Talk:Marshall Amplification

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Marshall Amplifiers)

Article cleanup[edit]

We need to really cut down on the number of sections. I've added in pertinent information on the JCM 800 series (mysteriously ommited along with the original JMP) and some famous examples of their use. However, I've boldly cut a great deal of information regarding the technical minutia regarding the specs of the amp series. If you've played or own a Marshall, you know it's a Sispysian ordeal to describe each and every switch and feature of each amp. All we need is an encyclopedia worthy description of it's NOTEWORTHY features. For example, the TSL has three channels that go "clean, crunch, ultra" and the DSL has only two. We dont' need to know about each "Deep" switch" or individual reverb tank nuance. We need to know what the company and it's amps are about. Even the section as edited is frankly too long and too long winded. Mooshimanx 19:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see you undid the revision, without making any changes to the confusing and overdone article. Please, this is a project; there is no need to become attached to your "pet sections and versions" you've made. Feel free to change the rewrite, but in it's current state, the article was flagged for being, frankly, a complete mess. Sorry, it's going back; please see WP:MOSDEF. I understand that some may feel slighted having extensive sections on the various minute features of each amp deleted, however, this is not to wikipedia standards. This article is not a spec readout of each Marshall Amp. The only features that should be detailed are groundbreaking or new features to the Marshall family; if I wanted to list every Marshall user and every piece of information on Marshall's I knew, the article would be 17 singles spaced print pages long. It's not to standard. Sorry. Mooshimanx 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section regarding "Current Models" is just cut and paste from Marshall's advertisers. Section will be flagged for cleanup. Mooshimanx (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

class="toctext">The Telephone Game</a>

  • <a Did Jim Marshall really say of Jimi Hendrix, as you have him quoted, "Just another American looking for something for nothing", or does his biographer Jim Doyle have it right when he quotes him as saying "just another one looking for something for nothing.?" Again, a citation is needed here, and unless you have an original bit of information, You know Jim Marshall personally or can point to an interview or something, the authorized biography has to win out. You cant just put words into peoples mouths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solerso68 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Amplifier Series[edit]

    Hey guys,

    I just started a section on the JCM 2000 series of amplifiers. It would be good if everybody could contribute by chooseing an amplifer series and making a section out of it. I believe that this will make the "Marshall amplifer" article in general more comprehensive

    Salvorix 04:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Marshall Stack[edit]

    It's well known that Yngwie does actually use as many as 31 full stacks. I'd agree that most bands do use dummy cabinets but Yngwie isn't the sort of person to do things by half. Paul Tew 03:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    They’re obviously nearly all fake - mainly because it’s illegal to play really loud, these days. There are environmental laws that didn’t exist in the 60s and 70s. Plus, sound is just delivered differently at modern concerts - they have most of the amplification spread all over the venue, to give a better surround sound experience. I’d go as far as saying probably only 2-3 of Yngwies stacks are turned on, during a show. Probably not even that many.

    2A02:C7F:18AE:4900:F47A:8A07:E0A0:2C6 (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've actually seen a wall of fake stacks being unloaded outside the Astoria (just the fronts) but I can't for the life of me remember the band.

    --

    Yeah, I'd really like to see a picture of stacks that made Marshall very distinctive.

    I wonder where the factory is? some town in england?

    It's in Milton Keynes.

    It's actually in Bletchley which is next to Milton Keynes. I'm not sure whether it is mentioned in the article but Marshall sponsor the MK Dons football team. Paul Tew 10:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bletchley is part of Milton Keynes, not next to it. And yes the shirt sponsorship is mentioned in Trivia. --Concrete Cowboy 12:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    POV, errors and etc comments[edit]

    There is much POV-ness, coupled with some awkward phrasing in the article.

    Specifically, the mention of much demand for cutting edge and vintage amplifiers. I'd say demand for innovation from Marshall is on the wane, at best. This can be corellated with the general public distaste for the Mode Four, while the Handwired series is garnering tons of praise (and probably selling relatively well). Not to mention the dozen or so smaller companies all vying for the crown of best copy of a Plexi/JTM45/18watt etc etc.

    Also, I take issue with the Bluesbreaker being considered Marshall's most famous amplifier- I'd say the Plexi-era stack has far surpassed the Bluesbreaker in visibility to the general public. And surely, sales of JCM-800/900s have far outstripped probably everything they shipped in the entirety of the 1960s.

    The circuitry certainly changed from Plexi -> Aluminum. From Marshalls press release for the Handwired amps: "The so-called 'Plexi' era (late 1965 to July 1969) was named because of the Plexiglas material used on the model 1959's front panel. It ended when the company changed its front panel material from Plexiglas to brushed aluminum. During this relatively short period, many small but often significant circuit changes were made and the majority of them were in response to artists continually asking for the amps to be more aggressive sounding. After exhaustive research tracking the exact timeline of these changes and also finding many untouched examples of them, a pre-July 1969 SL/A head was chosen as being 'the one' to duplicate."

    That doesn't imply a change between Plexi and Ali panel. That implies a change within the Plexi. All of the changes were evolutionary. There is more of a misconception that the so-called 'Plexi-era' came to an abrupt halt when they switched to the aluminium panel. There is as much variation within the Plexi-era as there was between late Plexi and early Aluminium panel amps. The circuit is fairly consistent for non master volume 1959 heads from their first Plexi appearance to 1980. Even the change from handwired to PCB was gradual (if that makes sense).

    I don't know if it was a weird joke, but Dudley Moore worked for Marshall? I'd love to see a citation for this, as it would be news to me.

    The history is a little skewed, there were master volume JMP models prior to the JCMs in the very late 70s. Slash, for instance, played an 800, and had a signature model- but the article implies he played a plexi-era amp. In fact, JCM-800s are every bit, if not more relevant than the current JCM-2000 series. I realize the model sections are a work in progress, just wanted to point that out. It's notable that Marshall actually reissued the JCM-800 amps some 15 years after discontinuing them. If that's not testament to their rapid quasi-vintage appeal I don't know what is.

    The paragraph about Valvestate amps is criminally POV-ed, and reads like an advertisement. Yeah, no doy a single 12ax7 can last for years- nothing 'revolutionary' about a tube gain stage coupled to a solid state power amp- such designs have been around since at least the mid 70s. Frankly, the AVT amps are pretty much the exclusive domain of beginners and kids, and have a very poor reputation among professional players. I dont think the section should be wiped out, but really rephrased and elaborated on only in proportion with their more notable products.

    Thought I'd solicit some feedback before going ahead and editing.

    Tremspeed 23:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say be WP:BOLD and edit away. Anything that seems like an advert and isn't sourced can go, as far as I'm concerned. This article could really use a once-over by a neutral, knowledgable person. Let me know if you need any help finding citations. --Aguerriero (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I know. It's a big rewrite though. Thanks for the offer. Tremspeed 03:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I will have time to help after this week. I will start searching for some reference material for Marshall amps and we'll see if we can get a great article out of this! --Aguerriero (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me know if you guys need an extra pair of hands. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 00:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Marshall company did not invent the 100-watt guitar amplifier[edit]

    Apparently, the Vox Company of Great Britain invented them in 1964 for use by The Beatles on tour - not that the extra power really helped them to be heard over tens of thousands of screaming teenagers, of course. This is referred to in passing in the Wikipedia article on Vox and claims made in both articles need fact-checking for accuracy.PJtP (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Some back history. In a Guitar Player Magazine interview with John Entwistle he stated that he was using a 50W Marshall head and a 4x12 cabinet in late 1964/early 1965. He kept the 4x12 Marshall cabinet but in May 1965 he and Townshend both switched to Vox-AC 100 heads (Townshend using a Vox cabinet as well) because, as Entwistle says in the interview, "Vox aleady had one out." And, to support that statement about Vox, in The Beatles' Anthology video George Harrison clearly states that the band had to switch to Vox custom built 100 watt amps early in the Beatlemania years just so that they could try and hear themselves (they still couldn't) But in Harrison's wording he isn't saying Vox invented them... just that they built some specifically for The Beatles to use. This means Vox first started making 100W amps for them around 1964. Both Entwistle and Townshend switched to Marshall 100 watt heads in November 1965. Their switch was to Marshall's JTM100 Super Lead Tremolo heads... 1959 models (Marshall's earliest prototypes of that amp JTM45s rebuilt as 100s) So if The Beatles were given 100W amps and later, as Entwistle stated, he and Pete switched to Vox AC100s because "they had them out" he was being truthful... Vox DID 'have them out'... they had them out for The Beatles. Having them out and inventing them are 2 different claims. The Who are credited with 'the Marshall Stack' in 1965 because they plunked 100W Marshall heads on top of custom 8x12 Marshall speaker cabinets. They didn't 'invent' the 100W head... just the idea of having multiple heads sitting on top of multiple cabinets towering high enough for 8 speakers. And the heads they were given were first built and tested in 1959. Which precedes Vox specifically making 100W amps for the Beatles by about 4-5 years. By early 1967 both Entwisle and Townshend are using Sound City 100W amp heads in England with Pete using Sunn 100W amp heads when touring in the U.S.(probably to save on carting all that gear across the pond). So by this time it looks like just about everyone has no problems with putting out 100W amps for Pete to burn up. But back to his first pairing of Marshall head and custom 8x12 cabs... his 1959 prototype model Marshalls were the amps used. Did Marshall invent them? I am still digging through stacks of old mags/catalogues from the 1960s/70s.But so far I can't find reference anywhere claiming a 100 watt build before 1959.I will keep looking though. Mr Pyles (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can correct myself already.... the 1959, as I thought I was reading in the interview, was not a year at all. Just a model number. Tricky Marshall. I did find another Entwistle interview from just before his death where he contradicts himself about getting the Vox amp and states 'we told Jim Marshall to make 100W heads because no one else made them' Which was clearly incorrect in that interview because, supported by many photos, The Who did use Vox 100W heads before using Marshall 100W Super Leads... 3 1959 JTM45s rebuilt specifically/supposedly by request and first used by both Pete and John in November 1965... which is after The Beatles were given their 100W Vox amps. Lots of interviews with Jim Marshall have him claiming he gave The Who 3 100 watt heads because "they asked for them and no one else made them" But this would not be corect since Paul McCartney got his 100W Vox in 1964 (Lennon and Harrison getting theirs a little while later). More reading to be done to solidify this one. Mr Pyles (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    JMP sentence[edit]

    This line can't be correct

    In the mid-1970s, Marshall introduced the "master volume" ("MV") series, which was initially called the "JMP",

    The JMP amps were avalible in the early 70's without master volume. Some one should change this. Izzy007 21:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, this is a far too common assumption and reposted right across the internet. The JMP series reflect a timeframe, not the Master Volume. I personally own a non-master volume SuperLead from 1979 that is a JMP. The front configuration is the same and indeed much of the circuit/chassis is very much like the Plexi and earlier JTMs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.43.176 (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't confirm the "JMP" usage, since I quit very shortly after the first two dual-volume control models (2150 and 4140) arrived. Back at that time, my main musical interests were 1970's Country and Western and Jazz. When they told me new amps were coming in and Marshall was going to put out a Jazz / C&W amp, I cringed. They came in, I selected the resistor that set the maximum possible reverb, and did the initial sound test. Wow!! Hands down the best Jazz / CW amp I had ever heard! And a truly awesome totally tube fuzz! Tony Frank personally told me he came up with the dual-stage/dual-volume-control design. Rick Reinckens 24.238.177.197 (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    artists[edit]

    A list of artists who use Marshall amps? Should it be added? --88.106.96.12 11:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No. In each section, the most notable users are listed already; and Marshall is probably the largest amp company on Earth. The number of users; even famous users is staggering. Therefore, I've limited each section to around 2-4 users. Some users, like Hendrix, are iconic and MUST be mentioned. Edward Van Halen's use of the amp might be worthy. But the list should end at anyone who is not a true household name; like Clapton, Hendrix, Slash, etc., or someone who had a real impact on the brand (the Who were responsible for the invention of the 4x12 for example) I left mention of Kerry King of Slayer fame to mollify death metal guy who will rewrite the whole article if I don't leave at least some mention of Marshall use by more extreme artists. Mooshimanx 20:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of the References I Used[edit]

    Some of the references I included here were taken from the September 2002 edition of Guitar World magazine which outlines the corporate history of Marshall Amplification. How many of you here agree with some of those paragraphs from it? WikiPro1981X (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Early Innovations toward a British sourced model[edit]

    This is clearly out of context, and I am trusting to somebody more knowledgeable than me as to wiki editing. The change from a 6L6 tube to a KT-66 is impossible, without changing the output wattage, all of the Transformers, and the tube biasing networks. I believe that the correct component should be the british KT-88, that with just a small number of circuit routingd can be used in place of the US 6L6 tube. A kt88 is closely related to either a 6L6, or a 6550 (thereabouts). The KT-66 is actually a lower wattage, lower gain tube much more equivalent to the (US naming convention) 6V6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsoehollerith (talk • contribs) 01:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Photos[edit]

    The article is severely lacking in photos in comparison to, say, the Gibson Guitar Corporation article. Please let's add some pictures. User:VintageGuitarGuy 23:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    MB Series (Bass amplifiers)[edit]

    I saw it was lacking those series of amps and i have added them with the respective page Tuner420 (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 4 external links on Marshall Amplification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified one external link on Marshall Amplification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Marshall Group, Sweden v Marshall Amplification, England[edit]

    Until we have reliable sources that clarify the status of the Amplification Division, we need to hold off making bold changes to the article. Marshall amps are notable, the overall group probably is not. So it may be that material about the corporation has to go as it would be wrong to turn this article into a marketing vehicle. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marshall_Amplification&oldid=1208827285"