Whenever I wanna learn anything about Marshalls I end up scrolling past every video until I see Johan haha. Now I know the 50 watt is a much better choice for my play style. Thanks for being so informative and clearing that up!
I have both (Pre Effect-Loop Reissues- 1987X & 1959SLP). 1959 more complex, more of everything, actually. I gig more with the 1987 though, primarily because it's 20 pounds lighter, and it still has the goods. I can't use either one without a PB100 attenuator. At a recent show, with venue backlined-cabinets, I had a situation where I couldn't use the attenuator because the venue's cabinet was 4-ohm only (big problem, as the PB100 is 8 & 16 Ohm only)... So I was without attenuation. Uh-oh. Turning the 50 watter up to just beginning of break up, it COMPLETELY overwhelmed the stage, the whole room actually. I ended up turning the whole rig around facing it backwards and stuffing the cabinet front grill into the curtains at the back of the stage, thankfully the joint had those curtains. Got thru the show. The 1959 is loud for sure, but so is the 1987. Sound guys, who listen with their eyes, will constantly harp on me as soon as they see my half stack. The only thing worse than being loud, with these sound guys, is LOOKING loud. I get away with murder when I use a small combo amp. ;)
My 100w SB with 6CA7’s has insane bass clarity and strength with just a guitar, and esp with g12H at 55hz But it was just too spikey especially with heavy strings and action. Never had a problem with only 4 speakers handling the amp, but I could only cope with 8.5 (NMV) So I went the other direction to compress signal, push mids, and keep the power: 8’s replaced 11’s, got the strings and pickups close, EL34L’s, and Amperex NOS Holland AX7’s replaced the JJAX7’s. Finally, g12M at 75hz replaced the Heavies. Night and day difference and both have their moments but overall this update is warm wooly awesomeness Koss would be proud of.
I have very much wondered about the differences between these two amps for a long time. Johan! Thanks for doing this. I greatly appreciate it. Peace from the US.
just yesterday brought my 50 w from service to practice room and it really always amazes me the sweetnes of its breakup. used a hot plate attenuator @-8db and never crossed half volume on the head. it was just perfect. yup!
A technical correction: 3dB is not "twice as loud" to the ear. To achieve that, you need an increase of 10dB. 3dB is indeed what you get when you double the amplifier power AND double the speakers. But it sounds "a bit" louder, not 2X.
I mostly agree. The 100 watt amp IS NOT twice as loud as a 50 watt amp! In order to double the volume you would have to increase the wattage by 10 TIMES! A 100 watt amp is only 5 decibels louder 👈🏻 than a 50 watt amp. With that said, I have a Marshall 1987x and a Marshall JVM 205H… both 50 watt amps. I suppose I have an affinity for lower wattage guitar amps simply due to earlier breakup. The 50 watt amps at 4 or 5 have a richer sound in my opinion. There is the issue of fuller bass in the 100 watt models, but for non master volume amps like the 1987x, early breakup on power tubes makes the amp more usable with less punishing volume. Great video and comparison.
This is an interesting comparison. I’ve read that Angus Young would use 100 watters for the rhythm tracks and 50 watters for the solos, which seems to make sense given the extra bit of gain and compression it offers. Great video!
I think the 1959 is a more complex sounding amp… you get a certain type of crunch that is not achievable by the 1987. As inconvenient as it is having such a loud powerful amp, I still prefer the all mighty 1959 Super Lead.
Totally agree that the Hundred Watters are amazing for clean tone. My ‘73 Superbass has amazing clean tone. Destroys most Fender clean sounds. So punchy and harmonically rich. There is simply no subsititute for power when it comes to tube amps…
I like the 1959 for the fullness of the tone, while the 1987 in my opinion sounds better when clean. They are both great sounding amp, I had both, now I kept the 100 watter, best amplifier ever!
Thanks Johan for playing those wonderful vintage Marshall amps. It's always a pleasure to my ears. I noticed the 1987X brakes up quite early in regards to the volume and as you mentioned the 1959 has more headroom and defines the bass better. Regarding KISS setup back around "Alive" the best quality view was on 100000 years, I saw 3 full stacks on Paul and Ace's side. The bottom amps were connected to high input; your statement makes sense, that 2 or even 3 x 100 watt might blow up the speakers especially during a whole set. I don't think they used stage monitors at that time. During the reunion years, Ace had 6 Randall amplifiers, Paul had a stack of 6 JCM900 SL-X.
@@JohanSegeborn. I forgot to mention that I saw the reunion stacks on "Psycho Circus tour" Stadium setup, which of cause makes sense with so much air to move. Yesterday after I commented on your video I watched a "Premiere Guitar" interview with Ace's tech, since 2008. Ace uses now 2 JCM 2000 DSL in his tour rig; no speakers mentioned.
Hi Johan, really interesting the comment on Kiss rig during Alive! era, 11:25 I don't know how it is possible for each guitarist (Paul and Ace) to use in parallel both heads... probably the second was as a backup, keeping turned on for the tubes kept warm...
Let's go !!!! Someone spilt a rum n coke down that full stack !! When Ace auditioned for KISS I believe he had a 1987 super lead !! Great observation about kiss' amps n cabs !!!!
I have a 1987x which I love in terms of (overdrive) sound and feel. It breaks up really quick and is pretty aggressive, so almost no clean from the amp itself, but you can clean it up with your guitar. The biggest downside is the lack of headroom in turns of boosting. After about 1,5 on the volume it's mostly an increase of gain and compression, so if you get the overdrive from the amp, you cannot get it much louder for leads with a boost pedal.
Have you seen this video? th-cam.com/video/rE8SqvQEeXE/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=MarshallAmplification He uses the different inputs for different sounds using an A/B box. Also removing the bright cap from the bright channel will massively increase the headroom and make the amp a lot more versatile.
Hi Johan,both sound great. I have always been a 50 watt man ever since Duane. He used a 50 watt and Dicky always used 100 watts. The 50 watt has more attack and urgency to it. But then again you can't deny Dickys great tone as well. Cheers
Obviously they both sound great I'll take 100 w half stack with a fryette power station all night long thank you for the awesome videos please keep them coming
@Johan Segeborn, I was wondering, Johan, I always thought there was a difference in circuit design between the two, but a builder of these amps told me that the only difference was wattage and player feel/experience.
In my experience the 50w always sound better pushing a single G12M 4x12 than a 100w pushing two G12M cabs. Using the H magnets, I think the 100w fares better with two cabs than the 50 with a single cab. For whatever reasons.... what is going on with the way the speakers are getting pushed (or not) , magic mojo from the rock tone gods, etc- those just seem to be the best sounding combinations.
Just so you know, the Brown Sound is James Brown from EVH fame and it goes his amps are the ones with the brown sound ! They were all chasing a vintage Marshall Eddie had any how !
Not surprising, really, given the lack of clean headroom of the 1987x versus the 1959 and the fact the Variac used by EVH for the brown sound had the effect of limiting clean headroom and giving a more saturated sound.
I have both heads with same year cabs. Oddly enough an early 71 100watt and a 50watt from 74. Very close to what your using. I use a lower value cap on the volume pots and disconnect the feedback wire. This removes the harshness and really allows the amp to bloom. A Variac and attenuator keeps things in check. Early metal panel amps are known to be a bit on the bright side. I do prefer the 100 watt, as it’s a bit tighter, has more thump and overall a bigger sound. Great comparison. Thanks Johan
I like the extra detail and definition with the bass in the 1959 but having the 1987 breakup so early on the volume would make it a lot easier to gig with or even play at home than the 1959. With volume 1 being distorted but a bit shrill at lower volume I think the 1987 would do well with having the channels jumpered. The 1959 has more bass and even gain going up the volume so I don't think it'd need to be jumpered. It just seems overwhelming loud by the time it starts to breakup while the 1987 does it more rapidly. I don't know if there has been a bright cap change in either one but the 1987 breaks up way faster and sounds like it's sagging more or caving in on itself at full volume while the 1959 just belts out the notes. In any case it makes me wish you'd compare an SV20 to the 1987 and 1959 if you ever have all three in the same room
@@stephanguisseppi I've got an SV20 as well, I've just got to hear how the lower frequencies sound compared to the 50 and 100w since the 100 watt sounds a bit different from the 50. The 100 and 50w are the real deal and the little 20w does a good job as well but they're all going to sound different because of the headroom
Hi Johan , great video as usual! I'm a vox AC 30 Guy but I did own a 100 watt super lead . It was way too loud to be practical. it was always kind of thin sounding. I use it with a THD hot Plate back in the Day to dig into the power section a little more and faten up the tone . Not a very good power attenuator, but you could knock it down a few decibals without killing the tone and dynamics too much . I pulled the two outside power tubes to bring it to a 50 watt. This faten up the tone a little and got it to compress more . But when all was said and done I got more warmth, mid-range saturation and growl and nice bouncy compression with a nice bloom out of the vox ac 30 . So in this video I naturally gravitated towards the 50 Marshall. Just thicker sounding, more power tubes and output transformer saturation .
Both killer sounding, but hard to choose one. The 1987 seems to have much more gain on tap perfect for a wide range of classic rock, but on the cleaner sounds the 1959 complex tone with much more headroom can't be beat. That said the 50W head wins in terms of usable volume levels and transport... Cheers!
I love how bright the Les Paul sounds in this video. Would you attribute that to the amps or is there a special bridge pickup in the guitar right now ?
Great video, Johan! Demo of 1987 and 1959 always good, and I like your discussion after. Is the conclusion that for the best sound Greenbacks are "consumables"? For just the guitar I liked 1987 best, richer sound. In a mix it might be different. Maybe you need 1959 if your band mates were named e.g. Ginger Baker and Jack Bruce?
Johan, could you please make a comparison of the 1987 vs 2204 and the 1959 vs the 2203? Your 1977 2204 has often sounded like a 50 W non-master to me in clips, but I've never heard a 2203 come that close to 1959's less-compressed sound. The 1959 is definitely a handful to live with, but I love its headroom and detail. I usually run mine at 4 or 5 on the volume, and it's probably less harsh to me because I put it through a 1970 1982A cab - with regular 75 Hz Greenbacks it can definitely be a razor blade!
I think a good way to hear the difference of these heads is listen to The Allman Brothers Live at The Filmore. Dickey used 100watts, Duane used 50 watts though I've heard Duane used 50Watt bass heads
I have the same '72 50 and also a '75 and then have an SLP. They're quite diffrenet beasts but if you tend to use an attenuator it becomes a matter of nuances
So should I pass on buying the new 1959 HW 100 since I have the 1972 50 watt? Mine is in excellent condition since I bought it in 1985 and hate to have anything happen to it is another reason I was thinking about buying the 1959 HW. Please advise
@@DMSProduktions Bro, I can say it right HERE AND NOW. I am, fortunately not living in Russia since 1990. I am from Israel.:-) But I actually did it in my last stream, and if they will keep on with that war, I will keep on with my french band, called HRAD. You can find it on Spotify, Ba bandcamp. Its called "Legends From the Analog Past". I like those guys - in France the culture isil9 very nice. So for all Putin's "gangsters" I have an answer: "I am living in Israel, so don't know nothing. My band is in France. I am after 32 years no more Russian. Actually, I am german, married with Israeli woman. See you! Don't disappear, please, miss you, my friend 🤝
I find it very funny how often it is stated that the 100w has more bass or less compression. I suspect that most people have no clue how loud these amps actually are and that standing in front of them inflicts pain. Uncle Larry states that the biggest difference between the two is a usable clean range with the 100w version.
I own a 75 1987 50 w I run it through a 74 cab w original creambacks 1221 cones and a 78 cab with 1996 g12L35s (out of a red bear) in parallel. With my 95 les paul or 93 explorer it sounds like heaven. My 2004 jcm 2000 100w full stack cant make that sound.
Excuse my somewhat newby amp ignorance, but how are you able to hear the sound with headphones on? Surely it's different than the sound presented to free space? If anyone could school me real quick on this I'd be very grateful 🙂
Fascinating comparison, I like both! I guess I lean towards the 1959 as I have a reissue 1996 100w, I have recorded it at all volume settings & hear a lot of similar tones as I use greenbacks in quads as well, of course they sound great without attenuation devices, however, in the real world unless you are in a stadium that's not going to happen! So attenuation or pedals are the usual suspects!
The 1987 has a very focused sound and gets better the more its pushed, in comparison the 1959 can sound a bit distant and the EQ goes a bit weird the more its pushed.
I wish I had seen this video 3 months earlier. I would have rather bought 1987x... My 1959hw sounds good anyway, just incredinly loud! Greetings from Helsinki.
Well I have a 1972 park 75 with the KT 88s but I also have a 1971 50 watt JMP and I prefer the 50 watt myself I like the way they break up I like the funk I like the nastiness, roll the volume back a little for clean sounds I'll stick with the fifties I thought you sounded better on that. Has that early seventies Michael schetner thing going on
@@JohanSegeborn woah.. i didn't know that. But is this valid only for this kind of vintage Marshall amp or for every amp? Example: i have a 30w rated peavey valve amp with a single 30w speaker. Should i be worried?
3dB is twice the power. The reality is that the 100 watt amp is louder but not by much. Say you get 120 decibels volume max with the 50 watt. With all being equal you will get 123dB with the 100 watt amp.
Just don't turn them up to eleven, then you won't blow up your speakers! Lol. I used to have a 30 watt speaker in a 100 watt combo. Played it for years without blowing that speaker. I sold my 5 100 watt amps. Now I'm using 15 to 50 watt ones. The 50 watter sounded smoother. Actually twice the power doesn't equal twice the volume. That's been known for years.
ac/dc supposedly goes thru a lot of cabs and transformers on the road doing exactly that somewhere on u tube there's an interview w/ their sound tech my experience w/100 vs 50w marshals is the 100w are too loud for most clubs/ drummers and the 50w isn't loud enough it doesn't seem like you can get the same kind of dynamics and expressiveness w/ the 50w
I have two 1959s...a 2000 plexi reissue and a 1979 metal-face, only 2 rules: always use with the power brake & don't try to play slow jazz thru either one...\m/
That was easy.The 1987 50 blows the 1959 super lead away!You can use a variac on the super lead and make it sound good.But with full voltage they are horrible
Thanks for the video. Obviously the 100W version have more rich and fluent sound. I was intend to purchase a 50W, now no question the 100w clearly better.
Hello Johan, in my opinion the 1987( 50watt) is way better in most of the occasions: loud enough for playing with a band and compete with a drummer, good sounding at any volume level, smoother, with more mids and better cutting through, its cons compared to the 1959 are not really cons actually: no sound engineer or producer is actually happy with the load of bass that the 1959 has, at low volumes the 100watter sounds thin and weak more than clean-ish , and 5he 100watter is painfully loud, which unfortunately is the main way to make that head " alive", so...1987 for all!😊 Cheers
1959 sounded flatter, cleaner, bigger, less compressed, tighter - sounded best to me above 6. 1987 sounded thicker, more compressed, more mid-focused, looser - sounded best to me between 4 and 6.
Maybe the Allman Brothers had it right. Go with a 50 watter and use JBL or some other very efficient speaker. If you want some distortion and creamy tone in any room/club less than 3000 sq feet the 100 watter is just to damn loud.
It’s a misconception that a 100w is “twice” as loud. As far as decibels go, a 50w is about 75% of a 100w. The only reason to have a 100w these days is if you’re on a massive arena or stadium stage and are going for massive stage volume.
Sure, if you're only judging by wattage alone, there's no practical application for a 100 watt head 90% of the time. But there is a significant tonal difference between these two heads alone (not just these two specific examples, but with these two models across the board). Personally I much prefer the girth and the headroom of the 100 watter. It lacks the level of compression and is slightly more scooped, with more low end and later breakup allowing for more versatility. I own a 100 watt 1959HW Super Lead, and pair it with a good attenuator where I can dial it all the way back to bedroom levels if I want. And nothing else I have ever plugged into gives me that tone. Even the 50 watt Plexis simply don't cut it for me.
@@Mold81 I use an SPL Reducer. It’s passive and completely tonally transparent. I have tried every attenuator on the market, and I mean _every_ one of them, and none compare to the convenience, sonic transparency, or versatility of that unit. German engineering at its finest. I highly recommend checking one out if you have the chance.
1987 is more gayny, but surprisingly little bit thicker than 1959… I like 1987… Pd: the community should think about giving johan a loop station…poor johan with numb fingers after playing the same riff 100 times… lol
Please release impulse response using your cabinets and your recording technique, for us poor souls who aren't able to play loud but are striving to get close to your iconic tone. I would buy that s*it in a second!
Overall not bad just one suggestion especially when you’re speaking at the end of this stop rocking back-and-forth it’s really fucking annoying. What you’re saying is OK but just work on the delivery
Whenever I wanna learn anything about Marshalls I end up scrolling past every video until I see Johan haha. Now I know the 50 watt is a much better choice for my play style. Thanks for being so informative and clearing that up!
I have both (Pre Effect-Loop Reissues- 1987X & 1959SLP). 1959 more complex, more of everything, actually. I gig more with the 1987 though, primarily because it's 20 pounds lighter, and it still has the goods. I can't use either one without a PB100 attenuator. At a recent show, with venue backlined-cabinets, I had a situation where I couldn't use the attenuator because the venue's cabinet was 4-ohm only (big problem, as the PB100 is 8 & 16 Ohm only)... So I was without attenuation. Uh-oh. Turning the 50 watter up to just beginning of break up, it COMPLETELY overwhelmed the stage, the whole room actually. I ended up turning the whole rig around facing it backwards and stuffing the cabinet front grill into the curtains at the back of the stage, thankfully the joint had those curtains. Got thru the show. The 1959 is loud for sure, but so is the 1987. Sound guys, who listen with their eyes, will constantly harp on me as soon as they see my half stack. The only thing worse than being loud, with these sound guys, is LOOKING loud. I get away with murder when I use a small combo amp. ;)
Still the best channel on TH-cam for amp sounds. Love you Johan. You are the coolest guy!
My 100w SB with 6CA7’s has insane bass clarity and strength with just a guitar, and esp with g12H at 55hz
But it was just too spikey especially with heavy strings and action. Never had a problem with only 4 speakers handling the amp, but I could only cope with 8.5 (NMV)
So I went the other direction to compress signal, push mids, and keep the power: 8’s replaced 11’s, got the strings and pickups close, EL34L’s, and Amperex NOS Holland AX7’s replaced the JJAX7’s. Finally, g12M at 75hz replaced the Heavies.
Night and day difference and both have their moments but overall this update is warm wooly awesomeness Koss would be proud of.
I have very much wondered about the differences between these two amps for a long time. Johan! Thanks for doing this. I greatly appreciate it. Peace from the US.
Thanks Mark! Great to hear that
just yesterday brought my 50 w from service to practice room and it really always amazes me the sweetnes of its breakup. used a hot plate attenuator @-8db and never crossed half volume on the head. it was just perfect. yup!
A technical correction: 3dB is not "twice as loud" to the ear. To achieve that, you need an increase of 10dB. 3dB is indeed what you get when you double the amplifier power AND double the speakers. But it sounds "a bit" louder, not 2X.
I mostly agree. The 100 watt amp IS NOT twice as loud as a 50 watt amp! In order to double the volume you would have to increase the wattage by 10 TIMES! A 100 watt amp is only 5 decibels louder 👈🏻 than a 50 watt amp. With that said, I have a Marshall 1987x and a Marshall JVM 205H… both 50 watt amps. I suppose I have an affinity for lower wattage guitar amps simply due to earlier breakup. The 50 watt amps at 4 or 5 have a richer sound in my opinion. There is the issue of fuller bass in the 100 watt models, but for non master volume amps like the 1987x, early breakup on power tubes makes the amp more usable with less punishing volume. Great video and comparison.
This is an interesting comparison. I’ve read that Angus Young would use 100 watters for the rhythm tracks and 50 watters for the solos, which seems to make sense given the extra bit of gain and compression it offers. Great video!
Love them both, but for my tone, I'd pick the 1987. That's the tone I go for in my current rig. Great video as usual. God bless and rock on 🎸👍😎
Thanks man, rock on!
I think the 1959 is a more complex sounding amp… you get a certain type of crunch that is not achievable by the 1987. As inconvenient as it is having such a loud powerful amp, I still prefer the all mighty 1959 Super Lead.
Spot on. (with my 1987x and 1959SLP)
The 1959 seems tighter, whereas the 1987 is more brash. It might also have to do with the 50 vs 100 watts.
Nah I like the 87x. Longterm, two amps, 1987x and a 79 Master Volume dual input. :) Maybe an SLP for cleans :) It can go louder staying clean.
Totally agree that the Hundred Watters are amazing for clean tone. My ‘73 Superbass has amazing clean tone. Destroys most Fender clean sounds. So punchy and harmonically rich. There is simply no subsititute for power when it comes to tube amps…
I like the 1959 for the fullness of the tone, while the 1987 in my opinion sounds better when clean. They are both great sounding amp, I had both, now I kept the 100 watter, best amplifier ever!
Thanks Johan for playing those wonderful vintage Marshall amps. It's always a pleasure to my ears. I noticed the 1987X brakes up quite early in regards to the volume and as you mentioned the 1959 has more headroom and defines the bass better. Regarding KISS setup back around "Alive" the best quality view was on 100000 years, I saw 3 full stacks on Paul and Ace's side. The bottom amps were connected to high input; your statement makes sense, that 2 or even 3 x 100 watt might blow up the speakers especially during a whole set.
I don't think they used stage monitors at that time.
During the reunion years, Ace had 6 Randall amplifiers, Paul had a stack of 6 JCM900 SL-X.
Thanks Steffen! Interesting!
@@JohanSegeborn. I forgot to mention that I saw the reunion stacks on "Psycho Circus tour" Stadium setup, which of cause makes sense with so much air to move. Yesterday after I commented on your video I watched a "Premiere Guitar" interview with Ace's tech, since 2008. Ace uses now 2 JCM 2000 DSL in his tour rig; no speakers mentioned.
Great video. 1987 for me. Each increase in the volume added more colour. Rock solid stability in an uncertain world 👌
Thanks Eddie! Yeah lots of different distortion textures with the 1987
It does it all for me .. and if possible, make it a 1968 :)
for 100watters I prefer Hiwatts
Hi Johan, really interesting the comment on Kiss rig during Alive! era, 11:25 I don't know how it is possible for each guitarist (Paul and Ace) to use in parallel both heads... probably the second was as a backup, keeping turned on for the tubes kept warm...
Let's go !!!! Someone spilt a rum n coke down that full stack !!
When Ace auditioned for KISS I believe he had a 1987 super lead !! Great observation about kiss' amps n cabs !!!!
I have a 1987x which I love in terms of (overdrive) sound and feel. It breaks up really quick and is pretty aggressive, so almost no clean from the amp itself, but you can clean it up with your guitar. The biggest downside is the lack of headroom in turns of boosting. After about 1,5 on the volume it's mostly an increase of gain and compression, so if you get the overdrive from the amp, you cannot get it much louder for leads with a boost pedal.
Have you seen this video? th-cam.com/video/rE8SqvQEeXE/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=MarshallAmplification
He uses the different inputs for different sounds using an A/B box. Also removing the bright cap from the bright channel will massively increase the headroom and make the amp a lot more versatile.
@@astraplaneta4656 yes, I have seen that one. Pretty awesome. Personally I like linking the channels and having the bright cap though.
Hi Johan!The 1987 for me!I have a 1987x myself with a 1960TV cab.Together with my Les Paul it's a match made in heaven!
How does the tv cab enhance the tone with the 1987x?
as opposed to a 1969AX cab?
The tone is a bit fuller and less harsh
i’m thinking of the same amp/cab/Les Paul combination.I don’t want harshness! not for metal or modern ,just love old time rock and roll!
I always preferred the sound and feel of 50 watters...they also cost less to buy and to retube!
Hi Johan,both sound great. I have always been a 50 watt man ever since Duane. He used a 50 watt and Dicky always used 100 watts. The 50 watt has more attack and urgency to it. But then again you can't deny Dickys great tone as well. Cheers
People also overlook that when page was using his 2 custom spec Hiwatts one of them was a 50 watter . I love 50 Watters .
@@adamwatson6916 I am a 50 watt guy myself. Best tone and easier to get power tube break up!
Obviously they both sound great I'll take 100 w half stack with a fryette power station all night long thank you for the awesome videos please keep them coming
@Johan Segeborn, I was wondering, Johan, I always thought there was a difference in circuit design between the two, but a builder of these amps told me that the only difference was wattage and player feel/experience.
In my experience the 50w always sound better pushing a single G12M 4x12 than a 100w pushing two G12M cabs. Using the H magnets, I think the 100w fares better with two cabs than the 50 with a single cab. For whatever reasons.... what is going on with the way the speakers are getting pushed (or not) , magic mojo from the rock tone gods, etc- those just seem to be the best sounding combinations.
Jeg nyder altid dine videoer, informative og underholdende.
The 1987x sounds like brown sound. The 1959spl sounds like some sort of soulful, epic, legendary, basic rock tone. Perhaps even more than the JTM45.
Yeah the 1987 is indeed much browner
Just so you know, the Brown Sound is James Brown from EVH fame and it goes his amps are the ones with the brown sound !
They were all chasing a vintage Marshall Eddie had any how !
@@AuntAlnico4 Eddia used a super bass for his brown sound
Not surprising, really, given the lack of clean headroom of the 1987x versus the 1959 and the fact the Variac used by EVH for the brown sound had the effect of limiting clean headroom and giving a more saturated sound.
I have both heads with same year cabs. Oddly enough an early 71 100watt and a 50watt from 74. Very close to what your using. I use a lower value cap on the volume pots and disconnect the feedback wire. This removes the harshness and really allows the amp to bloom. A Variac and attenuator keeps things in check. Early metal panel amps are known to be a bit on the bright side. I do prefer the 100 watt, as it’s a bit tighter, has more thump and overall a bigger sound. Great comparison. Thanks Johan
I love your discussion videos 👍🏼
How does the 1959 compare with 2 tubes removed?
Thanks man, that’s a great idea for a video!
@@JohanSegeborn also, were the two amps using the same preamp spec? Coupling caps, cathode bypass caps etc?
@@JohanSegeborn I've tried running my Super Lead with 2 tubes removed and it seemed to make a good portion of its magic disappear.
If "BOTH" isn't an option, I'm going with the 1987. They're both freaking killer though!!
Thanks!
I like them both equally for what they're good at.
I like the extra detail and definition with the bass in the 1959 but having the 1987 breakup so early on the volume would make it a lot easier to gig with or even play at home than the 1959. With volume 1 being distorted but a bit shrill at lower volume I think the 1987 would do well with having the channels jumpered.
The 1959 has more bass and even gain going up the volume so I don't think it'd need to be jumpered. It just seems overwhelming loud by the time it starts to breakup while the 1987 does it more rapidly. I don't know if there has been a bright cap change in either one but the 1987 breaks up way faster and sounds like it's sagging more or caving in on itself at full volume while the 1959 just belts out the notes.
In any case it makes me wish you'd compare an SV20 to the 1987 and 1959 if you ever have all three in the same room
Thanks, I’ll compare it to a SV first chance I get
The SV20 is an incredible amp. Especially for the price. Needs to be jumpered though.
@@stephanguisseppi I've got an SV20 as well, I've just got to hear how the lower frequencies sound compared to the 50 and 100w since the 100 watt sounds a bit different from the 50. The 100 and 50w are the real deal and the little 20w does a good job as well but they're all going to sound different because of the headroom
Hi Johan , great video as usual! I'm a vox AC 30 Guy but I did own a 100 watt super lead . It was way too loud to be practical. it was always kind of thin sounding. I use it with a THD hot Plate back in the Day to dig into the power section a little more and faten up the tone . Not a very good power attenuator, but you could knock it down a few decibals without killing the tone and dynamics too much . I pulled the two outside power tubes to bring it to a 50 watt. This faten up the tone a little and got it to compress more . But when all was said and done I got more warmth, mid-range saturation and growl and nice bouncy compression with a nice bloom out of the vox ac 30
. So in this video I naturally gravitated towards the 50 Marshall. Just thicker sounding, more power tubes and output transformer saturation .
Thanks Dave! Yeah the 50W compresses more which can be perceived as fatter and smoother
I’m biased since I own an original late 70’s JMP 1987. I preferred over a 100w as the 50w compressed so much sooner.
Both killer sounding, but hard to choose one. The 1987 seems to have much more gain on tap perfect for a wide range of classic rock, but on the cleaner sounds the 1959 complex tone with much more headroom can't be beat. That said the 50W head wins in terms of usable volume levels and transport... Cheers!
All I know is that you must have some incredible ear-pro! Both are incredible but the 1959 has a richer tone for my money. Great video.
I have a JCM 800 model 1987. Great amp. Can hang with many 100 watt heads easily. Big transformers.
Not the same thing.... Year 1987 and 1987x are 2 different things. The 800 is a different circuit.
@@toddashley407 There is a model 1987 from the JCM 800 series. There is also a model 2204 from the JCM 800 series….
I love how bright the Les Paul sounds in this video. Would you attribute that to the amps or is there a special bridge pickup in the guitar right now ?
Lead spec amps are naturally really cutting and bright
He use high treble input 2, could have more bass if bridged both channels.
Great video, Johan! Demo of 1987 and 1959 always good, and I like your discussion after. Is the conclusion that for the best sound Greenbacks are "consumables"?
For just the guitar I liked 1987 best, richer sound. In a mix it might be different. Maybe you need 1959 if your band mates were named e.g. Ginger Baker and Jack Bruce?
Soundwise I do prefer the 1959. To me It has more of that gnarly Marshall tone, and it feels tighter all the way.
Johan, could you please make a comparison of the 1987 vs 2204 and the 1959 vs the 2203? Your 1977 2204 has often sounded like a 50 W non-master to me in clips, but I've never heard a 2203 come that close to 1959's less-compressed sound.
The 1959 is definitely a handful to live with, but I love its headroom and detail. I usually run mine at 4 or 5 on the volume, and it's probably less harsh to me because I put it through a 1970 1982A cab - with regular 75 Hz Greenbacks it can definitely be a razor blade!
Hi, yeah 1987 vs 2204 would be interesting. I think the 2204 will be slightly more nasal sounding and much gainier. Cheers
I think a good way to hear the difference of these heads is listen to The Allman Brothers Live at The Filmore. Dickey used 100watts, Duane used 50 watts though I've heard Duane used 50Watt bass heads
Johan I have a 1972 50 watt Marshall . Should I buy the 1959 HW 100 for a different tone or is this just too much the same tone with more watts?
I have the same '72 50 and also a '75 and then have an SLP. They're quite diffrenet beasts but if you tend to use an attenuator it becomes a matter of nuances
I think the 1959HW is a bit stiff and harsh compared to an early 70s Super Lead
So should I pass on buying the new 1959 HW 100 since I have the 1972 50 watt? Mine is in excellent condition since I bought it in 1985 and hate to have anything happen to it is another reason I was thinking about buying the 1959 HW. Please advise
Dang these amps are bright. Rockin' tones all the way through man 🤘
Thanks! :-)
Hi, Johan! They are awesome! 87 is more "talking to me"!
See you!👍
Z.
Thanks Zigfrid!
Hi Ziggy! Good amps!
CAN you, from all of us here please tell Putin 'tvoyu maat!' ?
Cheers!
@@DMSProduktions Bro, I can say it right HERE AND NOW. I am, fortunately not living in Russia since 1990. I am from Israel.:-) But I actually did it in my last stream, and if they will keep on with that war, I will keep on with my french band, called HRAD. You can find it on Spotify, Ba bandcamp. Its called "Legends From the Analog Past". I like those guys - in France the culture isil9 very nice. So for all Putin's "gangsters" I have an answer: "I am living in Israel, so don't know nothing. My band is in France. I am after 32 years no more Russian. Actually, I am german, married with Israeli woman.
See you! Don't disappear, please, miss you, my friend 🤝
@@siegfriedwashburn3484 Haha! GOOD to hear! NOT going anywhere Zigg!
Shalom chever!
@@DMSProduktions Shalom u bracha (Peace and bless you!) 👍. Our country is smaller, then 10watt amp, but sounds like a big full stock!😂 See you, bro!
I find it very funny how often it is stated that the 100w has more bass or less compression. I suspect that most people have no clue how loud these amps actually are and that standing in front of them inflicts pain. Uncle Larry states that the biggest difference between the two is a usable clean range with the 100w version.
Hello, is the 1959 preamp circuit the same as the 1987 preamp circuit, just different power sections?
The 50 watt half stack sounded best to my ears.
Thanks Goobie!
I own a 75 1987 50 w I run it through a 74 cab w original creambacks 1221 cones and a 78 cab with 1996 g12L35s (out of a red bear) in parallel. With my 95 les paul or 93 explorer it sounds like heaven. My 2004 jcm 2000 100w full stack cant make that sound.
Excuse my somewhat newby amp ignorance, but how are you able to hear the sound with headphones on? Surely it's different than the sound presented to free space? If anyone could school me real quick on this I'd be very grateful 🙂
Curious, is this 50 watt 1987 an early '73 that's still handwired or a later '73? (Not that I think it would make a sonic difference)
Fascinating comparison, I like both! I guess I lean towards the 1959 as I have a reissue 1996 100w, I have recorded it at all volume settings & hear a lot of similar tones as I use greenbacks in quads as well, of course they sound great without attenuation devices, however, in the real world unless you are in a stadium that's not going to happen! So attenuation or pedals are the usual suspects!
I'm going to have to go with the 1987 just because I have one and not the other.
If you can crank up, the 59 sounds best, if not the 87 is the way to go, that’s why I have an 87 and the slant top cab.
The 1987 has a very focused sound and gets better the more its pushed, in comparison the 1959 can sound a bit distant and the EQ goes a bit weird the more its pushed.
nice one from the king.🎵🎵🎸🎸🎸🎶👍👍👍
Thanks! :-)
I wish I had seen this video 3 months earlier. I would have rather bought 1987x... My 1959hw sounds good anyway, just incredinly loud! Greetings from Helsinki.
The 100W is only 3db louder than the 50W not much deference.
Well I have a 1972 park 75 with the KT 88s but I also have a 1971 50 watt JMP and I prefer the 50 watt myself I like the way they break up I like the funk I like the nastiness, roll the volume back a little for clean sounds I'll stick with the fifties I thought you sounded better on that. Has that early seventies Michael schetner thing going on
Sorry for the dumb question.. why would a 4×12 25watts loaded speaker blow up with a 100 watt head?
It’s not a dumb question. The 100W rating pertains to the effect that the amp can put out clean. At full volume it puts out about 180W
@@JohanSegeborn woah.. i didn't know that. But is this valid only for this kind of vintage Marshall amp or for every amp? Example: i have a 30w rated peavey valve amp with a single 30w speaker. Should i be worried?
100w 1959 wins!
Your still using Gibson burstbucker 2 in LP bridge pickup?
Thanks, no now it has an SD Alnico 2 Pro
3dB is twice the power. The reality is that the 100 watt amp is louder but not by much. Say you get 120 decibels volume max with the 50 watt. With all being equal you will get 123dB with the 100 watt amp.
Did they have attenuated in the early 70's
I really want someone to plug a 7-String into the 1987x. I feel like it would handle a 7-string very well.
Just don't turn them up to eleven, then you won't blow up your speakers! Lol. I used to have a 30 watt speaker in a 100 watt combo. Played it for years without blowing that speaker. I sold my 5 100 watt amps. Now I'm using 15 to 50 watt ones.
The 50 watter sounded smoother. Actually twice the power doesn't equal twice the volume. That's been known for years.
ac/dc supposedly goes thru a lot of cabs and transformers on the road doing exactly that
somewhere on u tube there's an interview w/ their sound tech
my experience w/100 vs 50w marshals is the 100w are too loud for most clubs/ drummers and the 50w isn't loud enough
it doesn't seem like you can get the same kind of dynamics and expressiveness w/ the 50w
I have two 1959s...a 2000 plexi reissue and a 1979 metal-face, only 2 rules: always use with the power brake & don't try to play slow jazz thru either one...\m/
Can a 1959 HW be used with a 2x12?
Thanks man
That was easy.The 1987 50 blows the 1959 super lead away!You can use a variac on the super lead and make it sound good.But with full voltage they are horrible
Thanks for the video. Obviously the 100W version have more rich and fluent sound. I was intend to purchase a 50W, now no question the 100w clearly better.
Hello Johan, in my opinion the 1987( 50watt) is way better in most of the occasions: loud enough for playing with a band and compete with a drummer, good sounding at any volume level, smoother, with more mids and better cutting through, its cons compared to the 1959 are not really cons actually: no sound engineer or producer is actually happy with the load of bass that the 1959 has, at low volumes the 100watter sounds thin and weak more than clean-ish , and 5he 100watter is painfully loud, which unfortunately is the main way to make that head " alive", so...1987 for all!😊 Cheers
Thanks Vincenzo, Cheers!
Awesome comparison
Thanks Jimmy!
1959 sounded flatter, cleaner, bigger, less compressed, tighter - sounded best to me above 6.
1987 sounded thicker, more compressed, more mid-focused, looser - sounded best to me between 4 and 6.
Maybe the Allman Brothers had it right. Go with a 50 watter and use JBL or some other very efficient speaker. If you want some distortion and creamy tone in any room/club less than 3000 sq feet the 100 watter is just to damn loud.
1959 is a little bit more compressed , 1987 is more wild and brash . 1987 is my choice, easy to cranck.
Great comparison :), well done, congrats... I would say BOTH !!!!!!
The 1987 sounds more “rude” as Jeff Beck would say. The 1959 is slightly cleaner. I’d go with 1987.
so you cant play the 59 on one cab without blowing the speakers ?
Depends on the cab. 100 W 16 ohm cab I would not risk it 4 ohm or 275 w any ohm cab hell yes
I dind't understand why with 1987 you will burn the speakers
How much gain can a 1959 actually produce?
Check out the Zeppelin Madison Square Garden live recordings
1987 for me........Marshall .....the amplifier
The 1987 f***ing rips. I agree with another commenter though that the 1959 is more complex and seemingly more versatile.
It’s a misconception that a 100w is “twice” as loud. As far as decibels go, a 50w is about 75% of a 100w. The only reason to have a 100w these days is if you’re on a massive arena or stadium stage and are going for massive stage volume.
Sure, if you're only judging by wattage alone, there's no practical application for a 100 watt head 90% of the time. But there is a significant tonal difference between these two heads alone (not just these two specific examples, but with these two models across the board). Personally I much prefer the girth and the headroom of the 100 watter. It lacks the level of compression and is slightly more scooped, with more low end and later breakup allowing for more versatility. I own a 100 watt 1959HW Super Lead, and pair it with a good attenuator where I can dial it all the way back to bedroom levels if I want. And nothing else I have ever plugged into gives me that tone. Even the 50 watt Plexis simply don't cut it for me.
@@Dagger_323 nice! I agree with you. what attenuator do you use?
@@Mold81 I use an SPL Reducer. It’s passive and completely tonally transparent. I have tried every attenuator on the market, and I mean _every_ one of them, and none compare to the convenience, sonic transparency, or versatility of that unit. German engineering at its finest. I highly recommend checking one out if you have the chance.
Bra! 💪🤟
Thanks Clive! 😉
I'd take the 1987 myself, I thought the lead tones were better
1959 sounds bigger but 1987 more focused. I think that the more you push these amps, the more it favours 1987.
1987 is more gayny, but surprisingly little bit thicker than 1959… I like 1987…
Pd: the community should think about giving johan a loop station…poor johan with numb fingers after playing the same riff 100 times… lol
Thanks, yeah I should probably look into one of those
I thought kiss used jbls so power no issue.I always see shiny dust caps in kiss cabs
both amazing, they are different beasts but... both amazing.... I prefer super bass & 1985/1986 types though.
1987x is more harsh (upper mids) in this vid
Please release impulse response using your cabinets and your recording technique, for us poor souls who aren't able to play loud but are striving to get close to your iconic tone. I would buy that s*it in a second!
100W amp is twice as loud as 10W amp.
Conclusion, run both 😂
Overall not bad just one suggestion especially when you’re speaking at the end of this stop rocking back-and-forth it’s really fucking annoying. What you’re saying is OK but just work on the delivery
So you have a problem? Own it and deal with yourself, or simply just stay out from watching YT.
Why not do a better video on your own?
Good luck mate
My pick is the 1959, volume on 6, reminds me of early AC/DC albums