Official original Marshall JVM appreciation thread

santiall said:
hmmm, I am thinking if any other noteworthy anecdotes...
- the amp indeed started with a 2203 upside down. First I added an extra tube, then some extra controls on the front, etc. I scrapped the whole thing once the amp got launched.
- the first artists to try the prototype (the butchered 2203) were Trivium although they never ended using it as they had some other endorsing deals by then. Matt Heafy loved the Charvel guitar though, asked if I was selling it haha
View attachment 49739
- the first band that put the amp on tour were most likely The Cranberries, at least I remember talking with their guitar tech about the MIDI programming and stuff like that.
- I had a newer firmware with full MIDI implementation, like in the Satriani amp, but it never got released. It also had an 'secret' mode where you could insert the Clean channel tone controls ahead of the distortion channels.
- right before it was lanched I had finished the Kerry King amp and everybody was impressed with the gate. We wanted to put it in the JVM but couldn't have it done in time as all the launch, etc. was already planned. In hindsight, that's probably the biggest 'regret' if that's the right word, more than regret I'd say it would have been worth the extra 3 months.

hmmm, that's all I can remember now, if anything else I'll keep posting it
Click to expand...
If you were to design the JVM today, what would you do different?
 
santiall said:
hmmm, I am thinking if any other noteworthy anecdotes...
- the amp indeed started with a 2203 upside down. First I added an extra tube, then some extra controls on the front, etc. I scrapped the whole thing once the amp got launched.
- the first artists to try the prototype (the butchered 2203) were Trivium although they never ended using it as they had some other endorsing deals by then. Matt Heafy loved the Charvel guitar though, asked if I was selling it haha
View attachment 49739
- the first band that put the amp on tour were most likely The Cranberries, at least I remember talking with their guitar tech about the MIDI programming and stuff like that.
- I had a newer firmware with full MIDI implementation, like in the Satriani amp, but it never got released. It also had an 'secret' mode where you could insert the Clean channel tone controls ahead of the distortion channels.
- right before it was lanched I had finished the Kerry King amp and everybody was impressed with the gate. We wanted to put it in the JVM but couldn't have it done in time as all the launch, etc. was already planned. In hindsight, that's probably the biggest 'regret' if that's the right word, more than regret I'd say it would have been worth the extra 3 months.

hmmm, that's all I can remember now, if anything else I'll keep posting it
Click to expand...
That is a beautiful Charvel!

It is fascinating to hear the details from your perspective. I suppose I would have been frustrated by the “realities” faced by production on such a scale. The gate would have been nice for sure but it’s kind of understandable.

The unreleased firmware stings a bit as the midi would have been nice and “secret mode” sounds like such a great idea. Plus you had already done the work! Too bad there isn’t that file lurking somewhere that could be put to use.

Thank you so very, very much for sharing these killer details with us! You are a legend Sir!

👍🏻😎👍🏻
 
laxu said:
If you were to design the JVM today, what would you do different?
Click to expand...
I've been working on my own in a couple of amp designs and there is interest from some companies to put them in the market. I can't disclose too many details for obvious reasons but giving ideas for a JVM could be a bit of a conflict here so I'll kind of pretend that I haven't seen this question.

But hey, now that you ask, the weather is quite stormy here today with torrential rain ;)
 
KingsXJJ said:
That is a beautiful Charvel!

It is fascinating to hear the details from your perspective. I suppose I would have been frustrated by the “realities” faced by production on such a scale. The gate would have been nice for sure but it’s kind of understandable.

The unreleased firmware stings a bit as the midi would have been nice and “secret mode” sounds like such a great idea. Plus you had already done the work! Too bad there isn’t that file lurking somewhere that could be put to use.

Thank you so very, very much for sharing these killer details with us! You are a legend Sir!

👍🏻😎👍🏻
Click to expand...
I don't think the most frustrating bit was to produce it but to reach the point of saying "ok, done, amp finished, let's produce it". The company knew the amp would be successful and the Managing Directors were very excited about it. Everybody liked the amp, was 'modern' and was actually cheaper to make than a DSL but with many more features.

Some of the people in there were a bit anxious as the amp was somehow different from a DSL... I mean, if they could manufacture DSLs and TSL with 72pcbs and 180 wire harnesses inside I'm sure they could make a JVM, there is always a bit of fear of the unkown. Now thinking about this, I also made the microcontroller programmers for the production line so they could program the chips in batches and test them. Everything went quite smooth, just the usual teething issues on learning how to test the amp and become familiar with them rather than actual manufacturing problems.

The 'secret mode', midi and all that never saw the light simply because some particular people were just not interested at all on any product improvement and only wanted to have an easy life. They rather kept the amp as it was. Of course there would be some customers that had the amp without those features and could be initially frustrated but the thing is that upgrading the amp would have costed like a dollar, just replace a chip in a socket.

PS, the Charvel looks much better in real life with the curly maple top, koa back, etc. You can see some pictures of similar ones here: https://reverb.com/item/39933477-du...5-colori-purple-e-green-perfette-con-custodie
It was made in 1995 and I bought it super cheap here in Hong Kong for about 800$ in 2002 or 2003. Nobody wanted a guitar with Floyd back then and they offered huge discounts to get rid of those. They had 2, no original hard case case or anything, just the guitar. I still have it but I don't play it much because the volume knob position really bugs me!
 
santiall said:
I don't think the most frustrating bit was to produce it but to reach the point of saying "ok, done, amp finished, let's produce it". The company knew the amp would be successful and the Managing Directors were very excited about it. Everybody liked the amp, was 'modern' and was actually cheaper to make than a DSL but with many more features.

Some of the people in there were a bit anxious as the amp was somehow different from a DSL... I mean, if they could manufacture DSLs and TSL with 72pcbs and 180 wire harnesses inside I'm sure they could make a JVM, there is always a bit of fear of the unkown. Now thinking about this, I also made the microcontroller programmers for the production line so they could program the chips in batches and test them. Everything went quite smooth, just the usual teething issues on learning how to test the amp and become familiar with them rather than actual manufacturing problems.

The 'secret mode', midi and all that never saw the light simply because some particular people were just not interested at all on any product improvement and only wanted to have an easy life. They rather kept the amp as it was. Of course there would be some customers that had the amp without those features and could be initially frustrated but the thing is that upgrading the amp would have costed like a dollar, just replace a chip in a socket.

PS, the Charvel looks much better in real life with the curly maple top, koa back, etc. You can see some pictures of similar ones here: https://reverb.com/item/39933477-du...5-colori-purple-e-green-perfette-con-custodie
It was made in 1995 and I bought it super cheap here in Hong Kong for about 800$ in 2002 or 2003. Nobody wanted a guitar with Floyd back then and they offered huge discounts to get rid of those. They had 2, no original hard case case or anything, just the guitar. I still have it but I don't play it much because the volume knob position really bugs me!
Click to expand...
I have a similar issue with Stratocasters! I love the guitars… how they look and sound. But at some point my while developing my technique, the volume knob of them is just in my way. I chose just to accept that and move on. My ESP’s don’t have that issue.
 
laxu said:
So a JVM with more bass, sizzle and gain... ;)
Click to expand...
man... you guys really think too much!!!!
I meant less gain, more noise, no bass, more squealing, less dynamics, two parallel loops in series, full power amp feedback, definitely no choke and 2 or 3 more knobs.
 
Just fired up the JVM and DSL up side by side, pretty cool to hear each of them together. Gotta say, I way prefer the tones out of the DSL (without taking anything away from the JVM). JVM is way more compressed, smoother, more midrangey.

I feel like with the DSL I can get more aggressive, more raw, more loose, more scooped, while still having the ability to hone in on something like the JVM by just adjusting the EQ and using pedals. With the JVM it kind of forces you right into a more compressed and darker sound. The compression of the JVM really throws me off, it really reminds me of why I haven't gotten along with Diezels either.

The design of the JVM obviously allows for WAY more complex setups but on tone alone, DSL is so hard to beat.
 
MirrorProfiles said:
Just fired up the JVM and DSL up side by side, pretty cool to hear each of them together. Gotta say, I way prefer the tones out of the DSL (without taking anything away from the JVM). JVM is way more compressed, smoother, more midrangey.

I feel like with the DSL I can get more aggressive, more raw, more loose, more scooped, while still having the ability to hone in on something like the JVM by just adjusting the EQ and using pedals. With the JVM it kind of forces you right into a more compressed and darker sound. The compression of the JVM really throws me off, it really reminds me of why I haven't gotten along with Diezels either.

The design of the JVM obviously allows for WAY more complex setups but on tone alone, DSL is so hard to beat.
Click to expand...
I tried every single DSL in the line up. Seriously dropped a lot of coin. I could never gel with it to save my life. A lot of it had to do with the inherent brightness. On the other hand I love my JVM. I suspect the preferences might be due to speakers used, sensitivity to high frequencies and how much compression one likes. I guess it good to have options especially cheaper ones if you prefer the DSL’s.
 
KingsXJJ said:
I tried every single DSL in the line up. Seriously dropped a lot of coin. I could never gel with it to save my life. A lot of it had to do with the inherent brightness. On the other hand I love my JVM. I suspect the preferences might be due to speakers used, sensitivity to high frequencies and how much compression one likes. I guess it good to have options especially cheaper ones if you prefer the DSL’s.
Click to expand...
I’ve got basically every Celestion type in my studio, as well as different load boxes etc. I just like how DSL’s work in a mix, and they sound more like a classic Marshall. JVM has a kind of “over engineered” quality to it that works for really modern sounds but I just find it way too smoothed out for my tastes. Same goes for the AxeFX model which I also find too dark and smooth. Just preference though!
 
MirrorProfiles said:
I’ve got basically every Celestion type in my studio, as well as different load boxes etc. I just like how DSL’s work in a mix, and they sound more like a classic Marshall. JVM has a kind of “over engineered” quality to it that works for really modern sounds but I just find it way too smoothed out for my tastes. Same goes for the AxeFX model which I also find too dark and smooth. Just preference though!
Click to expand...
Totally preference and likely different sensitivities in the higher frequencies. It part of why Celestion offers so many speakers. It took me quite a few to find ones not to harsh for my taste. Same with Marshall’s for me as well. Headphones too. It’s a blessing and a curse. Using my own judgement helped me through it.
 
MirrorProfiles said:
Just fired up the JVM and DSL up side by side, pretty cool to hear each of them together. Gotta say, I way prefer the tones out of the DSL (without taking anything away from the JVM). JVM is way more compressed, smoother, more midrangey.

I feel like with the DSL I can get more aggressive, more raw, more loose, more scooped, while still having the ability to hone in on something like the JVM by just adjusting the EQ and using pedals. With the JVM it kind of forces you right into a more compressed and darker sound. The compression of the JVM really throws me off, it really reminds me of why I haven't gotten along with Diezels either.

The design of the JVM obviously allows for WAY more complex setups but on tone alone, DSL is so hard to beat.
Click to expand...

gear up arnold schwarzenegger GIF
 
MirrorProfiles said:
Just fired up the JVM and DSL up side by side, pretty cool to hear each of them together. Gotta say, I way prefer the tones out of the DSL (without taking anything away from the JVM). JVM is way more compressed, smoother, more midrangey.

I feel like with the DSL I can get more aggressive, more raw, more loose, more scooped, while still having the ability to hone in on something like the JVM by just adjusting the EQ and using pedals. With the JVM it kind of forces you right into a more compressed and darker sound. The compression of the JVM really throws me off, it really reminds me of why I haven't gotten along with Diezels either.

The design of the JVM obviously allows for WAY more complex setups but on tone alone, DSL is so hard to beat.
Click to expand...
Which DSL? 2000? Or modern one? H? HR?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top