RoloStrat
New member
If I crank the MV to 10 (or 11), will the 2203 behave like a 1959?
if you go in the low input (cuts out a gain stage) and crank the MV it’s sort of similar, but it’s still a different circuit ultimatelyIf I crank the MV to 10 (or 11), will the 2203 behave like a 1959?
NopeIf I crank the MV to 10 (or 11), will the 2203 behave like a 1959?
The best 2203 you’ve ever heard still won’t approach the raw, open tone of the Superlead, volume wise the SL will also eclipse the 2203. Non master amps have more clarity and definition vs MV amps. The 2203 will be easier to manage and control. They really are very different in many ways. The 2203 will be easier to boost into saturation vs the SL which needs 2 pedals to get there; even double boosted my 1972 seems much cleaner than it is vs my boosted 2205.
If you’re a Marshall fan having one of each is justified based on the differences
Mine is a 2203 probably from 1977, the model is written in the back plate. BTW is the one that appears in my avatar, the extra input jacks seen are ,actually, an fx loop made by my technician.The 1959's, especially the earlier ones, vary quite a lot in regards to how clean they are. (Add to that, 40-50 years of component drift and you get a lot of variation.) I'm not certain the 1959 is any louder than the 2203 cranked up. I don't recall that, both being stupid loud when cranked. (Judging them is probably impossible with the ear.....because stupid loud!) Yeah, the 2203 gets distortion easier and definitely boosts easier, and you can get that boost at more volume levels.
They're both definitely siblings and are in the same general realm, but at the same time, never quite identical. There was a reason to choose one over the other on the big stage for sound, but it's definitely subtle differences. Nobody is confusing it with a Mesa or Fender! (If not in that environment, the choice is mostly due to the volume situation, I'd say.)
Your 2205 has a fair amount more distortion than a 2203 already, so not certain how helpful that comparison is going to be.
One example I can give is this...when I had a really good 1983 2203, complete with GE 6550s and new ARS caps, I'd play it loud and loved it. Then I played the 72. Compared to the 2203 the 72 seemed almost twice as loud....where it was almost painful to play it for too long, and I was off axis to the cabs. The 72 was much clearer sounding as well. The 2203 was maxed on the master where if I turned it up any more the tone got less defined. If I played the 72 first then the 2203, the 2203 sounded almost 'bad' in comparison...kinda flat almost.The 1959's, especially the earlier ones, vary quite a lot in regards to how clean they are. (Add to that, 40-50 years of component drift and you get a lot of variation.) I'm not certain the 1959 is any louder than the 2203 cranked up. I don't recall that, both being stupid loud when cranked. (Judging them is probably impossible with the ear.....because stupid loud!) Yeah, the 2203 gets distortion easier and definitely boosts easier, and you can get that boost at more volume levels.
They're both definitely siblings and are in the same general realm, but at the same time, never quite identical. There was a reason to choose one over the other on the big stage for sound, but it's definitely subtle differences. Nobody is confusing it with a Mesa or Fender! (If not in that environment, the choice is mostly due to the volume situation, I'd say.)
Your 2205 has a fair amount more distortion than a 2203 already, so not certain how helpful that comparison is going to be.
I would guess the plate voltage in the 2203 was much lower than the 72.One example I can give is this...when I had a really good 1983 2203, complete with GE 6550s and new ARS caps, I'd play it loud and loved it. Then I played the 72. Compared to the 2203 the 72 seemed almost twice as loud....where it was almost painful to play it for too long, and I was off axis to the cabs. The 72 was much clearer sounding as well. The 2203 was maxed on the master where if I turned it up any more the tone got less defined. If I played the 72 first then the 2203, the 2203 sounded almost 'bad' in comparison...kinda flat almost.
That's when I decided to sell the 2203. As good as it was it just got destroyed by my 72 in every way possible.
No, actually. The 82/83 2204s tend to have the higher voltage PTs vs other year JMP/JMP MV amps. Total voltage 509v in that particular 2203; pv at 445. My 72 by contrast was at 490 total, 430 pv. The PT was a later 70s Dagnall out of a Superlead. 4145B if I remember. I have since replaced it with a period correct T3556….most were T3562 but some were T3556. Now it measures at 545v; 490 pv.I would guess the plate voltage in the 2203 was much lower than the 72.
Destroyed in every way possible for the tone YOU are going for. I have a feeling you're not a fan of high gain amplification or high gain tones in any way... cause if that is what you liked a 2203 with a boost does the job better IMO. Those amps from the early 70's cant really approach metal territory.One example I can give is this...when I had a really good 1983 2203, complete with GE 6550s and new ARS caps, I'd play it loud and loved it. Then I played the 72. Compared to the 2203 the 72 seemed almost twice as loud....where it was almost painful to play it for too long, and I was off axis to the cabs. The 72 was much clearer sounding as well. The 2203 was maxed on the master where if I turned it up any more the tone got less defined. If I played the 72 first then the 2203, the 2203 sounded almost 'bad' in comparison...kinda flat almost.
That's when I decided to sell the 2203. As good as it was it just got destroyed by my 72 in every way possible.
6550s pull down PT voltages quite a lot. My 74 is sitting at 440 currently with the stock dagnall PT. Too squishy for my tastes and not enough balls. Ordered a Mercury Magnetics 520V .5A rated beast of a PT to replace the stock dagnall and give the amp more headroom and balls.No, actually. The 82/83 2204s tend to have the higher voltage PTs vs other year JMP/JMP MV amps. Total voltage 509v in that particular 2203; pv at 445. My 72 by contrast was at 490 total, 430 pv. The PT was a later 70s Dagnall out of a Superlead. 4145B if I remember. I have since replaced it with a period correct T3556….most were T3562 but some were T3556. Now it measures at 545v; 490 pv.
So when I was comparing the two, my 72 was lower voltage vs the 2203. NMV amps tend to easily overpower MV amps all things being equal.
+1Destroyed in every way possible for the tone YOU are going for. I have a feeling you're not a fan of high gain amplification or high gain tones in any way... cause if that is what you liked a 2203 with a boost does the job better IMO. Those amps from the early 70's cant really approach metal territory.
NMV (at least Marshalls) may cut better to a point. But the power sections still cave in the same generally. They hit harder, but the volume isn’t going to be much different.No, actually. The 82/83 2204s tend to have the higher voltage PTs vs other year JMP/JMP MV amps. Total voltage 509v in that particular 2203; pv at 445. My 72 by contrast was at 490 total, 430 pv. The PT was a later 70s Dagnall out of a Superlead. 4145B if I remember. I have since replaced it with a period correct T3556….most were T3562 but some were T3556. Now it measures at 545v; 490 pv.
So when I was comparing the two, my 72 was lower voltage vs the 2203. NMV amps tend to easily overpower MV amps all things being equal.
Not that much gain difference between the two. My old stock Superleads do metal just fine. They don‘t particularly like the 7 string stuff all that much though.Destroyed in every way possible for the tone YOU are going for. I have a feeling you're not a fan of high gain amplification or high gain tones in any way... cause if that is what you liked a 2203 with a boost does the job better IMO. Those amps from the early 70's cant really approach metal territory.