Would you suggest I get the Roland JC-22 or JC-40?

Hey, I'm looking for a new amp and believe one of the Roland JC-22 or JC-40 will fit the bill as I like a clean guitar.

I will be pairing the amp with my Strat and with a few pedals like the Cali76 compressor, the Hudson Broadcast for dirt, and the Strymon Flint for reverb and trem.

I like the JC series because I like a clean sound. Before this I tried a Fender Princeton '65 but didn't like how it broke up so easily once the tubes got hot. It's also a pricey amp so I returned it.

I'll be playing and recording mostly in my apartment so the JC-22 seems the most logical choice. Certainly, as a smaller amp, it'll be much easier to fit it around the place. Also, from a loudness perspective, it will be plenty loud for the volumes that I'll be playing at.

On the other hand, the JC-40 is probably overkill for me. Certainly, similar to the Princeton, I'll be mostly playing it at 1-3 volume. It's obviously also bigger and a bit heavier (although not much).

The JC-22 is probably the smart choice for me. However, I am tempted by the JC-40 because it's sound is obviously less boxy and more clear than the JC-22. Although it's bigger than I'd like, I'm looking for an amp that'll be mine for a while so I'm looking to get the 'right' amp versus make decisions based on convenience. I'm also mindful that it might be a bit weird having a small/cheaper amp when I otherwise have 'nice' gear.

That said, the JC-22 does have a certain presence that small amps have. It's not a growl per se, as it's a clean amp, but the smaller aspect of the amp does have a certain something to it - probably why people sometimes like recording with them.

Put simply, I can't decide if to go for the larger JC-40, which is the better sounding of the amp, or if the JC-22 represents a sweet spot for me of size and great sound, albeit not as great.

Can anyone help steer me here please?

 

Thanks y'all for the comments so far. I managed to try these in store and found some interesting observations. I was wondering if anyone can contextualise them for me.

Firstly, I found both amps sounded really good. They are quite compressed sounding, which can be a little harsh if not dialled in right. I first tried them with this cheap guitar that wasn't well setup and they sounded bad but swapped out for a better one and they came alive.

What was really interesting to me is that, I know the 40 is the 'better' amp, but the 22 has a certain presence or punch to it that is quite appealing.

I noticed this when I was comparing the 65 vs 68 Princeton's. The 65 was objectively the better amp, but the 68 had an aliveness to it that the 65 didn't have. The 22 I think is a bit similar, it feels like it's pushing air more or IDK, something that feels very in your face.

I'm not sure which is the two I preferred. The 22 definitely has a charm to it. I don't know how well it'll record, it could be something that just sounds too small or compressed. The 40 obviously has a wider sound, although can also sound differently boxy.

I've always liked 60s guitar sounds that could feel a bit thin and weedy, but, to me, felt more alive. Take this Stone's track - - the main guitar is pretty weedy, yet it has a cool quality to it.

The 22 somewhat reminds me of that, although as above I can't decide is this is a good thing or a limiting thing, and thus the 40 is the better all rounder inc recording amp. Either way both sound good.