JCM 800 BATTLE - 2203ZW (2003) VS 2203 (1983) VS 2204 (1989)

[@shaunkelly9860]

80s JCM800 all the way! I've got two, one of them I've gigged every week for 30 years.

[@AntonioCarlos-ey4jq]

The 2203 sounds better! No doubt about it!

[@PEMAMETAL]

I Agree!

[@TheSeanCreagh]

Agree 100%. The 2204 was the weakest in my opinion.

[@AndyK.23]

Great shoot out! Amazing how the real 800's sound like amps, and the ZW sounds like a toy!

[@guitarwrecker]

hey penmetal, this is a really great video (as is the other JCM 800 6550 vs EL34 one you did), i have really been wondering about these exact 3 comparisons and this vid really allows us to hear the real differences...keep the good comparison vids coming!

[@PEMAMETAL]

Thanks brother. This vid was recorded much better than the other. Just share it, because I think it will help a lot of people to hear the differences.

[@scottclaxton1524]

The 2204 (1989) sounds best in my opinion. Both clean and dirty!

[@iamchillytoy]

2204 from 1989 all the way for me. Such precision in the bottom end and lacks some of the typical marshall fizz around 3kHz. Thanks for the great review !

[@taterlysaladman9377]

you are wise and have good hearing master Raoul

[@mca1960]

For me the clear winner is the '83 2203 model. Thick in the clean and dirty mode, the most satisfiying overdrive.

[@L0nn13_c0]

This just tells much how much better the older Marshalls are. The difference is staggering. Really. Those 83 / 89 heads aren't even in the same ballpark - they are much better than the newer ZW head - tonally - IMO.

[@Burkhimself]

Is it me, or is the 2204 a little darker ? I wonder if it could have been EQ’d to be closer in tone ?

[@PEMAMETAL]

Yes I replaced that bad preamp tube. The tone is actually the same as before, it just doesn't buzz/ratle anymore at higher volumes. In this video, with that settings (preamp at 5) the 83 2203 sounded better. But to me, when I use the preamp knob between 8 or 10, the 83 gets muddy and too dark, while the 2203zw retains its clarity and brightness, I prefer the 2203ZW, if you watch my Funeral Bell, Stronger than Death, Suicide Messiah Videos they were all played with the 2203ZW

[@Satan6666ful]

Ive owned over twenty five JCM 800 & 900 One 50 watt the rest 100 love em all for us old guyz I love them I also have a super six Fender & a Super Reverb & a Twin reverb very fun I love them all I don't care so much for signature heads Zakks is alrite but the originals are always better tome I use 6500s & 12x7s in all my Marshalls beefy fun fun thanks for sharing ,

[@mariojmorenosjogreen5678]

thanks men! nice playing keep doing it

[@Chris-hq7nl]

I've got to say I liked the 2204 best with the '83 second.

[@PEMAMETAL]

Man I am not going to do that again. First of all because its too much work. Second, The samples are old (1 year ago), I just put them together with pics. The 2203ZW had the preamp changed since them and if I would record it again, I would have to record all the 3 amps again, because the mic position has to be the exactly the same for the 3 heads, otherwise you will have more variable affecting the tone, The 2204 is gone, I sold it 6 months ago, so I can't record it anymore

[@RgrCS]

hey man i saw in your past videos a jcm800 with 6550, what can you tell about compare with the jcm ZW ? is the same amp ? what about the sound ?

[@borgesister]

Hi, i´ve a 2204 from 1982. The question is: my amp, is more similar at 2203 `83 or 2204 ´89???. Thanks, Pablo

[@Piterychu]

Great video dude, really shows the differences between the amps. even though it's the same model, we can actually see that they arent completely the same. at lower gains I'd prefer the 89' my self, sounds more warm in the others, but gets more muddy at higher gains, that's why I'd prefer the 83' one. Still i find JCM the best serie marshall ever made. cheers!

[@PEMAMETAL]

Thanks dude. The point of thids video is helping people to decide witch model to buy. I am glad you liked it

[@dougalqualo]

Ótima comparação!!! Timbre ta maravilhoso! Parabéns!!!

[@lookingjust987654321]

Hearing the tube rattle induces a physical pain response. Yes, I've owned several 100w tube amps (JCM 900 + Mesa Dual rec) and played them at once... and if your looking for metal, layer a few amps.

[@PEMAMETAL]

I have played it just once! It is a great head. Awesome Metal tones

[@LightsnRoses]

Definitely the 2203 (1983)

[@100chuckjones]

I think its all about perceived volume/gain to the ear. in each of these examples the VS2203 was louder or the loudest.if unity gain was achieved in the recording process many others would have picked anything but the VS 2203.

[@PEMAMETAL]

+chuck jones Your point is valid, at the time I used the normalize feature of the reaper software to set the peaks of each track to 0 db, and I steel thought the 2203 was the best one.. But my original ideia was not changing the gain of the mic and the volume recorded so people could hear the difference they have in volume with the exact same settings. And specially the 2204 don't get any louder after master volume at 5, while the 2203ZW has the most linear behavior, it keeps getting a lot louder even after master volume 5

[@mariojmorenosjogreen5678]

wich preamp tube is better for high gain but still get a good clean like that when you roll down the guitar volumen ??

[@flashy5150]

I like the 2203 83 by far the best. It's an all around "fatter" sounding amp. The 2203ZW was way too "trebley' for my taste, the clean sounded very thin but you can tell that it was designed by Zakk because it has that bottom end "oomff" or "chug" that would be great for drop-d tuning. The 2204 was warm but way too quiet and weak sounding or muffled. If you cranked a 2204, it would get all muddy and it would be difficult cutting through the mix.So the 2203 83 is my choice and I would feel proud to play anything vintage to modern, with a few extra effects of course.

[@michaelklasier5933]

My preference goes for the 2204, great video BTW !!! ;)

[@markh51]

Did you ever get that preamp tube repaired? If so, how does it sound now? And if it is repaired, do you like it more or less now than the 2203 83 head?

[@Mister_Greg]

How were the measurements made? What are the dB measurements relative to? In other words, what exactly is 0 dB here?

[@PEMAMETAL]

Hey dude. English is not my native language, so I will try to explain the best I can. The dbs measurements were not made with a decibel meter, it is a relative comparrison between volumes in REAPER (DAW). I recorded all 3 heads with same input volume with the SM-57, then I normalize all the tracks (common gain for all tracks). That means the highest peak of all tracks would be 0db, and as all the tracks were boosted by the same amount of gain, the other heads have lower peaks compared to the highest. I don't know if I am been clear enough.

[@PEMAMETAL]

Anything above 0 db is clipping(distorting) the audio

[@Mister_Greg]

PEMAMETAL Excellent! Thanks. Your measurements agree perfectly with the amps' power ratings. FWIW, I'm debating whether I should modify the preamp in my 50W MkIII to match that in the 2203/4.

[@Yupppi]

How were the preamp tubes in these? And how much does the actual amp model have an effect? To me the ZW with 6550 sounded like rubbish, wouldn't buy, but 2203 with 6550 was awesome, really open and good sounding. Then again the 2204 with EL34 sounded as good but darker and not so open. Considering this it feels more like the actual amp/preamp/settings had the significant part in the sound. This was already at low volume samples.

[@PEMAMETAL]

All amps are stock, All the preamp tubes are groove. The schamtics are suposed to be the same in the old and new heads, but it seems They aren't as you can hear big difference between the two 2203. The only thing I can think may cause difference is that I never took the 2203ZW to set the BIAS in a tech. I've heard new marshalls comes with cold BIAS.

[@Yupppi]

That sounds very interesting. I'd suppose they'd sound the same with that setup!

[@DonCYHaute]

PEMAMETAL The 2203ZW is NOT a reissue of the 2203. It's a modified circuit with a different sound; namely Kakk Wylde's signature one. If you wanted to compare the vintage amp to its modern counterpart you'd be after the 2203x.

[@PEMAMETAL]

Manny Cowdrey-Cuberos Come on man, you need to read and inform yourself better. The 2203ZW is exactly the same amp as the 2203x, the only difference is that it comes with 6550 power tubes instead of el34. And comparing both reissues to the original 2203 from the 80's, the new ones have fx loop, and that is it. There is nothing modified on the 2203ZW, because Zakk uses stock 2203. Do you want to see pictures of circuit?

[@100chuckjones]

+PEMAMETAL problem is, many of the components (resistors, caps, diodes) are not made the same now. those old caps typically leaked after a few years, thus giving you fluctuations in the circuit. that's why these amps are so unique. no 2 Marshall jcm 800's are the same. I own many Marshalls and im sure you will agree, no 2 jcm 800 exact models sound the same.

[@LoCoGuitars]

What cabinet was used?

[@PEMAMETAL]

LoCoGuitars Marshall 1960b with 2 Evm-12l and 2 celestion g12t-75

[@markh51]

Cool. Have you ever played on a 2203KK? I'd like to have a Marshall someday. I haven't been able to afford one in years. Although I still have my guitars. Just no amp. :-(

[@CarstenMoreno]

Nice demo! Did you record these amps in a separate room while the master volume was turned up gradually louder?

[@billmorrison8218]

Great demo! Have you ever tried a 2204 with 6550s? In your video I agree the 2203 sounds best. However I'd really like to hear the 50 watt with 6550s and see if it changes the tone to something closer to the 2203 in your video. 6550s should give the 50 watt more head room and then break up into an aggressive bark when it does start to distort. Just curious. Thanks man!

[@ChachaVanDort]

The 2204 sounds better, warmer but remember that is a 50 watts head thats why less dbs. Nice video.

[@johnsimms3957]

What guitar were you using? It sounds good.

[@PEMAMETAL]

+John Simms A Gibson Les Paul 1959 Reissue

[@BlackSolution007]

Hello. Are you very favorite JCM800?

[@markh51]

I think I prefer the 2203 83 for now. Replace the preamp tube in the 2203ZW and then give it a spin. Post that video after you've done so.

[@kapazezza7287]

grande zio sei un boss

[@maxsoler648]

Old video but I think the 2204 89. to my ears has a more powerful low mids at louder volumes that to my ears is my tone and I lovemm . My next am is gonna be a JMP 50

[@PEMAMETAL]

Man I did not experiment too much with preamp tubes, but I think any good tube you put in the preamp of those amps You will be able to have a good dirt sound and a good clean sound rolling back the pot volume. It is more how you set the amp then what tubes you use. That is my opinion, but I have groove tubes in all the heads

[@pipecfh]

The ZW model took a beating.... IMO the 2203 is the winner, but the 2204 isn't that far.

[@Marcoshary]

The 83 sounded so much better than the ZW! The 89 came close but still do much better than the ZW!

[@PEMAMETAL]

Yes there was, I think it is because it has el34, They are supose to break up earlier than 6550

[@jamesrockford2626]

are you playing a telecaster?

[@PEMAMETAL]

James Rockford no. Gibson les Paul 59 reissue

[@ArCaNun]

Parabéns!!! Comparação muito boa... Achei o ZW mais versátil mesmo... Melhor clean. Mas ele tem bem mais agudo que os outros. O de 50W realmente achei que o o low end ficou meio sem definição com alto ganho... Qual guitarra usou? R9?

[@xxmarshallowsxx-videos2381]

I have 2204 copy and its sounds fantastic.

[@skald98]

Amps this size are great for bands. I think the 2203 sounds fantastic. It's got a bit too much bass on it and would probably sound mushy with a bass player going. The ZW has a ton of clean headroom that make it perfect for band situations. I'd rate the ZW best performance amp . 2203 sounds best alone. 2204 sounds old and not so good.

[@LocoDirewolf]

I think the 2203 1983 has the best clean sound, the 6550 tubes have more headroom. I definitely think that the 2204 1989 has the best dirt sound. Those EL34 tubes are much thicker and warmer sounding.

[@Edosardo73]

It's exactly what i was thinking, curious fact. That 1989 jcm has a killer sound!

[@taterlysaladman9377]

thicker and warmer. that's what she said

[@NitroModelsAndComics]

50 Watt rules... IMHO.

[@cast390]

Agreed....

[@dale4857]

You should've added the Jcm 2000 dual super lead 100watt jcm 900 100watt and the Jcm 800 2205 50 watt one Tom Morello uses. This would round out the list 50 watts vs 100 watts

[@PEMAMETAL]

+DALE Dude! Those are personal amplifiers. I am just a regular guy, I don't have enough money to buy all those amps you mention just to do a video comparison.

[@TomPark1986]

Yeah I like the 1983 one more.

[@albecenex4890]

absoluty best 2203 classic and if you can try a 2203 NOT jcm 800 but master model (1975-1979) you have the best 2203 made in marshall

[@THEJOEDAVISBAND]

The 2203 from the 80s is the better of the amps. Here is the main reason. The ZW model has a effects loop. The effects loop alters the tone, even though the schematic is probably identical.. the older 800 has nothing filtering the tone. Its slight..but thats why. the 2203 rules and is probably the best well rounded amp ever made.

[@PEMAMETAL]

THE JOE DAVIS BAND Man. I don't agree with you. I am not a tech on amps, but I have had a lot o experiences over thoses years. In my oppinion there are some things that may affect the tone much more than the loop effects, such as BIAS and voltage on preamp tubes. I have to admit that the 83 2203 is not totally stock. When I bought it I only had the 2204. When I compare them, the 2204 sounded more agressive and alive than the 2203. So I took them to a tech to see what may be the reason of They sounding so different and He told me the only thing he found was the voltage in pre amp tubes. 2204 had much more volts than 223. So I ask him to take the 2203 preamp tubes voltage to the same values of the 2204. The amp got much more agressive, brighter and alive after this.

[@THEJOEDAVISBAND]

PEMAMETAL Amps without effects loops sound better generally......there are a lot of effects loops that can bridge the gap without losing the signal ..the zw has the effects loop, and the 80s does not. I have worked on them for years....and there is a difference. Sometimes you bridge the effects loop with just a cable and capture that little bit of lost sound and tone. Same thing with Ampegs v4 tube heads, sound amazing..but then more modern amps ampeg had had effects loops, the sound was different, its not all effects loops changing the sound, and these in the zw may be fixed to where when they are cut off where they are really off..but most..are not..they are just breaking the signal inside the amp.. The other thing is you are right..bias and tubes all make the difference too.

[@PEMAMETAL]

THE JOE DAVIS BAND I do agree that fx loop can change the tone, but in this case is something else man, the voice of them is very different, and as I told you, the stock preamp tubes voltage in the 83 was 280V and the tech that I brought the amp changed it to 380V, that really changed the tone of the amp, it was very calm and muddy, loose bass, than after adding 2 resitors it became a beast, more agressive, louder, brighter. The ZW is different ting, it sounds thin at low volumes and I have to admit that I never have the BIAS checked

[@THEJOEDAVISBAND]

PEMAMETAL Interesting stuff.. we always learn, thank for you sharing this

[@CROSSofIRON-uk]

Good but seems invalid if the ZW had a duff preamp tube ... also most 80's amps have had several services, my ZW2203 went back to Marshall from new 12 years later (new valves and a dodgy power capacitor replaced).

[@Nichaelesv]

Wow there was breakup on the second clean demo of the 50 watt.

[@andyhayes7828]

The 1983 jcm 800 2203 was the better of the 3 imo

[@Schleefzeh]

The 1983 JCM 800 is the Best!

[@FatCitySaint]

Sounds like you had a bad preamp tube in the ZW man.

[@audioware1]

Similar beasts, but all different. ZW sounds tighter and has the most headroom, the others sound more classic. 2204 is more compressed.

[@PEMAMETAL]

Valeu

[@PEMAMETAL]

É, na verdade ele é mais brilhante. E eu gosto disso, por que no video o preamp ta no 5, quando coloca entre 8 e 10 o 2203 83 e 2204 ficam um pouco embolados nos graves, enquanto o 2203zw mantém o timbre bem brilhante e nitido, do jeito que um marshall deve ser. Eu acho que foi a R9 mas não posso te dizer com certeza pois não lembro

[@jasonforster1358]

The first one sounded of pain

[@shane17thsun]

In the video the 2203 sounds allot warmer than the other two.

[@mikemccourt6225]

2203 for my ears

[@aarstdmfg7006]

2203 (1983) have the best sound! :)

[@Slyness64209]

Your Zakk Wylde model has a serious problem guy, it's not supposed to make that weird noise

[@PEMAMETAL]

It was nothing serious bro. It was a bad pre amp tube. I swapped for another and it is 100% working now.

[@Slyness64209]

Nice to hear it!

[@Heatfarmer]

..that would partly explain the apparently lower gain and lower overall loudness of the ZW compared to the old 2203.

[@PEMAMETAL]

Actually not. Because after I change the tubes. The amp still has the same tone and volume It just doesn't buzz anymore. There might be some differences in the circuit, or BIAS, or anything else, because they do sound different. 83 is more aggressive, louder and gainier

[@jimr898]

got a brand new one someone had for a collector piece..think only time played was test at factory..inside the jacks.the plug wear..tells a lot..and its my first marshall.and i friggin love it..of course..i use zakk hardware and a gigged guitar he used.and signed at a biok signing..so..its a def killer amp..while just getting it set up right..still lil pedal work to do.and be good..I cant complain.heck..its just getting brokken in..

[@7REDDRACO7]

listen to the speaker cone rattle dang.

[@aviolentpurple9925]

This isn't a good comparison... The amps aren't volume matched in the recording. So "louder" always sounds "better" in a shootout. I don't know anything about the ZW model but it sounds like crap here, at least in part due to lower volume. The 2203 sounds best, and look, it has the highest volume

[@zacsweeney5534]

The ZW version is too glassy when breaking up (why would you ever need more gain than the 800 already produces?). The 2204 has a darker, more lush sound, but I think the 2203 is the most balanced tonally. 2203 '83 wins!

[@zacsweeney5534]

In b4 video is six years old I guess...

[@MKRocker2012]

2204 sounds better than 2203 clean, 2203 sound better than 2204 dirty.

[@popstudioguitar]

All samples should have been normalized to the same peak level...otherwise level difference is affecting the perception of tone...but the ZW seems to have a problem with the preamp tubes...almost microphonic....sounds cheap....and the 2204 doesn't have the same volume at higher gain....but the test is interesting still......

[@PEMAMETAL]

Christian Rivest hi. Difference in volume at the same setting was one of the things I wanted to show. I agreed it affects the perception of tone. But it is exactly what it is in person. I could have compared the normalized samples at 0db too though. Thank you. And that is a very old video. The 2303zw has the preamp tube swapped and sounds ok today

[@popstudioguitar]

@@PEMAMETAL Yes you are right - but I was not trying to put you on the spot...I think your test is really helpful. I was not sure if the record level was the same for the 3 samples - but it's definitely a good indication of the strength of the 2203 - so much authority !! I wish I could own one :) Does the ZW model sounds better with the new/fixed preamp tube ?

[@PEMAMETAL]

Christian Rivest yes it sounds better. The 83 head still louder at the same settings. But the ZW head just have a little bit clearer sound, with more bass and clarity. While the 83 has more mids and a maybe a darker tone

[@dquillen1]

Just buy what sounds good to you --- if you played through 10 different amps of the same model and year they would all sound a little different.

[@mrjoode81]

7:01 8:51

[@angrytroll27]

2203!! for sure

[@OmgItsAlexOfficial]

2203 by far

[@kunaldole9230]

all of them sound too thin the el34 ones a lil less than others also too much white noise in the zw

[@PEMAMETAL]

Did you watch the video until I set master volume at 8? To me that is not thin, but thats ok if you don't like it, thats how the JCM 800 sound, and I like it

[@kunaldole9230]

PEMAMETAL Yes i did till the very end you have a bright cap in don't you? nice playin though most ppl just start shreddin or somethin when they play a zw. you played songs which have rich chords which can tell the harmonics quality

[@PEMAMETAL]

Yes, al the three heads have the bright cap. Once, I removed the bright cap from the 83 2203, but didn't like the tone, put it back.

[@kunaldole9230]

PEMAMETAL cool man do u use an attenuator

[@PEMAMETAL]

Nope! No attenuator. When I set the master volume above 4/5, I usually close the door in the soundproof room and play outside of it, Sometimes I mic the cab and hear my guitar through a stereo system or headphones, sometimes not.

[@Billy_Blades]

#2

[@michaelaaronorton4001]

2204 has the smoothest sound the others too bright

[@larrymonteleone1789]

I'm going for the 83 model

[@gordontubbs]

*Warning. This is a hater post.* Don't fool yourself into buying the JCM800 hype. The JCM2000 does everything the JCM800 does, but better. Not to mention, you can probably find a Made-in-England JCM2000 halfstack on craigslist for $1000 these days, whereas reissue 800 halfstacks are fetching triple that easily. The only reason why our guitar heroes play JCM800s is because for them, growing up, the JCM800 was it "it" guitar amplifier, especially for rock and roll. Get with the times. Upgrade to a JCM2000.

[@whitedogpoo]

i had a 2000 it was shit. I have an original 800 it is awesome for classic rock but shit at low end chug even with pedal in front and its too loud lol. Laney gh100l for the win! wish they made a less noisy 25 watt version lol!

[@b1gnasty69]

whitedogpoo That Laney sucks. If all you want is a bunch of thin, generic sounding gain then it's fine, I guess. But it has nowhere near the balls or tone of an older JCM800. Put a boost in front of the Marshall and you will be tossing your anemic sounding Laney out the window. I've owned both, they aren't even in the same league.

[@6project6nightmare6]

***** totally right! and Marshall is originally a rip off of Fender circuits, it's quite the irony of amp evolution!

[@ctproductsmachineshop4894]

JCM 2000 is different but not an "upgrade". We hated the 800s when they came out because it seemed like you had to mod them to get the hot gain sound we wanted in the 80's. Now that I am older and wiser, I hear the pure amp circuit beauty of these amps and their sound which has never been duplicated since. Some of the "flaws" of these amps (not super tight/a little smeary)is what makes them sound so great with a live band. "Best" or not there is nothing that sounds like these. I've owned a type of every Marshall since and sold them without regret.

[@Mister_Greg]

I put my TSL100 crunch channel side by side with a late-'70s 2203. With very similar tone control settings they were very close. That said, I much prefer the crunch mode of my DSL100. The TSL clean channel and DSL clean mode are magnificent. I think the TSL100 lead channel is more refined than the DSL100 ultra gain channel. To be honest, I have no use for the ultra gain channel in the DSL, but put an overdrive in front of the DSL in crunch mode and the thing kills. Too bad the DSL's clean/crunch mode isn't foot-switchable. I was a teenager in the mid-'80s. I know the JCM800 sound well. The DSL brings those goods with a great clean channel. The TSL can deliver also. As a parting shot, you're going to find differences between two JCM800s of the same era to be just as great as differences between a JCM800 and a JCM2000 in crunch mode.

[@dropkicker101]

2203 all the way!

[@jandrixdeares7678]

Try a feargen olde800....and forget those marshall's

[@リベリオン]

The jcm 800 Zack Wylde sounds too SANDy and annoying in my opinion, at least for my ears. The jcm 800 2203 1983 sounds better! It's really tasty sound, i prefer it. The jcm 800 2204 1889 sounds like a 2203 1983, but have soft sound. I think 2203 1883 is the best. P. S. Don't twist too much fucking treble, pls!!! Amp sounds so dirty for ears because of treble.

[@OfficialFatLip]

If you had used a les paul and turned up the amps maybe we can hear the guts against the wall, Eddie van Hallen left Marshall heads on with guitars feeding back for almost a month to find out if they had the guts..your video means nothing,no brown tone, nada

[@PEMAMETAL]

It was used a Gibson Les Paul Reissue 1959. And by the end of the video, the master volume of all three amps was turned up to 5 and then to 8, but it seems that you didn't watch the whole video. The story your are telling was not with Marshall amps, it was with EVH. Your comment means nothing, because everything you said was wrong. Sorry hater.

[@OfficialFatLip]

@@PEMAMETAL no test to me, evh put lp guitars into marshalls to hear how balanced they are not play doobie brothers etc, try using open power chords like acdc and check sustain and feedback.., the screachy horrible notes you play is just eary, sorry dude

[@0legator]

Bad, bad, bad!

[@nickcg]

its tooo treeeble.... the set that u made

[@edberger4679]

Just buy a Friedman !

[@dquillen1]

Ed Berger There always has to be one in the crowd...

[@edberger4679]

Yes sir ! One Friedman....

[@dquillen1]

Ed Berger And there is a reason why there is only one - most people prefer the original...

[@edberger4679]

Marshall's these days are rubbish ! or have you not noticed ???

[@dquillen1]

Ed Berger That would be what is called "your opinion" which you are entitled too, no matter how wrong you are... I think it is the musicians today that are rubbish, not the equipment... i guarantee a great guitarist can make any Marshall sound great...

[@jezza308]

Laney GH100L will shit all over these marshall's

[@PEMAMETAL]

This sounds very strange for a guy with a Zakk Wylde Les Paul in the profile pic. If you like Zakk's tone, you like JCM 800

[@WillelmMacguyver]

PEMAMETAL For the guitar sound that made Zakk famous (No Rest For... and No More Tears) he was not playing a JCM800 and Boss pedals, despite how much Zakk has been insisting over the years in the guitar magazines. He was playing Metaltronix on NRFTW and an Ampeg VL-1002 (another Lee Jackson designed amp). As much I can speculate why Zakk has been trying to rewrite history, the conclusion I end up reaching is that it is a childish attempt to get people to respect him more.

[@PEMAMETAL]

We will never know what amp He played in the recordings of No rest for The Wicked and No More Tears, I guess You were not in the studio with him to be sure of that, so the same way He says He played Marshalls because he has a contract with Marshall now, He had sayd He played Metaltronics because He had a contract with them at the time.It is possible that He played Marshalls but said it was Metaltronics, because of the contract. But that doens't matter, live He always used Marshalls, There is a lot of videos from early 90`s of Zakk playing live and you can see in all of them 2 JCM 800 half stacks horizontal inputs with some stickers on it. And to me the best sounding work of Zakk is Pride & Glory, and that is defenitly JCM 800 2203.

[@WillelmMacguyver]

No, of course I wasn't in the studio as I would have been 4 years old at the time, lol! But my source on at least No Rest... was Lee Jackson who said he set up Zakk's rig for both the studio and the tour afterwards. I can personally attest to the fact that a Marshall 2203/04 cannot do the tones on those earlier albums, as I had one at one time with all the appropriate Boss pedals. What I could get out of that rig was Zakk's Black Label and Pride and Glory tones to a tee, which do sound good in their own right. Latter on I got the chance to play both a Metaltronix M-1000 and an Ampeg VL-1002, and with the appropriate chorus, reverb, delay, ect, I got pretty much exactly the sounds from NRFTW and NMT. It wasn't exact per se due to numerous factors I could not simulate like studio enhancements for example; it was like using a Mesa Mark IV and playing Metallica Black Album riffs.

[@PEMAMETAL]

Mam, i have 2 jcm 800 with 6550 tubes, a les paul custom with emgs and the boss sruff. I think I can get the No More Tears tone pretry much, of curse is not identical because the studio processing on Ozzy albums are much more intense than on zakk stuff. No rest for the wixked is a different tone and I agree, but NMT sound like marshalls to me. In the no more tears era live I am sure He was using marshalls, there are a lot of videos on youtube that you can ser this. There is one that zakk is being interwied sitted with his marshalls in the back. The lady asks him about the new album and he says something about chicken picking and plays the i dont wanna change the world solo. Check my other video playing Toe n The Line, I think i got very close to his tone