young man with grunge attitude.
I think the original sounds thicker.
Are the tubes the same in both?
I've been using Mesa amps since 1987. But I've been thinking about a Marshall for blending purposes. Think I'm sold. I'd probably go KT88 though.
Hi, your original 2203 is not a 1981 model due to the horizontal inputs... Earliest from 1984. You can see it on the letter in the serial number. Those 2203s are a little different than the vertical input jcm and jmp 2203s. Lover filtrering and different transformers.
Cool....Thx for the info
Vertical inputs are included in the canadian versions only, his original amp is not the canadian version and that's why it has the horizontal inputs. It can still be from the 1981.
gender fluid Not true. Canadian models had metal toggle switches for power and standby. Lots of old JCMs with vertical inputs and the plastic rocker switches. His amp is at most a 1984.
@@steampunkaudiolabs ććšćšććććć
Cool comparison, I like the grit and liveliness of the reissue. Then again I am biased since I play one. One thing I noticed "not to be rude " you should never have a tube amp powered on and unplug the speaker jack..
Cool I agree. They both are great. I put the head on standby before I switched speaker cables. But thanx for the comments.
***** And now I own that amp! Thanks again Marshall man, I'm really enjoying it!
SteamPunk Audio Labs what Marshall Man is saying is that even though you have your amp on standby you are not supposed to have a load, being your guitar and cable, and unplug the speaker jack. Even if only for a second.
Waiting for the tubes to heat up is not better for the amp technically. It can affect the tubes, but nothing will be permanently damaged with the amp itself. Also, a lot of people really overshoot the time necessary to wait to prevent cathode stripping. I've heard up to 10 minutes is best! This is just untrue. The point is to allow the heaters some time, maybe a minute at the most if you want, for the indirectly heated cathodes to begin conducting. Turn the amp on, switch immediately from standby to on, and notice how fast it starts to make noise and then levels off in volume. That's really all the time necessary to leave on standby.
GL is partially right. You are comparing a 1985 or later 2203 with the reissue. They are not the same circuit. And here is where GL (and the rest of the internet) is wrong: it is not the filtering that causes the difference. It is the fact that the reissue (being an exact copy of the old 1981 model) runs its preamp at a lower plate voltage.
Having less elcos doesnt mean less filtering, cause a many was put in series in the 1981 because they couldnt withstand the high voltage.
The distortion is different, and that's the ONLY resonable difference between the two. An amp tech can mod it back and forth. A bit of rewiring and an additional resistor, I did it on my 1995 special edition, mostly out of curiousity, cause I ended ip using pedals for flexibility.
I like to compare side by side soo
Reissue- 1:34
Vintage- 3:25
the original has more warmth to my ears
The reissue sounds better with the presence turned down. When he said it was on 9 I cringed.
reissue has upper mids whereas the vintage has the lower mids crunch
Please, check what tubes inside. I guess the new loaded with stock marshall tubes, while vintage is something tung-sol alike. The circuit is the same as it stated by the marshall
both sound killer to me
2203 original. Tubes are probably a little sweeter. Just watched Guitarist episode 6 and Slash is using 4 2203x reissue heads on tour so they get his vote. Got to love the master.
I'd be happy with either one! Admittedly I only want one to nail the classic Morbid Angel and Obituary tones with a RAT2... Obituary's Trevor Peres tours and records with the reissues these days.
Morbid Angel uses a jcm900. And both bands use the original Lm308n rat, not a rat2.
@@beatlejuice5951 classic Morbid Angel and Obituary used original 1980's 800's I'm sure...
Two versions of one of the most coveted heads in rock and roll, and you capture the sound with a camera mic?
I remember paying $2,000 for mine and it spent just as much time getting repairs as it did on stage.
What about the TUBEs??? For a accurate test you could be using one set of tubes. What tubes where you using for this demonstration?
Original USA relese 2203 came with 6550, the new reissue comes with EL34. Or do you have EL34 in the original 1981...
+ZakarooNetwork EL34's in both
Nice test thank you very much
And greetings from Germany
Frank 🤘🤘🤘😎
Thanks for this vid. I haave JCM800 2105 model. From -86, and i love it. That reissue is better than i expected.
Bottom amp has horizontal inputs making it not an 81 but an 84-85 at the oldest
Writh Mata i have a 88 with vertical
Awesome VS! Thanks
Reissue all the way!
I think the investment in a reissue is cool because it will age with play over years and you make it your own, not saying vintage gear isn’t kick ass
In my opinion, can`t be compared with this kind of recording. It also will depend on tubes(preamp and power) condition and if are the same models. As many says here the vintage one should be 85 at least....
Sounds like the reissue’s still has that “punch”, am I right?
I liked reissue, looking to get it soon.
I know this video is very old but while they are similar the original is cleaner. Perhaps slightly brighter or more high end sizzle. Whatever the difference is this video helped make a decision. I would rather save the money and get a used original.
I liked your video and went out and bought the reissue. Problem. I can't find the input jack on my guitar. I even checked inside the hole. Nope. It wasn't there either.
Original: 3:26 reissue : 1:34
Your original has to be 1984 or later (horizontal inputs). The drive tones are different than on earlier, vertical input 2203's.
I actually own a 1984 JCM 800 2203 with horizontal inputs that was produced in early 1984. It does not have 3 filter caps, nor 6. It has 5! How strange eh? The only difference between it and the vertical input 2203s from 1983 or earlier is that mine doesn't have the filter cap in front of the transformer.
My 84 has 5 as well
In late 85 early 86 they changed to 3 filter caps, most 84/85 had 5 filter caps and sound similar to the early ones but with a bit more gain.
The tubes in the original were JJ's and Marshall branded in the reissue. Thx everyone for watching. More to come!
do you meant for the preamp or the power tubes? anyway what speakers in the cab and what setting on the ts9 please?
trey azagathooth Power tubes. The cab was a vht fatbottom with eminence and the ts9 was 0-1 gain with level at 7-8
So you didn’t really have these that loud ? They seem to get pretty dirty at a low vol
Thanks for the video steam punk. I have a '77 2203 I'm borrowing from a good friend. Wanted to know how close the reissues are. Pulled the trigger on one just now so I'll see. Cheers man.
Ty glad to help!
Why do some people say that they're 'running through' their guitar??
You can run a guitar through an amp.
You can even run a guitar through an effects unit which is, in turn, running through an amp. But you cannot run through a guitar.
Well, not unless you want to smash the guitar to pieces...
I think the original sounds a little warmer....meaning I think the reissue has a little more on the top end.
Its not the original version and fefinately not an 81 model! The 81 model would have been the original version, and would have had the vertical inputs, not the horizontal ones, they came in toward the mid 80's.
What's the year of the original 2203?
The Best settings for these Old School Marshalls are Presence 10 bass 10 middle 10 Treble Between 2 and 4 Pre-amp Gain around 6 to 7 and Master Volume Wherever You Can Stand to Take....No Pedal Bull Crap ahead of the Amp! The Magic is in the Output Tubes Boys and Girls...
WFO!
Gotta have tube screamer B)
@@Sn00chieb00chies Boss SD-1 sounds best with JCM800
can crank out a shit load off either amp...JUST ASK Father Zakk...thinking to get 2203x..
i will know more after reviewing the difference to the 2203 ZW....YEAh..IM A SDMF guy..
BLEEDIN IT BLACK
Horns up to the SOCIETY !
So much going on here, but first of all. Why not have both amps warmed up and on stand by just before making the comparison? It's pretty obvious that tube amps need a good 5-10 minutes to actually warm up to operating temp. Second why didn't you add an EQ to the 2203X to show what a difference it makes to have one in the effects loop? Especially considering that is the biggest difference between the two!
Is that Splawn in the back a QR? How do you like the Splawn against the marshalls?
Yes! Love it a lot. Very tight and sound the best w Splawn cabs. Thx
They sound the same as if they are the same amp. 🤔
Hello evebody. What does this "x" mean ??? Is this just the reissue 2203 or there is another version of the reissue ? Does it mean FX loop ?
"X" is a reissue
Yeah yours is not an 81. It’s later than 1985. They changed the tubes in yours. It’s not gonna be an accurate comparison.
I think the 2203X sound a little better. I would have liked to have heard them without any pedals etc.
You need an A/B box for something like this….way too long in between. Nice try bro and thanks!
Hell yeah
it seems like the original has a little bit more mids...awesome heads anyway...I have a 2203 from 1989 but it doesn't sounds so good...I don't know why mine sounds like a tubescreamer,with so much less gain. I boost it,use humbuckers,changed all tubes twice,changhed cabinet & speakers...maybe are the condenser
tomakiakls capacitors are done
Nice video. Switch on the amp and then wait a while to let the tubes heat up. It is better for the amp. I do not want to be an ass - just saying.
This is a bullshit tube amp myth
No it is not a myth. tubes need heat up, needs at least 10 minutes.
Cuervo I heard it was at least 23 minutes.
There is no reason to use a standby switch in a typical valve amp, unless you are using transmission valves with the appropriate HT voltages or directly heated cathode valves you will not get cathode stripping. The only reason why some guitar amps actually need to use a standby switch (notably Fenders) is that they cheaped out on the filter caps and the turn on transient voltages would exceed the filter caps rating.
according to my sources its 23.5 minutes.
It's all in the expression of the dog's face. Don't think he cares for either . . .!!?? To me it's chalk and . . . well . . . chalk! Both sound very similar and fine. Well at least in this demo they do!! But for mine, Marshall build a shitload too much of top end into almost all of their amps for whatever f'ing reason!
My vision of Marshall's testing scenario is thus:
1.) place amp and cabinet in a seriously sound proof room
2.) drape 10 thick blankets over the speaker cabinet before placing recording mic in front of speaker
3.) make sure guy playing guitar through that amp NOT in same room!
4.) Make sure all guys monitoring have lost any semblance of top end in their hearing decades ago and are wearing industrial grade earmuffs
5.) Make sure guitar cable is lowest quality on the planet and 37 miles long
6.) Make sure guitar is on front pick-up with treble wound completely off then play some stuff
7.) Make record of monitoring guys concluding their testing & instructing amp tech, (cockney accent) "Nigel me ol' mate . . . Would you mind buildin' a mite more top end into the circuit please codger? It's frightfully dull!"
All the backline hire co.'s in Australia carry the 2203. I'd fucking love to use them but am forced to lug my own 1970s Super Lead 100w Marshalls around. They've been modified to reduce possibility of cutting the heads off of the first 100 rows of people in the audience, not to mention the guy at the sound desk to whom the cabinets are invariably directly pointed . . .! And they STILL have all the top end, 6000DB less than the factory issue 2203, that you could ever want or need!!
S/O to Splawn Amps.
The original all day!!
If you don't have the same tubes in both amps they are not going to sound the same.And i don't mean the same brand.They need to be swapped from one to the other otherwise a comprison is totally pointless.If there's Chinese tubes in one amp and JJ's in the other it's like two different amps.
i REALLY WISH U DIDNT USED THE TS9..HARDER TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE..
Original sound more natural and warm, te reissue sound more tight an bright, with less bass. I like more original!!!!!!!!!
why would you use active pickups? these things were made for humbuckers bro
it's what I had at the moment
+Reaper Rooney shh...Don't tell Slayer that!
kerry's sig amp has been modded for him and that sig amp is a beast, i played one with a les paul standard and i also ran a 68 strat texas special through it and oh man i would definetly buy one if i had the money
Reaper Rooney Bcs active EMGs aren't Hunbuckers... Sure...
active pickups are still humbuckers but active i know, imean passive humbuckers, why is everybody so literal on these things lol
I hear no difference
I'd like to see a 1981 vs. New
Your Marshall is not a 1981, it is a horizontal input, those were made later and not the coveted ones. The better JCM 800's were the vertical inputs and not the horizontal. Just saying.
Sweet Peters back there! I'm thinking for trading mine for a 2203 or two. ^_^
For all you guys bitching about recording videos with a phone..I get amazing results with my Samsung Galaxy Edge phone; check it out: ruclips.net/video/TVNAgXu4sYU/видео.html
Why the TS9? Ruined it..
Thx 4 ur helpful insight
@@steampunkaudiolabs You are welcome.
Those two amps are not the same
Both sound muddy as hell, there are way better examples of these amps sounds by Leon Todd etc. Steampunk, hopefully you are doing something differently nowadays, something went wrong with this..
2203 x more.modern metal...2203 still vontage
Don’t do this kind of comparison with active pups. Active pups hide amp and guitar tones.
with EMG pups every amp has the same lifeless sound...next time use some alnico pups
please send me some
and you .. where are your guitar gear shootout ? You could do one with your alnico pups.
My thoughts exactly. EMG are garbage. They have a nasty high end sizzle that's impossible to EQ out. I absolutely hate EMG.
You could've used a better mic, with the setup you have, it's almost pointless.... next time use a better mic... even a zoom h2n at the very least...
Wrong.
Best way to do these videos are natural and raw through a regular phone mic. A " proper" mic and EQ will NOT give you an authentic sound on these RUclips vids. Went out and bought the reissue based on this video.
Also, since you deleted the original comment which also made my reply go away, I thought I would re post my reply.
@@andyznuff You're wrong, you can get fairly close results with all things considered using a horrible phone mic is literally one of the worst things you can do, they're so inaccurate, if you use a mic that isnt colored like a earthworks qtc 50, or tc 20 with a defent dac daw like cubase elements or ai and then like a motu m4 interface or a focusrite 2i2 "they also have 4 channel option" or a steinburg ur 44 to provide phantom power for them, you will get good results, even dispite being omni directional they can give you better sense of space, you can even use them to record just the room and maybe a more directional set of mics to capture different places on the speaker cone like ribbons and blend them all together, even having a 4 channel interface like talking about above to be able to hook 4 separate mics in it to blend tweak the sound wouldnt be bad either, even a two vhannel interface with cheap ass mxl 990s or shure sm 57's would be better, either way those earthworksmi first first mentions are some of the most accurate in the world, i only suggested the zoom recorder because it is affordable, portable and is accurate enough to get a good idea of what you are doing, and it is eaiser to use then the above methods and is cheaper, it represents a very good value for the money, even an audio technica at2020+ usb microphone is a fantasic simpler option, sure it'll never be like hearing it in person, but you can get close enough.... yes, youtubes compression does effect sound quality, you don't have frequency response up to 20k though youtube, it's more like 15k, beyond that is literally harmonics and overtones, feel free to look up any 20hz to 20khz frequency band sweep, you will hear things start to get screwed a bit beyond that, anyway, a decent mic, WILL give you a better chance of being heard, treating your room to remove reflections WILL help things come across better, and finally what setting you used in your video production software WILL make a bit of a difference, even if the audio in your vids are lossless wav audio 441 khz 16 bit, yes, RUclips will compress it and covert it into a lossy format, BUT, you will take one extra step of compression away if you keep everything lossless up up until it is uploaded and you will actually be able to get everything you can out of it, another thing to, beyond 1080p, the audio bitrate and sampling rate will not exceed 16 bit 224 kbps or so at 441 khz.... you need to really think about what youre saying... a shitty 50 cent phone mic with a cheaply made diaphragm and bottom of the barrel dac squeezing everything into a compressed audio format only to be compressed further on RUclips cannot give you what even a cheap basic condenser mic with a half decent internal or extrnal dac daw combo can do, even that zoom h2n by itself is vastly superiour then that phone mic.... come on man...
@@analogaudiorules1724 Please let me know when your pro video gets posted k? thx brosef