Selling: Marshall MG100HFX

The weekend is here. First on my to-do list: Put this Marshall up for sale...

• Selling: Marshall MG100HFX (head only)
• Condition: 8.5/10
• No reservations/ trades
• Self-collect: CCK mrt stn
• Queries/ confirmation: subversion.sg@gmail.com
• Price: $299 (final)

Hey, dad! (Part 33)

Hey, dad! Your Marshall MG head makes a great foot rest. Dad, are you listening?

MGBFG

A good amp would defy any guitars plugged into it & give off good tones because that's what it's supposed to do. My Marshall MG100HFX had no problems manifesting good tones from my LP BFG. I could hear the typical LP drone from it but still preserving its definitive MG-type bark.

Marshall vs Sound Drive

I am perhaps one of the numbered spectres in guitardom to be paying attention to solidstate amplifiers- the detestable tone generators to the rest of us. I only bothered with the ones that matter tone-wise, in the realms of distortion, of course. I don't quite believe these amps would have any real offerings in terms of cleans, even to sympathizers like me.

Friends ask, between the Marshall (MG100HFX) & Sound Drive (SG612R head), which one is more appealing? I can't offer any differentiated opinions to revere one amp & delineate the other. As far as my ear drums are concerned, these two amps are different drive-wise. The Marshall is distinctly British in this light, very gnarly, protrusive in an appealing way. The Sound Drive has a very appealing lead voicing; it makes my Les Paul very desireable in terms of single note clarity & that's rather miraculous to me.

I was criticized before for wasting precious $ in acquiring sterile sounding amps but let me reiterate the fact that I address tonal appeal regardless of the brand name & nature of the amplifier. Before I heard the Sound Drive in action, it meant nothing to me; a mere get-by Korean unit, a compromise for some unattainable desirebles... but that's not the case, of course. It taught me a lesson- do not be dismissive of the estranged wares out there. Just because it's an obscure item, it doesn't equal to a lemon.

Am I anti-tube then? If you understand the state of my address above, this question won't surface.

Keep it simple

I have always kept it simple for tonal pleasure. For the last 3 days or so, I can't come to terms with thin-necked guitars so my Edwards (E-LP-92-SD-P) here kept my competence in check. I'm still having Marshall fever hence the MG100HFX is still my amp of choice in the mean time; the CRUNCH channel, with a little kick from the MXR Distortion + did it for me. Pick in the above pic: ALICE 3.0, basically a stubby by another name.

MG Muff

I've been dabbling with my MG100HFX settings this week, the pleasant surprise was its pairing with the Metal Muff. This also highlighted the fact that indeed, the current generation of MG amps were given the revision they truly deserve in terms of drive definition.

The Metal Muff (NANO version) works best when hooked up to the MG100HFX's crunch channel; it's the case of a hard distortion pedal kicking a mild distortion channel into place. Saturations aplenty, definition was also kept in check. I'm rather fortunate to experience the development of the MG technology & witnessing the various refinements. I was never a fan of the previous MG series of amps.

Elsewhere, a gathering of heretics could be heard with this rant: BAH! It's still solidstate pariah! Tube is bliss!!

Solidstate vs tube

It's rather baffling why I even considered another solidstate MG head when I currently own a full tube JVM unit. In amplifier kingdom, tube is king, anything less is simply scum of the earth. Well, that's the mentality when it comes to amplification & the majority embrace of the tube tone.

Is the tube tone really superior to the solidstate technology? The warmth we hear from the former is no contest for the latter, especially in the clean domain. The solidstate technology is, to put it simply, too rigid & lifeless to be appealing to the common ears. This is especially true of amplifiers in the 1980s but technology had come a long way. Manufacturers today (at least the ones who bothered) make sure their more affordable alternatives, always in the form of their non-tube offerings, are on par with their ear candy counterparts. In this light, I believe Peavey & Marshall are moving their soildstate affairs in the right strides.

I've played many amplifiers along the way, the tube superiority is undeniable but I have come to respect the solidstate tone manifestation in terms of clarity especially if one dabbles in guitar solos excessively, quite what I am indulging in since I embraced the amplified guitar tone. This is not an attempt to alleviate the non-tube tones into glory but I must say this tonal manifestation is much different from the tube sound. I've learned to appreciate the tube & solidstate offerings separately & not embrace one to repudiate the other. I make it a point to judge an amplifier based on what I hear per se, devoid of its preferred background or featured brand name. Despite treading the same turf, the tube & solidstate amplifiers serve us differently in essence, this we always forget.

Just because I own the JVM, the MG should not be a de facto repulsion. I am not too keen with Marshall's MG product range, really, but I made it a point to check them out since they were revised recently. To put it simply, the tones are more organic & worth the consideration.

MG100HFX + Ibanez

The first 2 guitars to be plugged into my new MG100HFX were:

• Ibanez RG1550: Chose this guitar because it has a fresh set of strings in there (D'Addario Steels) & a trio of Seymour Duncan pickups. Wanted to test the amp's clarity & it's all there from clean to slight dirt & finally all-out distortion
• Ibanez SZR520: This is one of the few guitars I own with factory default pickups, a very high output pair to test the MG100HFX's capacity- whether it can handle high output units. Verdict: Of course, it can.