Marshall AS50d

[Pickcity]

I received this amp last week but haven't had a chance to mess around with it until today. I am not very impressed, so far. The volume is lacking, very much so, and though it may be solid state, there is no way this guy is 50w as advertised. I figured there had to be a 1/2 power button somewhere, but no, it is simply weak sauce...

The reverb is combined on both channels, which I should have looked closer and noticed before purchasing. I would like to be able to add or take away the reverb on separate channels.

Feedback is a mother. I have it positioned behind me now on a stand, so I have tamed it mostly, but it is still extremely sensitive...Annoyingly so...The anti feedback feature doesnt seem to help very much, if at all... And no, I do not have a ground problem.

Lastly, and once again I should have noticed beforehand, but there is no feature for muting the amp when not in use. Either turn it all the way down or turn it off.

Sorry for the rant. I am used to decent sound, and this Marshall simply is not what I expected. Yeah, it was only $350, but I have paid less and received much more than this. I had a Roland acoustic chorus amp a few years back and it ran circles around this Marshall...It also cost a little bit less. I wonder if Roland still makes the AC-30? Oh yeah, the Roland was only a 30w, but it was way louder and had way more clarity. No contest...I started this thread to tell folks this amp is not worth the money. JMO. I am going to send it back...Flame away.

[Lodos]

yeah marshalls are just not good for acoustic guitars. i believe you could get a loudbox artist for that kind of an amount, usually does the job..

[Pickcity]

Originally Posted by Lodos

yeah marshalls are just not good for acoustic guitars. i believe you could get a loudbox artist for that kind of an amount, usually does the job..

Lots of reviews are glowing, but not by me...I prefer something more than moderate bedroom volume. Its ridiculous. This thing isn't even close to 50w. I had not planned to use it for gigs, other than maybe a monitor, but no...Besides the painful lack of volume, it sounds awful. Just awful.

I can't believe this thing weighs 36 pounds. Why? I don't believe it is 1/2 watt per pound of weight... Stupid.

[personatech]

Tell us how you really feel!

(Seriously, though, thanks for the comments. It's refreshing to see the occasional thumbs-down. Sure you didn't get a lemon? - there really are some good reviews out there.)

[llew]

I had one and quickly sold it. Glad you can send it back. You might want to try a Fishman Loudbox. The Mini is 60 watts and if you only need on instrument channel is a great little acoustic amp. The Artist (120 watts) gives you two full channels, and the Performer (180 watts) gives you two channels and a three way speaker array. Depends on you needs...all work well in my opinion. Best of luck!

[bsman]

Originally Posted by llew

I had one and quickly sold it. Glad you can send it back. You might want to try a Fishman Loudbox. The Mini is 60 watts and if you only need on instrument channel is a great little acoustic amp.

I have a minor quibble with this. I have had both the Mini and the Performer (180 watts), and have found that the mini does a superlative job on vocals.

[petewaugh]

I've had the 100 watt version for years and done gigs in fairly large bars with guitar, vocal and bass through it (as a small PA) and not had any complaints.

Maybe the 50W is a different story. It does sound a bit dated, on board fx definitely so and I use it very little these days but it's been a fine old workhorse.

[Bearstudio]

I still have the 100w somewhere in storage from when I demo'd it at a few shows for Marshall, it was pretty good and very loud. If i remember rightly the 50w was not manufactured in the same place as the 100w and was a very different amp.
These days I can't look past my AER compact 60 if I need an on stage amp, very small but stellar performance.

[dspoel]

Marshall, hmm, isn’t that this wannabe headphone company?

[mercy]

Thank you for warning us, this is a public service Id like to see more of. If you care for this community you will report good products [U][U]and[U][U] bad ones.

[mcduffnw]

I used to have the 100W version, and thought it was a really great acoustic guitar amp, and it handled vocals and another instrument all together really well too.

I got it back when I worked for Guitar Center, and I compared it to all the other acoustic amps we had, and it beat them all...IMO...for tone, and volume and the onboard effects sounded really nice as well. It was just a nice well rounded package, and it looked really nice to boot.


duff
Be A Player...Not A Polisher

[Pickcity]

Originally Posted by personatech

Tell us how you really feel!

(Seriously, though, thanks for the comments. It's refreshing to see the occasional thumbs-down. Sure you didn't get a lemon? - there really are some good reviews out there.)

I really wish it was different. I get no pleasure from writing negatives about products that I paid for and hoped would be good to go.

I've messed around with it a bit more and I'm getting better results, but I still can't seem to get rid of a...dont know how to describe it...robotic (?) sound coming out of this amp on both guitar and vocals. There is only a touch of it remaining, but it makes me cringe. So far the only way I have found to lose the weird sound in the vocal is to crank the reverb, but then I sound like I'm singing in a cave...And as far as the reverb goes, it is difficult to find the sweet spot between too dry and too wet. I dont like or need a lot of reverb, but just a touch would be nice.

I still can't figure why this is advertised as 50w...I have it on a stand no more than 3 feet behind me, about shoulder high (while sitting) with guitar channel set around 7, vocals around 8, and master volume set around 6-7...Sure, I can hear myself fine, but at 3 feet away I should be able to hear myself...lol...I am no expert on technicalities, but it sounds like a 10-15 watt amp. It has (2) 8" speakers and a tweeter. Seems like a lot of product with very little performance.

Sorry, I am trying to get on with this Marshall before I simply give up, but at this point I am having serious doubts. Thanks again for allowing me to rant. Lol

[Pickcity]

I see this post has been moved. Apologies to the mods if this was posted in the wrong place. The general discussion area states "acoustic guitar and amplification discussion", so I thought it would be OK. Either way, thanks. Carry on.

[llew]

Originally Posted by bsman

I have a minor quibble with this. I have had both the Mini and the Performer (180 watts), and have found that the mini does a superlative job on vocals.

No argument from me. I was referring to two instrument channels. If you only need one 1/4" and one XLR input (2 channels) it work great. Never tried to run an XLR from a DI box into the "MIC" channel to try it?

[shufflebeat]

I used the as50r and much of what you say rings true for that amp as well. Funny thing is though - after a period of disappointment where the amp seemed very inappropriate for acoustic guitar (Tak ef360s) I got to really love the sound it did produce, very non-linear with even an element of speaker "break up" distortion but very musical. The mid range had quite a "Les Paul/Marshall combo" kind of ring to it which I recognise from my misspent youth.

These might be failings rather than features of course. I never used it for vocal as I recognised straight away that would be a waste of time. I DI'd to the PA so at anything bigger than a tiny pub gig I was the only one getting full value of the sound.

I don't use it any more but haven't sold it on just in case.

P.S. Strictly speaking "50w" is a reference to electrical work done rather than an expected volume level and different amps of similar power rating can vary enormously in their acoustic efficiency without falling foul of false advertising.