Abandoning my dream amp. Am I crazy?

[Rackman]

Don't tell anyone but I'd be happier live with a Decatone. Just roll the treble up and it's at least tolerable...

 

[rstites]

Tonally this may be true, but the 10-15dB volume change is a bitch from a practical perspective.

There isn't a volume change when going crunch-to-clean as I described. Managed the entire sweep form clean-to-crunch for years with a single channel Marshall. The SLO does the same thing easily....plus an actual lead channel. You're welcome to footswitch all of them on an amp with more channels too. I know lots of guys who prefer that to riding the volume control, and it's certainly far more practical now that it used to be.

 

[rstites]

Meh, I never use three channels on an amp at a gig. Usually clean (or kinda clean), rhythm and then a boost or EQ for leads. With the SLO I tend to roll down my guitar vol for rhythm just because of what you said--seems a shame to use a dirt box with an SLO100. It'd def a lot easier than doing a gig with just a 2204

I have no problem with a dirt box in front of the SLO crunch for the right tones. There's nothing sacred about it. Agreed on the 2204, or 2203 in my case. That's what I used for years. Great amp live but always wanted a dedicated lead channel that didn't depend on the soundman to get things right for lead breaks. The SLO does that and has a bit more crunch available on the rhythm channel. The tone is a bit different between the two, but they're squarely in the same general area.

 

[Rackman]

There isn't a volume change when going crunch-to-clean as I described.

Unless the amp is infinitely compressed, there most definitely is. That's just a fact of how that type of circuit works.

 

[the4thlast1]

Ive had a couple SLO’s , I prefer a 5152 to be honest. The peavey does metal rhythm better. If you play hard rock mostly and don’t care about having the tighter clearer lowend that metal riffing calls for then you might love the SLO. The SLO would be better for strumming big distorted chords than fast staccato riffs I think that’s what I’m getting at. The SLO prob has a better lead/solo sound. Cleans in both amps are lack luster in my opinion.

 

[tallcoolone]

If you play hard rock mostly and don’t care about having the tighter clearer lowend that metal riffing calls for then you might love the SLO. The SLO would be better for strumming big distorted chords than fast staccato riffs I think that’s what I’m getting at. The SLO prob has a better lead/solo sound. Cleans in both amps are lack luster in my opinion.

Yeah that's def me and I agree

 

[rstites]

Unless the amp is infinitely compressed, there most definitely is. That's just a fact of how that type of circuit works.

Lots of us grew up playing old single-channel Marshalls where managing distortion with the volume control was the only option. It works without a massive volume drop as heard from a plethora of players from the 70s, 80s, and even into the 90s. It works just fine.

 

[rstites]

Ive had a couple SLO’s , I prefer a 5152 to be honest. The peavey does metal rhythm better. If you play hard rock mostly and don’t care about having the tighter clearer lowend that metal riffing calls for then you might love the SLO. The SLO would be better for strumming big distorted chords than fast staccato riffs I think that’s what I’m getting at. The SLO prob has a better lead/solo sound. Cleans in both amps are lack luster in my opinion.

You can tighten the SLO up with an OD out front, like on a classic Marshall for metal rhythm. I don't know that it's my ideal amp for metal, but that's how I'd do it.

FWIW, the mod that cuts some mids on it's clean really helps with that if you want a clean tone form it. It has a frequency response more like a Marshall and we tend to associate that flatter midrange with a less interesting clean. I actually like the SLO clean with a low input single coil but it's just not a sound I have a lot of use for in what I do.

 

[SonVolt]

That sounds incredible.

 

[headlessdeadguy]

Calling @Randy R

 

[Rackman]

Lots of us grew up playing old single-channel Marshalls where managing distortion with the volume control was the only option. It works without a massive volume drop as heard from a plethora of players from the 70s, 80s, and even into the 90s. It works just fine.

You can say it "works just fine" all you like, but the reality is you get a sizable volume drop. That is a fact of how a tube circuit works - namely that the compression/clipping from the tubes is not pure limiting. And it's true in any decade.

Now whether that volume drop is what you want is an artistic decision I suppose.

 

[Killcrop]

The SLO is a great amp but I really feel like the master needs to be cooking to get it to sound great. I found it easier to get the tones I want from a 101b. I tried the 30 w SLO and it was way too compressed for my needs.

 

[rstites]

You can say it "works just fine" all you like, but the reality is you get a sizable volume drop. That is a fact of how a tube circuit works - namely that the compression/clipping from the tubes is not pure limiting. And it's true in any decade.

I can say it works just fine without large volume drops because I've actually done it. You can roll the volume off far enough to get big volume drops for certain, but that isn't inevitable if you know what you're doing.

I can also explain exactly why it works this way because I actually do understand a fair bit about tube amplifiers, including why changing the input voltage over a range produces different levels of overtones in the preamp without causing massive volume changes in the power amp. More specifically, why most of those volume changes heard in isolation will not be significant in the mix.

 

[Eazy-ESP]

Get one and see; that's the only way to know. Sure you may take a hit on resale, but that comes with territory of these amps, and at least you'll know for yourself.

IMO

I really thought I wanted a Splawn Quickrod; but before I ordered one I looked around at other options. In the end, I ended up with a Bogner Helios Eclipse and couldn't be happier with the tones and the feel.

You never know until you try; and trying always has a price when it comes to gear.

Do any good demos of this amp exist? I’ve been interested, but haven’t been impressed by what I’m hearing on YT.

 

[alund]

You will always wonder until you get one.

 

[Findthetone1]

The SLO is a great amp but I really feel like the master needs to be cooking to get it to sound great. I found it easier to get the tones I want from a 101b. I tried the 30 w SLO and it was way too compressed for my needs.

Yep. If the gain is anywhere above halfway the compression is too much. I keep it at about 9-10 o'clock and use OD pedals.

 

[Devin]

I can say it works just fine without large volume drops because I've actually done it. You can roll the volume off far enough to get big volume drops for certain, but that isn't inevitable if you know what you're doing.

I agree with this - in fact besides the ultra high gain lead sound in the SLO i was most impressed with the rolled off cleanish sounds. No problems with volume doing that in my experience

 

[SoooRad]

99/100 times I would rather roll a crunch down to a clean on my guitar volume knob. The 1 time out of 100 I want uber Queensryche clean, and I don't want that basically ever. It is meaningless in the context of how I've participated in every band I've been a part of.

 

[Rackman]

I agree with this - in fact besides the ultra high gain lead sound in the SLO i was most impressed with the rolled off cleanish sounds. No problems with volume doing that in my experience

It's perfectly fine not to have a problem with the volume loss. What's not fine, really not factual, is to claim it doesn't exist. Just as a little experiment I took my SLOII module which happened to be handy, in crunch mode, set it for more or less an 80's type rhythm sound, and then rolled the volume back. It never got to clean-clean, more of a Rolling Stones type clean. And the original SLO and X88 don't either.

Recording both (settings on everything but the guitar volume unchanged), I get -18.5 dB LUFS for the 80s crunch sound. That's arbitrary - just where the preamp and interface's input gain was set. And for the pseudo-clean I get -24.7 dB LUFS - 6.2dB quieter. If I'd used a preamp with less compression than the Great River I happened to use, that gap would have been wider.

Now that 6dB loss may be EXACTLY what you personally want an amp to do. It is not what I want an amp to do - I want a much less distorted clean sound without volume loss. And that requires a different circuit topology than the SLO.

That's the point of personal preference - you can buy amps that do what you want them to do, and I'll buy amps that do what I want them to do.

 

[harddriver]

You will always wonder until you get one.

Very true........

That being said I've never really heard the 5150's sounding exactly like an SLO, the SLO is it's own animal.

I remember in some interview Mike Soldano said something to the effect the SLO was his attempt at recreating a great NMV Marshall but with some improvements and creature comforts. We all know most NMV Marshall's aren't metal machines without mods and boost to tighten up the low end so one should keep that in mind.