..

[paisleywookiee]

...

 

[southpawdd]

No DSL5 head either. I picked up a DSL1 head for $270 last week just to give it a spin.

 

[EOengineer]

I’ve been beating this drum for years. The modern DSL lineup tells me Marshall has lost the pulse. The studio series seemed like a step in the right direction, but they never followed up with a fully featured lower wattage DSL.

Aside from us morons collecting 100w beasts, gigging and working guitarists aren’t looking for 100w amps anymore, especially with Marshall where you want that power amp cooking a bit to get the best out of it. Not to mention tube prices now.

So much wasted potential.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I’ve been beating this drum for years. The modern DSL lineup tells me Marshall has lost the pulse. The studio series seemed like a step in the right direction, but they never followed up with a fully featured lower wattage DSL.

Aside from us morons collecting 100w beasts, gigging and working guitarists aren’t looking for 100w amps anymore, especially with Marshall where you want that power amp cooking a bit to get the best out of it. Not to mention tube prices now.

So much wasted potential.

I think they’re in a tough position of sabotaging their own products. The studio series amps already cost more than a DSL100H, and have less features/channels.

The DSL already makes the prices of their 2203x and JCM900 4100 in particular look a bit nuts (especially as they’re all using Vietnamese made transformers now). Would a Studio Series DSL cost the same as the SC20/SV20/JTM20? They already do a DSL20 that by all accounts is pretty good, and probably fits in at the right price with the rest of what they offer.

 

[EOengineer]

I think they’re in a tough position of sabotaging their own products. The studio series amps already cost more than a DSL100H, and have less features/channels.

The DSL already makes the prices of their 2203x and JCM900 4100 in particular look a bit nuts (especially as they’re all using Vietnamese made transformers now). Would a Studio Series DSL cost the same as the SC20/SV20/JTM20? They already do a DSL20 that by all accounts is pretty good, and probably fits in at the right price with the rest of what they offer.

We’re in agreement on the disarray in their line up, but the DSL20 missing the crunch channel makes that amp a very significant step down from the 40w.

IMO the 20w DSL feels like a gimmick, especially since they’re throwing a pair of EL34s into those amps. Just make the 50w, give it a half power option, ditch the 20w altogether.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

We’re in agreement on the disarray in their line up, but the DSL20 missing the crunch channel makes that amp a very significant step down from the 40w.

IMO the 20w DSL feels like a gimmick, especially since they’re throwing a pair of EL34s into those amps. Just make the 50w, give it a half power option, ditch the 20w altogether.

Yeah no real disagreement there. I haven’t used a DSL20 but it did seem quite popular online. There’s definitely enough people converting their 40’s into heads to show there’s demand for a proper 50W head.

IMO a 50W head sized like the DSL 20 would be fine. But I still think it would be tough for them to position that product at a price that makes sense with everything else they make. IMO the DSL 100 just offers too much value for money - the fancier amps don’t sound any better, they’re just more recognisable models and built to a slightly higher spec. The DSL is in many ways a better amp pound for pound - all the tone, better features, lower price. I also wonder if DSL50H sales would affect sales of the 100W and they’d rather just keep production going on those while they’re still moving.

 

[Byrdman]

I’ve been beating this drum for years. The modern DSL lineup tells me Marshall has lost the pulse. The studio series seemed like a step in the right direction, but they never followed up with a fully featured lower wattage DSL.

Aside from us morons collecting 100w beasts, gigging and working guitarists aren’t looking for 100w amps anymore, especially with Marshall where you want that power amp cooking a bit to get the best out of it. Not to mention tube prices now.

So much wasted potential.

So if you were the production head what would be your take on it? A multi-channel full featured DSL 50 with a built in attenuator so you can run it at 5 & 20 watts? If so, how many would sell considering the current line up?

 

[Byrdman]

We’re in agreement on the disarray in their line up, but the DSL20 missing the crunch channel makes that amp a very significant step down from the 40w.

IMO the 20w DSL feels like a gimmick, especially since they’re throwing a pair of EL34s into those amps. Just make the 50w, give it a half power option, ditch the 20w altogether.

Looks like we are thinking along the same lines

 

[EOengineer]

Yeah no real disagreement there. I haven’t used a DSL20 but it did seem quite popular online. There’s definitely enough people converting their 40’s into heads to show there’s demand for a proper 50W head.

IMO a 50W head sized like the DSL 20 would be fine. But I still think it would be tough for them to position that product at a price that makes sense with everything else they make. IMO the DSL 100 just offers too much value for money - the fancier amps don’t sound any better, they’re just more recognisable models and built to a slightly higher spec. The DSL is in many ways a better amp pound for pound - all the tone, better features, lower price. I also wonder if DSL50H sales would affect sales of the 100W and they’d rather just keep production going on those while they’re still moving.

I’m not sure how Marshall fixes the nightmare that is their current catalog of offerings without acknowledging how grossly overpriced their amps have become. 3k+ for a 4100 and 1959/2203 reissues is absurd given how many of those are single channel amps with no switching whatsoever. They've really made a mess.

To your last point, and this is probably controversial, IMO there’s not a great reason for Marshall to push out 100w amps anymore. I get it with Mesa and some other brands that rely on clean power amplification, but Marshalls want the phase inverter clipping a bit to give up the goods and most working guitarists arent in environments where that’s possible with that much iron.

I don’t know how they fix this without admitting they’ve been fleecing everyone on their reissues for years. Although I guess Fender has a working business model for this with their American Vintage line.

So if you were the production head what would be your take on it? A multi-channel full featured DSL 50 with a built in attenuator so you can run it at 5 & 20 watts? If so, how many would sell considering the current line up?

I’d love to see a 50w DSL combo and head offering with the 2 sides of the amp set up so you have clean a crunch on side 1, and crunch and lead (maybe just crunch with another 12ax7 stage switched in) on side 2. Maybe independent tone controls but maybe it can all work shared. Power scaling might be an option depending on the price point we’re trying to hit.

Dump the 20/40/100, help control the price by consolidating the manufacturing process.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

To your last point, and this is probably controversial, IMO there’s not a great reason for Marshall to push out 100w amps anymore. I get it with Mesa and some other brands that rely on clean power amplification, but Marshalls want the phase inverter clipping a bit to give up the goods and most working guitarists arent in environments where that’s possible with that much iron.

I don’t know how they fix this without admitting they’ve been fleecing everyone on their reissues for years. Although I guess Fender has a working business model for this with their American Vintage line.

I get your point, but honestly I don’t really like the sound of MOST Marshalls cranked. It works for the amps without a master volume (obviously), and also the amps like Vintage Modern and 2150 that have a PPIMV. Those masters absolutely need to be cranked.

With the other amps, I actually prefer having headroom in the power section and generally go for the 100W versions when possible. I also feel like if the circuit was designed as 100W first and then scaled down to lower, I’d rather have the circuit as designed.

JTM45 and even 1987’s make sense as a 50W, the 100W was born out of their circuits.

Marshall is such a legacy brand now that developing new amps is a big risk when so many people just want a traditional Plexi or 2203 or Jubilee made “just like they used to”. It’s not unlike Gibson where people have a very narrow idea of what they want from the brand. The Studio Series are kind of like souvenirs that seem quite popular and scratch an itch for people

 

[la szum]

For the record, I really like the DSL20. But yeah, it missing that green crunch REALLY hurts the amp.
I do think the EL34’s in all of their 20w amps is awesome. Gimmick or not, they do have a beefy low end, and don’t suffer that same weird mids sizzle a lot of EL84 amps do.

Yup. Last month I bought one of the Origin 20 Heads Marshall is discontinuing. If it didn't have the EL34s I would not have.

 

[la szum]

It is disappearing from all of the majour on line retailers, and they had
closeout pricing, and once sold there is no restocking.

So, an half-assed assumption on my part.

 

[spawnofthesith]

I heard a rumor that Marshall is going to start handling their US distribution directly. Maaaaybe US prices will start to make a little more sense if that is true

 

[Whizzinby]

Played the DSL40CR yesterday quite a bit (haven't done so in quite awhile), BUT I plugged the chassis into a BL50 combo's speaker. Whoa. Dude. So good with the Creamback.
Which begs the eternal DSL40 question: Why no head? Granted, the DSL100HR can do 50w, but it's bigger and more expensive than what a "DSL40HR" would theoretically be. Makes me want to get one and toss it into a Mojotone headshell.

I had a DSL40CR and swapped out the speaker for one of my Mesa V30’s and it made a big difference too. Killer amp. I’d love to have that amp in head format without having to fall back to a boinked 20w version or a 100w flamethrower. The 40 was ridiculously loud enough, and had plenty of headroom.

 

[Whizzinby]

I heard a rumor that Marshall is going to start handling their US distribution directly. Maaaaybe US prices will start to make a little more sense if that is true

My house would probably be a Marshall showroom if I could get them at the prices they go for overseas.

I still regret not nabbing the JVM on that $2200 blowout sale, that almost felt free considering Marshall’s standard pricing. lol

 

[Frodebro]

My house would probably be a Marshall showroom if I could get them at the prices they go for overseas.

I still regret not nabbing the JVM on that $2200 blowout sale, that almost felt free considering Marshall’s standard pricing. lol

You and me both.

 

[spawnofthesith]

I'm not saying you're wrong, however I do know they've got zero distribution in the US right now. So that's causing quite a bit of issues in that regard.

Sounds in line with what I've heard

 

[Byrdman]

I heard a rumor that Marshall is going to start handling their US distribution directly. Maaaaybe US prices will start to make a little more sense if that is true

God, I hope so!!

 

[Byrdman]

Yup. Last month I bought one of the Origin 20 Heads Marshall is discontinuing. If it didn't have the EL34s I would not have.

Maybe I can pick up a 50w one day on the used circuit. BTW, those SC20H JCM 800's are FIRE!!! I saw a band play last weekend and the lead guitarist had a SC20H, Marshall Vertical 212, and a Gibson LP. No pedals or anything else. It was so loud and sounded so good, I want one so bad now, but not $1750 bad, lol...

 

[Frodebro]

Maybe I can pick up a 50w one day on the used circuit. BTW, those SC20H JCM 800's are FIRE!!! I saw a band play last weekend and the lead guitarist had a SC20H, Marshall Vertical 212, and a Gibson LP. No pedals or anything else. It was so loud and sounded so good, I want one so bad now, but not $1750 bad, lol...

Yep, I want all three of the Studio amps, but not for those prices.