Couple of New Amps

ChurchHill

New member
Here's a couple of things I've picked up over the last few months. Between work and life over the past year, I'm just now starting to get caught up. Anyway...

First up is a 2006 Splawn Competition. It's basically a single channel 50w QuickRod. Seems to be a little picky with speakers, but it's got a lot of tight, punchy low end and great hot-rod Marshall tones. It's really fun to play. :)

file.php


Next is a couple of rack preamps and power amps, all retubed and re-racked. I've had the Studio Pre and 395 for several years, but the rest is relatively new, within the last six months. The Quad and 295 is great! Even though they're closely related, the Quad doesn't sound like the Studio and neither is exactly like my Mark III Blue or Mark IV. Needless to say, I really like the Mark series. :) The Triaxis and 2:90 is exactly what I'd expected, as is the JMP-1 and EL34 100:100. I'm still getting to know the JMP-1, it's the most recent acquisition. There are certainly some great sounds in it, but it doesn't really sound like any of my other Marshalls. That's a good thing. :)

file.php
 

Attachments

  • Splawn.jpg
    Splawn.jpg
    113.3 KB · Views: 1,592
  • Amp_Racks.jpg
    Amp_Racks.jpg
    119.4 KB · Views: 1,610
Thanks, Guys! It took me awhile to find it all.

The Studio/395 is just a ranging beast!! I've had the Studio for almost 25 years now, but added the 395 just a few years back. The low end I can get out of it could give Herbert a run for its money. Back in the day, it put all of my friends Marshalls to shame. :D

The Quad/295 is another amazing combination. Got those about 6 months ago. So many tones in that one, but it actually compliments the Studio's tone really well. One of the Quad channels is warmer and smoother than the Studio and the other is a touch brighter and just more aggressive (though not as much so as my Blue Stripe Mark III).

The Triaxis/2:90, which I got about 2 months ago, is obviously the most versatile of the bunch, but it's just missing some of the magic the Studio and Quad have. Part of that could be the power amp I been using with each, though. One of these days, I'll get around to mixing and matching. And I'm sure part of it is just my lack of knowledge about how to dial it in, not that I haven't found some great tones in there already.

All of them are definitely worth what I paid for them (none of them are all that pricey anymore). On the other hand... none of this really dampens the GAS for a Mark III Black Stripe and a Mark IIC+, maybe even a Mark IIB. And I know that none of them are going to assuage the Wizard GAS. Soon...

The Splawn I also picked up about 2 months ago. I think it sounds great (no weird mids on this one). It's got the older Heyboer trannys in it. Just a fun amp to play!

The JMP-1 is just got about a month ago. Still learning it, but it sounds great, too. I used to lust over them when they first came out (same could be said for all of these). It did not disappoint. :rock:
 
Wizard of Ozz":p5me7372 said:
Well done.
giphy.gif


This is not helping me to avoid getting a Triaxis/2:90... :aww: :no: :D

You don't want a Triaxis and a 2:90.

You want a Triaxis, a 2:90, and a Strategy 400 or 500.

I'd also say that the OP needs one of those two as well.
 
Wow. That's a lot of preamps and poweramps going on there!

I love that they're all nicely racked without any effects units with them. It looks nice and neat.
 
Cool Rack stuff. I much preferred the triaxis with the Strategy 400 power amp. My S400 is modded with depth pots and the triaxis has the ++ mod for the 2C channel. Running the V1 triaxis and recto board triaxis with the custom GEQ was insane sounding. I’ve since sold most everything off except the S400 and the 4x4.
 
Well done indeed. For me rack gear and outboard gear will always win over modeling crap, it's just cool to have the real thing.
 
rstites":87kmcxnr said:
Wow. That's a lot of preamps and poweramps going on there!

I love that they're all nicely racked without any effects units with them. It looks nice and neat.
Yeah, I think it just makes it easier, too. I can use them by themselves, or I can plug them into one of my effects racks. If I want to use one of my heads for W/D/W, I can just pick a power amp and not have to rearrange a lot of gear to get to it.
 
exo-metal":1bjyaid1 said:
Well done indeed. For me rack gear and outboard gear will always win over modeling crap, it's just cool to have the real thing.
Absolutely agree! I really like some of the modelling stuff, especially the new generation that's just coming out. But none of it inspires me the way a good tube amp and a rack full of outboard does. I'm sure some of that has to do with the tones I grew up listening to, and some of it is just visual. It looks impressive, sounds impressive, and inspires me to play better. And that's exactly what I want it to do, inspire me.
 
Going to have to agree with EvilBatman and psychodave… the 2:90 is a great amp, but it's not on the same level as the 295 and 395. I can only imagine what the Triaxis would sound like through an S400.

Thanks, Gsxrbusa!

Badronald and SpiderWars, I LOVE these MB pres! The Quad is a killer, especially the "secret" channel where both channels are active at once. I love how the Studio fits in between the Quad's channels, too. I've thought about putting the two together with a loop switcher. There wouldn't be too much ground the two of them together couldn't cover. I'm getting excited just thinking about it! :yes:
 
Do you like the studio or quad better? I have a 295 layung here, waiting to be paired with a preamp!
 
Well, that's a tough call. I like the Studio better, but it was my main amp for a long time and the first amp I was ever really happy with. The Quad is a lot more versatile, and the sound isn't too far away. They can both be dialed really close to each other. The Quad is more aggressive and can be smoother as well. The Studio's somewhere between the Quad's two channels. It's simpler and faster to dial in, can be really aggressive, too, but has some underlying smoothness at the same time. The Quad can do that, too, when both channels are active, but it's not quite the same.

I'd have to go with the Studio, but it's mostly for sentimental reasons. The Quad is an equally bad ass piece of kit. I know I'm not helping much, but I think you'd be happy with either paired with your 295. Go with the Studio is you don't need the versatility of the Quad; go with the Quad if you need the versatility and don't mind the extra complexity. That's really what the difference boils down to, IMHO.
 
Awesome stuff there man!!!

:cheers:

Glad your digging the Splawn :rock:

I A/B'd the QR and the MCII the other day, and I gotta say the Splawn held it's own. It's punchy, tight, tight, tight, did I mention PUNCHY, aggressive and just HUGE sounding. BAD ASS AMPS!!!

Like you stated, very fun to play!
 
Thanks!! Yeah, I'd expected the Splawn to be a good amp, but damn... I wasn't expecting how big AND tight the low end was, and mine's only 50w. It can get really pissed sounding, cuts like a switchblade, just a great amp all together. The build quality is really good, too. Mine's #316. Apparently, the guy who owned it before (I got it from the local GC) sold it to pay a DUI fine. :LOL: :LOL: It was in really good shape, considering it's 12 years old.
 
ChurchHill":2bdnjh3p said:
Well, that's a tough call. I like the Studio better, but it was my main amp for a long time and the first amp I was ever really happy with. The Quad is a lot more versatile, and the sound isn't too far away. They can both be dialed really close to each other. The Quad is more aggressive and can be smoother as well. The Studio's somewhere between the Quad's two channels. It's simpler and faster to dial in, can be really aggressive, too, but has some underlying smoothness at the same time. The Quad can do that, too, when both channels are active, but it's not quite the same.

I'd have to go with the Studio, but it's mostly for sentimental reasons. The Quad is an equally bad ass piece of kit. I know I'm not helping much, but I think you'd be happy with either paired with your 295. Go with the Studio is you don't need the versatility of the Quad; go with the Quad if you need the versatility and don't mind the extra complexity. That's really what the difference boils down to, IMHO.

Thank you for the insight, I appreciate it. I figure the next question is, is comparing the Triaxis to either of those like comparing the Quad to the Studio, which is to say, way more options, but like the tone less?
 
Well, just my opinion, but no. The Quad and the Studio have something really organic that the Triaxis just doesn't have. Does the Triaxis sound great? Of course, it sounds amazing, and I wouldn't hesitate to use it live. But, for me, the Studio and Quad are in a different league. The Triaxis is more "processed" sounding, which isn't a bad thing, just different. It's kind of like the JMP-1 in that respect. The JMP-1 sounds great, and is really versatile, but it's never going to displace any of my Marshall heads. Either the Studio or the Quad could sit in for either my Mark III Blue or Mark IV. I actually like them better than my Mark IV.
 
Back
Top