PRS Custom 20

[andy474x]

I'm late to the thread, but found it interesting. I used to play a JVM 410. Monster of an amp. Loved it, but I thought it had little bass end, even cranked through a 2x12. I also found it to be a little over the top on compression and sometimes a bit "ice-picky". I dumped it because of its weight and I just don't need 100 watts.

Twenty to thirty was more to my liking to match my gigs and I ended up with the PRS custom 20 because it's feature rich for a low wattage amp; channel switching, effects loop, boost, independent eq, stuff you only get in bigger, higher end amps. I got the head and pair it with a DV Mark 2x12 with the neo-dyn speakers - very easy on the back.

I find amp to have plenty of gain but less compressed, more "lose" or "open" than the JVM. It also has almost too much bass. Even at 20 watts when I have this thing at 12 it's very loud, very beefy.

Interesting that different folks can have different perceptions of (nearly) identical pair of amps.

--chuck

That’s entirely what I’ve experienced with the 50 watt version as well. On the lead channel, I usually run the bass at 8-9:00 with a closed back cabinet, maybe 11-12:00 with an open back. The more I use mine with an open back cab, the more I think it matches best with them, helps to tame that bass response. Another thing, I agree the lead channel is more open and less compressed, which allows the character of tone shaping boost pedals to come through more than on something like your JVM. I love a Tumnus to tighten up the lows and make the mids sing.

 

[Deleted member 5962]

That’s entirely what I’ve experienced with the 50 watt version as well. On the lead channel, I usually run the bass at 8-9:00 with a closed back cabinet, maybe 11-12:00 with an open back. The more I use mine with an open back cab, the more I think it matches best with them, helps to tame that bass response. Another thing, I agree the lead channel is more open and less compressed, which allows the character of tone shaping boost pedals to come through more than on something like your JVM. I love a Tumnus to tighten up the lows and make the mids sing.

Every time I read "more open than a Marshall" I cringe... the bias was WAY off on mine, according to the buyer, when I sold it. So, mine was FAT smooth and compressed when used with much gain. VERY bass heavy. Not the open crunch that I love in Marshalls! But the guy just raved about how good it sounded once he adjusted the bias.

I think I made a big mistake selling it. And to think that someone on reverb just lowered the price of an MDT to $899... But, one channel, no loop and this version has no mids control. As much as I know I'd love it, I think I might try another Custom 50 or boy, if you can find one of the rare ones, a Custom 20 head.

 

[Chester]

That’s entirely what I’ve experienced with the 50 watt version as well. On the lead channel, I usually run the bass at 8-9:00 with a closed back cabinet, maybe 11-12:00 with an open back. The more I use mine with an open back cab, the more I think it matches best with them, helps to tame that bass response. Another thing, I agree the lead channel is more open and less compressed, which allows the character of tone shaping boost pedals to come through more than on something like your JVM. I love a Tumnus to tighten up the lows and make the mids sing.

Like you, I run bass in the Red channel almost off. Both my cabs are closed back, so it's a built in factor when I use the CU50. Not so running my Carol Ann's through the same cabs

What opened up the drive response for me was flipping the stock JJ's for TungSols in V1-3. For me, it's worked a treat, even at lower MV levels. I also keep Mids at 2pm or above, which stops things falling apart, Treb / Pres to taste depending on pups etc. It's become addictive for that edge of breakup to classic rock stuff I like to do