DSL… the WORST of ALL Marshalls?!?!

V-man

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
4,812
Reaction score
4,404
TELL ME THE TITLE DOESN’T IMMEDIATELY SUMMON THIS IMAGE OUT FROM THE MAGIC DOUCHE NOZZLE :ca::thumb:

48D69203-7F0F-4FA8-9C66-FFD784154516.jpg

REGARDLESS, the question remains… JCM 2000 Bias Drift and Overheating with certain years/models… MIVs, HRs etc. models having issues… there certainly have been other Marshalls with certain problems or “teething issues” (2204s, 2203Xs, 800 channel-switchers, even the JCM 25/50 early Jubs), but has any other amp circuit/production line been more problematic than the DSL?

Obviously you have gathered we are “click-bait discussing“ worst in the context of problematic issues for operatIon as the DSL is a well-respected amp for its tones and capabilities. This then is the thread to discuss the various and different issues that plagued the multiple DSL series and weigh in on whether these are in fact the “most unreliable” of the Marshall line… or whether other factors suggest other Marshalls as a more worthy recipient of the title.
 

Maxbrothman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2022
Messages
426
Reaction score
611
My first generation 15W DSL without FX loop was horrid. They don't even make it anymore it was so horrid.

I was going to get the revised series 20W but it is missing a tone shift feature the 40W and 100W have. I want a head version so that narrows my option to just the 100W. If I am going to get a 100W Marshall I would probably get a JVM. So I'm in a bit of a conundrum when it comes to DSLs but one dialed in properly sounds great.
 

Rudy v

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
417
Reaction score
745
The Marshall 900 slx has a bridge rectifier problem.
 

PelliX

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
3,011
Reaction score
6,100
I think there are two factors easily overlooked that one must take into account when comparing "the DSL" (that's 3 generations, by now) and other amps.

1. Survivorship bias. Plenty of amps back in the day blew themselves up (or got blown up more often), but we tend to forget those and stare in awe at the (random example) 60 year old models that survived and work because they've been lovingly cared for, maintaned and/or restored.

2. Pure numbers. Many more DSL's in the wild than any of Marshall's more expensive lines - because of the price and feature set. Because of this, people tend to skip the satin glove treatment a spanking new 1959HW might get.

I'm not defending some of the shoddy work on DSL's (and there's plenty), but if you actually had a percentage of returned/defective units of say the DSL's and perhaps the JVM's - I think one might be surprised how well they actually work/last.
 

jeffb

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
2,022
Reaction score
4,519
Among the tube amps-As far as quality goes the 90s JTM and 600 models are really bad and worse than the JCM DSLs. I don't think the MA's or HAZE series have a very good rep for quality, either.

Personally I have had hardware issues/factory defects on new amps with the JTM60, 4210, Origin 20, CODE25, 2204, MG30, MG15 micro stack, 9001 pre-amp, and my Class 5.
 

Rudy v

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
417
Reaction score
745
The 2046 specialist, 25 watts has also overheating problems, finished it in 1973 after about one and a half years of production.
 

Gene Ballzz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
3,810
Reaction score
4,600
Location
Las Vegas, NV
I think there are two factors easily overlooked that one must take into account when comparing "the DSL" (that's 3 generations, by now) and other amps.

1. Survivorship bias. Plenty of amps back in the day blew themselves up (or got blown up more often), but we tend to forget those and stare in awe at the (random example) 60 year old models that survived and work because they've been lovingly cared for, maintaned and/or restored.

2. Pure numbers. Many more DSL's in the wild than any of Marshall's more expensive lines - because of the price and feature set. Because of this, people tend to skip the satin glove treatment a spanking new 1959HW might get.

I'm not defending some of the shoddy work on DSL's (and there's plenty), but if you actually had a percentage of returned/defective units of say the DSL's and perhaps the JVM's - I think one might be surprised how well they actually work/last.

Some wise and thoughtful observations, right there! You saved me a bunch of typing! :cool:

Still Screechin' & Squawkin'
Gene
 

scozz

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
6,271
Reaction score
14,908
My first generation 15W DSL without FX loop was horrid. They don't even make it anymore it was so horrid.

I was going to get the revised series 20W but it is missing a tone shift feature the 40W and 100W have. I want a head version so that narrows my option to just the 100W. If I am going to get a 100W Marshall I would probably get a JVM. So I'm in a bit of a conundrum when it comes to DSLs but one dialed in properly sounds great.
I’m pretty sure the Dsl15 you’re referring to is the 2nd generation Dsl from 2012 to 2017.

I don’t think the first generation Dsl, Jcm2000 Dsl’s from 1997 to 2011, offered a 15 watt amp.

From your post it seems the Dsl40cr sounds like the right Dsl for you.
 

PelliX

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
3,011
Reaction score
6,100
I’m pretty sure the Dsl15 you’re referring to is the 2nd generation Dsl from 2012 to 2017.

I don’t think the first generation Dsl, Jcm2000 Dsl’s from 1997 to 2011, offered a 15 watt amp.

From your post it seems the Dsl40cr sounds like the right Dsl for you.

We both know Mitch is gonna agree here.... :rofl:
 

Latest posts



Top