Fractal Amp - Marshall Major Go Fund Me

mr_fender said:
We have the Plexi 2204 which is the 50 watt version of the early JMP master volume amps.
Click to expand...

The very early 2204‘s are lower gain amps, they don’t have the same circuit as the 2203 or 2204’s that followed.

I have some 2203’s and 2204’s of different years, the JMP’s have some lower B+ voltages which can make them feel squishier and a little quieter. I have an 82 2204 that’s louder and brighter
 
holgar said:
This is true. Even within the JCM 800 series 2203, there were wide differences between 390 and 450V. I do not remember if the reason was the change between Dagnall and Drake transformers.
Click to expand...
JCM800 2203’s also gradually had fewer and fewer filter caps as time went on (only applies to horizontal input 2203’s). Vertical inputs had 6, then it went to 5, 4 and finally 3 I believe (possibly 4). 2204’s always had 3. Some 800 combos also had a capacitor on the mid pot to alter the voicing slightly
 
Yeah the early ones had parallel input stages like a Plexi, while the later ones had series like the JCM 800 2203/4. Early Marshall models are all over the place, so it can be confusing as hell.
 
What I've heard (and I'm always on the Marshall forum where some true SMEs on Marshalls hang out...I'm not on their level, admittedly...) is that the lower plate voltage was a response to the lower plate voltage tolerance of available power tubes as the legendary tubes of the golden days became unavailable. They started making the amps with lower plate voltage so that current production power tubes could be used.
 
Would prefer the 1967, Flegg designed "Pig" over the later 200w Major, but good luck finding an original sample.....

35599267683_9238794cc2_c.jpg
 
MirrorProfiles said:
The very early 2204‘s are lower gain amps, they don’t have the same circuit as the 2203 or 2204’s that followed.

I have some 2203’s and 2204’s of different years, the JMP’s have some lower B+ voltages which can make them feel squishier and a little quieter. I have an 82 2204 that’s louder and brighter
Click to expand...
I've heard that early 2204s (and 2203s) are lower gain, but I have never seen any evidence of it. From what I have managed to glean over the last 30 years (I was a little late in taking an interest, as for the first 15 years of 2203/2204 being available, I couldn't afford one of them), the preamp circuit never really changed all that much. Turning a 1959 or 1987 circuit into a 2203 or 2204 is not a particularly challenging job either.

The UK JMP Master Volume models had plenty of B+ compared to anything that followed, as they were generally equipped with Blackburn-made Mullard valves. I think they probably lowered B+ in the early 80s when valve manufacture moved to less experienced factories. But late 70's 2203s move air like nothing else on earth, right up there with Hiwatt DR103s and silverface Fender Twins.

Those early Master Volume Marshalls tend to sound a little warmer to me, and some of that might be attributable to using up mustard caps and carbon comp resistors. Amps I've owned from '77 and '78 have a few of those components, and they might have seemed dated by the low tech at the time, but it's definitely appreciated nowadays. But squishier and quieter? Not really my experience. In fact my favourite 2203 (late JMP, 1980 I think, ex-BBC) is still alive and well and in my studio, and it's unholy loud, bright and lacking in squish. Possibly the most obnoxious amp I have ever come across, and has been looking after my tone production on and off for decades now.

The bit that really gets to me, and I know it's a bit purist, but 2204 Plexi? There might have been some plexi control panel Marshalls as late as 1973, but the 2203 and 2204 didn't surface until at least a couple of years later. I've come across lever rather than rocker switch 2203 models (and one of them was sublime, but unfortunately not for sale), but I have to doubt there was ever a plexi 2204 from the factory.

All of that aside, Fractal models of late 1970's Marshalls have been better than ever these last couple of years. Have never been sure if 200W "Pig" or "Major" models will add anything too significant to the omelette. I'll try one or both of them if they turn up, but if I'm honest, not really on the bucket list for me.

Liam
 
Marshall ended plexi panels for the 1959, 1987, and related models in mid 1969. Some other models like the 18 and 20 watt lead and bass models may have kept plexi panels on them a bit longer but that'd apparently have to do with quantity of panels in stock and amp inventory more than anything else. Eventually even such amps as the 2061 TMB got metal panels.

I should know this stuff, as I've made it a side hustle of mine to make highly accurate reproduction front and rear panels for most JTM and JMP era Marshall amps, both in metal (gold brush anodized aluminum) and in plexi.

No plexi master volume Marshall (2203 or 2204) has ever been seen by anybody I know. But I could make those panels if there was demand.

I own three Superleads and one 2203. (My second 2203) The Superleads actually, when running with jumpered channels, move air in ways that the 2203 just can't match. Roll in some bass channel volume and the guitar tone takes on a really menacing rumble.

I find that the Superleads come into their own when hit with a respectable clean boosted signal into their front ends. And when run loud. There's no getting around it, a Superlead has to be run loud in order to open up and sound right. It gets brutal but it's sure fun!
 
Darrin66 said:
Guys, my intention was to maybe try to take some of the cost off of Cliff when requesting new models, instead of just complaining when the new updates come out and I’m not super interested in the latest amp model addition (btw, if he added every other Marshall model there is, I wouldn’t complain). I truly appreciate all of the free updates, and understand how much time and money Cliff must put into them. It’s absolutely unique and is so far from the typical product development and support model that most other companies must think he’s insane. I think it’s brilliant. So why shouldn’t I be able to float this idea and see if people who are interested and are requesting models put their money where their mouth is? Cliff is free to say he’s not interested, and I’m fine with that. I’m sure he has a billion things on his plate, I was just trying to make something a little easier to accomplish in case it might be a possibility.

Ever since I joined this forum I noticed a weird vibe, like I’m butting in line or something. Then there’s the guy above who thinks I started this topic to sell a friends amp?!? Seriously man! Guys, I’ll be up front, you may not like me, but I’m only here to enjoy this wonderful unit and push to help make it better, in my opinion, and I don’t think telling it like I see it is is breaching forum etiquette. If you don’t like what I’m doing, have your say but I’m not going to lay down and die or go away just because I’m new here.
Click to expand...
Your request is fine-many make requests...But the go fund me? Not so much.
 
I think we can agree that there are more amps that COULD be modelled in our Fractals, than ever will be. But how many are really so distinctively different from the others that they really earn their place in a limited amount of memory?

I'd be glad to loan Cliff my Fender 400PS if he really wanted to model it, but the unique thing about a 400PS is that it's one of a tiny handful of amps that outclasses a Marshall Major in sheer output. Putting out 435 watts RMS, by conservative estimate. A healthy example with strong tubes can push out over 500 watts, no problem. But its voicing isn't unusual so it doesn't earn a place in line for modelling. It's just a really loud Fender.

And then there's the comparatively mild Fender Super Twin Reverb, with 5 band rotary EQ knobs instead of the usual bass, mid and treble, coming in at just 180 watts RMS. Ted Nugent used several of them in the early 70s. Play them with a Byrdland and you're Stormtroopin'!

I would like to see Cliff add a model for an ultralinear 70 watt Pro Reverb. That would be nice. Those have a clean tone that's worthy of inclusion, if you ask me.

I'd like for it to be possible for a user to pick and choose which models go into his Fractal, out of a larger library.

But I'm not going to be pushing for any of this. Cliff no doubt knows about a ton of amps that aren't modelled and has his own way of picking and choosing which ones he's going to give us. Heck, he's done some pretty amazing things, in some cases he has had specific legendary amps come across his bench for modelling, such as James Hetfield's Mesa Mark IIC+ known as Crunchberries. When you play the IIC+ model, you're using the actual model taken from Crunchberries. How cool is THAT?
 
woodbutcher65 said:
When you play the IIC+ model, you're using the actual model taken from Crunchberries.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that the IIC+ was not modeled on Hetfield's Crunchberries amp, but was actually modeled on Cliff's IIC+:
FractalAudio said:
There's been a lot of complaining about the Mark IIC+ models. So I begrudgingly dragged the amp out of storage today (as it weighs a metric ton) and repeated the measurements and did some A/B tests. As expected the models are extremely accurate.

That being said it is a bear to dial in. Here are some tips:

1. The old version of the model incorrectly referenced the Mark IV tone stack. These tone stacks are identical except for the taper of the mid pot. The IIC+ has a linear pot and the Mark IV has a Log10 pot. I had it backwards in my earlier comments. My guess is that Mesa found that turning the midrange down sounds best (and it does) so they changed the pot taper to do this automatically since noon on a Log10 pot is equal to a 1.0 on a linear pot.

2. Commensurate with (1) I found myself turning the midrange down as well as the bass and turning the treble up.

3. I think the default Master Volume value is a bit high so you may want to turn that down. I've reduced the default for Quantum 2.03.

4. Turn the bright switch on. Every bit of information I've found says that people typically used the Pull Bright on the Volume knob. This is equivalent to the Bright switch under the Treble control on the model. I always turn it on and I've set it on by default for Q2.03.

5. USE THE EQ. The tone stack is pre-distortion which is atypical for a high-gain amp. Tone stacks are almost always post-distortion. Since the tone stack is pre-distortion you need to do your post distortion tone shaping using the EQ. The tone controls set the feel and the distortion texture, the EQ shapes the final tone. I like to do a gentle V-curve.

These were my settings for a killer high-gain tone:
Model: USA IIC+
Input Drive: 8.1
Overdrive: 9-10
Bass: 1.0
Midrange: 1.8
Treble: 8.9
Presence: 4.5
MV: 4.0
Level: -20 dB
Bright Switch ON
80 Hz: 4.8
240 Hz: 2.6
750 Hz: -4.5
2200: -0.2
6600: 0
Click to expand...
I'd add that the model sounds fantastic and absolutely gets you well within the ballpark of the Metallica sound when properly dialed in. It might not be Hetfield's own specific amp, but there's no reason that you can't get the same kind of sound from the model.
 
I had heard before that it was actually modelled on Hetfield's amp. I'm very personally familiar with Mark IIs, IIIs, and IVs, having owned versions of all of them, and it's that unique tone controls before distortion and EQ post distortion circuit that gives such incredible tone shaping ability to Mark series amps.

Especially the post distortion EQ. It led me to start using a 31 band graphic EQ in the effects loop on most any amp. It allows tonal shaping a lot like the 5 band, but with enormously greater precision. Tones can be tweaked to absolute perfection with it.
 
holgar said:
This is true. Even within the JCM 800 series 2203, there were wide differences between 390 and 450V. I do not remember if the reason was the change between Dagnall and Drake transformers.
Click to expand...
My 2203X is 450v on the plates and sounds absolutely brilliant… deeper chunk on the low strings and glassier bite on the high strings than the model. I absolutely love it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom