Jcm 800 2205..

Discussion in 'Amps and Cabs' started by codyprang, Apr 29, 2008.

  1. codyprang

    codyprang Member

    Messages:
    58
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    I have the opportunity to purchase a 1982 JCM 800 2205 this week and I was just curious how this compares to a 2204. I've heard a lot of good things about the 2204, but I'm not sure about the 2205. I probably would only use one channel, and I definitely wouldn't be using the reverb. If anybody could shed some light for me, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!

    Cody
     
  2. EADGBE

    EADGBE Member

    Messages:
    12,379
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    I've read they were very popular. And because of this you hardly ever see them up for sale. They're said to have a bright and intense distortion. I'd love to try one out.
     
  3. rob2001

    rob2001 Member

    Messages:
    16,945
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    The 2205's had some issues. Not all but some. The early models had a channel bleed issue. The one I had did have this problem. Basicly this means you can hear the clean channel in the dirt channel if the clean channel is turned up high.

    Comparing to the 2204 I have now, the 2205 was a bit mushy on the dirt channel and the cleans were not clean, more of a low gain crunch, which was cool but not as cool as the 2204's lower gain crunch. The reverb was kinda crappy and the fx loop was noisy. And yes, the amp was functioning properly. I even had it modded and still prefer the 2204. They fixed some of these issues I believe in 84 or so. If I were to buy another 2205 or a 2210 i'd look for a later model. Some guys love them and some might consider them the predecessor to the Jubilllee's.

    At risk of starting an arguement, the 2205's and 2210's had clipping diodes in the preamp. Kindof like a built in OD pedal. Not the same but a similar principal. That can be a good or a bad thing depending on what you want from an amp. The Jubilee's use clipping diodes too and some consider the Jube's the best Marshalls made.

    That all said, for higher gain leadwork it was very good, one of my favorite amps for leads. This may be due to the diodes. Very smooth high gain OD and similar in tones to my 2204 with a Boss SD-1 in front. Michael Shenker used or still uses a 2205. With a Gibson and a half cocked wah, this amp will deliver his lead tones in spades.
     
  4. John Coloccia

    John Coloccia Cold Supporting Member

    Messages:
    9,479
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2007
    Location:
    Connecticut, outside of Hartford
    I have a 2205 and it's a great sounding amp. My particular one has problems but most I've seen are fine.

    And yes, it's got diodes in it but so what? It really does sound fantastic and getting the 50W let's you open it up a little.

    The clean channel....well, there is no clean channel. There's no headroom to speak of. The volume knob simply determines how much dirt you get. For dirty rhythm, though, the clean channel rocks.

    Except for the lack of a real, usable clean channel, it's a fantastic amp.

    edit: just to make you sick, I bought mine for $250 used, and a 1965a for $100. That was in 1990 or 91 I believe.
     
  5. Finaldo

    Finaldo Member

    Messages:
    160
    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    I have a 2210, and I love it. I'd rather have the 2205 for the lower wattage option, but my 2210 just tears it up. Sounds great with a matched quad of the GTEL34Ms in it. Just hope they hold up and don't redplate. I've been hearing there are quality control issues with those Mullard reissues.
     
  6. Griz

    Griz Member

    Messages:
    2,837
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    '82 is still early in the JCM800 series, when the 50 and 100 watt heads still had the vertical inputs. Build quality should be very good. I have an '82 2203 head and a slant cab. Never had a problem. Very tough, great sounding amp. I imagine the 2205 is similarly great.

    Enjoy. :dude
     
  7. Marshall Man

    Marshall Man Member

    Messages:
    1,132
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Location:
    Tampa Florida
    I have a 4211 which is the combo version of the 2210. Mine is an 1988 model and dosen't have the bleed over issues. This amp sounds great for everything from Skynyrd to early Metallica. True classic Marshall sound!! It might not be as versatile as some four channel amps but what it does it does well!! Just my 02.
     
  8. AL30

    AL30 Member

    Messages:
    2,990
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    I'm gonna go against the grain I suppose. I had a 1982 2210 (100 watt version of the 2205), white vinyl, and I absolutely hated it !!

    It sounded neutered to me. The volume didn't open up until later on the scale and the distortion was buzzy and squishy. Not tight at all. It did not have the bleed over problem that most people have - but this is apparently a very common issue with these.

    It should be noted that there are at least two very different versions of this amp. Jeff Seal has documented this on the Marshall Amp Forum. Most people see to prefer the later version (around 1985 I think).

    I sold it and traded it for 1976 Super Lead. Much better for me. The amp is tighter, more focused, has a much better feel (for me), and the break-up is smoother.

    AL
     
  9. BIGGERSTAFF

    BIGGERSTAFF Member

    Messages:
    7,876
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Location:
    Fayetteville, NC
    I have a buddy who's into the 2210, and has about 6 of them. All of his are '86 or later, where the channel bleeding problem had been solved. They are great sounding amps, but they're not Swiss Army knife amps.
     
  10. AL30

    AL30 Member

    Messages:
    2,990
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2005
    I think I may have posted this before. This information is from Jeff Seal and was posted at the Marshall Amp Forum. It's lengthy but well worth the read.


     
  11. codyprang

    codyprang Member

    Messages:
    58
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    :jo
     
  12. freaksho

    freaksho Member

    Messages:
    4,004
    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Location:
    The Capital
    i have a 2204 and tried a number of 800's before i got mine, including one 2205. i liked the 04 better - i found it more pure sounding (whatever that means) and less harsh on the OD. but i didn't hear them side by side, so take that for what it's worth. but since you're only needing one channel anyway i'd say wait for a 2204. it's a simpler circuit to accomplish your goals which i always prefer.

    also, if it means anything to you, i've read that the channel switching 800's use some amount of diode clipping for extra gain. you might want to verify that tho.

    either way the 800 is a truly awesome amp. have fun!
     
  13. kdp86

    kdp86 Member

    Messages:
    21
    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    I once owned a 1989 2205, and that particular one had a bad power transformer, though I'm sure that isn't a constant problem for them. From what I read when I was originally buying the 89 was that the later ones (post 87) had more gain, no channel bleed through, and were warmer and smoother. The older ones had the channel bleed (again, only if you had the rhythm channel volume up really high) and were more classic in their voicing concerning both gain and brightness. For what it's worth, if you have the extra money you should get a Silver Jubilee, it's a very similar amp that is heralded regularly as Marshall's best channel switcher and preamp amp ever.
     
  14. Marshall Man

    Marshall Man Member

    Messages:
    1,132
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Location:
    Tampa Florida
    I had the JCM 2555SL and my 2210 combo sounded much better to my ears, but mine was the later version. There is a night and day difference as outlined in Jeff Seals info between early and later with the later being way more smooth.
     

Share This Page