Marshall 30th Anniversary 6100LM...any good or run away? NAD

  • Thread starter Thread starter SpiderWars
  • Start date Start date
SpiderWars

SpiderWars

Well-known member
I remember reading all kinds of reliability issues with these...or was it only the 6100LE (not LM) that had issues? How about the tone? Don't see them mentioned much so would appear to not be that highly regarded. Worth getting if cheap (like $600-$700)?
 
They sound good, and I would take one of those over any other 900 series. I've only played one 1 time, when sitting in with a friend's band. Sounded good! He's had his for years, I don't think he's had any problems with it.
 
The 6100LM is a head, its a solid amp. The midi is the thing that tends to go out and the combos seem to have the most issues. I had a 6101 LE with the LM mod. I really liked channel 1, 2a, and 2b. 2c was solid. Channel 3 would feedback/squeal very easily and just left me wanting in general. If there was a mod to footswitch between the modes on channel 2, that would be awesome, as channel 2 IMO is the star of this amp.

Also, most like EL34's in this amp versus 5881's. EL34's were used early in the run and 5881's later due to a supply issue with EL34's during that time period.
 
A friend of mine had one. Quite comparable to my QuickRod at the time. QR was tighter and a little more aggressive.
 
Cool amps, but very hit and miss. I've had a few that sounded great, and a few that were total duds. Some of them are certainly noisy, and quite a few seem prone to really buzzy transformers. I'm probably one of the few that likes the LM better than the original and prefer it with 6L6s to EL34s.
 
Cool, thanks for the input guys.

The 6L6s had me concerned but maybe I won't have to convert it. Did some research and apparently because it has so many tubes and the power supply for the midi switching comes from the filament supply; the PT is pushing it on that filament winding with EL34s (higher filament current) . That's allegedly what many of the issues are/were; the switching supply drops too low and gets all fubar. That and just plain ole overheating of combos.

I've built several amps and the thought of working on one of these scares me.
 
Combos had the most issues w/ heat and a few other areas.The heads are killer if you get a nice clean one.Ive had 2 blue el 34 6100s. One had a few issues, there is some serious major circuitry under the hood.Tech eventually figured it out and fixed it.My 2nd 6100 absolutely rips and I would put it up to most high gainers of today.Its brutal and im never selling it.The JVM series borrowed stuff from the 6100,especially its clean ch-one of the best marshall ever had.There's a lot of theads on the 6100 on the web.Alex Lifeson,Joe Satriani,Johnny A. used them for years.At the time,it was marshalls flagship.A very open,raw, and organic sounding amp.Be sure to get a good amp tech to give it a go over,fresh tube and bias and the 6100 will treat you right.
 
So I picked it up today for $500. Pretty clean with original footswitch and new Tung Sol power tubes and new Chinese preamp tubes (was hoping for old Shuguang pre's). Just fired it up and everything works, it's not that noisy at all, and it sounds good/decent upon first trying to dial it in at pretty low volume. Played it thru early 70's G12M-25s. It seems a bit fizzy and tubby in the bass but I didn't spend much time with it, it wasn't loud, etc. With some tube rolling, a boost/EQ up front and/or in the loop and it should rock pretty good.

FWIW, the dude that sold it to me said that the dude that did Cornford worked for Marshall at the time and said there are definite circuit similarities between this and the RK100.



 
It's a nice amp, sort of regret selling mine...dude i sold it to blew the foot switch (fuse?) too and tried to claim it back....luckily I took a video of the amp for him showing all functions worked before it shipped.....very common problem with these amps apparently.

From what I remember, it had a good clean, one channel was pure ACDC, the other great Marshall grind......one of the gain modes was real fizzy though but I didn't need to use it.

I always stick Tubescreamer out front to cut tubby bass....
 
jkdsteve":2ydkjfoo said:
It's a nice amp, sort of regret selling mine...dude i sold it to blew the foot switch (fuse?) too and tried to claim it back....luckily I took a video of the amp for him showing all functions worked before it shipped.....very common problem with these amps apparently.

From what I remember, it had a good clean, one channel was pure ACDC, the other great Marshall grind......one of the gain modes was real fizzy though but I didn't need to use it.

I always stick Tubescreamer out front to cut tubby bass....
Click to expand...
That's a good assessment. I just stuck a couple of C8's in V2 and V6 (channel 2) and played with it some more. Like many amps, it appears setting those channel masters as high as possible helps. I maxed the Clean Gain (still clean) and then balanced channel 2/3 MVs to that. Cusack Screamer into it next.
 
Congrats.


Looks great! I'd love to play one some day. Have fun.
 
The reason why Marshall went from EL34 to 6L6 there was a shortage on EL34 power tubes in in 1994. So Marshall had to redesign the Lead Modify (LM) and convert rest to handle 6L6 Power Tubes.

The LE version as a limited Run of about 800 Heads and 400 Combos that had a plaque inside that said like 1 of 800. The Chassis is made of Brass. It only ran for 1992 Marshall 30th year in the Business.
 
Yep, I certainly didn't need it but decided wtf. With a Cusack Screamer in front it's pretty kick-ass. I figured even if I hate it that it has the beginnings of an ambitious build with all the holes/etc already there. I could gut it and have spent less than buying a new chassis/transformers/sockets/switches/fuseholders/etc. And I'd have to modify any Marshall type chassis.
 
Congrats! Its really an underated amp.Ch 2 when set up right is to die for.
 
You got a nice deal on this one! Very cool. I'd like to play around with one of these some day.
 
I had one in '97 or so and it sounded great. Was tight and chunky (mainly lived on CH 3). It replaced an Ultra Lead. I played through a couple over the recent years to see if I wanted to revisit it and always come away very disappointed and wonder did I have an anomaly back then or is my perception of how it sounded wrong. I was plugging straight in with a Les Paul in drop C and the band was a punk metal hybrid that required a tight sound. The ones I've played are ill defined and fizzy on the high gain settings. But I don't think I've been able to play an LM which I think my 90's one was because I bought it new in '97. I would like to think if it knocked off an Ultra Lead it must have been better than what I've experienced recently.
 
skoora":1cghooni said:
I had one in '97 or so and it sounded great. Was tight and chunky (mainly lived on CH 3). It replaced an Ultra Lead. I played through a couple over the recent years to see if I wanted to revisit it and always come away very disappointed and wonder did I have an anomaly back then or is my perception of how it sounded wrong. I was plugging straight in with a Les Paul in drop C and the band was a punk metal hybrid that required a tight sound. The ones I've played are ill defined and fizzy on the high gain settings. But I don't think I've been able to play an LM which I think my 90's one was because I bought it new in '97. I would like to think if it knocked off an Ultra Lead it must have been better than what I've experienced recently.
Click to expand...

The amp might need to be re tube and I'm sure it would have been fine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top