JCM800 2210/2205 which Year version??

[Matte23]

I'd like to buy an old JCM800 split channel model like 2210 or 2205 but I've read somewhere there are different from year, the preamp circuit is not the same in all models?? what year model sound the best? It change only the clean channel o also the Lead channel??

 

[cardinal]

They were trying to fix an issue with the channels bleeding together, I think. Supposedly fixed by '88. But not all of the earlier amps had the issue, which seems why it was so hard to fix.

 

[mchn13]

Do you really need the separate channels? Having owned both over the years; the single channels are just superior in almost every way. Sorry. That doesn't answer you question man, but they're so close in price, would just get a 2204/2203.

 

[Racerxrated]

87 or newer. Best ones imo. More gain, no channel bleed. Very warm mids, they sit a little differently than a typical 2203/4. Only issue is the best way to run them is with the gain channel vol maxed, gets power tubes cooking..but then the overall master has NO taper at all lol. The loop is decent also. The earlier ones had a different preamp circuit and channel bleed. 87 and newer much improved imo.

 

[Johnny LaRue]

I've been gigging a 87 2210 for several years, I've tried a couple amps over the years to try and take it's place(Framus Cobra, Friedman Runt 50), no dice, the 2210 is still there. So, I would go for 87 or later.

 

[johnpace2]

87 or newer. Best ones imo. More gain, no channel bleed. Very warm mids, they sit a little differently than a typical 2203/4. Only issue is the best way to run them is with the gain channel vol maxed, gets power tubes cooking..but then the overall master has NO taper at all lol. The loop is decent also. The earlier ones had a different preamp circuit and channel bleed. 87 and newer much improved imo.

I have an 89 2210 and this is my experience as well. It seems to be noisy when boosted unlike other Marshall's I own that seem to all take boosts nicely.

 

[Telephant]

87 or newer. Best ones imo. More gain, no channel bleed. Very warm mids, they sit a little differently than a typical 2203/4. Only issue is the best way to run them is with the gain channel vol maxed, gets power tubes cooking..but then the overall master has NO taper at all lol. The loop is decent also. The earlier ones had a different preamp circuit and channel bleed. 87 and newer much improved imo.

I gigged a '90 2210 for a couple years and the mids on that amp are not what I would describe as warm. In fact its kind of harsh for a Marshall and cuts through a mix like nobodies business. But it can also be fatiguing.

I agree about the settings, always kept the gain channel volume dimed and gain around 7.

 

[fusedbrain]

87 or newer. Best ones imo. More gain, no channel bleed. Very warm mids, they sit a little differently than a typical 2203/4. Only issue is the best way to run them is with the gain channel vol maxed, gets power tubes cooking..but then the overall master has NO taper at all lol. The loop is decent also. The earlier ones had a different preamp circuit and channel bleed. 87 and newer much improved imo.

This is bang on. Get that channel master on 10 and these amp sound pretty good. Forget about the clean channel. It sounds like poo and is not worth the time and effort to mod.


As for the different versions, here's a cut and paste I've saved for reference from a few years ago. I believe it's from a Tech named Jeff Seal.

Externally, the ch. switcher's are similar (unless it's white being an '83)
and distinguishing between them can be difficult... the only known "guarantee" is any Marshall with the "printed" designation on the back panel instead of the "black label" is most definitely an 87 and newer.

The only true known way without pulling the chassis, is to remove V2 (second 12ax7 closest to input jack)..if the boost channel no longer functions then it is the early design, if the normal channel quits working, it is the later design.


I DO NOT recommend the early design. You'll get guys tellin' you " but that's what Michael Schenker uses", but I've never been able to get them to sound anything other than thin and fizzy.

The second version is instant Ride The Lightning / Symphony of Destruction. Very cool amp.

If you're so inclined, I can also recommend a couple of small tweaks that really put the amp over the top.
First of all, remove the level control on the back for the direct out and put in a resonance control. I also like to up the first filter can to 100uf x 100uf. This really tightens things up and adds a ton of punch.

 

[Chris6870]

Get a 2204 or 2203 with a loop instead and get your cleans that way or just get a DSL. I had a 2210 from 87 or 88 I bought new.Very thin sounding, not a lot of gain. Clean channel and reverb sucked too.

 

[fusedbrain]

I had a 2210 from 87 or 88 I bought new.Very thin sounding, not a lot of gain. Clean channel and reverb sucked too.

I know you said you bought it new in 87 or 88, but it sounds like your describing Version 1 to a T. Maybe it was older stock when you bought it ?? The "not a lot of gain " part is the tell. Way more gain available in Version 2 vs Version 1. On V 2 the tone stack is way later in the circuit and I believe there is one more gain stage in the lead channel as well.

 

[Racerxrated]

I had a 2210 from 87 or 88 I bought new.Very thin sounding, not a lot of gain. Clean channel and reverb sucked too.

I know you said you bought it new in 87 or 88, but it sounds like your describing Version 1 to a T. Maybe it was older stock when you bought it ?? The "not a lot of gain " part is the tell. Way more gain available in Version 2 vs Version 1. On V 2 the tone stack is way later in the circuit and I believe there is one more gain stage in the lead channel as well.

This. The 86 I had, perfect amount of gain but the eq was harsh to me. But way more gain than an 82 2205 I had. That amp sounded terrible. But both 87 2205s were warm and smooth, perfect gain amount on 10. Great amp. I also tried an 88 2205 at a GC recently, also sounded nice. I think that DSLs are cool amps but those 800 transformers take them to another level that DSLs can't get to, at decent volumes.

 

[Matte23]

Thank you guys for a lot of infos!! I'm in the vintage JCM800 way, becouse I've find the main difference with the amp of today is the trafo sound! I think these amps in the 80's have the SOUND for his output stage, and I search an amp that sound massive and "Norumesque" without too much mods or tweak , and I need a good effect loop!

 

[Crunchity]

'87 was the year the channel bleed issue got addressed (I believe)...but then not exactly, it may depend on how early a model it is. I had an early '87 2205 in the rare green tolex and yep, still had the channel bleed problem (but for me, it didn't matter honestly, amp stayed on the one channel all the time haha). That said, the amp sounded GREAT for all things light to heavy crunch, but for super duper saturated lead stuff, it got a little "howly" and noisy when pushing it hard with a TS type pedal...but keep in mind, this was back in the day, before these really amazing boost pedals started surfacing, the stuff specifically designed to push crunchy amps over the top. I'd love to have that amp back now lol!

Good luck!

 

[born_hard]

Save your money and buy a friedman philx.

 

[glip22]

I recently was close to buying an 89. The store told me when I called about it that it was with their tech fixing the channel bleed issue. I told him that should have been corrected with the later preamp. He chuckled and said not the case. He said it was easy fix with replacing a couple of caps.

 

[Chris6870]

I had a 2210 from 87 or 88 I bought new.Very thin sounding, not a lot of gain. Clean channel and reverb sucked too.

I know you said you bought it new in 87 or 88, but it sounds like your describing Version 1 to a T. Maybe it was older stock when you bought it ?? The "not a lot of gain " part is the tell. Way more gain available in Version 2 vs Version 1. On V 2 the tone stack is way later in the circuit and I believe there is one more gain stage in the lead channel as well.

Maybe, but there are SOOO many better amps out there today. I would never go back.

 

[Racerxrated]

I recently was close to buying an 89. The store told me when I called about it that it was with their tech fixing the channel bleed issue. I told him that should have been corrected with the later preamp. He chuckled and said not the case. He said it was easy fix with replacing a couple of caps.

Wonder if it really was an 89? My 87s didn't have the issue. Doesn't really matter in my case, I just used the lead channel. You can just turn the 'regular' channel volume off if you need to, if it does have the bleed. Thing is, the 'regular' channel is basically like a 2203/4 without the diode clipping, was never meant to be a true clean anyway.

 

[Racerxrated]

I had a 2210 from 87 or 88 I bought new.Very thin sounding, not a lot of gain. Clean channel and reverb sucked too.

I know you said you bought it new in 87 or 88, but it sounds like your describing Version 1 to a T. Maybe it was older stock when you bought it ?? The "not a lot of gain " part is the tell. Way more gain available in Version 2 vs Version 1. On V 2 the tone stack is way later in the circuit and I believe there is one more gain stage in the lead channel as well.

Maybe, but there are SOOO many better amps out there today. I would never go back.

Maybe, but those Drake/Dagnall trannys slay most other amps at volume imo. Unless you go really boutique and spend a lot of cash...SLOs, Bogners, Wizards, etc. For 800-1K used with a good boost pedal I still say these amps are great tone machines, along with 2203/4s. Something about those vintage amps, newer amps can't get there with some exceptions.

 

[Johnny LaRue]

I had a 2210 from 87 or 88 I bought new.Very thin sounding, not a lot of gain. Clean channel and reverb sucked too.

must have been something wrong with it, mine blew the shit out of a Framus Cobra in every way.

 

[Chris6870]

I had a 2210 from 87 or 88 I bought new.Very thin sounding, not a lot of gain. Clean channel and reverb sucked too.

must have been something wrong with it, mine blew the shit out of a Framus Cobra in every way.

Don't think so. I had it for 23 years and had it serviced regularly.