Finally someone who knows how to properly compare amps! Nice short clips so we can actualy compare the two! To my ears, the replica is slighty brighter and the original slightly woodier, of the two I think I prefer the replica!
nice replica.....the only thing I can tell with the demo is that your amp sounds a little brighter than the marshall in certain parts. The marshall seemed to have a little more body in the bass when you hit certain chords and is clearly noiser. But other than that you did a great job replicating the marshall sound with your amp.
George, i love the new videos coming out from Metro - all great and useful demos, including speaker shootouts and even modern vs vintage KT66's, etc. Thank you very much for the effort! I find many of these videos very valuable, especially because you always properly mice up the cabs.
Wauw....i really need to get one of those metropoulos 10,000 Series. More mids, punch, clearer and therefore more honest :). And a great clean up, even with the Lester. Love it. One day i'll be able to show my gratitude by purchasing one of these lovely amplifications!
One of the best copies out there i would say, on some of the lick's i prefer the metro on others the original, but i bet it beat's off other reissue's. Good work and a great demo.
From what i hear from my computer speakers is that Metro has little bit tighter and bigger bottom end, sound a lil bit clearer and less compressed. But in the vintage one notes sound a little bit more liquidy or they flow together a lil bit better compared to metro which are more seperated when playing chords. maybe due to compression But both sound great :) Great work man!!!
I have the 10,000 Super Bass. George builds these to sound the same and if anyone tells you that they hear much of a difference, I'd put them to a blind test. Quite honestly the best amp I have ever played. The nice thing about it is that you don't have to worry about treating it like a vintage amp. You can put an FX loop in and in my case I have a switch to from 100W to 50W. For the cost of doing that mod, I'd highly recommend it. I can hear the headroom at 100W. Alain they are available
They sound sooo good. The Marshall is a touch darker, with the way you set it. I've been looking for a JMP, mainly for the master volume, but I'm considering a Super Bass.
Could be because I'm old and my hearing is shot, but the Metro sounds like a Marshall should! The Marshall is a little muffled sounding. Nice Yaron LP too!!
I love this comparison, I've been coming back to it as a reference for the longest time and I hold George to the highest esteem, the man is a class act and one of the reasons I pursued the hobby of tube amp building. Now, I do think this video warrants a disclaimer as the amps are not directly comparable as I've noticed in the video and the ensuing gut shots - the '67 Marshall has the Dagnall C1998 Output Transformer, the respective filtering and two dropping resistor in the preamp whereas the Metro has the Drake 1202-132 OT, 32uf filtering throughout the power section and the single dropping resistor. These differences alone account for a huge portion of the tonal difference exhibited in the video and are the reason for the original '67 Marshall's smoother breakup and the Metro's massive low end punch and rawer drive. So IMO, this is more of a comparison between the first, mid-'67 JMPs (the Metro), and the late-'67 JMPs (Marshall) than between a replica and and an original, which IME I'm sure George could replicate to a tee if he set out to make a direct replica of (i.e. his 12000 series video). For what it's worth I preferred the Metro - conjures Cream, AC/DC or Gibbons tones in my mind and sounds like a supercharged Tweed Bassman on steroids. The original sounds a step toward the smooth breakup commonly associated with Marshall tone and reminds me of Page's early live tone. that being said I'd be happy with any of them.
Do you happen to have the complete specs for this Marshall? I think you said you saw the gut shots. I prefer the sound of the Marshall to the 67 Metro. I already have a 67 replica with 1202-132 32uf filtering etc. The Marshall sounds very smooth even though I associate more filtering and increased gain etc to stiffer sound, but it doesn't seem to be the case here.
Another fantastic job!! I'm a bit younger than you,and I remember getting those amps brand new way back when.The amps you make sound every bit as good as they do.If I could only express how bad I want one of those,you would probably give me one ! lol!! All joking aside,fantastic stuff man.I would like to ask though,what type of speakers did you say were in the cab? You do beautiful work,I love everything you make,it takes me back.Keep at it man,the world of guitars and amps needs you,take care.
The original is a little softer and a little quiter, but that's to be expected for an almost 50 year old amp. I'm willing to bet that the Metro, once it has 100 to 200 hours of playing time on it, will sound identical if not better than the original.
Does anyone know the cap value differences between a 67' SB and 68' SLP 12xxx? I am going to build a 68' and would like to try and add a switch over to 67' specs.
The Marshall has the compression familiar to all vintage Marshalls. The Metropoulus sounds more dynamic almost like a cross between Marshall and HiWatt. A great sound but give me that Marshall Bass amp and I'll never look back
Hey guys are your amps available? I love what you guys are producing here. I'd love to do my next studio session with this model, it would put a seriously big smile on the producers face!
The amps are available. Lead time is down to just 4 weeks right now. You can visit plexireplicas DOT com or email to sales AT plexireplicas DOT com Thanks!
Metropoulos Amplification Are you serious there is only a 4 week wait now? Your site says 12 weeks. I am overseas and a 4-5 week wait would probably get me buying one sooner.
I think the Metro sounds more "snarly" than the Marshall, although it's lighter on the distortion. It also sounds like it doesn't go as high or as low on the spectrum as the Marshall. It seems like if you compared the two on a graph of their freq responses, the Metro's would drop off in the highs and lows before the Marshall, but would have a little hump in the midrange somewhere, whereas the Marshall's curve would be flatter there. I wonder what accounts for the difference? The N.O.S. tubes? The age of the Marshall's resistors, capacitors, transformers? A different choke? The Marshall almost (ALMOST!) sounds like it has a booster, like a TS-808, in front of it compared to the Metro. To me, anyway. They both sound great. It's hard for me to pick a favorite, so I'm not going to. If I owned both these amps, I wouldn't be able to select the one that "sounds better," I'd have to select the one that "sounds better for THIS session." Great video.
Very good observations! Since making this clip I got an Audio Precision analyser. Now I can sweep amps to compare freq response, THD, phase, sag etc. I knew before that modern OT's have much more low end than vintage OT's. I have always compensated for that. What the vintage Marshalls have is a bump in the lows. Usually between 80-100 Hz. There is also a peak in the upper midrange that sounds like more gain.
@@metroampcom Hey, George. Well, it's nice to find out that, in spite of all the gunfire, jet aircraft and loud rock and roll, my ears haven't completely failed me. I was trying to figure out a way to describe the difference in easy-to-understand terms. I came up with the Metro sounding like Malcolm Young's opening bars to Highway To Hell, not tons of distortion, but mean and snarly-sounding and the Marshall sounding kind of like almost everyone else in the Seventies. I'm not sure that quite covers it, though.
@@BullToTheShit I think the original does slightly edge out the metro but not "absolutely" or anything. Very, very close. Would buy one if I had the money and he still made 'em
-power transformer is smaller on replica possibly because modern transformers are more efficient, if the pt was the same size and built with modern methods it may provide too much current and not sag. -if pt is smaller in current carrying capability as well as size, he might just want it sagging more. - ot is bigger on replica and you can hear it..more frequency response. not quite a replica but very, very nice to my ears.
For this amp your website says: " _accurately replicates a 1967 era Marshall 100 watt Superlead and Superbass_ " That's a Superlead *and* a Superbass. So is there a switch to make it go back-and-forth from a superbass to a superlead?
+Cyvox Angus uses a JTM 50 amp. A transitional amp between the JTM 45 and JMP 50, using a tube rectifier. I have built a handful of these to great affect. Shipping tends to be $220 USD. The amp starts at $2,750.
Well I don't mind your amps? do you have a video of the amplifier? with AC/DC? also to be honest I'd rather a Original Marshall that angus young used. But If its very close I'd consider to buy one of your metro amplifiers.
+Cyvox Before you buy anything you should contact SoloDallas. He has my amps and many others. For some Angus tones he uses mine, for others it's vintage Marshalls. solodallas.com
well, the original sounds better - but I think that was to be expected. Those of us who understand know that the idea behind a good replica (and this is a great replica) is to be inspired by the divinities of the past, to carry on the tradition. Having said that, I have heard better Metro replicas that were almost identical to the vintage, so it really depends on the particular model. There's a ghost in the machine, go figure, but that's the beauty of it all, init?. I've also heard original amps that sounded not so great.
Metro sounds target on... all you people who are comparing at this point and splitting hairs are rediculous... two of the same year Super Bass would sound more different than the Metro vs the Super Bass in this video . It's just a coincidence that the Metro even sounds this close. It will never get closer than this even with two of the same year
Marshall: smoother, classier. Metro: harsher. The reason is the same as in why Suhr guitars suck so much and Fender produces top quality guitars starting at a very affordable price.
Your a very opinionated dude.. who cares... spend more time playing and less time criticizing. I own more Fenders and Marshalls than anyone and would never say anything so stupid.
Lots of builders try, they seldom sound this good. The parts selection is as important as the circuit values, especially the transformers. The resistors and caps have values on a drawing but on the real amps these might be different, due to tolerances when new or how they have aged. To truly copy a great sounding amp, it has to be there in the shop for dissection and direct comparison, something George M here has been able to do better then most.
Finally someone who knows how to properly compare amps! Nice short clips so we can actualy compare the two! To my ears, the replica is slighty brighter and the original slightly woodier, of the two I think I prefer the replica!
Congrats! This is the most honest comparison of two amps I've ever seen. No BS, no bias and no sleight of hand. Well done!
The replica cleans better, nice job
Amazing that you can make the replica so close. Awesome.
nice replica.....the only thing I can tell with the demo is that your amp sounds a little brighter than the marshall in certain parts. The marshall seemed to have a little more body in the bass when you hit certain chords and is clearly noiser. But other than that you did a great job replicating the marshall sound with your amp.
George, i love the new videos coming out from Metro - all great and useful demos, including speaker shootouts and even modern vs vintage KT66's, etc. Thank you very much for the effort! I find many of these videos very valuable, especially because you always properly mice up the cabs.
shame those are'nt available anymore
Nailed that amps tone dead on George!!!! Sounds Incredible dude!!!
Wauw....i really need to get one of those metropoulos 10,000 Series. More mids, punch, clearer and therefore more honest :). And a great clean up, even with the Lester. Love it. One day i'll be able to show my gratitude by purchasing one of these lovely amplifications!
One of the best copies out there i would say, on some of the lick's i prefer the metro on others the original, but i bet it beat's off other reissue's. Good work and a great demo.
Marshall always kills it. No coping an original.
From what i hear from my computer speakers is that Metro has little bit tighter and bigger bottom end, sound a lil bit clearer and less compressed. But in the vintage one notes sound a little bit more liquidy or they flow together a lil bit better compared to metro which are more seperated when playing chords. maybe due to compression But both sound great :)
Great work man!!!
Nice job bro! Loved it!
Excellent demo. 5 stars.
Amazing amp too!
I have the 10,000 Super Bass. George builds these to sound the same and if anyone tells you that they hear much of a difference, I'd put them to a blind test. Quite honestly the best amp I have ever played. The nice thing about it is that you don't have to worry about treating it like a vintage amp. You can put an FX loop in and in my case I have a switch to from 100W to 50W. For the cost of doing that mod, I'd highly recommend it. I can hear the headroom at 100W. Alain they are available
great vid george i dig the amp. good to see ya rocking the long hair again hahaha hope all is well with the family.
John Ross
They sound sooo good. The Marshall is a touch darker, with the way you set it. I've been looking for a JMP, mainly for the master volume, but I'm considering a Super Bass.
10,000 Rambos A Super Bass is a JMP...lol
Could be because I'm old and my hearing is shot, but the Metro sounds like a Marshall should! The Marshall is a little muffled sounding.
Nice Yaron LP too!!
Andy K Less treble the better.
Yes and"muffled"is good!Or i should say warmer=Good.
Amazing how Marshall got it right and sounds smoother and rounder.
I love this comparison, I've been coming back to it as a reference for the longest time and I hold George to the highest esteem, the man is a class act and one of the reasons I pursued the hobby of tube amp building.
Now, I do think this video warrants a disclaimer as the amps are not directly comparable as I've noticed in the video and the ensuing gut shots - the '67 Marshall has the Dagnall C1998 Output Transformer, the respective filtering and two dropping resistor in the preamp whereas the Metro has the Drake 1202-132 OT, 32uf filtering throughout the power section and the single dropping resistor.
These differences alone account for a huge portion of the tonal difference exhibited in the video and are the reason for the original '67 Marshall's smoother breakup and the Metro's massive low end punch and rawer drive.
So IMO, this is more of a comparison between the first, mid-'67 JMPs (the Metro), and the late-'67 JMPs (Marshall) than between a replica and and an original, which IME I'm sure George could replicate to a tee if he set out to make a direct replica of (i.e. his 12000 series video).
For what it's worth I preferred the Metro - conjures Cream, AC/DC or Gibbons tones in my mind and sounds like a supercharged Tweed Bassman on steroids. The original sounds a step toward the smooth breakup commonly associated with Marshall tone and reminds me of Page's early live tone. that being said I'd be happy with any of them.
Do you happen to have the complete specs for this Marshall? I think you said you saw the gut shots. I prefer the sound of the Marshall to the 67 Metro. I already have a 67 replica with 1202-132 32uf filtering etc. The Marshall sounds very smooth even though I associate more filtering and increased gain etc to stiffer sound, but it doesn't seem to be the case here.
The both sound incredible. The marshal is a little bit darker, but that varies per amp, as none sound the same
Another fantastic job!! I'm a bit younger than you,and I remember getting those amps brand new way back when.The amps you make sound every bit as good as they do.If I could only express how bad I want one of those,you would probably give me one ! lol!! All joking aside,fantastic stuff man.I would like to ask though,what type of speakers did you say were in the cab? You do beautiful work,I love everything you make,it takes me back.Keep at it man,the world of guitars and amps needs you,take care.
Great demo
Great demo. The Metro hangs in there and even surpasses the old Marshall on some stuff...
The original is a little softer and a little quiter, but that's to be expected for an almost 50 year old amp. I'm willing to bet that the Metro, once it has 100 to 200 hours of playing time on it, will sound identical if not better than the original.
Awesome!
Turned up on a stage, no one would be able to tell the difference. Super, super close.
Perfection!!
Does anyone know the cap value differences between a 67' SB and 68' SLP 12xxx? I am going to build a 68' and would like to try and add a switch over to 67' specs.
They are so close. The Marshall seems a hair brighter. The metro actually sounds fuller with a more distinctive note attack.
My dream amp.....worst part its not the money...its living in an apartment in the city. One day you will be mine!
NYC LP Player that’s why they make attenuators ;)
Great build! Your amp is better!
curious, if its a copy, why the bigger OT and smaller PT in the copy?
The Marshall has the compression familiar to all vintage Marshalls. The Metropoulus sounds more dynamic almost like a cross between Marshall and HiWatt. A great sound but give me that Marshall Bass amp and I'll never look back
What speakers under the hood? It sounds like a 30th Anniversary to my ears, but I could be wrong.
They are?...how and where?....site only has some parts for sale!
I should have built one of these instead of my JTM50. I like the note attack better and the power chords.
I agree with the other comment, yours sounds almost identical, just a hair better and less muffled. Are these the Throbak DT's or MT's?
AC/DC Starts at 4:13. ends at 5:29
Page if there were 3 plus an Orange 4x4x12's .008-32 way more tops/ presence maybe?
yep, Marshall is a tad more gritty. I like the Metro tone better myself. Great with a tube screamer I bet.
Hey guys are your amps available? I love what you guys are producing here. I'd love to do my next studio session with this model, it would put a seriously big smile on the producers face!
The amps are available. Lead time is down to just 4 weeks right now. You can visit plexireplicas DOT com or email to sales AT plexireplicas DOT com Thanks!
Metropoulos Amplification Are you serious there is only a 4 week wait now? Your site says 12 weeks. I am overseas and a 4-5 week wait would probably get me buying one sooner.
Pretty damn close but the Marshall sounds a tad more gainy,both sound amazing regardless.
Replica is definitely more focused (midrange wise). The original seems more hollow sounding. Stellar tone either way
Sweet!
any idea of the value of that old Marshall?i guess its not for sale,just curious:)
I think the Metro sounds more "snarly" than the Marshall, although it's lighter on the distortion. It also sounds like it doesn't go as high or as low on the spectrum as the Marshall. It seems like if you compared the two on a graph of their freq responses, the Metro's would drop off in the highs and lows before the Marshall, but would have a little hump in the midrange somewhere, whereas the Marshall's curve would be flatter there.
I wonder what accounts for the difference? The N.O.S. tubes? The age of the Marshall's resistors, capacitors, transformers? A different choke? The Marshall almost (ALMOST!) sounds like it has a booster, like a TS-808, in front of it compared to the Metro. To me, anyway.
They both sound great. It's hard for me to pick a favorite, so I'm not going to. If I owned both these amps, I wouldn't be able to select the one that "sounds better," I'd have to select the one that "sounds better for THIS session."
Great video.
Very good observations! Since making this clip I got an Audio Precision analyser. Now I can sweep amps to compare freq response, THD, phase, sag etc. I knew before that modern OT's have much more low end than vintage OT's. I have always compensated for that. What the vintage Marshalls have is a bump in the lows. Usually between 80-100 Hz.
There is also a peak in the upper midrange that sounds like more gain.
@@metroampcom Hey, George. Well, it's nice to find out that, in spite of all the gunfire, jet aircraft and loud rock and roll, my ears haven't completely failed me.
I was trying to figure out a way to describe the difference in easy-to-understand terms. I came up with the Metro sounding like Malcolm Young's opening bars to Highway To Hell, not tons of distortion, but mean and snarly-sounding and the Marshall sounding kind of like almost everyone else in the Seventies. I'm not sure that quite covers it, though.
The marshal is just a touch darker. Or woodier cant decide. Pretty damn close though.
What would a replica (Super bass) with PPIMV and effects loop cost?
Ask somebody else because these guys don't make 'em anymore
Did Malcolm Young Use these amplifiers? In the Bon Years [AC/DC]
+Cyvox Mal did use Superbass amps, among other early Marshalls.
Ok
@@cyvox7433 You're spot on. It is that Malcolm sound
The original sounds better, absolutely
my thoughts exactly
@@BullToTheShit I think the original does slightly edge out the metro but not "absolutely" or anything. Very, very close. Would buy one if I had the money and he still made 'em
If I close my eyes and listen, I can tell every time the Marshall is playing. It has a beefier sound.
Both amps sound very similar, especially when cleaned up. I prefer the Metro.
-power transformer is smaller on replica possibly because modern transformers are more efficient, if the pt was the same size and built with modern methods it may provide too much current and not sag.
-if pt is smaller in current carrying capability as well as size, he might just want it sagging more.
- ot is bigger on replica and you can hear it..more frequency response.
not quite a replica but very, very nice to my ears.
Are the amp settings the same for both amps? I would assume so ;)
What's the song at 1:20???
"Bring it on home" by Led Zeppelin
9 or 10 gauge strings?
For this amp your website says: " _accurately replicates a 1967 era Marshall 100 watt Superlead and Superbass_ "
That's a Superlead *and* a Superbass. So is there a switch to make it go back-and-forth from a superbass to a superlead?
It would be made to the spec of your choosing. Lead or bass
Marshall rules!!!
Can you ship these into Australia?
+Cyvox Yes! No problem to ship. We wire to International voltage.
+Metropoulos Amplification How much will it cost for a Angus Young Amplifier or a Malcolm Young Amplifier?
+Cyvox Angus uses a JTM 50 amp. A transitional amp between the JTM 45 and JMP 50, using a tube rectifier. I have built a handful of these to great affect. Shipping tends to be $220 USD. The amp starts at $2,750.
Well I don't mind your amps? do you have a video of the amplifier? with AC/DC? also to be honest I'd rather a Original Marshall that angus young used. But If its very close I'd consider to buy one of your metro amplifiers.
+Cyvox Before you buy anything you should contact SoloDallas. He has my amps and many others. For some Angus tones he uses mine, for others it's vintage Marshalls. solodallas.com
Marshall
well, the original sounds better - but I think that was to be expected. Those of us who understand know that the idea behind a good replica (and this is a great replica) is to be inspired by the divinities of the past, to carry on the tradition. Having said that, I have heard better Metro replicas that were almost identical to the vintage, so it really depends on the particular model. There's a ghost in the machine, go figure, but that's the beauty of it all, init?. I've also heard original amps that sounded not so great.
The Metro for sure sounds more desirable, better tone.
Marshall all day
Metro sounds target on... all you people who are comparing at this point and splitting hairs are rediculous... two of the same year Super Bass would sound more different than the Metro vs the Super Bass in this video . It's just a coincidence that the Metro even sounds this close. It will never get closer than this even with two of the same year
YOB lead me here \,,/
Marshall: smoother, classier. Metro: harsher. The reason is the same as in why Suhr guitars suck so much and Fender produces top quality guitars starting at a very affordable price.
+neteraser Suhrs are better quality
Your a very opinionated dude.. who cares... spend more time playing and less time criticizing. I own more Fenders and Marshalls than anyone and would never say anything so stupid.
marshall sounds better... how come?
Julien Prégent Because its a Marshall.
Metro sounds better
Supercopy. :-)
wow!!! you were able to copy the simpler circuit in the world lol
Lots of builders try, they seldom sound this good. The parts selection is as important as the circuit values, especially the transformers. The resistors and caps have values on a drawing but on the real amps these might be different, due to tolerances when new or how they have aged. To truly copy a great sounding amp, it has to be there in the shop for dissection and direct comparison, something George M here has been able to do better then most.
yes the marshall sounds better.. the replica marshall is more harse and less musical.
fretboarder Right on the money!