Thanks! Yeah it didn't sound good in this comparison I think - but it has a much much more manageable master volume and playing it really cranked up it sounds fantastic for certain styles of music. It's just not an 80s metal machine like the later ones.
I changed my 83 2210 from 6550s to el 34s it helped some with the muddyness of my amp . live I run on the (clean ) channel with a seymour duncan pickup boooster on all the time for more gain
Love your videos. Such a great balance between the players info and the technical. A comparison between these and the 2203/4 and the 900HGDR would be interesting especially from the similarities or differences in circuits
Thanks! Also great idea, I’ve talked about those amps/circuits before but it would make a lot of sense to combine it into one video, for the tech-heads. Then maybe a separate video of the sound clip comparison with no talking for the crowd that doesn’t care about the design details, just the sound. Cheers!
I had a 2205 for about 15 YEARS. I don't know what year it was, but I know it had EL34s. Nary was i able to coax amazing tones out of it. I tried the terrible Marshall Power Brake to no avail. Good tones, yes, but never got that throaty Marshall roar that I was able to get with my JVM2210(?) Nowadays, I'm all about my JTM45 plexi. It's jaw-dropping for me.
Hi ive had a 82 model (combo version) and played a 1989 100w head version and I much prefer the later version for rock tones, congratulation for your internet site.
I have an 89' 2205. I bought it new in 89 and have gigged it EXTENSIVLY {2 nights a week for 5 years, then 4 gigs a month for 10 years- that dosent include practices, impromptu jams ect...) I then bought a plexi reissue and the 2205 does 'back up duty'. This amp came with Drake transformers and runs around 415 v. Gig volume eats tube screens for breakfast. jj 6ca7 seem to survive and i have tried biasing cold ect... nothing works if cranking it for a 4 hour show. In the old days the Peavy "super c's" would survive.The pcb sucks big time. If you solder be prepared to fly some leads because the traces break easy. The ic serves switching duties and they will fail over the years but they are common so keep a few. If you dont use the 'clean' channel, save a tube and pull it. It's easier on the PT too. Ive experimented with more filtering in the supply but it does not help the bottom end. An eq in the loop makes this thing absolutely God-like. I did orange drop the signal path for fun and that seemed to add a bit of air. I dont recommend useing a jj 803 long plate for the reverb recovery because the cross talk is awful. (the 803 plates are too close together}. I love that amp and i stack it under my plexi every show as my retired work horse. I lost a tube in the plexi at a show a while ago and had to put the 2205 in action to finish the show. My Hero.....
Wow, those all sounded a lot different. the middle 2210 sounded "most pleasing" to my ears. Between this and the 900 analysis I am starting to believe that less heavy-handed diode clipping stages almost directly correlates to more natural brightness and note separation in chords when it comes to the distortion character. So the LATER 2205s and 2210s are super close to a 2203 + a single diode? I wonder how many people just remove or jumper that diode?
I got some more info about this after the fact, but that single diode D6 and the bridge W005, the W005 part actually contains 4 diodes internally - so there's 5 diodes in total. The plus side is if you lift a leg of D6, the diodes shouldn't be in the signal path anymore, if you ever wanted to try out the differece without making a permanent change - something I plan to try one of these days myself. I wouldn't say it's super close to a 2203 type circuit stock, but it's not that different either. It has the same 3 gain stages, 2nd stage cold bias, but it doesn't have a cathode follower driving the tone stack + the tone stack of the 2210 has a way different slope value. 2210 also has that weird dual-gang gain pot. I would suppose, in theory, that you could mod a 2203 to sound very close to the 2210 with a few other value changes and add the diodes, and vice versa, but the really hard part I think would be adding in a triode from another tube for the tone stack driver that the 2210 doesn't have (maybe if you removed the reverb or effects loop, you could repurpose half of one of those tubes, either way it'd be a lot of work).
@@totallyradguitars959 Interesting.. In the old days the word was 'The diodes are not in play until the gain is above 3/4 or so ". I dont know if that's true, but i learned by backing off the gain the pre-amp seemed to be more organic and tight. But at gigs with it cranked the diodes do some magic. Also the 50 watters seem to like harder power tubes, and the 6ca7. Lot's more headroom and compliments the pre amp gain better. just my opinion. Great videos man.
@@herbmaloid8752 I've heard that before too, someone smarter than me could math it out but it is true that the diodes don't clip unless a certain voltage threshold is met. It's actually something I'm going to show in my re-do video of the 2555. I also did one about the JCM900 Mk III which has a "sensitivity" control which is basically just "how much diode do you want," when set low the diodes never clip, basically the same as a bare wire. Turn it up and the clip more and more. With this 2210, you don't have quite as much control, but there must be some threshold of the gain pot where the diodes aren't active - just not sure where it is exactly. It would be interesting to hear the amp at max gain without diodes just for comparison's sake though. And thanks! I actually have a pair of 6CA7 I've been meaning to try out - so much to do, such little time. Cheers
Hey, question i also have an Marshall 2205 and 2210 and mine both are noisy and when using the effect loop more. Is this normal because i also hear noise in your video and you are using a noise gate in the loop. Looking forward to your answer
Hey, mine are all pretty noisy on the boost channel, but there isn't an increase in noise when I have things plugged into the effects loop - always the same. Does the noise on yours get louder even if you just plug in a short cable from send to return? If so, maybe you have a component wearing out of spec. I do get a lot of idle noise from the reverb tank on mine that goes away when I footswitch it off though.
Very different circuits. A late model 2205/2210 is 3 tube stages with a bit of diode clipping. A 900 DR is one tube gain stage, with the majority of the gain coming from Op-amps+diode clipping.
@@SluggerStarkcorrect and for people who like Marshalls 1987x and older its way too clipped. Even a jcm900 sounds good if you crank tf out of the clean channel.
@@SluggerStark Nailed it, exactly. Interestingly there is a schematic floating around of a very early JCM900DR that has 3 tube gain stages, but I've never seen a production version of it. I would love to build one of those just to see how it fits in.
@@totallyradguitars959 That is interesting! I wonder why Marshall decided to go the way they did with the DR, circuit wise. This is considering the 900 mkiii and sl-x were really doing a production "modded 800" thing. Either way, I still have a soft spot for the DR; it was one of THE sounds of 90's and early 00's punk rock. Us 90's kids loved them at the time, because they could get an appreciable amount of gain, a real clean channel and were expensive like a Mesa Rec was.
This is GREAT! so much info - when people talk about the JCM 800 - they need to see this to know WHICH JCM800. I have the 2210 from 1988 and I love the sound. A tip from Euge Valovirta in this video ruclips.net/video/SNJ_NsUBAmE/видео.html put the gain and boost volume on 10 - the difference between 9 and 10 is a jump in treble - it's quite significant!
Yes, it's somehow feels like a guitar volume pot (without any treble-bleed thing) to me. If you want the full potential of the boost channel, you dime the channel volume max. and it feels like you can cut out from the max position if you turn it down, not add more if you turn up.
Ngl most of this didn't sound good at all... Way to muffled with the settings you had here for the most part. When you had the bass down and treble higher it wasn't too bad.
I’ve gotten a few comments like that on other videos too - I guess I just like thicker/bassier tones when I dial in my amps. I’d probably put a low pass to cut some bass in a real mix but I don’t apply any EQ for these types of videos. The '82 was especially muffled and I can never get it to brighten up - something to consider if you're shopping for one of these. Cheers
This was a fantastic video👏🏻
Thanks! Love your stuff!
Love the scientific approach to your comparisons! That '82 sounds broken compared to the other ones.
Thanks! Yeah it didn't sound good in this comparison I think - but it has a much much more manageable master volume and playing it really cranked up it sounds fantastic for certain styles of music. It's just not an 80s metal machine like the later ones.
You're back!!!!!!!
Bro hope to see you back sometime soon! hope all is well, peace!
I changed my 83 2210 from 6550s to el 34s it helped some with the muddyness of my amp . live I run on the (clean ) channel with a seymour duncan pickup boooster on all the time for more gain
I have EL 34 in my 2205 and I prefer it like this also.
I have the JCM 800 2210 from 1988 and I love this thing!
Good job, thanks for taking the time to make this.
Love your videos. Such a great balance between the players info and the technical. A comparison between these and the 2203/4 and the 900HGDR would be interesting especially from the similarities or differences in circuits
Thanks! Also great idea, I’ve talked about those amps/circuits before but it would make a lot of sense to combine it into one video, for the tech-heads. Then maybe a separate video of the sound clip comparison with no talking for the crowd that doesn’t care about the design details, just the sound. Cheers!
I have an '84 2205 that was converted to EL34's. It's an awesome amp.
Nice rewiev 👍 i own a 1986 Marshall 2205 and ❤ it.
Cool as always.
I had a 2205 for about 15 YEARS. I don't know what year it was, but I know it had EL34s. Nary was i able to coax amazing tones out of it. I tried the terrible Marshall Power Brake to no avail. Good tones, yes, but never got that throaty Marshall roar that I was able to get with my JVM2210(?)
Nowadays, I'm all about my JTM45 plexi. It's jaw-dropping for me.
Hi ive had a 82 model (combo version) and played a 1989 100w head version and I much prefer the later version for rock tones, congratulation for your internet site.
I have an 89' 2205. I bought it new in 89 and have gigged it EXTENSIVLY {2 nights a week for 5 years, then 4 gigs a month for 10 years- that dosent include practices, impromptu jams ect...) I then bought a plexi reissue and the 2205 does 'back up duty'. This amp came with Drake transformers and runs around 415 v. Gig volume eats tube screens for breakfast. jj 6ca7 seem to survive and i have tried biasing cold ect... nothing works if cranking it for a 4 hour show. In the old days the Peavy "super c's" would survive.The pcb sucks big time. If you solder be prepared to fly some leads because the traces break easy. The ic serves switching duties and they will fail over the years but they are common so keep a few.
If you dont use the 'clean' channel, save a tube and pull it. It's easier on the PT too. Ive experimented with more filtering in the supply but it does not help the bottom end. An eq in the loop makes this thing absolutely God-like. I did orange drop the signal path for fun and that seemed to add a bit of air. I dont recommend useing a jj 803 long plate for the reverb recovery because the cross talk is awful. (the 803 plates are too close together}. I love that amp and i stack it under my plexi every show as my retired work horse. I lost a tube in the plexi at a show a while ago and had to put the 2205 in action to finish the show. My Hero.....
Great info!
I use am mxr 10 band eq in the loop and use a Boss SD 1 in front. Makes my 2205 sound massive.
Insane knowledge and video...
I know this is about the AMP but that is a nice looking AXE.
Thanks! Love that one, it's a forever keeper for me.
Wow, those all sounded a lot different. the middle 2210 sounded "most pleasing" to my ears.
Between this and the 900 analysis I am starting to believe that less heavy-handed diode clipping stages almost directly correlates to more natural brightness and note separation in chords when it comes to the distortion character.
So the LATER 2205s and 2210s are super close to a 2203 + a single diode? I wonder how many people just remove or jumper that diode?
I left mine stock. When you crank it those diodes shine. The brightness is partially due to alot less filtering compared to the 2210
I got some more info about this after the fact, but that single diode D6 and the bridge W005, the W005 part actually contains 4 diodes internally - so there's 5 diodes in total. The plus side is if you lift a leg of D6, the diodes shouldn't be in the signal path anymore, if you ever wanted to try out the differece without making a permanent change - something I plan to try one of these days myself.
I wouldn't say it's super close to a 2203 type circuit stock, but it's not that different either. It has the same 3 gain stages, 2nd stage cold bias, but it doesn't have a cathode follower driving the tone stack + the tone stack of the 2210 has a way different slope value. 2210 also has that weird dual-gang gain pot. I would suppose, in theory, that you could mod a 2203 to sound very close to the 2210 with a few other value changes and add the diodes, and vice versa, but the really hard part I think would be adding in a triode from another tube for the tone stack driver that the 2210 doesn't have (maybe if you removed the reverb or effects loop, you could repurpose half of one of those tubes, either way it'd be a lot of work).
@@totallyradguitars959 Interesting.. In the old days the word was 'The diodes are not in play until the gain is above 3/4 or so ". I dont know if that's true, but i learned by backing off the gain the pre-amp seemed to be more organic and tight. But at gigs with it cranked the diodes do some magic. Also the 50 watters seem to like harder power tubes, and the 6ca7. Lot's more headroom and compliments the pre amp gain better. just my opinion. Great videos man.
@@herbmaloid8752 I've heard that before too, someone smarter than me could math it out but it is true that the diodes don't clip unless a certain voltage threshold is met. It's actually something I'm going to show in my re-do video of the 2555. I also did one about the JCM900 Mk III which has a "sensitivity" control which is basically just "how much diode do you want," when set low the diodes never clip, basically the same as a bare wire. Turn it up and the clip more and more. With this 2210, you don't have quite as much control, but there must be some threshold of the gain pot where the diodes aren't active - just not sure where it is exactly. It would be interesting to hear the amp at max gain without diodes just for comparison's sake though. And thanks! I actually have a pair of 6CA7 I've been meaning to try out - so much to do, such little time. Cheers
Hey, question i also have an Marshall 2205 and 2210 and mine both are noisy and when using the effect loop more. Is this normal because i also hear noise in your video and you are using a noise gate in the loop. Looking forward to your answer
Hey, mine are all pretty noisy on the boost channel, but there isn't an increase in noise when I have things plugged into the effects loop - always the same. Does the noise on yours get louder even if you just plug in a short cable from send to return? If so, maybe you have a component wearing out of spec. I do get a lot of idle noise from the reverb tank on mine that goes away when I footswitch it off though.
You liked the skid row riff
Why does this amp sound so much better than the JCM 900 DR. Both have diodes?
Very different circuits. A late model 2205/2210 is 3 tube stages with a bit of diode clipping. A 900 DR is one tube gain stage, with the majority of the gain coming from Op-amps+diode clipping.
@@SluggerStarkcorrect and for people who like Marshalls 1987x and older its way too clipped. Even a jcm900 sounds good if you crank tf out of the clean channel.
@@SluggerStark Nailed it, exactly. Interestingly there is a schematic floating around of a very early JCM900DR that has 3 tube gain stages, but I've never seen a production version of it. I would love to build one of those just to see how it fits in.
Also, the 2205/2210 has huge 800 transformers, and older quality resistors. The 900 - not.
@@totallyradguitars959 That is interesting! I wonder why Marshall decided to go the way they did with the DR, circuit wise. This is considering the 900 mkiii and sl-x were really doing a production "modded 800" thing.
Either way, I still have a soft spot for the DR; it was one of THE sounds of 90's and early 00's punk rock. Us 90's kids loved them at the time, because they could get an appreciable amount of gain, a real clean channel and were expensive like a Mesa Rec was.
This is GREAT! so much info - when people talk about the JCM 800 - they need to see this to know WHICH JCM800.
I have the 2210 from 1988 and I love the sound.
A tip from Euge Valovirta in this video ruclips.net/video/SNJ_NsUBAmE/видео.html put the gain and boost volume on 10 - the difference between 9 and 10 is a jump in treble - it's quite significant!
Yes, it's somehow feels like a guitar volume pot (without any treble-bleed thing) to me. If you want the full potential of the boost channel, you dime the channel volume max. and it feels like you can cut out from the max position if you turn it down, not add more if you turn up.
Ngl most of this didn't sound good at all... Way to muffled with the settings you had here for the most part. When you had the bass down and treble higher it wasn't too bad.
I’ve gotten a few comments like that on other videos too - I guess I just like thicker/bassier tones when I dial in my amps. I’d probably put a low pass to cut some bass in a real mix but I don’t apply any EQ for these types of videos. The '82 was especially muffled and I can never get it to brighten up - something to consider if you're shopping for one of these. Cheers
pls tune that damn guitar for gods sake
Sweet!🤘🤘