Anyone like these with Gretsch? I stumbled into a clean used one today, and it sounds nice with some of my guitars... but maybe not a super good match for Gretsch. Maybe TOO clean?

Haven't spent that much time with the amp yet, and I haven't tried it with the band. I normally find it takes me a while to get used to new equipment, and I invariably discover that only certain combinations are REALLY exciting (for instance, my SG into my Princeton Reverb RI is a stunning synergy).

Anybody else found the perfect Gretsch/Jazz Chorus match up?

I like it, but others may not. Just give it a shot and see.

Put on a hint of delay, the factory set delay and turn up the volume on the guitar.

Killer!

I'm looking at a JC-77 so I'll see how it sounds with TV Classics.

JC-77 is a perfect alternative to the JC-120 if you don't want the size or weight.

Can't agree.
A JC 77 is essentially two 40 watt amps.
A JC 120 is essentially two 60 watt amps

A Roland cube 60 is one half of a JC 120 and it's cheaper than a JC77 (at least in Australia)

Can't agree.
A JC 77 is essentially two 40 watt amps.
A JC 120 is essentially two 60 watt amps

A Roland cube 60 is one half of a JC 120 and it's cheaper than a JC77 (at least in Australia)

I agree with Cube route. You definitely get that JC flavor and power (80x) without all the weight. Workhorse amps.

JC-77 is a perfect alternative to the JC-120 if you don't want the size or weight.

I AB'ed a (very used) JC77 and a 120 and felt that the soundstaging of the 77 didn't come close to the warm transparency of the jc120.

While my jazzy chords rang out (LOUDLY;)) on the 120, they turned into a garble through the 77.

I don't know if that's caused by the circuit or the 10" speakers or defferred maintainance, but to me they were intirely different beasts.

I...While my jazzy chords rang out (LOUDLY;)) on the 120, they turned into a garble through the 77...

It has been my experience that every amp I have ever tried has been garbled and each sounded like pieces of crap dropping 20cm to the porcelain. I know it isn't my playing.... Well, I'm pretty sure... Although I have practiced a lot and achieved that 20cm-drop-to-porcelain sound through much trial and a whole bunch more error.

Happy New Year, y'all!

Update/review: much happier with the Roland tonight. FilterTrons can sound real sparkly. My 5127, with those DeArmond 2000s, was twangy and bright.

The big surprise, though, was the 5120, with GFS Surf 90s. That guitar just perked up and came to life, in a very satisfying way. Articulate, but not overly bright. One of those happy-happy guitar-amp combinations I mentioned earlier.

The HiLoTrons in the Tenny sounded better tonight, but I'm thinking the Roland isn't the ideal amp for them. That guitar likes a Fender, particularly a Deluxe.

One thing I tried tonight was running both channels simultaneously (using a Boss LS-2 line selector pedal). The idea there was to be able to blend in a certain amount of chorus, because that effect is either fully ON or completely OFF, in this amp. That idea worked, but I think even with the chorus OFF, I got a nicer sound.

It will be interesting to see how this amp performs in a band context!

JC setting on the Cubes is a damn good sound.

JC setting on the Cubes is a damn good sound.

Yes it is! Love mine. The JC setting is about what I use exclusively.

Never tried one with a gretsch. When I frequented studios in New Joisey, back in the 80's and 90's, almost every one had one. That and a Marshall stack. The Roland 120's were indestructible. I have seen stupid musicians do things to them that i wouldn't do to a foaming dog, and they still played. Couldnt beat the chorus sound, but i didn't care much for the distortion. If I ever had spare cash, meaning i got my jet, corvette, and baritone, i would definatley get one to have. Even if I just put it through the abuse and watched it come back for more.

I have seen stupid musicians do things to them that i wouldn't do to a foaming dog, and they still played.

Not sure what that means, exactly, but it's quite vivid!

Personally, I wouldn't do anything with a foaming dog, but that's just me.

I used a JC 120 with my Tenny for YEARS! (80's to 90's) Live I used it with a RAT pedal for a bit of distortion and a Boss pedal for delay. Then, later, I used a GK pre-amp thru the effects loop of the amp. I played my Tenny, my Gent and the Nashville, as well as a Washburn acoustic w/preamp thru the JC 120. Great clean sound, chorus...and it was PLENTY loud for the band! And we played out a lot...very road-worthy!

It has been my experience that every amp I have ever tried has been garbled and each sounded like pieces of crap dropping 20cm to the porcelain. I know it isn't my playing.... Well, I'm pretty sure... Although I have practiced a lot and achieved that 20cm-drop-to-porcelain sound through much trial and a whole bunch more error.

Happy New Year, y'all!

Quit bragging Greg! You know that the best you can muster is an 18cm-drop-to-porcelain sound. :)

Not sure what that means, exactly, but it's quite vivid!

well, perhaps not the best analogy, i have seen them kicked over, stood upon, have various liquids poured on, in and around them, jacks pulled out at close to full volume, then plugged back in, you know, the sought of stuff you shouldnt do to an amp. and they still played the same. they seemed to be a staple in most rehearsal studios i attended. And no, I would never do that stuff to an amp, i was too busy dragging my fender the twin around, all 100 pounds of it.

I said the JC-77 was a great ALTERNATIVE to the JC-120. Both amps have seperate power amps that go to seperate speakers, as well as true stereo chorus, vibrato and spring reverb, 2 seperate channels, and are all analog with specially designed speakers. Both amps, to no ones surprise, also have probably the worst distortion ever built into an amp-haha.

Roland made a 412 cabinet with these speakers in it. I'm sure if you bypassed the speakers in both a 77 and 120 of the same year, the only difference you would find would be power related, or you could just connect the 77 to the 120s speakers.. A twin through 2 10s sounds very different than through 2 12s, why would this be any different.

The Roland Cube is a modeling amp, and although it is a very good sounding one, is built nothing like the JC series. It's effects are digital, and you get no true stereo out of them because they have 1 power section and 1 speaker. Also, if COSM was so outstanding, we'd all use GT processor floorboards plugged into power amps for our rigs.(Especially with the outstanding control and progammability they offer).

I don't want to sound anti Cube because I am not. Rolands Cube series are great sounding amps for some things, but JCs have earned the title "industry standard" through years of road and studio usage, and a clean and chorused sound that can't be beat.

I said the JC-77 was a great ALTERNATIVE to the JC-120. Both amps have seperate power amps that go to seperate speakers, as well as true stereo chorus, vibrato and spring reverb, 2 seperate channels, and are all analog with specially designed speakers. Both amps, to no ones surprise, also have probably the worst distortion ever built into an amp-haha.

Roland made a 412 cabinet with these speakers in it. I'm sure if you bypassed the speakers in both a 77 and 120 of the same year, the only difference you would find would be power related, or you could just connect the 77 to the 120s speakers.. A twin through 2 10s sounds very different than through 2 12s, why would this be any different.

The Roland Cube is a modeling amp, and although it is a very good sounding one, is built nothing like the JC series. It's effects are digital, and you get no true stereo out of them because they have 1 power section and 1 speaker. Also, if COSM was so outstanding, we'd all use GT processor floorboards plugged into power amps for our rigs.(Especially with the outstanding control and progammability they offer).

I don't want to sound anti Cube because I am not. Rolands Cube series are great sounding amps for some things, but JCs have earned the title "industry standard" through years of road and studio usage, and a clean and chorused sound that can't be beat.

As much as I love my Cube, I agree. It has a long way to go before holding a place next to the legendary JC120. Despite how good the Cube sounds, its gotta prove that it can hold up as resiliently as the JC120, have that something that people just desire that is unique to it...which thus far it hasn't done. Hell, I'd love to have a JC120.

Whojamfan,
Sorry if I offended - didn't mean to. My point was that a (stand alone) Roland JC77 wasn't powerful enough to play with a band, while the cheaper Roland cube 60 was. (The cube 80 even more so.)
I started out with a Roland JC77 in 1988 in a new band. I had to upgrade to a JC120 which I played constantly for more than five years and LOVED! I put everything through it - Strat, Gibson and 12-string acoustic - with great results.
I agree with previous posts that the JC120 has a crappy overdrive(I used a Boss o/d or an Ibanez tubescreamer) and needs a touch of delay to warm it up, but once that's done, you can set and forget - just play the amp all night.
I still own and use the JC120, but I now own a Cube 60 (and an AC 60) so you can see I'm a Roland fan.
Value for money, I can't think of a better more versatile amp than the Roland cube - I just wish I'd opted for the Cube 80.

I'm sorry if I've come across as offended, I just thought it was weird that for the first time in internet history it seemed that somebody actually liked a modeling amp better than the amp it modeled.

I've had a JC 120 for years and have absolutely no use or room for it, I've got vintage Hiwatt for clean and pedal platforms, and my AC30 covers all the el84 variations. I have some smaller tube heads and combos for other flavors.

I'd be really happy to sell mine, PM me, may take partial trades as well!

I absolutely love my JC120! The sound is crisp and clear!

18553

Very little, if no, feedback and noise reduction is a must when playing high distortion with the mids backed down!

Whojamfan
If Sydney, New South Wales, wasn't quite so far from Los Angeles, California - we might have got together.
And I don't prefer the Cube to the JC120 - but I play small gigs now and I'm getting along in years, so the smaller, lighter cube is a great substitute.

I don't prefer the Cube to the JC120 - but I play small gigs now and I'm getting along in years, so the smaller, lighter cube is a great substitute.

It's funny how that works. I've got my rig down to a guitar, a DRRI, a backpack and a coffee cup. I have a Twin in a piggyback cabinet for big gigs but if I never needed to lug that thing again I wouldn't complain. :)

Yeah, Synchro in band days, we had a truck and it took an hour to set up and knock down.
I now walk in with a guitar, and an 'odds & ends' bag with my Roland AC60 in a case over my shoulder. I sometimes even use it as a PA, as well.

Yeah, Synchro in band days, we had a truck and it took an hour to set up and knock down.
I now walk in with a guitar, and an 'odds & ends' bag with my Roland AC60 in a case over my shoulder. I sometimes even use it as a PA, as well.

Testify brutha! I've always preferred to travel light when it came to gigs and old age has done nothing to reverse the policy. Truth be known, the main reason I don't use pedals is the effort required to carry and setup a pedalboard. Besides that, I find it nearly impossible to imagine a better sound than a Gretsch plugged into a Deluxe Reverb. My idea of "asking it" in the business would be the day I could carry only my axe to a gig.

I was merely remarking that Roland does a good job of modeling their best amp, as they should.

No way Id rather play a Cube than the real thing!

I'm sorry if I've come across as offended, I just thought it was weird that for the first time in internet history it seemed that somebody actually liked a modeling amp better than the amp it modeled.
If that is the first.... here is the second. I do actually prefer it to the real thing for both sound and non-sound related reasons.

No way Id rather play a Cube than the real thing!Let's address the real thing statement.

It took me a few years to just listen to an amp instead of shopping with a prejudice for or against something with any regularity. The first time I closed my eyes and listened to an amp... I bought a Vox... and I would have never done that previously. The next time I did it... I sold that Vox for the Cube 80x. I have gotten to the point of where, other than reliability concerns, I don't care who made what. If it sounds good.... who cares who the manufacturer is or model.

The approach that works best with modellers of all types is to listen with your ears and not with the brochure/specs/pictures of your favorite player. Does the Cube sound like a JC? No. Good. I like the JC... but not enough to buy one (I actually would like to own a 1975 model as we both share that birth year...other than that... no). All amps I have put against the Cube in an attempt find a better amp have fallen in painful defeat save for one. Only one amplifier could hold its own against my Cube and that was the Gibson GA40RVT - a tube amp. I didn't say beat.. I said hold its own.

Unless the Cube developes some inherent reliability issues or they change the sauce, the Cube will be my amp.

I am playing a real thing? Yes. MY real thing.

All that being said, I don't believe this is the only amp that can produce my sound. As I said, the Gibson GA40RVT did it.

As good as some modelers are becoming, and as light and easy on the back as they are I can understand completely why a Cube, or a Mustang, or a Vox modeler might be someone's favorite amp.
I absolutely love my little Mustang 1. And if I needed a light gigging amp, the 3, 4, or 5 would be very tempting. The Bassman, Deluxe, and Twin models are lovely and with some big speakers moving some air, awesome.
Still, if money, convenience, storage space, and my back were not a primary consideration I would still prefer to own the actual amps vs the models. Thats the old fashioned in me, plus the collector fetish coming out.

My picking partner has a couple of Cubes, a smaller and a big one. He loves em and they are his only electric guitar amps. He got rid of a Deluxe Reissue cause he just didnt need it and like the Cubes better.

And yes the AC60s are great arn't they? My acoustic duo partner (the Cube guy) and I both have one. We plug a git & mic into each, set levels, and we're done setting up for most gigs we play.

I just came back from playing a JC120 and that was right after I played my Cube 80x. Confirmed: although I like the sound of the JC120, and can see owning one, my Cube has that little bit of something in its sound when I play that leads me to choose the modeller over the legend.

I will say this though... sound isn't the only thing to be considered when buying amp for sure.

Where I'd say the Roland JC120, in my eyes, one-ups my Cube is:

1. If it breaks, it can be easily fixed by a basic amp tech.
2. It will fill up a room (these things are LOUD). I'd say at 4 it is my Cube at about 6.
3. (dending on the era) Heavy duty switches.
4. Effects loop (depending on era) so you can throw a pre-amp into the mix to use the JC120 as a power amp/cab combo. Rather nice.
5. Number 4 leads to this one: since you can choose your preamps, you can really make this amp sound like anything you like AND have the legendary JC sound and the click of an A/B switch.

The Cons are:

1. Heavy has all get out.
2. In comparison to my Cube, it is ever so slight off the sound I like... but, you know... I have also never played my guitars through one. So... take that for what it is worth.