# JMP vs Superlead



## Crawford354

Hey Guys,

Just curious, what are the tonal differences between a 70's JMP and a late 60's Superlead? Are they pretty similar? Because I've heard people use the two terms interchangeably. For example, would the JMP-1 actually be a 1959 super lead 1? Thanks in advance for all replies. Also sorry in advance if there are already threads here about this, I couldn't find any haha.


----------



## janarn

The first JMP Super Leads came mid 1967, and they lasted to 1981.
A JMP-1 has little or nothing in common with a SL.


----------



## LMP2204

Well it started off with the JTM series in beginning. Then came the JMP series Which stands for Jim Marshall Products, just a logo or designation of a certain era you will find on Late 60s marshall amps up until 1981. Then they went on to the JCM series. the superlead has gone through a few circuit tweaks in its original run and gradually increased gain for the demands of rock n roll. SO having that said plexi era superleads and metal face superleads are very similar.


----------



## Crawford354

Thanks for the replies!


----------



## Marshall Guru

*The JMP-1 is a recently released 1 watt Marshall amp.*

*Just to be clear, "Super Lead" refers to the 100 watt models only (made from around 1967 to 1980). The 50 watt model was never called a Super Lead.*


----------



## damienbeale

Marshall Guru said:


> *Just to be clear, "Super Lead" refers to the 100 watt models only (made from around 1967 to 1980).*



Excuse me? They never ever stopped making the superlead. There were JCM800 versions right up until the re-issues appeared.

What does need clearing up is that JMP is a series. Within that series, there were many different 100W amps (Super Lead, Super Bass, Super Tremolo, Super PA with 8 inputs) AND many different 50W amps (Lead, Bass, Lead & Bass, Organ, Tremolo and the 8 input PA amp was also called Super PA despite being 50W, whilst there was also a PA model which was a four input version, just to confuse the issue further), not to mention the 100W Master MkII amp introduced in 1975 (2203) and the 50W Master MkII amp introduced in 1976 (2204). 

There was also many combo's of the above, also lower wattage combo's and variations, and the 20W amps in head and combo form.


Then there was the all-singing all-dancing footswitchable programmable valve pre-amp JMP1 in the 90's that is no relation, and now you have the JMP-1 head and combo, which is supposed to be representative of the JMP era's tone, but in reality, don't sound that much alike and have more gain.


----------



## chuckelator

Some say, that when Marshall switched from PTP to PCB in their amps (which happened in early/mid 1973, if I remember correctly), the PTP amps had a smoother overall tone, while the PCB amps are a bit more aggressive and brighter... I don't know myself, as my 1973 50w is a PCB amp, and is the only benchmark I have for vintage Marshalls (other than a few mid 80's JCM 800's I've played)...All I know is it sounds like a Marshall and peals the paint off the walls (in the best possible way, of course)


----------



## damienbeale

chuckelator said:


> Some say, that when Marshall switched from PTP to PCB in their amps (which happened in early/mid 1973, if I remember correctly), the PTP amps had a smoother overall tone, while the PCB amps are a bit more aggressive and brighter... I don't know myself, as my 1973 50w is a PCB amp, and is the only benchmark I have for vintage Marshalls (other than a few mid 80's JCM 800's I've played)...All I know is it sounds like a Marshall and peals the paint off the walls (in the best possible way, of course)



Nah, that's rubbish. PTP/PCB debate is stupid. The earlier turretboard amps had a smoother tone because of greater negative feedback, and other preamp changes. If you compare several turretboard and PCB amps from 1973, there will be no difference that you could attribute to the boards.


----------



## keennay

JMP's (aside from the re-issues) were built until 1984, with the Scandinavian market being the last to receive them.


----------



## Marshall Guru

damienbeale said:


> Excuse me? They never ever stopped making the superlead. There were JCM800 versions right up until the re-issues appeared.


 
You are correct! The JCM 800 Model 1959 that I had didn't say "Super Lead" on the back.


----------



## dreyn77

they can call a 50 watter a PA because all marshalls are ( as far as the law is concerned) 'public address equipment'. 

Wasn't there a contract the jim had bck in the day where he was in partnership with another company and they had the equal rights to $$$'s on any JMP amp sold, so Jim got out of the contract and redesigned the jmp and labelled it the 800 so he didn't have to pay others.?


----------



## damienbeale

But the PA amps have different voicings to the other circuits too. The 8 input super PA variants don't quite behave like the other amps until you disable one of the input pairs. These amps are slightly more neutral, and are great with pedals.

Rose Morris was the distributor, who had a very strong deal in their favour. I'm not certain whether or not the Rose-Morris deal covered the UK or not, though. And yes, JCM800 was just a cosmetic re-vamp, although they did come out with two new split channel models, and soon after an all new solid state range, that unlike the previous JMP SS efforts, was actually good.


----------



## jerryjg

damienbeale said:


> Nah, that's rubbish. PTP/PCB debate is stupid. The earlier turretboard amps had a smoother tone because of greater negative feedback, and other preamp changes. If you compare several turretboard and PCB amps from 1973, there will be no difference that you could attribute to the boards.



Thats not entirely true. There *are some early PTP '73's that have the exact same circuit as as a 68-69 Plexi. I have one, and I can die happy. You won't find this I don't believe in a circuitboard (PCB) Superlead metalpanel.


----------



## ejeffre

I have a 72 JMP and had a 79 JMP. I think the 72 has a bit more clean head room and a little less crunch when cranked. I also had a 1987x reissue which was a great amp. If you are in the market for one and don't want to spend over a grand, look for a 1987x. They are really nice.


----------



## bulldozer1984

jerryjg said:


> Thats not entirely true. There *are some early PTP '73's that have the exact same circuit as as a 68-69 Plexi. I have one, and I can die happy. You won't find this I don't believe in a circuitboard (PCB) Superlead metalpanel.



What Damo is trying to say is that if you get 2 SL's with the same components and the only difference being PCB vs PTP, there will be no noticable tonal difference.. 

He used the "73" comparison as you are more likely to get 2 amps identical circuit wise and the only difference being PTP vs PCB in that year as that was the year they changed over..

I bet if you took all the components off of a PCB amp and put in a PTP board using those same components it would sound the freaking same.. 

So to summarize.. The difference's come from circuit changes and component changes themselves - not the difference between PCB vs PTP..

Oh that was draining to write all that..


----------



## damienbeale

jerryjg said:


> Thats not entirely true. There *are some early PTP '73's that have the exact same circuit as as a 68-69 Plexi. I have one, and I can die happy. You won't find this I don't believe in a circuitboard (PCB) Superlead metalpanel.


No there aren't Jerry. The circuit changed and developed between 68 and 69, 69 and 70, and changed quite a bit after 70 and became much more aggressive.
You will not find a single stock amp from '72 and on anything like a '68 or '69 amp. Vast difference in filtering and voicing.

But the circuit did NOT change in '73 between going from turretboard to PCB construction.


----------



## damienbeale

ejeffre said:


> I have a 72 JMP and had a 79 JMP. I think the 72 has a bit more clean head room and a little less crunch when cranked. I also had a 1987x reissue which was a great amp. If you are in the market for one and don't want to spend over a grand, look for a 1987x. They are really nice.



If either were 50W amps, or even both (assuming the 72 had the higher voltage PT), this may be attributed to the lower voltage of the 79 amp, which would brown out the preamp, and drive easier.


----------



## jerryjg

damienbeale said:


> No there aren't Jerry. The circuit changed and developed between 68 and 69, 69 and 70, and changed quite a bit after 70 and became much more aggressive.
> You will not find a single stock amp from '72 and on anything like a '68 or '69 amp. Vast difference in filtering and voicing.
> 
> But the circuit did NOT change in '73 between going from turretboard to PCB construction.



Looks like I may have been the victim of disinformation, thanks. BTW, I do belive there s a difference in sound between PCB and Pt.to Pt.. A small difference all things bing equal, of course, because lead dress, I think you call it, and layout effects the tone, or can effect the tone.


----------



## Marshallhead

Marshalls were turret board as opposed to point to point before adopting pcb's. 

Plus I reckon you'd hear as much of a difference between any two seemingly identical turret board amps or two PCB amps as you would between eg a73 turret and a 73 PCB.


----------



## damienbeale

Exactly. IF there is any difference it comes down to quality and design. Both methods can be crap quality and crap design. PCB done right should be technically superior, but there's an awful lot that goes into it, and it depends on the quality of the copper as well as the brain of the designer.

Of course, if you get PCB design really wrong you can design a hell of a lot of unwanted capacitance in.


----------



## Strateuphoria

damienbeale said:


> Exactly. IF there is any difference it comes down to quality and design. Both methods can be crap quality and crap design. PCB done right should be technically superior, but there's an awful lot that goes into it, and it depends on the quality of the copper as well as the brain of the designer.
> 
> Of course, if you get PCB design really wrong you can design a hell of a lot of unwanted capacitance in.



+1 Thats true
I've heard about this crosstalk and parasitic coupling between components, many years ago from an old hifi valveamp designer guy.

And this just confirmed what I was told, read this;

_A PTP circuit also allows for the shortest possible paths between electrical connections. If a PTP circuit is designed correctly with the components and wiring properly placed, there will be a minimum of crosstalk and parasitic coupling that will affect the overall tone of the amp. 
If it is not designed correctly, there can be crosstalk, poor frequency response, and noise. 
PTP circuits more often than not resemble artwork, with carefully laid out wiring at precise right angles and perfect parallels with the shortest possible lengths of wire. This is not due to the fact that amp manufacturers take pride in their work (most of them do but this is beside the point). Yes, it is pretty but it also serves a purpose. 

Any two electrical conductors that run at different voltages produce some capacitance between them. This is the parasitic coupling mentioned above. Avoiding or minimizing this is paramount in amplifier design to keep the tone clean and responsive. 
Too much of this will result in loss at certain frequencies, most often noticed in the highs. The precise layout of the wiring in most amplifiers is specific to that amp to reduce this unwanted interference._


taken from this article, PCB vs. HANDWIRED |*Pro Guitar Shop
thanks Andy!

then there's also the Thermal expansion issue


----------



## damienbeale

But the Marshall is NOT a PTP construction. It is a turretboard construction which does not conform to any of those supposed superior properties.

This article doesn't really go into enough detail to provide a balanced case on this topic, and is still a little one-sided.

Me, I do turretboard builds because they are quick, simple, reliable and make mods and changes VERY simple indeed. But you can bet if I had the resources and were to go into production, I'd be using top quality PCB's.

Heck, if somebody like Joseph Nazari uses PCB, then it's definitely got something going for it.


----------



## Vibrowhatzit

I've owned a lot of tube amps over the years (more years than I like to think about actually) and the comment and discussion about PTP vs PCB construction resulting in a difference in sound isn't a new one. I'm also an electrical engineer by trade, but I try not to let that influence my opinions as a guitar player too much.. I've been a guitar player a lot longer than I've been an engineer.. 

In my experience, I've seen that even identical amps circuit-wise (PTP, turret board, PCB or whatever) can and do sound considerably different. This is especially true of vintage amps with a lot of aged components. Even new, the spec'd tolerances on a lot of passive components were 20% or something like that. If you get enough of those components all 'leaning' one way, even though it's in 'spec', an amp like that can sound totally different from another with component values that are more 'centered', particularly components in gain stages or tone stacks. You throw in a 30 or 40 year old component that has drifted to half (or double) it's original value or something worse, and the difference can be even more drastic.

I've owned 3 different JMP 50's, my fav Marshall for sure, I'm on my third one now, and they all had a distinct voice. The first two I owned simultaneously; one was quite tight and crisp, and the other a bit softer with more 'give'. Both were maintained and setup correctly, both were PCB versions (a '74 and a '75 if I remember correctly). The one I own now is closer to the former, a bit tight and crisper, which is probably my preference. It's a turret board ('73?) I think.. All that to say, I think a very rigid test (if such a thing could actually be done) with all other things equal, wouldn't show much difference in PTP vs PCB. It would be far outweighed by the other factors that are much larger contributors, component variance for one.

Sidebar: I worked in a music store for quite a few years and we had a good amp tech in our repair department. More than once, we'd have someone bring in a tired tube amp, that was still working ok, but they thought it needed servicing. A lot of times that was true, tired filter caps, etc. Our guy would go through the amp, clean things up, usually replace any old power supply caps, and generally replace anything that was really out of spec. The customer would pick it up, and the next day bring it back hating it. "Something is wrong with my amp, all the 'tone' is gone... ". Once the amp was really working as intended/designed, it wasn't always what they really wanted.. nothing like a really tired tube amp to break up 'just right'.. This happened a lot more than you'd think..

Damien's comment regarding turretboard builds is spot on though.. I hate working on PCB amps just because of the hassle. PTP/turret board amps are just much easier to work on. They also seem to survive drops, bumps, and vibration with less problems than PCB amps.


----------



## Gordon Thunderfuck

I like bacon


----------



## bulldozer1984

ScottMercer said:


> I like bacon



Bacon owns.


----------



## Trapland

Nomenclature is required here, JMP1 is a one watt amplifier. A JMP-1 is a rack mount preamp only. I suggest we call the JMP1, well the JMP1. Lets call the JMP-1 the JMP _dash_ ONE.

And Superlead implied an amp that was bigger than a lead amp. The lead amps were/are anything lower in power than 100 watts that was a lead guitar amp (as opposed to bass, PA, etc). The 100 watt lead amps are Superleads. Back in the day, a 100 watt lead guitar amp was a pretty big deal and almost nobody made them. 
The thinking was, if you are the lead guitar player, you may need 100 watts, while rhythm could get by with 50......... Or maybe it was if you needed 100 watts, you pretty much will be lead guitar volume wise!

I like 50 watt tops myself. Combined with inefficient speakers, I can usually crank them at most clubs. If I need more power, I just use more 50 watt amps.


----------



## slide222

ScottMercer said:


> I like bacon



yes ,but its full of antibiotics in this country and white gue comes out when you cook it


----------



## sinner 13

dreyn77 said:


> they can call a 50 watter a PA because all marshalls are ( as far as the law is concerned) 'public address equipment'.
> 
> Wasn't there a contract the jim had bck in the day where he was in partnership with another company and they had the equal rights to $$$'s on any JMP amp sold, so Jim got out of the contract and redesigned the jmp and labelled it the 800 so he didn't have to pay others.?





damienbeale said:


> But the PA amps have different voicings to the other circuits too. The 8 input super PA variants don't quite behave like the other amps until you disable one of the input pairs. These amps are slightly more neutral, and are great with pedals.
> 
> Rose Morris was the distributor, who had a very strong deal in their favour. I'm not certain whether or not the Rose-Morris deal covered the UK or not, though. And yes, JCM800 was just a cosmetic re-vamp, although they did come out with two new split channel models, and soon after an all new solid state range, that unlike the previous JMP SS efforts, was actually good.




What black magic is this, a civilized and Coherent statement for D77, and a civil response ? 

World ending.... in 3...2...1...


----------



## sinner 13

slide222 said:


> yes ,but its full of antibiotics in this country and white gue comes out when you cook it



Not where I work....

Free range Piggies are tasty...


----------



## Georgiatec

From my experience there were that many variations amp to amp regardless of construction method, that it's a moot point as to which method of construction sounded better.


----------



## Vibrowhatzit

Georgiatec said:


> From my experience there were that many variations amp to amp regardless of construction method, that it's a moot point as to which method of construction sounded better.



Exactly...


----------



## LMP2204

Marshall had a tendency to be consistently inconsistent on occasion. say they ran out of a particular cap value and they needed to get the amp off the bench, you got the closest value available and that may have been the difference between a holy grail amp and a turd. that's why its hard to just claim a certain 1959 circuit or 1987 as a "correct" circuit. it all changed on the supply of parts available.


----------



## Valvelust

Vibrowhatzit said:


> I've owned a lot of tube amps over the years (more years than I like to think about actually) and the comment and discussion about PTP vs PCB construction resulting in a difference in sound isn't a new one. I'm also an electrical engineer by trade, but I try not to let that influence my opinions as a guitar player too much.. I've been a guitar player a lot longer than I've been an engineer..
> 
> In my experience, I've seen that even identical amps circuit-wise (PTP, turret board, PCB or whatever) can and do sound considerably different. This is especially true of vintage amps with a lot of aged components. Even new, the spec'd tolerances on a lot of passive components were 20% or something like that. If you get enough of those components all 'leaning' one way, even though it's in 'spec', an amp like that can sound totally different from another with component values that are more 'centered', particularly components in gain stages or tone stacks. You throw in a 30 or 40 year old component that has drifted to half (or double) it's original value or something worse, and the difference can be even more drastic.
> 
> I've owned 3 different JMP 50's, my fav Marshall for sure, I'm on my third one now, and they all had a distinct voice. The first two I owned simultaneously; one was quite tight and crisp, and the other a bit softer with more 'give'. Both were maintained and setup correctly, both were PCB versions (a '74 and a '75 if I remember correctly). The one I own now is closer to the former, a bit tight and crisper, which is probably my preference. It's a turret board ('73?) I think.. All that to say, I think a very rigid test (if such a thing could actually be done) with all other things equal, wouldn't show much difference in PTP vs PCB. It would be far outweighed by the other factors that are much larger contributors, component variance for one.
> 
> Sidebar: I worked in a music store for quite a few years and we had a good amp tech in our repair department. More than once, we'd have someone bring in a tired tube amp, that was still working ok, but they thought it needed servicing. A lot of times that was true, tired filter caps, etc. Our guy would go through the amp, clean things up, usually replace any old power supply caps, and generally replace anything that was really out of spec. The customer would pick it up, and the next day bring it back hating it. "Something is wrong with my amp, all the 'tone' is gone... ". Once the amp was really working as intended/designed, it wasn't always what they really wanted.. nothing like a really tired tube amp to break up 'just right'.. This happened a lot more than you'd think..
> 
> Damien's comment regarding turretboard builds is spot on though.. I hate working on PCB amps just because of the hassle. PTP/turret board amps are just much easier to work on. They also seem to survive drops, bumps, and vibration with less problems than PCB amps.



I love these discussions and debates over the PCB Turret PTP of the old Marshalls.....

And really tend to agree with this...."Marshall had a tendency to be consistently inconsistent on occasion"


----------



## Tone Slinger

Great thread. I'll get off the key center here and say that regardless of PTP or PCB, there are certain Marshall era's more suited to certain sounds than others.

Agreed, inconsistancies were more common in the PTP era. 

The Transformers also changed.

All this was just Marshall striking the best compromise between DEMAND and QUALITY. 

For my preffered era of Music ('75-early/mid '80's) that the pcb Marshall jmps, both 50's and 100's, had the best tone. Kiss' Alive!, 'Sin After Sin', 'Stained Class' (Judas Priest),'Live And Dangerous' (Thin Lizzy), UFO's 'Strangers In The Night', Iron Maidens first 3 or 4, Diamond Head, etc, etc. The B+ voltage and actuall preamp circuit values (and composition type) had a play in it imo.

Just try out as many different era tops and models as you can (cabs as well) and come to your own conclusions.


----------



## FutureProf88

I like turret board amps because of the care that went in to making them, they are easier to work on and if done right they look beautiful. Plus there's a bit of "cool factor" playing them. 

That said, my 2204 sounds incredible and it is a PCB amps. Mike Soldano also uses PCB for the preamps of his amp. As does Mesa/Boogie, and Budda. All three of those companies make very high quality amps.


----------

