#1
http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/guitar_amplifiers/marshall/2266c_vintage_modern/index.html

I'm looking into purchasing this guys, for Christmas I'm getting an American series Stratocaster and my Laney GH100L is little too bright/ Harsh. I want a nice combo that can do cleans well as well as SRV/Hendrix tones so i thought I'd look into this

http://cachepe.samedaymusic.com/media/quality,85/brand,sameday/VM_combo_front-2345553b690c4b8400576652e7e0ea3e.jpg

My only concern is that, am i right in saying this only has one channel? Fed up of spending

GH100L £315
Orange 2x12 £387
PGM301 £769
Re-tube £100

And only 1 channel! meh irritating

Fender Stratocaster £750
Marshall 2266c £620

One channel?

Thanks
Anthony
Ibanez PGM301 signed by Paul Gilbert
Ibanez PGM 500
Ibanez Fireman custom
Saving for a GH100L/VH100R
Orange PPC212 2X12
#2
it has 2 'channels'

low and high. and then you have a mid boost button.

so you have 4 tones available to you the only problem is the mid boost isn't footswitchable so you only really have 2 tones readily available.

the problem is (IMO) that the best dirty tone has the boost engaged and the best clean doesn't have it engaged.

the 'low' channel with the boost is like a lightly overdriven sound and the 'high' channel without the boost is a medium gain sound that lacks balls. so in the end you have to put up with at least one 'meh' sound.

the best sound for you would probably be the low channel and just changing the mid boost but you can't do that easily. if it had the mid boost switch footswitchable, it'd be awesome. but it doesn't (at least that's what the sales guy told me when I asked him to check the footswitch).
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#3
Many thanks for your input

the best dirty tone has the boost engaged and the best clean doesn't have it engaged.

Surely that's how you'd like it to be?

Dirty-Distorted

Clean-Clean
Ibanez PGM301 signed by Paul Gilbert
Ibanez PGM 500
Ibanez Fireman custom
Saving for a GH100L/VH100R
Orange PPC212 2X12
#4
your gunna get a pretty decent gilbert sound out of that
#5
Quote by sharpant
Many thanks for your input

the best dirty tone has the boost engaged and the best clean doesn't have it engaged.

Surely that's how you'd like it to be?

Dirty-Distorted

Clean-Clean

yeah, but it's impossible to get that combination of tones without actually walking up to the amp and pushing the button on the front.

EDIT: and you're looking for a bluesy tone yes?

even for that you'd be best having the completely clean 'low' and then for your slightly overdriven stuff you'd want the mid boost on the low channel.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
Last edited by Lemoninfluence at Oct 31, 2008,
#6
Quote by Zanon
your gunna get a pretty decent gilbert sound out of that


That's nice too know, and yea I'm aware he uses it. However that is not my primary concern for this amp, i have my GH100L with high gain JJ's for that.
Ibanez PGM301 signed by Paul Gilbert
Ibanez PGM 500
Ibanez Fireman custom
Saving for a GH100L/VH100R
Orange PPC212 2X12
#7
Quote by Zanon
your gunna get a pretty decent gilbert sound out of that


Doesn't Slash use the Vintage Modern with Velvet? (The head... obviously)

I've tried out the vintage modern and loved it.

If you don't want the single channel then get something else. Have you tried the amp?

You could try to roll back the volume on the guitar for some cleans if you have the gain about 4-5 maybe more/
For sale
BC Rich Mockingbird Exotic Classic in Koa
Dean VMNT in Silver
Marshall TSL JCM2000 Head

PM For info!


My band
#8
Well I'm comparing this with the ENGL Screamer, its out of those two for nice fat warm cleans that can also do metal
Ibanez PGM301 signed by Paul Gilbert
Ibanez PGM 500
Ibanez Fireman custom
Saving for a GH100L/VH100R
Orange PPC212 2X12
#9
i'd personally go for the marshall, the ENGL would obviously be alot better for metal, however the marshall does appear to be more versatile.
To be fair you don't need ridiculous amounts of gain to get a good metal sound. Usually if you crank a valve amp you get these brilliant overtones and harmonics, how you hit the strings etc contributes too.

If you need that extra bit of oomph i suggest a TS9 or a Xotic pedal, they will easily do the trick. I might even get one of these myself!
#10
Quote by darrenjables
Doesn't Slash use the Vintage Modern with Velvet? (The head... obviously)

He uses a Fulltone OCD over it.


I dunno, personally, I didn't like the Vintage Modern at all. Very fizzy type of distortion. It's a very expensive amp (in the US), for what it offers. That's why I never mention it.

I'd be more inclined to recommend the ENGL..
#11
Something rubs me the wrong way about the way the high end is driven with the Vintage Modern, it IS fizzy and a little bit harsh but I never got a chance to really open one up on the master volume. I imagine they would sound much much better, KT66s really need to be pushed to sound their best.
#13
The cabs are awesome though. They're probably the best cabs Marshall makes outside of the HW 1960s.
#14
Quote by Lemoninfluence
it has 2 'channels'

low and high. and then you have a mid boost button.

so you have 4 tones available to you the only problem is the mid boost isn't footswitchable so you only really have 2 tones readily available.

the problem is (IMO) that the best dirty tone has the boost engaged and the best clean doesn't have it engaged.

the 'low' channel with the boost is like a lightly overdriven sound and the 'high' channel without the boost is a medium gain sound that lacks balls. so in the end you have to put up with at least one 'meh' sound.

the best sound for you would probably be the low channel and just changing the mid boost but you can't do that easily. if it had the mid boost switch footswitchable, it'd be awesome. but it doesn't (at least that's what the sales guy told me when I asked him to check the footswitch).


There's no way of getting a footswitch specially for that issue? He's buying the combo version, I believe that with the head and the cabinets (which are great) it will sound a lot better than a 'meh' sound
#15
Quote by symba05
There's no way of getting a footswitch specially for that issue? He's buying the combo version, I believe that with the head and the cabinets (which are great) it will sound a lot better than a 'meh' sound

I tried both the combo and the head and cab.

the head and cab is better but I'd still describe the high channel without the mid boost as 'meh'. It didn't make me think 'wow', it didn't even make me think 'nice'. It was just 'ok, so that's the amp on high without the boost'.

and I asked specifically whether the mid boost was footswitchable and the guy went and checked and came back with a 'no'.

I also checked the VM handbook on the marshall site and it only mentions the channel switching and Reverb on the footswitch.

EDIT: I'll mention that I tried the head and cab only with an american strat whereas I also put a 52 tele and a jackson rr24 through the combo.

I tried them with 2 mates, both looking at new amps. one has an american strat, the other has a 52 tele and an ESP Viper with an EMG 81 in the bridge, they didn't have one of those so I picked the guitar i was most interested in that had an 81 in.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
Last edited by Lemoninfluence at Oct 31, 2008,
#16
Quote by Lemoninfluence
I tried both the combo and the head and cab.

the head and cab is better but I'd still describe the high channel without the mid boost as 'meh'. It didn't make me think 'wow', it didn't even make me think 'nice'. It was just 'ok, so that's the amp on high without the boost'.

and I asked specifically whether the mid boost was footswitchable and the guy went and checked and came back with a 'no'.

I also checked the VM handbook on the marshall site and it only mentions the channel switching and Reverb on the footswitch.


I see you've got the Marshall JCM900, how does it sound compared to the vintage modern?
#17
I prefer it but it's not the traditional marshall sound.

It's got nice cleans and a more modern, hi-gain dirty channel than you'd expect from a marshall.

you do have more control with the VM (you have 2 gain controls effectively, one controls the higher end and the other controls the low end and then you have the EQ on top of that) but I've been able to get tones I like out of the 900 with relative ease.

even when I'm playing at home with my squier it sounds decent, but put one of my mates guitar through it on stage and turn it up and it sounds really nice.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#18
Quote by al112987
Something rubs me the wrong way about the way the high end is driven with the Vintage Modern, it IS fizzy and a little bit harsh but I never got a chance to really open one up on the master volume. I imagine they would sound much much better, KT66s really need to be pushed to sound their best.

I turned the one I was playing up quite a bit...Still shitty and fizzy.
#19
^ +1

it sounded vaguely decent at pretty high volumes, but still wasn't overly impressed at all.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#20
Yes, I would definitely try out quite a few more amps if that one impressed you. It wasn't a bad amp by any means. But I know for a fact that there are amps with better/more tone for less money.
1979 Gibson Les Paul Silverburst
James Tyler Variax JTV89
Schecter C1 Classic
Ibanez RG520QS
Greg Bennett Torino TR4

Mesa Boogie Dual Rectifier
GSP1101 & Pod X3 Pro
Peavey 5150 & JSX
Bugera 6262 & 333XL
Carvin V3
Spider Valve HD100
#21
I'd imagine that getting the kt66s working at higher volumes would at least smooth out the tone, they tend to be a little harsh on the top end at low volumes. Maybe you're running the preamp gain too high, I'm talking about the low dynamic channel (it's not really a clean channel), the high dynamic channel sounds like crap (I imagine what's what most of you guys use?)

The dual gain controls are nice though, a lot like bridging the channels of a 4 input Marshall.
#22
yeah, it definitely helped when the volume got up. I can't remember which of the two channels i tried, i imagine it was both as i'm normally pretty thorough.

The big problem i had with the two volumes was that it was really hard (if not impossible) to dial out the harshness without it turning muddy (and vice-versa)...
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#23
^I agree.

Definitely see why Slash and Paul Gilbert just use a Fulltone OCD on top with this amp.

Quote by al112987
I'd imagine that getting the kt66s working at higher volumes would at least smooth out the tone, they tend to be a little harsh on the top end at low volumes. Maybe you're running the preamp gain too high, I'm talking about the low dynamic channel (it's not really a clean channel), the high dynamic channel sounds like crap (I imagine what's what most of you guys use?)

I did turn it up a bit, just not my cup of tea. I agree, the low dynamic channel (or whatever it's called( was more usable.

Quote by theraven871
But I know for a fact that there are amps with better/more tone for less money.

this statement kinda does make it a bad amp, in some respects.
Certainly not worthy of the Marshall name or Marshall price tag...
#24
I wouldn't trust marshall to do a marshall amp, I'd take a splawn for old school marshall tones over this anyday.
I don't give a shit if you listen to me or not
#25
Hmm.....I tried and liked this amp a lot, although I was in a soundproofed amp room and I did dime the volume. Set with most of the other tone knobs all around 5 (from what I remember, this was a few months ago), the VM created this really singing, ripping overdrive.....not fizzy at all. No boost or whatever, using a Gibson Les Paul neck pick-up.

That being said, this amp is way too costly for being Marshall's "bare bones" rock amp.....I don't know why they can't just give us a JCM 800 kind of amp for a bit under a grand and ride that to the bank. It ticks me off that Marshall says this amp was built to respond to "demands from working musicians" and it costs so much.
'Cause I have done it before and I will do it some more....