Marshalll Rip Off?

rgjmce

Ok here is the thing, i bought a marshall MG250dfx about 2 months ago second hand. I presumed because this amp was top of the range in the MGs that it would be the most powerful but my mate was over at the weekend and he has a MG100dfx. We set them to the same settings and used the same guitar but the 100 sounded louder than the 250, my hunch is that it's cause the 100 have mids and the 250 doesn't but it doesn't bother me too much cause i got the amp for about the same price as a second hand MG100. Here is my point, the 100 costs about 400 brand new and the 250 costs about 50 or so euro more and i am wondering if it isn't louder, wat are you getting for your money?

punchdrunk

Oooh I get to be the first!!

your problem is his is delivering 100watts to a single speaker
yours is delivering 50 watts independently to a pair of speakers

that would account for a small portion of the difference,
the cheap inefficient bottom-rung celestions they put in at the factory
would account for an even greater portion i suspect


sell it and buy something else

BuddhaJoe

rgjmce wrote: »

Ok here is the thing, i bought a marshall MG250dfx about 2 months ago second hand. I presumed because this amp was top of the range in the MGs that it would be the most powerful but my mate was over at the weekend and he has a MG100dfx. We set them to the same settings and used the same guitar but the 100 sounded louder than the 250, my hunch is that it's cause the 100 have mids and the 250 doesn't but it doesn't bother me too much cause i got the amp for about the same price as a second hand MG100. Here is my point, the 100 costs about 400 brand new and the 250 costs about 50 or so euro more and i am wondering if it isn't louder, wat are you getting for your money?

The MG100 is a 100 watt amp, the MG250 is a 50 watt amp. Hence the volume difference.

What you are getting for your extra money is a second speaker, plus you got that extra bit more ripped off than your friend.

rgjmce

well it doesn't bother me too much, it's still a step up from a 50 watt and it's plently load enough for me now. I can't afford to buy another amp but i will some time in the future buy an really good expensive amp.

darrenw5094

For the €450 BLOWN (in capitals) on the fricken MG.....you could have got a second hand Marshall DSL all valve amp. Different class boy.....

Peavey and Fender do some decent valve amps for around that money on various UK websites and also Thomann etc.

Check out youtube and www.proguitarshop.com for demos on various amps.

rgjmce

ffs i bought it second hand, I GOT IT FOR 200 (the same price a 100 second hand) , I happy with it, it's not about my amp, it's about how much it costs brand new.

It shows how much of a rip off the 250s are new that marshall have brought out a new MG range and it doesn't have a 250, it has a 100 with one speaker and a 100 with two speakers

Btw i already made a thread about wat people thought about this amp before i bought it, so don't waste your time telling me how crap MGs are, i've heard it all before.

spoonbadger

rgjmce wrote: »

ffs i bought it second hand, I GOT IT FOR 200 (the same price a 100 second hand) , I happy with it, it's not about my amp, it's about how much it costs brand new.

It shows how much of a rip off the 250s are new that marshall have brought out a new MG range and it doesn't have a 250, it has a 100 with one speaker and a 100 with two speakers

Btw i already made a thread about wat people thought about this amp before i bought it, so don't waste your time telling me how crap MGs are, i've heard it all before.

Yes. Yes you have http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055482316&page=2 .

rgjmce wrote: »

...I presumed because this amp was top of the range in the MGs that it would be the most powerful...

Firstly, amps have a lot more qualities than just volume.

Secondly, what difference does it make if his is louder?.

Thirdly, you should have known the specs (ie. wattage and volume) before you bought it.

Ultimately, you'll get what you pay for, and less even with marshall MGs. The 250 may be worth more than a 100, but it's still a fart in a hurricane compared to a roland/line6 etc.

Paolo_M

rgjmce wrote: »

ffs i bought it second hand, I GOT IT FOR 200 (the same price a 100 second hand) , I happy with it, it's not about my amp, it's about how much it costs brand new.

It shows how much of a rip off the 250s are new that marshall have brought out a new MG range and it doesn't have a 250, it has a 100 with one speaker and a 100 with two speakers

Wait a minute, are you reporting to us how you've discovered what a rip off MGs are?
I, for one, am very interested to hear this new discovery.
Most people around here thought MGs were great, you sure showed them...:rolleyes:

BTW, €200 for a second hand pile of junk is not good value.

I can't believe that you came here looking for our advise, completely ignored it and now are complaining that these amps are a rip-off new, as I said they're still a rip off @ €200.

It seems to me that your measure of a good amp is how loud it is and whether it says Marshall on it. I had even given you a link for where to buy the damn Marshall logo FFS, you could have stuck that on any amp you want.

i will some time in the future buy an really good expensive amp.

The point that I, and a bunch of other people, made in your original post was that expensive does NOT = good.

Remember these simple formula's for future:
Expensive amp X sh*te quality = sh*te amp
Moderate price amp X quality = quality amp
Cheap X quality = quality amp (this one tends to be rarer in fairness)
Expensive X quality = quality amp

rgjmce

Look I know marshall mgs are rip offs and i am not saying that a loader amp is a better one. 250s are pretty much the same as 100s, just that they are 50watts with 2 speakers and i presumed that it would be loader but thats not why i bought it, i bought it for two reasons, it was within my price range and it was the best i could find cause i had to get it asap.

If i had a few hundred more in a perfect world, i would not have bought this amp, i would have bought a fender, fender amps imo are way better than marshalls but i couldn't even find a cheap fender. Thats why when i do get the money after a few years i will buy a fender (both guitar and amp lol).

And i am now fed up with this and i would like this thread closed.

Paolo_M

rgjmce

Paolo_M wrote: »

do u really think i care.

I love this amp, I think it's fantastic and i am very happy with it, all i was trying to say was that BRAND NEW they are a bit pricy for what they are and for how many bloody times to i have to say I DIDN'T BUY IT NEW, I BOUGHT IT SECONDHAND, FOR ABOUT THE SAME PRICE AS A MG100 SECONDHAND

no seriously can some mod either delete or closed this thread cause it's gonna end up like the other thread i had.

ball ox

the problem is you are assuming watts = volume

edit: probably should have read the other posts........

the problem is.... your assuming a higher model number = more volume

I dont know whats worse to be honest.

rgjmce

ball ox wrote: »

the problem is you are assuming watts = volume

edit: probably should have read the other posts........

the problem is.... your assuming a higher model number = more volume

I dont know whats worse to be honest.

well yes i did assume that but my mate said that he thought i sounded better than the 100, said it sounded clearer, i didn't notice myself tbh but then again i am only playing 2 and half years, i can notice differences between tone and sound in guitars but so much with amps, of course their are ones that obviously sound different

Eoin Madsen

rgjmce wrote: »

i am wondering if it isn't louder, wat are you getting for your money?

Nothing. I'm wondering why this surprises you? You're paying for the impression of getting something for your money because you think there's a linear relationship between the cost of something and how "good" it is. You bought a marketing ploy.

I'm having a groundhog day moment.

rgjmce wrote: »

If i had a few hundred more in a perfect world, i would not have bought this amp, i would have bought a fender, fender amps imo are way better than marshalls but i couldn't even find a cheap fender.

You seriously need to stop thinking in brand names or you're always going to own a **** amp. Marshall and Fender both make junk amps, and both have also made some of the greatest guitar amplifiers of all time.

Like, seriously... an MG? An MG has nothing in common with a real Marshall amp - aside from the logo, which is there purely for the purpose of selling junk to suckers. If they were a third of their retail price, they would still be selling above cost - and they'd still be a waste of money.

rgjmce

oh FOR F U C K S SAKE this is ridiculous, this thread has totally gone off the point, i am absolutely in love with this amp and i know i will get a better amp later on and maybe in a few years it might be something totally different, i said i already i still only starting off essentially, when i get to a stage when i am going to buy an expensive amp, i will try out every different make of amp, just like i will when i buy an expensive guitar, i don't want to pay good money for a pile a crap and i know wat your gonna say, i've done that already lol but i have said the reasons to buying the marshall MG (and i know i know it's only an MG, i have got over it). I do love this amp, especially when it's up load and i know it doesn't have much tone but who the hell cares (i know i don't). It's my choice so will ppl stop telling me the same old crap.

p.s. i told you it would end up like my other thread lol, it really should be locked/closed/deleted.

Eoin Madsen

rgjmce wrote: »

It's my choice so will ppl stop telling me the same old crap.

It's impossible to answer your question without reiterating the background of the amps you're asking about. If you don't want to hear opinions, then what are you doing here asking questions?

darrenw5094

spoonbadger wrote: »

Yes. Yes you have http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055482316&page=2 .

That is an early candidate for thread of the year 2009.

The MG 250 is a bit misleading too. It stands for 2 speakers @ 50 watts. Some people might think that it is 2 and a half times louder than the 100 version.

Anyway, as you get older, the size of the amp gets smaller. Not a shrinking amp, but the next amp you buy could be lighter etc. When you are giggin', you will be micin' up the amp anyway and then using a monitor to hear your guitar if you need to. I now use a Mesa Boogie Express 25w amp. 1 12' speaker and now i don't even use a monitor as the amp is loud enough.

Valve watts are far louder than solid state amps. My Mesa 22 watt Studio amp would break windows in my house, and they are made with real glass too.

Like i said earlier in the thread, for €450 to €500 you could get the full Marshall DSL 40w all valve amp second hand.

rgjmce

but as i said in earlier thread, i can't afford that but maybe someday i will get one but thanks darren at least you get wat i was trying to say in this thread

Quattroste

If you want a thread closed stop replying to it.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

darrenw5094 wrote: »

It stands for 2 speakers @ 50 watts. Some people might think that it is 2 and a half times louder than the 100 version.

Is it 50 watts per speaker, or just 50 between the two?

My first amp was an MG50, bought it because of the brand (didnt know much at the time:o) had so much problems with it, volume cut out, effects unit fcuked up, buzzing noise.......and terrible tone!

IMO, the AVT range are pretty **** as well (compared to the VOX valvetronix range)

zeppe

I like the MG brand myself although I only use a 15W for practice, got a great distortion and the FX are good too. I also had a 100W at one stage but it didnt really cut it live. Both were reliable which is more than I can say for my old JTM60 which I absolutely loved but kept dying on me..
These days I use primarily valve Fenders for gigging with a H+K tube factor for Marshall oomph..You can pick up a nice cheap Fender Blues Deluxe for €400 second hand..

darrenw5094

Oakley Wet Landlady wrote: »

Is it 50 watts per speaker, or just 50 between the two?

50w each i would assume. Just twice as much pollution. The hole in the ozone is layer is getting bigger and bigger each year. The planet is getting warmer.

It's not too late to save the planet people. No more Marshall MG's please.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Your 250 is the same wattage as your mate's 100

http://www.marshallamps.com/product.asp?productCode=MG250DFX&pageType=SPECS

Hence sounding the same. You've two 50watt speakers rather than one 100watt speaker.

CianRyan

And the story goes on. :rolleyes:
At least you like it man.

demanufactured

AH ya cant beat the OLD marshall valvestates for decent tone at a low price , i miss my old 4020 stereo chorus combo

Eoin Madsen

That's just nostalgia talking. My brother had an old VS. It sucked every bit as much as the new ones, and I have the four-track recordings to prove it. :P It was pure transistor distortion and diode clipping.

The chorus was pretty though. :pac: The amp is still lying in the corner of my studio, awaiting it's triumphant return. Some day I'm going to need the sound of bees and white noise for a recording.

felim

Eoin Madsen wrote: »

That's just nostalgia talking.

True. I had an 8080 (the original Valvestates) back in the early 90's and I thought it was great. Had the opportunity to play one again recently and lets just say I should have stuck with the good (if false) memories.

darrenw5094

felim wrote: »

True. I had an 8080 (the original Valvestates) back in the early 90's and I thought it was great. Had the opportunity to play one again recently and lets just say I should have stuck with the good (if false) memories.

Me too......loved it for years.....before the net came along.

Still...can't be as bad as the MG.......can it???

felim

darrenw5094 wrote: »

Me too......loved it for years.....before the net came along.

Still...can't be as bad as the MG.......can it???

I've never played through an MG. I suppose in fairness to the Valvestate, when I got the chance to play it again recently I had already fallen in love with my Silver Jubilee so it hadn't a hope.

Eoin Madsen

To be fair to the original valvestate amps generally, DSPs hadn't found their way into amps at the time, so they were on a par with pretty much all the other cheap solidstate amps of the time. There's no excuse for it now though.

And they were better than the current MG series, albeit probably not by terribly much.