Marshall JVM410C
+
Marshall JVM410C

JVM410C, Tube Combo Guitar Amp from Marshall in the JVM4 series.

Thaddée 06/10/2010

Marshall JVM410C : Thaddée's user review

« Very good versatility and excellent sonnorités »
5

  • Like
  • Tweet
  • Partager
  • Submit
  • Email
Value For Money : Excellent
* What type of amplification (lamp, transistor ,...)?
Amp any lamp, look for specifications in the previous opinion, everything is listed.

* What is the power delivered?
The power of 100W may sound a lot, especially if like me you played with an old tube amp from the front with a master of poor quality (master of the type: either not heat lamps and the sound resembles that of a transistor or heat lamps but his screams for use in home). Here the 100w is not a problem, the master works really well, no attenuator / modifications required to reduce the volume at home.

* What connections?
For connectivity, it has almost everything: from noon, input / output amplifiers, effects loop (parallel and serial), an emulated sound output, an input format for the footswitch jack. My only complaint is that the amp did not have headphones. That can be emulated via output. The amp is not stereo either.

* What are the settings, effects? ...
The 4-channel amp, each channel with its own button to change the mode (3 levels of gain per channel), it adds an equation to 3-band classic but works well, a volume knob, a knob of gain, a knob of reverb.
There are also 2 master, ideal if you have to change the volume quickly to highlight or otherwise blend into the mix.
Finally there are 2 knobs: presence and resonance that are used respectively to boost bass and treble.

The footswitch on it has 2 modes: a mode where it controls a stupid way the amp: The 6 buttons are assigned so that the first 4 control each channel, press again the button on the channel you want is, you change the mode to mode with more gain (not switch to one with less gain at least to make a full rotation of modes), the last 2 buttons are used to when they turned to the reverb and switcher to a master volume to another.
The second mode is much more interesting: you can directly saved presets on the switches to switch from one sound to another without loss of time to switch between channels / modes.
Finally you can also connect a MIDI pedal.

I note 9 / 10 for this part: the build quality does not seem bad at all, I like the grille that protects the rear of the amp, it avoids the hassle during transportation for example.

UTILIZATION

* The configuration is simple?
Clearly yes. I played on Mesa DC3 before, and it was really something else to find the sound we were looking for (although the opportunities to end with two channels were far more important than what Marshall). Here we have the simplicity of these amps "old school" (you turn a knob for the desired effect) while having the armada and sound settings as found on newer amps

Channels (apart from the last two may be) are very different from each other, either at the level of earnings, either at the texture of sound. So we know pretty quickly what channel to choose. It's the same for modes, all very different from each other.

* Gets it easy to sound good?
Yes, it's really an amp plug & play: both my Lag Roxane my Jazzmaster, all knob it sounds at noon, and 3 bands are basic equations were no surprises by turning a knob, if you add bass , it adds bass, that's all, so no trouble getting the sound you want for the little that is producible by a couple of your guitar and the jvm of course.

* The manual is clear and sufficient? ...
The manual is quite clear and addresses all the points (at least so far I've never had the impression that they have forgotten something). He has a little comm 'in it, which is pretty funny (I do not see the point of even brushing the hair of its product when the customer has in his hands).
I really have nothing to blame on that front in the sense that the concept is one adheres Marshall at the use settings or not one adheres, but in this case I do not see the point of buy it.
No criticism can be done either on the quantity of modes / channels because they are very distinct from each other, or he must really be in bad faith to say we're lost. 10/10

SOUNDS

* Will it fit your style of music?
I chose this amp because I wanted something more versatile and geared clean / crunch, since I direct myself more and more towards electro, jazz, etc. ...
The amp clearly very versatile, but only criticism for me is having a little trouble to get his grain-free metal cutting mediums. Even cutting the midrange to the extreme that grain was still very Marshall. That said, I have no guitar mic level output, and I almost never play metal, so it does not bother me more than that.

* With what (s) guitar (s) / low (s) or effect (s) do you play?
I have 3 guitars: A Lag RX100 (first series, produced in France), modified and equipped with PAF Pro in bridge, Air Norton side handle, a Fender Jazzmaster 62 'AVRI of origin, and a Lag JV200 home. I use as a Dunlop Crybaby 535Q whawha.

* What kind of sound you get and with what settings ("crystalline", "fat ",....)?
The clean and crunch surely have been the trigger for the purchase for me, and clean all by itself worth the trip. It's a clean clean, incredibly bubbly, always with this bump in the upper midrange to own Marshall. Compared to the image that I have clean the MTJ, the clean the JVM is much less round than the JTM. The various modes used to obtain cleans that we will more or less easy to reach saturation, or clean a bit more muscular.

Crunches are very good too, ranging from a crunch / clean where the sound goes on attack over cruncher heavy to very heavy crunch on the verge of saturation. It may also be creamy enough especially in crunch mode 2 and 3 of the crunch.

Both channels are saturated when very close to them, and used to obtain more or less saturated overdrive, overdrive ranging from classic to ultra saturated sound. To return to what I said above, if I had only one comment to make on the sounds of the amp, it would be on those channels where the original saturated it is relatively difficult to obtain its grain without saturation even digging in the far middle and playing with my Roxane who microphones typed his recent enough, so to see the day when I have a guitar to microphone level output if it sounds more metal. In any case the big hard rock or metal to the former, there's everything you need.

With regard to characterize the sound, I'd say it's Marshall, we like it or not the side a bit garish, especially where the harmonics in the treble, similar to the hump in the midrange. If you want a Mesa or Fender type sound, do not look for noon at 14h and take a Fender or Mesa.
In defects: it lacks bass and volume pot that can boost overall past have never been at 0 since I have. It refers particularly clean. Another shortcoming is to my taste (but unfortunately like many amp) the original reverb, and this for two things: not too annoying, every time I turn the amp, the first time I turned Reverb, the amp is a kind of "frrrrr" Within a second, then the sound does not happen at all until the next time I made it back on and again this noise. This is not especially troublesome when you forget to defuse this sound before launching into a song with reverb passage. The second point is the quality of the reverb. It is a basic reverb, nothing more. It's good when you do not pedal reverb, otherwise I can not find it specially good.

* What are the sounds you prefer, you hate?
The clean and crunch channels are by far those in which I spend the most time. The overdrives are cool, and there is clearly scope between the overdrive to make a big rhythmic chatter for the solo are having a soft or otherwise will be sharp, or heavy rhythmic saturated to the extreme.
That sounds like the least? certainly those related to the original reverb, but it does not bother me that much in the way I prefer to have good clean / crunch / overdrive reverb a good example (relatively easy to buy a reverb pedal by changing the cons of a clean amp, good luck).
I put 9 / 10 on this point, maybe I would see my grade when I spent more guitar heavy typed in, but so far I have always had what I wanted from him. I remove a point for that and for the reverb, although I am relatively confident that the majority of players are now moving pedals reverb (unless exceptional amp).

OVERALL OPINION

* For how long have you been using it?
I use it daily 1 to 2 hours per day for 3 months.

* What thing do you like most/least about it?
Positive:
- The amp is versatile in the extreme.
- No need to bother with pedals crunch or distortion (with exceptions).
- Very good sound quality.
- The price.
- A master really works.

Negative:
- Reverb really mean and who makes a funny noise the first time they are used.
- No headphone conventional (thank you master).

* Did you try many other models before getting this one?
I tried a Fender Twin among others, a voc AC30, a Laney Lionheart, a Mesa Triple Rectifier, and before I owned a Mesa / Boogie DC-3. I have not tested Peavy because I was fairly shocked by the last series (the "successor" of 5150 and the Joe Satriani signature series especially). To fast on the choice compared to these amps:
- Fender Twin: clean and reverb beautiful than the JVM, but good luck to catch original crunch / overdrive without investing in an armada of pedals. If the price of the amp was lower, maybe I should take the plunge.
- Vox AC30: one that clearly makes me hesitate, I am clean of the crackpot AC, I would not say of course not divine crunch they produce, and sounds obtained with the latter moving from various guitars and varied (for those who know, Akira Yamaoka played with an Ibanez Universe in an AC30). The only thing that repelled me: fear of having a share of worries volume (if I wanted to push the crunch) and also because I wanted to have two channels truly independent.
- Laney Lionheart: not really in the same category, so probably a good small tube amp to begin with, but I have not been attracted, especially by the more clean that way.
- Mesa Triple Rectifier, not really the same category in the other direction, much more expensive, not the same use. The amp is obviously excellent, but it's not what I was looking for (much heavier, and access high gain).
I also tested the first version of the JVM 2-channel, and seeing the price difference with the 4 channel version, I jumped on it.

* What is your opinion about the value for the price?
I found the quality / price excellent for 4-channel versions, not especially for version 2 channels (one 100aine euros difference between the two models for double features).
If compared to the competition: 4 channels independent customizable particularly, a relatively good connectivity, and a price around the same level as competitors (except vox which is cheaper it seems).

In terms of physical quality of the amp, I often read criticisms here and there on the quality of finished Marshalls. Personally I also find it a cheap mouth, for example there is a slight gap at the intake side amp power supply. Now yesterday I'm going to a concert, and after 30mins beautiful head Marshall falls from the top of its 4 * 12 cabinet. Ouch? The staff quickly refoule head on his cabinet, reconnect the scratch takes some clean, and then chained in a furious solo distortion, the head was exchanged with caution otherwise it sounded very well. I prefer that than the reverse: a beautiful object that goes well but eventually fell in the road every week.

* Knowing what you know now, would you make the same choice? ...
To summarize, I think a person needing a versatile amp up without the stress level of sound quality can pounce eyes closed: it sounds good, it will in all styles, it respects the guitar fairly well past input. I clear them what I wanted: a multi-channel amplifier where each channel is independent and allows me to have fun in all styles.
I note the amp in general at 10, because I think clearly that's something for his money. Reliability remains to be seen in time (we are never sure of anything).