A José and a SLO Walk Into a Bar

[shredi knight]

What was that dude that had the amp with a cupholder and fire concerns? That needs to be in here somewhere

Billy Blades:

 

[marvcus]

Billy Blades:


View attachment 433030

 

[BeZo]

Oh, this thing would be ridiculous on its own. It doesn't need a cup holder.

No spoilers.

 

[bennyslo]

Definitely the SLO clean and lead for channels 1 and 3, Jose as crunchy channel 2

 

[Solarflares]

Make ch1 a Joyo British Sound into a Line 6 Spider IV.
Ch2 can be a Joyo American Sound into the same amp.
Footboard with 4 presets.
If a guy can’t do it with that, then he’s some kind of cunt.

 

[angelspade]

I have to say that while I completely understand that the SLO circuit is widely considered one of the greats in the universe of high gain amp designs...I just plain dont get it. That loose, grainy, blurry low end gets in the way of my playing. That said, lots of guys make them sound amazing. The SLO just doesn't like my playing.

 

[Solarflares]

I have to say that while I completely understand that the SLO circuit is widely considered one of the greats in the universe of high gain amp designs...I just plain dont get it. That loose, grainy, blurry low end gets in the way of my playing. That said, lots of guys make them sound amazing. The SLO just doesn't like my playing.

Lower pick-up height on the bass side.
Buy some Mullard type 161 or 163.
Bass on amp no higher than 4.
EQ bottom-end on the loop, or after a load-box (preferable).

 

[John4021]

This just deserves to be posted in TGP.
It's right up their alley

 

[angelspade]

Lower pick-up height on the bass side.
Buy some Mullard type 161 or 163.
Bass on amp no higher than 4.
EQ bottom-end on the loop, or after a load-box (preferable).

Understood...and I appreciate the advice. But I just won't work that hard to make an amp sound and respond well to my playing...Especially a $4,000 amp.

 

[Solarflares]

This just deserves to be posted in TGP.
It's right up their alley

I’m banned from TGP for suggesting that all women guitarists gravitate to leather catsuits and cleavage, about a year into their ‘blues’ careers.
Ok, I called Samantha Fish a fucking commercial bimbo, with a manky, hiked-up pair of minuscule top bollocks.
Other birds also got my rather scathing viewpoint.
You never get the fat arses, just a zipper open to the waist, and some pathetic token tits.
I also pointed out that Randy Rhoades had a fantastic arse, and I wouldn’t climb over him to get to stinking sluts like Samantha.
If you’re female and want a career in music - at least sort your equipment out.

 

[Solarflares]

Understood...and I appreciate the advice. But I just won't work that hard to make an amp sound and respond well to my playing...Especially a $4,000 amp.

You know it just doesn’t work like that.

 

[John4021]

I’m banned from TGP for suggesting that all women guitarists gravitate to leather catsuits and cleavage, about a year into their ‘blues’ careers.
Ok, I called Samantha Fish a fucking commercial bimbo, with a manky, hiked-up pair of minuscule top bollocks.
Other birds also got my rather scathing viewpoint.
You never get the fat arses, just a zipper open to the waist, and some pathetic token tits.
I also pointed out that Randy Rhoades had a fantastic arse, and I wouldn’t climb over him to get to stinking sluts like Samantha.
If you’re female and want a career in music - at least sort your equipment out.
View attachment 454066

I had to kiss ass on TGP to be able to put as my avatar.

That pic is Ace's with me........Boner time.

 

[Rick Lee]

I have an SLO and my 50w NMV Marshall spanks it for half the money, which is why it is for sale. But I understand the SLO has a devoted fanboi following. It's just that the older I get, the more vintage tone and less gain I like.

 

[angelspade]

You know it just doesn’t work like that.

It doesn't? Feel free to explain.

In the interim, here is some explaining on my statement: When I am testing an amp, I set the EQ and gain around noon and plug in a guitar loaded with passives, then a guitar loaded with actives. If is sounds good straight in under these conditions, I start making adjustment to the front panel of the amp. If it doesn't...I move on immediately. If somebody wants to spend $4K for an amp that requires specialized pickups, the "right" boost, and external EQ in the loop and some possibly some modulation...Then go for it. But I do not play that game, never have and never will. The amp has to respond to my playing, sound and feel good straight in...or the juice will ultimately not be worth the squeeze.

 

[Solarflares]

It doesn't? Feel free to explain.

In the interim, here is some explaining on my statement: When I am testing an amp, I set the EQ and gain around noon and plug in a guitar loaded with passives, then a guitar loaded with actives. If is sounds good straight in under these conditions, I start making adjustment to the front panel of the amp. If it doesn't...I move on immediately. If somebody wants to spend $4K for an amp that requires specialized pickups, the "right" boost, and external EQ in the loop and some possibly some modulation...Then go for it. But I do not play that game, never have and never will. The amp has to respond to my playing, sound and feel good straight in...or the juice will ultimately not be worth the squeeze.

You complained about your bottom end being messy.
I gave you some simple building blocks to address issues which may or may not be a factor.
I’ll try again, and say that perhaps that particular amp needs less front panel bass. It also might be requiring less bass-end from your pickup, compared to other amps you know well.
I suspect the valves are shelving mids in favour of sparkle and boom. JJ and PSVane - both guilty in that respect.
This can cause muddy bottom-end, which would mean less bass from the guitar, less bass on the amp, low resonance settings, and crucially some post-EQ to hopefully bring everything back into the balance you require - with the correct clarity you expect. Although I have experience of these valves, and in my opinion here, nothing could save them from the bin, as bottom-end was always indistinct, or too ‘messy’.
That is how it works. If you are unwilling to explore potential which you feel is unjustly hidden when dialling your go to settings, and can dismiss the amp that readily - then that’s up to you.
I suspect your amp simply has poor valve choice, and they are affecting your normal operating habit.
I went through this with a Victory Sheriff 44. It was a dogshit amp out the box with PM, TAD, and JJ. Had to use my Palmer’s deep switch, and everything I did after was uncontrollable. Fitting 161 Mullards separated all the frequencies, gave me lovely clear bottom-end and separate lo-mids. I could then turn off the deep switch, and post-EQ was nicely effective and controllable. That was a learning experience for me. I tweaked both my guitars pick-up heights for the first time in 38 years!

 

[Solarflares]

Here’s my little setup from 2 years ago. Totally vintage Mullard now. Unusable in stock form.
I loath treble and presence, so both are on 1. This then affects gain. So the amp then needs some push at the front.
The negative feedback is perfect in fixed bias, but only with the master on 7 - allowing the amp to respond well to me.
The input gain is lacking on these, and I usually dial Classic amps full, with guitar on 7 max. This amp needs 10dB of front boost, to bring it into true front-end responsiveness, as I don’t like guitars on 10.
I usually have mid control on full. Even so, I like at least 6dB of mid at the front, to give me my lead tone.
The Palmer simulator is set flat now, with a 2x12 filter emulation.
This feeds a Joe Meek VC6Q. This gives me 6-stages of unity-gain pre-amp, a mild opto-compressor at 2/1, and I like +1dB of Bass, 6dB of Mids at 1Khz, and -1dB of treble on the unit.
This then feeds my soundcard for the computer DAW.

For rhythm work I turn off the Koko, and play with the guitar volume, all the way down to 1.
Power chords, the Koko stays on, guitar on 4. But I might switch front-end mids out.

That is about it. It’s what I do to make a very average, but clean and quiet, amp into something really great.
Everything bought used. I reckon about $2K in total.

I do have a Seymour Duncan Convertible 100W head as well now. I can see where you are coming from, because that amp requires no boost, post EQ, compression, or anything - to sound good. But I run it with the same external toys for versatility in my studio. Rhythm channel is pure Joe Walsh. Lead channel is anything imaginable. It has Mullards and has no bad sounds. Any setting sounds great.

If I was gigging, the Seymour on it’s own would be just fine. If I was buying a Friedman Jose, I would expect the same performance for $4000. But if it didn’t deliver, I know exactly what to do - although it requires $1000 throwing at it.
Many people would turn their nose up at this and move on. So yeah, I understand.
I’m just coming from a place where what needs doing gets done. Many years of being broke saw to that.

 

[angelspade]

You complained about your bottom end being messy.
I gave you some simple building blocks to address issues which may or may not be a factor.
I’ll try again, and say that perhaps that particular amp needs less front panel bass. It also might be requiring less bass-end from your pickup, compared to other amps you know well.
I suspect the valves are shelving mids in favour of sparkle and boom. JJ and PSVane - both guilty in that respect.
This can cause muddy bottom-end, which would mean less bass from the guitar, less bass on the amp, low resonance settings, and crucially some post-EQ to hopefully bring everything back into the balance you require - with the correct clarity you expect. Although I have experience of these valves, and in my opinion here, nothing could save them from the bin, as bottom-end was always indistinct, or too ‘messy’.
That is how it works. If you are unwilling to explore potential which you feel is unjustly hidden when dialling your go to settings, and can dismiss the amp that readily - then that’s up to you.
I suspect your amp simply has poor valve choice, and they are affecting your normal operating habit.
I went through this with a Victory Sheriff 44. It was a dogshit amp out the box with PM, TAD, and JJ. Had to use my Palmer’s deep switch, and everything I did after was uncontrollable. Fitting 161 Mullards separated all the frequencies, gave me lovely clear bottom-end and separate lo-mids. I could then turn off the deep switch, and post-EQ was nicely effective and controllable. That was a learning experience for me. I tweaked both my guitars pick-up heights for the first time in 38 years!

I'm a little concerned for you as you don't seem to be able to grasp a fairly simple concept regarding the the SLO. I didn't "complain" about anything. I was stating an opinion regarding that amp that is somewhat broadly held around here: The SLO is not a particularly tight or percussive sounding amplifier, this is inherent to it's voicing. Your position is that "it doesn't work that way" and that I should investigated different means of augmenting the amps tone and response into a usable format. My response is that I acquire and play amps where the voicing suits my playing "out of the box" and work from there. This is a conclusion that I have come to over years of experimentation with many different amps. If you choose to jump through a bunch of hoops to, as you put it "bring everything back into balance" or to try to coax a good tone out of amps that are "dogshit out of the box" , that's great...enjoy that journey. But you will not see me on that trail next you...and that IS how it works for me.

 

[Solarflares]

I'm a little concerned for you as you don't seem to be able to grasp a fairly simple concept regarding the the SLO. I didn't "complain" about anything. I was stating an opinion regarding that amp that is somewhat broadly held around here: The SLO is not a particularly tight or percussive sounding amplifier, this is inherent to it's voicing. Your position is that "it doesn't work that way" and that I should investigated different means of augmenting the amps tone and response into a usable format. My response is that I acquire and play amps where the voicing suits my playing "out of the box" and work from there. This is a conclusion that I have come to over years of experimentation with many different amps. If you choose to jump through a bunch of hoops to, as you put it "bring everything back into balance" or to try to coax a good tone out of amps that are "dogshit out of the box" , that's great...enjoy that journey. But you will not see me on that trail next you...and that IS how it works for me.

I do understand.
I have looked at the SLO-100 schematic, and am now familiar with what he was doing.
It’s certainly not one for me. A little bit too ‘posh’. Maybe nice for Eric Clapton at medium gain.
The amp doesn’t work as a single entity, but rather it is very split in it’s characteristics. Almost like using a rack pre-amp with a very clean power amp. I stopped doing that 30 years ago for good reason.
I prefer older cathode-follower designs for rock, with mild early tone-stacks. I DO want the springiness of power-amp distortion, and fx-loops are fucking stupid.

Yeah sure. I have no problem converting an amp to different power valves, and changing cathode-bias to fixed bias - if I can see potential in the circuit.
With the ‘dogshit’ Sheriff 44, I could see the circuit was sensible and stable. This allowed me to use very strong valves.
These transformed the amp without further modification. A lucky break.

 

[232cap]

Look into a mezzabarba.

 

[Techdeth]

Bring it o er when done