ilovefuzz.com

UglyCasanova wrote:unless you're playing a mansion filled with screaming chimpanzees.

Playing as in "playing for" or playing as in "as an instrument?"

Ah, yes. The ambiguity of the English language strikes again!

Well, I'm just saying I would want the bigger amp either way.

Why? Think about your back and the space you'd save...

I'm not one to talk. I have an AC30 in the living room. I live in a concrete apartment complex. Sound travels like crazy here. I don't really need it. Looks nice though. Sounds good at lower volumes as well. I'd still rather have another JC if I could find one for cheap though.

Get the JC40 on a payment plan? $600 isn't much!

I was really interested in the JC-40, but once I figured out that the loop was mono-send made me less interested in shelling out for one. If you set the loop parallel with a full wet effect, you can maybe not lose all of the stereo stem-to-stern promise, but that's a bit disappointing to what it could have been on that front.

I dunno, if you're all pedals and not rack stuff, Yamaha JX combos are hella cheap and give a great sound on the Fender-to-Jazz Chorus continuum, fantastic at house volume. Not thick on the earth, but they pop up, and my JX-30 was way under a hundred.

JC-40 is assuming you want the new model with the improvements (gain channel etc).

Otherwise, I'd just get a JC-50/55/60 and run with it.

The JC-50 is the unsung hero of the line, and sounds glorious at conversational volumes.

I'd keep the Super Reverb and add another amp for low volume or critical pedals if need be. I remember when those commonly sold in the $3-400 range, and regret not getting one back then (so hey, my opinion is wholly biased).

if you look at it objectively..
JC40 = more portable, cleaner headroom, lighter weight, same sound at any volume, ability to run a line out at gigs (and sound close to identical through PA speakers), capable with synths and pretty much anything else, no regular maintenance work/cost, true stereo (not counting fx loop), easier and cheaper to replace.

the only arguments here are for investment and your own feelings about the sound of the amp, as well as any sentimental attachment. personally i value practicality and neutral, clean sound imaging above all else so the solid state lyf is the one for me, but some people have reasons for going the less practical route and that's their choice. test it out and decide with your ears, because IMO money isn't the best reason to make these decisions, especially if you end up keeping something that's a hassle to use at home and at gigs etc just because it's rarer/more valuable, or if you sell it to make the extra money but aren't happy with the sound of the amp. then nobody wins.

EASY.

Buy the JC while you still own the SR. See how you feel, then flip, or don't flip.

My opinion? Just keep the SR. You love it!

Gone Fission wrote:I dunno, if you're all pedals and not rack stuff, Yamaha JX combos are hella cheap and give a great sound on the Fender-to-Jazz Chorus continuum, fantastic at house volume. Not thick on the earth, but they pop up, and my JX-30 was way under a hundred.

The el cheapo solid state amps of the 80's/90's don't get enough love (Yamaha JX & G series, Randall, Peavey, etc.), most were over-built to withstand the test of 30+ years/meteor shower, and were built to compete with the Fender Twin & Roland JC in the first place. I haven't jumped on the new JC40 for that reason - for the price of a new one, you could snag a few or more older amps for equal $, pending a minor touch-up/cleaning of the internals for years of prolonged happiness. But also

Boxbie wrote: Buy the JC while you still own the SR. See how you feel, then flip, or don't flip.

My opinion? Just keep the SR. You love it!

The Yamahas are generally decent sounding (if not exactly common depending on area).

The Randalls and Peaveys aren't in the same sonic ballpark.

I wish they were or stuff aged like wine, I really do.

I know folks love them for what they are, but they're not in the holy trinity of SS stuff of the era (Fender/Roland/Yam). Flat and lifeless is pretty much how I remember the Peavey SS stuff that was "high end" at the time, and it wasn't for lack of owning it. I kept swearing that this time it'll be different, and it never was. Those speakers were probably a good portion of it (and I have never heard a Skorpion or Black Widow that didn't make me wish for a Celestion, and I do not like Celestions!).

Flipflipflippityflip

UglyCasanova wrote:

backwardsvoyager wrote:SOLID STATE LYF

This. I went JC and never looked back. If you use a lot of pedals, these amps are perfect.

Yuuuuuuuuup. Plus, you can get a tube based pedal to somewhat cop those tube tones again. But yeah, I rock a 120, takes pedals like a king

Psyre wrote:UglyCasanova brought up my other point, the Super hasn't been playing super well with pedals like Ravish Sitar, C9 (soon to be Mel9), CT5 and heavy effects in that realm. I lose myself in the mix a little more, which is what started me on this path in the first place.

Chances of gigs are possible, but i'm also thinking about keyboards, synths, drum machines that will also be needing amplification. In a perfect world I'd have both, but my desire to upgrade to some analogue Rack Compressors and EQ is preventing the 2 amp scenario.

I've found that the JC series takes keyboards really well.