Marshall Amps Sold

MirrorProfiles said:
What is it that people want with a Marshall that doesn't already exist? I agree with @laxu 's post above - they pretty much cover everything people expect from them already, except really nailing the "same sound at lower volume" thing. A few models could benefit from some tweaks, but is there something REALLY obvious that they could manufacture and sell in high numbers?

I think they have a pretty big problem right now with getting their prices in America under control - I wonder if that'll lead to a reissue model being made abroad to see if itll sell well if its not made in UK
Click to expand...

The problem is we probably all want different things. I started to write a bunch and then realized it really boils down to this for me:

I want them to have all the features and form factor of a Mesa but sound like a Marshall


Something that had the features and size of a Mark V (or VII) but sounded like a Marshall would be my dream amp. Give me jtm/1959 on channel 1 & 2 and jcm/jvm on channel 3
 
Whizzinby said:
The DSL probably took a significant amount of R&D to develop that amp and it sells for about $2,300 less than a 100w equivalent 800, which is a 40yo circuit. That highlights that they can develop modern featured amps on amps with significantly less profit margins, so why not focus on doing that with the amps that everyone actually wants?

I totally get your perspective and don’t entirely disagree, I just think they could be doing a hell of a lot more than coasting on entirely overpriced “legacy” amps.
Click to expand...
Yeah - the DSL is also a more complex amp than a JCM800 so should be more tricky to build and maintain. However, its made in a more modern fashion in Vietnam. There are design choices throughout the amp aimed at getting the cost down.

They could absolutely make a Vietnamese build JCM800, but would then people would say "oh it should be made in England with the original spec transformers". Marshall themselves constantly adjusted how they built amps to get costs down and numbers up, and its why certain amps from a particular series are more desirable than others. (PCM vs turretboard Superleads, horizontal input vs vertical input 800's).

I'm not sure that the assumption about profit margins would be any different between the amps - I think building amps in England with the parts they use just inflates the price massively. I'm sure its as cheap as they can possibly do it while making it worthwhile in the first place. I wouldnt be surprised if the cheaper amps even had a bigger profit margin to them, and maybe it even helps them keep the UK factory open. Why would you assume their JCM800's or Plexi's have bigger profit margins? Only because they cost significantly more?

I think you basically nailed it with existing amps not replacing peoples desire for a real 800 or Plexi, and thats basically what they're competing with themselves against. Any new amp would have this same situation too. I think thats why it was the DSL range that got moved to Asia - it you want the tone of classic Marshall amps, but dont want to pay, thats your option. If you want the classic stuff, built in the UK and with the look of the original, you buy the reissue. The JVM is their compromise of having a modern amp built in the UK with all the bells and whistles. I think its more of an outlier in their model rather than the product line that pays the staff and the bills.

metropolis_4 said:
Give me jtm/1959 on channel 1 & 2 and jcm/jvm on channel 3
Click to expand...

I legit think this is what Marshall have tried to do with almost every multichannel amp they've released since the 90's. Read the blurbs for 6100, DSL, TSL, JVM, Vintage Modern etc. Whether or not they achieve that, or package it in a way that is a total success is another matter.
I'd love Marshall to build amps the way Bogner or Friedman or Wizard or Headfirst or MGL or Metropolous etc do, but those companies are operating under entirely different parameters. I think bridging that gap seems easy to us as consumers but
 
MirrorProfiles said:
Yeah - the DSL is also a more complex amp than a JCM800 so should be more tricky to build and maintain. However, its made in a more modern fashion in Vietnam. There are design choices throughout the amp aimed at getting the cost down.

They could absolutely make a Vietnamese build JCM800, but would then people would say "oh it should be made in England with the original spec transformers". Marshall themselves constantly adjusted how they built amps to get costs down and numbers up, and its why certain amps from a particular series are more desirable than others. (PCM vs turretboard Superleads, horizontal input vs vertical input 800's).

I'm not sure that the assumption about profit margins would be any different between the amps - I think building amps in England with the parts they use just inflates the price massively. I'm sure its as cheap as they can possibly do it while making it worthwhile in the first place. I wouldnt be surprised if the cheaper amps even had a bigger profit margin to them, and maybe it even helps them keep the UK factory open. Why would you assume their JCM800's or Plexi's have bigger profit margins? Only because they cost significantly more?

I think you basically nailed it with existing amps not replacing peoples desire for a real 800 or Plexi, and thats basically what they're competing with themselves against. Any new amp would have this same situation too. I think thats why it was the DSL range that got moved to Asia - it you want the tone of classic Marshall amps, but dont want to pay, thats your option. If you want the classic stuff, built in the UK and with the look of the original, you buy the reissue. The JVM is their compromise of having a modern amp built in the UK with all the bells and whistles. I think its more of an outlier in their model rather than the product line that pays the staff and the bills.



I legit think this is what Marshall have tried to do with almost every multichannel amp they've released since the 90's. Read the blurbs for 6100, DSL, TSL, JVM, Vintage Modern etc. Whether or not they achieve that, or package it in a way that is a total success is another matter.
I'd love Marshall to build amps the way Bogner or Friedman or Wizard or Headfirst or MGL or Metropolous etc do, but those companies are operating under entirely different parameters. I think bridging that gap seems easy to us as consumers but
Click to expand...

It’s what they’ve tried to do with the channels, but I want the rest of the features and form factor of a Mark amp too.
  • 3 channels with the options I said, each with independent gain, EQ, wattage and master controls.
  • Global master volume
  • Internal load and IR DI that I can load my own IRs into
  • Size of a Mark head
  • Combo versions the size of Mark combos
I had a DSL50 and a DSL40CR and they both sounded great, but they were super annoying to use compared to my Mark IV and really big/bulky to lug around
 
metropolis_4 said:
It’s what they’ve tried to do with the channels, but I want the rest of the features and form factor of a Mark amp too.
  • 3 channels with the options I said, each with independent gain, EQ, wattage and master controls.
  • Global master volume
  • Internal load and IR DI that I can load my own IRs into
  • Size of a Mark head
  • Combo versions the size of Mark combos
I had a DSL50 and a DSL40CR and they both sounded great, but they were super annoying to use compared to my Mark IV and really big/bulky to lug around
Click to expand...
I love the sound of it!

Just staring at the Marshall's in my studio, and these features make all of them seem so basic compared to Mesa (who've been adding and refining these kind of features to basically their entire line of amps for years now). The JVM is definitely considerably more modern compared to the rest - I can imagine this sort of thing would have to be a similar concept to that, but with all these features on a smaller chassis and with the price staying under control.

I'd love for Marshall to come up with something like that, maybe the Swedish owners will be a bit more ballsy and take a gamble. They're generally features I look to other companies for. So much of Marshall's history is based on no nonsense amps that are straight to the point - just to be clear, I want the same sort of things as other people are suggesting in this thread, I just don't expect Marshall to deliver it because they just don't seem to be that kind of company in this day and age. I think their focus and source of generating money is based on brand recognition and selling that kind of old nostalgia.

FWIW, I'd love to see how @santiall would approach a Mark series amp and whether he thinks there's scope for the circuit to either have more variations on switches, or whether the control layout/MIDI could be improved further. Its such a shame that it doesn't seem to have worked out at Marshall, as I think there is no one better to take the JVM circuit and approach forward.
 
MirrorProfiles said:
Yeah - the DSL is also a more complex amp than a JCM800 so should be more tricky to build and maintain. However, its made in a more modern fashion in Vietnam. There are design choices throughout the amp aimed at getting the cost down.

They could absolutely make a Vietnamese build JCM800, but would then people would say "oh it should be made in England with the original spec transformers". Marshall themselves constantly adjusted how they built amps to get costs down and numbers up, and its why certain amps from a particular series are more desirable than others. (PCM vs turretboard Superleads, horizontal input vs vertical input 800's).

I'm not sure that the assumption about profit margins would be any different between the amps - I think building amps in England with the parts they use just inflates the price massively. I'm sure its as cheap as they can possibly do it while making it worthwhile in the first place. I wouldnt be surprised if the cheaper amps even had a bigger profit margin to them, and maybe it even helps them keep the UK factory open. Why would you assume their JCM800's or Plexi's have bigger profit margins? Only because they cost significantly more?

I think you basically nailed it with existing amps not replacing peoples desire for a real 800 or Plexi, and thats basically what they're competing with themselves against. Any new amp would have this same situation too. I think thats why it was the DSL range that got moved to Asia - it you want the tone of classic Marshall amps, but dont want to pay, thats your option. If you want the classic stuff, built in the UK and with the look of the original, you buy the reissue. The JVM is their compromise of having a modern amp built in the UK with all the bells and whistles. I think its more of an outlier in their model rather than the product line that pays the staff and the bills.



I legit think this is what Marshall have tried to do with almost every multichannel amp they've released since the 90's. Read the blurbs for 6100, DSL, TSL, JVM, Vintage Modern etc. Whether or not they achieve that, or package it in a way that is a total success is another matter.
I'd love Marshall to build amps the way Bogner or Friedman or Wizard or Headfirst or MGL or Metropolous etc do, but those companies are operating under entirely different parameters. I think bridging that gap seems easy to us as consumers but
Click to expand...

Sign me up for the dual channel Vietnamese Jose 800 :ROFLMAO:
 
To me, this and the Mesa deal reflect the true state of tube amp market.
This kind of 'movement' is not because tube amps are making money, it's because they don't.

The ever increasing 3-4k$+ prices... do you think the target demographic is Gen Z TikTokers or Gen B.C with money and decades of nostalgic memories of rock heyday?
I would guess that the youngest demographic that has any meaningful impact on tube amp sales were born 30+ years ago, the strongest demographic are 50+.
 
metropolis_4 said:
Something that had the features and size of a Mark V (or VII) but sounded like a Marshall would be my dream amp. Give me jtm/1959 on channel 1 & 2 and jcm/jvm on channel 3
Click to expand...

randy-south-park.gif
 
I'm sure the bean counters can see the writing on the wall: the bigger tube amps are on their way out. Sure, there'll continue to be a fringe market for them, but with all the various digital offerings, there's simply a bigger demand for easier/smaller/more versatile/cheaper.

I'll bet if you could compare the sales numbers for a new amp, say the Mark VII as an example, I bet you'd find a strong showing at first, then falling off to almost nothing, and I'd further assert you could compare those sales figures to previous new models, and see the overall trend is downward.

So that's what I think they're seeing at Marshall, so they're just trying to determine how do they milk the brand to the last drop.
 
TSJMajesty said:
I'll bet if you could compare the sales numbers for a new amp, say the Mark VII as an example, I bet you'd find a strong showing at first, then falling off to almost nothing, and I'd further assert you could compare those sales figures to previous new models, and see the overall trend is downward.
Click to expand...
Yes, to be followed by whatever the Mark VII:25 is next year or the year after. The 20-25w amps sell like crazy, because they’re cheaper, and they offer enough of what people need. We can debate the sound of an EL84 or 6V6, no doubt. But no one needs a 100w tube amp anymore, unless you play in some derelict club with no cheap Chinese sound reinforcement.
 
RaceU4her said:
cant believe the CODE100H never took off, thought for sure that thing was heading to the amp hall of fame
Click to expand...
Haha I remember over at the other place there was this dude that was soooooo convinced the Code was just as good as anything Marshall had ever built. Could not play at, total perpetual noob. Butchered the simplest riff. With ears to match. :LOL:
 
Blix said:
Haha I remember over at the other place there was this dude that was soooooo convinced the Code was just as good as anything Marshall had ever built. Could not play at, total perpetual noob. Butchered the simplest riff. With ears to match. :LOL:
Click to expand...
Was that Thumperjack? I don't think I ever heard him play?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top