Joe B talks Marshalls

[SG Std]

 

[corpse]

You cannot shit experience.
Good stuff.

 

[F-Hole]

Hmmmm

 

[c_wester]

Didn`t he go over to digital amps just now....

 

[Highmass]

You cannot shit experience.
Good stuff.

A little more knowledge about the subject than Mr. Bonamassa has would not hurt.

 

[corpse]

It's just that he has played them all- owns them all- with a critical ear. Tough to duplicate- right or wrong.

 

[F-Hole]

It's just that he has played them all- owns them all- with a critical ear. Tough to duplicate- right or wrong.

Bro, there's an awful lot of stuff in the video that's just historically wrong. Still, it's entertainment, not a history lesson. The unfortunate by-product is that "Joe says" becomes the new "it's fact man".

 

[corpse]

Wouldn’t this be the place to correct it?
I would hope.
Not the first time a player/entertainer is wrong in the tech/history aspect. He certainly spends time with them critically listening.
You have repeatedly waved a yellow card about Marshall amps posts here- where do I go to get the right timeline/tech line?
And “Bro”? Save that John.

 

[Highmass]

Wouldn’t this be the place to correct it?
I would hope.
Not the first time a player/entertainer is wrong in the tech/history aspect. He certainly spends time with them critically listening.
You have repeatedly waved a yellow card about Marshall amps posts here- where do I go to get the right timeline/tech line?
And “Bro”? Save that John.

I think the Marshall forum would be the obvious place for this.

 

[garywright]

I think the Marshall forum would be the obvious place for this.

this is the amplifier area…are you saying Marshall talk should be excluded and if so..would Fender, Vox etc be ok to discuss/critique in your eyes.

 

[SG Std]

Bro, there's an awful lot of stuff in the video that's just historically wrong. Still, it's entertainment, not a history lesson. The unfortunate by-product is that "Joe says" becomes the new "it's fact man".

I am just trying to 'liven' this place up.

Who cares if it's not 100% accurate?

This forum is not what it once was which is sad & we all should do what we can to make the 'Les Paul Forum' as good as it can be.

Joe himself left here in a bad/sad way as well as many others.

 

[Highmass]

this is the amplifier area…are you saying Marshall talk should be excluded and if so..would Fender, Vox etc be ok to discuss/critique in your eyes.

No I don´t think talking about any amplifiers should be excluded from the amplifier area. But the main reason I vistit this site, is for Les Pauls and other Gibsons. When there is another forum specifically dedicated to Marshalls, I would post there if I wanted to get into a lenghty discussion about JB´s mistakes in this case.

 

[Highmass]

I am just trying to 'liven' this place up.

Who cares if it's not 100% accurate?

This forum is not what it once was which is sad & we all should do what we can to make the 'Les Paul Forum' as good as it can be.

Joe himself left here in a bad/sad way as well as many others.

I don´t think it´s wrong of you to post the video. As F-Hole says, the problem is, that JB is considered an expert by many. And although I have no doubt that JB is an expert on many things, like for instance Les Pauls, Fenders (Both guitars and amps) and Dumbles, it is very clear to me, that although he knows quite a bit about Marshalls, he is not an expert on this subject. And since you ask, I for one DO care when an "expert" says something that is incomplete or even actually wrong, as that can lead many to believe something that is simply not correct. To exemplify, JB´s says that the difference between the JTM 45 and the JMP 50 is the rectification, which is a GZ34 for the JTM 45, and diodes for the JMP 50. He is absolutely correct about this, but he does not mention that the chassis material at the same time changes from aluminium (Non magnetic) to steel (Magnetic). And yes, it does matter whether the chassis is magnetic or not, as it affects the sound. You could also very easily get the impression from the video, that a 1967 Super Lead sounds just the same as a 1969 one. That is NOT correct. An obvious explanation to this is that they do NOT use the same transformers, but I would certainly not rule out the possibility that there can be other factors that are part of this difference.

 

[F-Hole]

And “Bro”? Save that John.

It's a casual, friendly greeting where I'm from.

Why the antagonism?

As for your "You have repeatedly waved a yellow card about Marshall amps posts here- where do I go to get the right timeline/tech line?"

First a confrontational dig, and then an information demand...........with that attitude you can plough your own furrow.

 

[F-Hole]

To exemplify, JB´s says that the difference between the JTM 45 and the JMP 50 is the rectification, which is a GZ34 for the JTM 45, and diodes for the JMP 50.

A casual observer might also notice KT66 vs EL34, different transformer specs, different operating voltages, different cap values, different resistors (which makes a huge difference).....ad nauseam.

 

[F-Hole]

I am just trying to 'liven' this place up.

Who cares if it's not 100% accurate?

This forum is not what it once was which is sad & we all should do what we can to make the 'Les Paul Forum' as good as it can be.

Joe himself left here in a bad/sad way as well as many others.

Well, you might care if you ever came to buy a vintage Marshall.

Given the response to my post, which acknowledged that Joe's video is "entertainment" and not a "history lesson", I can well understand why people have left.

I'll save you any further trouble and join Joe and those many others.

 

[ourmaninthenorth]

So to precis, JB blows bubbles about Marshall's, an authority on the said subject points it out, and somehow the tide turns against the authority.

FFS.

 

[Bwagster]

No wonder Joe left. Dang!!!!

 

[corpse]

I don´t think it´s wrong of you to post the video. As F-Hole says, the problem is, that JB is considered an expert by many. And although I have no doubt that JB is an expert on many things, like for instance Les Pauls, Fenders (Both guitars and amps) and Dumbles, it is very clear to me, that although he knows quite a bit about Marshalls, he is not an expert on this subject. And since you ask, I for one DO care when an "expert" says something that is incomplete or even actually wrong, as that can lead many to believe something that is simply not correct. To exemplify, JB´s says that the difference between the JTM 45 and the JMP 50 is the rectification, which is a GZ34 for the JTM 45, and diodes for the JMP 50. He is absolutely correct about this, but he does not mention that the chassis material at the same time changes from aluminium (Non magnetic) to steel (Magnetic). And yes, it does matter whether the chassis is magnetic or not, as it affects the sound. You could also very easily get the impression from the video, that a 1967 Super Lead sounds just the same as a 1969 one. That is NOT correct. An obvious explanation to this is that they do NOT use the same transformers, but I would certainly not rule out the possibility that there can be other factors that are part of this difference.

Now this is good John. Factual. I have read a dozen of your posts which caution against vintage original Marshalls-ok- I am now sufficiently frightened not to tread in that snake pit due to fraud.
Mostly Joe was talking about the difference in tone. He has a differentiating ear. (Surprising given the massive Db’s in his chosen profession). He didn’t delve as much into construction- dabbled- but not delved.
Bro where I am from, when someone is not your bro, is condescending. And you would never call someone who was in fact your bro, bro.
I am certain you knew that John.

 

[corpse]

And yes OMITN- when said authority conducts himself like a know it-all tool he might get called out.
But WTF do I know.