Helix JCM800 2203 Request Thread (FW 3.70 new Brit 2203)!

James Freeman said:
Before 1978 (for two years) the JMP 2203 had a 5k Presence pot and the negative feedback was tapped form the 8ohm output, resulting in more negative feedback and a slightly smoother more "polite" sounding 2203, other than that the 2203 didn't change form 1978 to 1985.
Click to expand...
hmm you sure about the NFB/8 Ω thing? My 1977 2203 has always been off the 4 Ω tap, same goes for Super Leads and other amps from that era (I think they lowered NFB in the early 70’s on the super leads and that power amp circuit carried over?)
 
2204’s have less negative and do sound more aggressive. 2203’s have more headroom and can sound a bit chunkier, especially if you’re boosting or modding the circuit. I think stock 2204’s are a bit more fun to play. As soon as you’re boosting or tinkering all bets are off
 
MirrorProfiles said:
maybe for the 6550 USA bound ones? no idea, could well have been a thing that I wasn’t aware of but I always associate metal panel 70’s era (and beyond) Marshalls with 4 Ω tap for NFB. They were so inconsistent with basically everything back then
Click to expand...
I’m sure the next version of Helix will capture amp variability. We all get slightly different 2203 variants, and the benefit of a couple thousand dopes saying their specific modeler has the best sounding Marshall Plexi.

Honestly, an added control that lets you randomize the component value drift in amp circuits could be a really fun feature ala the brainworx TMT (Tolerance Modeling Technology) stuff. I’d LOVE to see something like that in Helix.
 
Digital Igloo said:
we're considering renaming it something like "Brit 2204 No Cap" or something, if only because "Brit 2204 Mod" is already taken.
Click to expand...

If I may share a thought;

Renaming the current model is very important imo, because when people who are familiar with the real amp try this model in a Line 6 modeler they may get all kinds of wrong impressions regarding Line 6 modelers that are not necessarily true.
This one particular amp is critical to model as accurately as possible and the baseline is an archetypal stock 2203 in a good condition.

This may be even more true regarding pedal models because every guitarist has at least one popular pedal and it is very easy to conduct an A/B test with pedals even for newcomers.
 
EOengineer said:
I’m sure the next version of Helix will capture amp variability. We all get slightly different 2203 variants, and the benefit of a couple thousand dopes saying their specific modeler has the best sounding Marshall Plexi.

Honestly, an added control that lets you randomize the component value drift in amp circuits could be a really fun feature ala the brainworx TMT (Tolerance Modeling Technology) stuff. I’d LOVE to see something like that in Helix.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but also I think amps that share similar controls and circuits should eventually be bundled into the same model - so you can switch between 2203 and 2204 or swap valve types or voltages and not have to reset all the settings every time.

Likewise for Plexi’s or Rectifiers or whatever amp that has undergone small component tweaks over the years but have retained the same overall circuit/controls. IMO that really takes advantage of what digital has to offer
 
EOengineer said:
amp variability. We all get slightly different 2203 variants,
Click to expand...
MirrorProfiles said:
so you can switch between 2203 and 2204 or swap valve types or voltages and not have to reset all the settings every time.
Click to expand...

Different preamp tubes with different amount of gain and frequency responses are probably the first thing I would add to a modeler for the user to 'play' with in a model, it has bigger audible difference than factory variations and component tolerances.
Next is cab impedance curves like Fractal does.

EDIT:
Talking about different brands of preamp tubes like Tung-Sol, EHX, Mullard, JJ, etc. and types like 12AX7, 12AT7, 12AU7, etc.
 
Last edited:
MirrorProfiles said:
Agreed, but also I think amps that share similar controls and circuits should eventually be bundled into the same model - so you can switch between 2203 and 2204 or swap valve types or voltages and not have to reset all the settings every time.

Likewise for Plexi’s or Rectifiers or whatever amp that has undergone small component tweaks over the years but have retained the same overall circuit/controls. IMO that really takes advantage of what digital has to offer
Click to expand...
We’re talking about slightly different things here as I was commenting more on a way to sort of “roll the dice” and get infinitely variable 2204s - more or less a play on providing access to versions of the model that have aged differently over the years.

I really like your idea too though. I know for some of us amp history junkies it would take things to the next level to be able to have something like a “revision” or “era” parameter that lets you choose popular versions of some amps (ex. 12000 series Plexis, late 70s 2203 vs mid 80s, Rev F Rectifier vs Rev G, etc). Plus some modifiers for tubes, bright caps, etc like you mentioned. Man that would be cool. I’d have a tough time pulling myself away from that.

But…this would represent a big change in L6’s modeling philosophy. Technically under their current paradigm they’d need to own and manually measure all those variants. Not to mention the legwork of chasing all that historical context and cataloging that.

I really wish I worked at L6. Not because I think I can do it better or anything like that, it would just be so much fun to develop products like this and chase ideas that people like us would go crazy for.
 
James Freeman said:
Different preamp tubes with different amount of gain and frequency responses are probably the first thing I would add to a modeler for the user to 'play' with in a model, it has bigger audible difference than factory variations and component tolerances.
Next is cab impedance curves like Fractal does.

EDIT:
Talking about different brands of preamp tubes like Tung-Sol, EHX, Mullard, JJ, etc. and types like 12AX7, 12AT7, 12AU7, etc.
Click to expand...
Or you can just buy an axe FX 3 and get all of that AND accurate marshall models right now.
 
EOengineer said:
We’re talking about slightly different things here as I was commenting more on a way to sort of “roll the dice” and get infinitely variable 2204s - more or less a play on providing access to versions of the model that have aged differently over the years.

I really like your idea too though. I know for some of us amp history junkies it would take things to the next level to be able to have something like a “revision” or “era” parameter that lets you choose popular versions of some amps (ex. 12000 series Plexis, late 70s 2203 vs mid 80s, Rev F Rectifier vs Rev G, etc). Plus some modifiers for tubes, bright caps, etc like you mentioned. Man that would be cool. I’d have a tough time pulling myself away from that.

But…this would represent a big change in L6’s modeling philosophy. Technically under their current paradigm they’d need to own and manually measure all those variants. Not to mention the legwork of chasing all that historical context and cataloging that.

I really wish I worked at L6. Not because I think I can do it better or anything like that, it would just be so much fun to develop products like this and chase ideas that people like us would go crazy for.
Click to expand...
Oh I totally understood the TMT thing, just in the same way that I’d rather have all those tolerance variations within the same overall model, all the actual value changes should be under the same model too IMO (rather than a huge list of amps that are almost identical).

luckymethod said:
Or you can just buy an axe FX 3 and get all of that AND accurate marshall models right now.
Click to expand...
I have an FM-3 and love it, and it covers loads of killer Marshall tones. The Jubilee isn’t an actual Jubilee though, and it doesn’t have both channels with and without the rhythm clip feature.

I’m also not a huge fan of the JVM’s and JMP-1 being spread over several amp models and they have a fairly different experience to using the real amps as a result.

No plugin support is also a massive workflow killer for me. I’d be really happy for Fractal to tackle this stuff, but I feel like it’s more likely that Line 6 will move in that direction. Unfortunately I don’t see a plugin version of Fractal Amp sims for some time.
 
luckymethod said:
Or you can just buy an axe FX 3 and get all of that AND accurate marshall models right now.
Click to expand...
Fractal doesn’t offer a solution for those of us that prefer seamless experiences between our hardware and software/recording workflows. L6 seems much more receptive to upping their Marshall game than Fractal does at upping their plugin game.

Path of least resistance.
 


JMP 2203, 76-81:
:chef

JCM800 2203 Vertical Input, 81-84 spec or Reissue:
:love
:satan

JCM800 2203 Horizontal Input, 85-89 spec: :poop:

It's all about the Preamp voltage after the TWO 10k B+ dropping resistors.

🤞🤞🤞
 
Last edited:
@James Freeman, now I'm always using your bright cap and treble peaker emulations with the brit 2204 (with those EQ blocks). On top of that, and because my rig right now is HX Stomp into a real cab (using a Harley Benton GPA100 as power amp), I'm also using the IRs you made to simulate power amp impedance curves while using the preamp model instead of the full amp model. It's a small cabinet (Harley benton 1x12 with V30) but it sounds glorious, thicker and more alive than with the full amp model. Can you explain why does it sound better this way? The full amp model also simulates this impedance curve so I was thinking about asking you this.
Thanks a lot for your contributions!

(I'm talking about this post here:
 
tiagoa9619 said:
I'm also using the IRs you made to simulate power amp impedance curves while using the preamp model instead of the full amp model. It's a small cabinet (Harley benton 1x12 with V30) but it sounds glorious, thicker and more alive than with the full amp model. Can you explain why does it sound better this way?
Click to expand...

It should be about the same if you keep the full amp model Master below 1.
The poweramp response curves IR's I shared there were made at very low bedroom volume.
You probably like a little more prominent impedance curve effect, keep the Master very low and compensate with gain blocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

James Freeman
Modeler Time Domain Response Analysis
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
murphy brown
M
Fireproof
Fractal Audio Firmware Update Thread
144 145 146
Replies
3K
Views
178K
TSJMajesty
TSJMajesty
Back
Top