«  The return of ouch »

The series of entry-Marshall has been continuously updated since its appearance. On its website and in the press, we never stopped telling us that Marshall had done his homework and delivered the first series MG-sounding satisfactorily. This intrigued me and I dug up one for a test.

Approach
The craft, in terms of its production remains true to its reputation. Vinyl plastic input prices, pediment plastic imitation aluminum adjustment knobs plastic knobs and faux buttons Faux cheap knobs ... already creaking on the amp test store. it sucks, and in the tradition of his ancestors. The onboard effects are themselves a good point.

UTILIZATION

Apart from the problem of cracking of knobs, I also noticed that the mechanics of them (aka touch) settings were not in what may be called good. It is possible to switch from clean to crunch or distortion through the pimples quite enlightened practices. The amp is single channel tested, shows the shortcomings of the architecture, but alas, no benefits.

SOUNDS

There's the best
Frankly, compared to the previously tested series of MG's, this series actually sounds better. I will, however, more measured than the press.

The clean has never been a default on mg and always allowed to do its job. Here too, we have a clean which falls within the normal range of marshals cleans without the verve or the lives of older brothers of the mark, but that Sort this out relatively well.

The crunch is significantly better than previously, with a more harmonious whole, but beware of the used guitar and amp settings. Indeed, the treble still sounded, regardless of the mode (crunch or distortion), offensive as soon as we wanted to push them a bit and ruining the sound. It will be economical and pray that your instrument is no shortage of frequencies in this spectrum.

Mode distortion was mushy and a bit exaggerated, I did not like and did not try to enter it in depth.

Similarly, I would not see the eq as a tool for sculpting sound, but as a tow truck accessory. I could not greatly change the outcome with them, except if I was in extreme positions. Some might say it's a default. I say it's common for marshall and quite realistic compared to other heads, called "reference".

Regarding the dynamics, the receiver for a single channel, are few. It's better than before, but it is still somewhat dependent on its setting, and we feel that a compressor to take you somewhere where you do not necessarily choose to go. I also found a very low tendency to cheat in the crunch, not making all the nuances of what I wanted to express. However, the amp is fun to use. There was more frustration to be sure of having been had. There's fishing, a semblance of emotion and cleans cut property. So all you need to have fun during rehearsals. But more experienced users who are a good amp to avoid, probably.

Regarding volume, the amp gives off a lot, for a 30W transistor is very honorable. But the cab and the hp's were unable to follow the big climbs volume.

The effects were, however, well modularized and could effectively remove the signal to give an objective assessment of sound. it was quite good and avoid having to pay the pedals at first.

OVERALL OPINION

More recommended before, the new MG series I do not completely convinced. Sounds took the stamp, but the manufacturing quality remains flush with daisies. Not to mention the fact that kills. 395 Chf. I Extension of 110 balls and I already find the first good amp sounds without any shops equivalence with this amp. Without forgetting the Tech21 Trademark 30, less known, less powerful, just as expensive but much better fucking from every angle (sound quality) that mg. The presence also of low cost tube amps like the right markets bugera v22 is also more competition for mg, which is struggling to take its place.