|11-12-2012, 12:50 PM||#1|
Join Date: Sep 2011
JCM900 SL-X vs JCM900 Dual Reverb???
What are the major differences between these two, and why is the dual reverb rumored to be much worse? im deciding between the two, and im leaning more towards the SL-X, but they are much harder to find sooooo some information on why they are worth choosing over the dual rev would be greatly appreciated, thnx
|11-12-2012, 01:03 PM||#2|
Future Breed Machine
Join Date: Oct 2007
Okay, here's the rundown on the JCM900. There are three distinct JCM900s (disregarding wattage and form factor): The Dual Reverb, MKIII, and SL-X.
The Dual Reverb is really a hybrid amp, with much of its clipping in the preamp coming from solid state components (op-amps).
The MKIII is basically a hot-rodded JCM800 (based on the 2203/2204, depending on wattage).
The SL-X is basically a higher gain MKIII (One more preamp tube).
LTD MH-400 (SD Distortion/59)
Ibanez S970W (Dimarzio Evos)
ESP Eclipse II (Lace Finger Burners)
Agile Septor Pro 727 Maple Board (EMG 81-7s)
Peavey 5150 II
|11-12-2012, 04:28 PM||#5|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
SL-X is worth it if you can find one.
|12-12-2012, 05:57 AM||#6|
Grumpy Old Tech
Join Date: Oct 2009
The mk3 also has clipping diodes. Same clipping circuit as the much maligned jcm800 2210 actually.
The dual reverb has a shitload of op-amps and clipping diodes, many of them before v1.
The sl/x replaced the op-amps and diodes before v1. It retained op-amps for the two master volumes and the fx loop but they aren't really an issue.
Functionally, the sl/x is a single channel amp with two master volumes (one gain knob). The dual reverb is a two channel amp, neither of which hold a candle to the sl/x.
Gilchrist custom guitar
Abbey Harmonic II
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
|Thread Tools||Rate This Thread|