Abandoning my dream amp. Am I crazy?

[CrystalSky]

Until you play one of my modded 5150 II’s

The SLO filled a necessary role during its time but there’s much better options now. Much of the praise is carried over from favouritism from 25 years ago.

I had an XTC and it was a much better gig amp than the soldano but that Bogner smear got old fast for heavier material.

Wow you mod those too

I myself got an SLO as my first and only amp purchase, only based on praise. Not that I regret it, I just ended with a lead man’s amp, while I am more of a rhythm dude myself haha

Should have read more Righ-Talk and get a 2c+ dirt cheap. Hell, I could have gotten two for the price of my brand new SLO lol

But I was hesitant to buy used back then, wanted something brand new and reliable, as we don’t have a single reliable amp tech in a 1000 mile radius.

 

[SonVolt]

Your instincts are correct. Turns out there are many better amps than the SLO for modern high gain tones. You're not crazy.

For a long time, especially before you could find instant clips of everything online, the Soldano SLO was kind of revered as the most awesome high gain amp ever made and understandably a bunch of people kind of held them up as the ultimate boutique amp because of its reputation.

But it's really not, especially these days. Personally I think it's too soft and round, too mid heavy. To me, an OG 5150 just sounds better. Many high gain amps sound better imo.

So I was too young at the time to be paying attention, but where was same reverance for the Mesa Mark IIC during this time? It was clearly higher-gain than anything else at the time, including the SLO (imo). Was it not Marshall-y enough so the Soldano got more attention?

 

[rstites]

So I was too young at the time to be paying attention, but where was same reverance for the Mesa Mark IIC during this time? It was clearly higher-gain than anything else at the time, including the SLO (imo). Was it not Marshall-y enough so the Soldano got more attention?

Mesas were far more prevalent than Soldanos. Soldano's were rare in the 80s and into the early 90s. You had to order them directly from Mike or maybe some limited dealers. I didn't see them in person until the mid-90s when they became a bit more available, after the MKII and MKIII eras.

Mesas were available in stores across the country in the 80's - select ones to be sure but still we could find them readily. Lots of guys liked them, but they were pricy and they don't sound much like a Marshall.

Both were well outside the price range any of the guys I played with could consider, but only one was available to actually check out. Mesa's also suffered from being fairly cryptic to dial in, just walking into a store. It took a good salesman who actually knew the amp to get you anywhere with it - now we have online resources to make it quick, or the disposable funds to just pick one up, take it home and mess with it.

I don't know that there's more reverence for one than the other, but maybe the SLO being much rarer gives it something. They're different strokes and both excellent. They can cover the same grounds. I'd probably quibble over the Mesa having more gain, not that it matters since both have unusable gain through much of their range for me.

There are a bunch of other amps from the era that lean more in the direction of SLO, with high gain Marshall sounds, two channels, and an effects loop. Some of them sounded great, but most have faded from memory too.

 

[cobrahead1030]

I would go for it. Given, your situation allows you to play a big loud amp as intended.

 

[Speeddemon]

@the rossness allow me to add my 2ct:

Years ago, I helped a buddy pick out a 100W tube head at a store, that had the nicer heads around, including some Diezels and the SLO100, alongside some Engls and Mesa's.

We played a whole bunch and in the end he settled for the Invader 100 like I have (and he sold his years later), but I remember playing the SLO100 (on volume!) vividly; it was a bit of a one trick pony, but dayummmm...thass'some nice a$$ pony!
As others mentioned; direct, blooming, '3D'...those qualities typically do not convey in clips. Sure, it's not the tightest sounding of the bunch IF you're looking to play metal. For most (hard)rock types of music, it's fine. Especially when you can crank it. And it has a sort of openness that a 5150 lacks IMO, and I'm saying that, owning a 5150III 50W! But I was looking for a 3 channel, portable gigging amp with a footswitchable FX-loop. The SLO100 ain't that. But what it is, it's doing great.

Long story short: you gotta play one yourself IRL and *then* decide if it's worth it to you.

 

[BABMusic]

Both were well outside the price range any of the guys I played with could consider, but only one was available to actually check out. Mesa's also suffered from being fairly cryptic to dial in, just walking into a store. It took a good salesman who actually knew the amp to get you anywhere with it - now we have online resources to make it quick, or the disposable funds to just pick one up, take it home and mess with it.

I remember walking into several guitar stores in the late 90s and I would plug into a Mesa DC5 or DC10. I would set the knobs like a Marshall and it sounded like shit. I had no idea back then how you needed to dial them, and no one in the store seemed to know either. Now Rectos, that's another story. I actually went into the Mesa Hollywood store, and a very nice guy who worked there dialed it how it was supposed to sound. It still sounded muddy to me, so that's how I knew the Recto was not for me. At that same Mesa store, I tried a Mark V and the same guy helped me dial it, and I immediately knew it was what I wanted from Mesa. My Mark IV still makes me smile.

 

[rstites]

I remember walking into several guitar stores in the late 90s and I would plug into a Mesa DC5 or DC10. I would set the knobs like a Marshall and it sounded like shit. I had no idea back then how you needed to dial them, and no one in the store seemed to know either. Now Rectos, that's another story. I actually went into the Mesa Hollywood store, and a very nice guy who worked there dialed it how it was supposed to sound. It still sounded muddy to me, so that's how I knew the Recto was not for me. At that same Mesa store, I tried a Mark V and the same guy helped me dial it, and I immediately knew it was what I wanted from Mesa. My Mark IV still makes me smile.

I thought the DC series used one channel from a recto, or do I misremember? I owned one of them in the 90s at some point and played a few others. I recall them being nice amps, just not nice enough to unseat my Marshalls. I've liked the tones of the .22+ and .50+ more when I played them, though they're a bit more limited functionally.

I didn't get into Mk's until the 00's when I had the disposable income to just pick them up, when they were cheap. I could download the manual and sit at home dialing away. They have a million tones in them, many of them excellent, but there are so many ways to dial those amps in to sound like crap. The old Marshalls may have been far more limited (or the SLO that started this thread) but if they sound like crap, it isn't on the amp itself.

 

[Jack Luminous]

You'll never know until you try one yourself. I smile when I read that OG 5150 is a much better amp than the SLO. It's obviously a matter of taste.
What's stopping you from buying one and sell it if you don't like it ? It's the only way to know, really. I know I love my SLO. I'm trying new amps constantly. None made me reconsider at this point. A VH2 ? A Splawn ? A Ceriatone ? Are you f*****g kidding LOL

 

[BABMusic]

I thought the DC series used one channel from a recto, or do I misremember? I owned one of them in the 90s at some point and played a few others. I recall them being nice amps, just not nice enough to unseat my Marshalls. I've liked the tones of the .22+ and .50+ more when I played them, though they're a bit more limited functionally.

I didn't get into Mk's until the 00's when I had the disposable income to just pick them up, when they were cheap. I could download the manual and sit at home dialing away. They have a million tones in them, many of them excellent, but there are so many ways to dial those amps in to sound like crap. The old Marshalls may have been far more limited (or the SLO that started this thread) but if they sound like crap, it isn't on the amp itself.

Good question. Mesa marketed the DC series as "having a high gain channel from the Recto, and a clean from the Mark". However, in reality, most people have said it's not really a Recto circuit. It's more like a hybrid of a Mark with something else (maybe more like the Caliber 50 amp?). I owned a DC series and an original Dual Rectifier at one point, and I can tell you that they sound very different. I prefer the DC over the Recto, but I prefer the Mark series over the DC series. Same issue for me when I was. young -- I couldn't afford a Mark series.

 

[Devin]

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.

I was talking about the SLO100 head; never played the Synergy preamp

 

[Rackman]

I was talking about the SLO100 head; never played the Synergy preamp

All SLO preamps will behave similarly. If you look at the OG SLO preamp, the clean/crunch switch is a simple voltage divider, applying -28dB(V) attenuation. Applying attenuation at the guitar volume has a very similar effect and that tells you how much you need to apply to get a reasonable clean sound. The output signal will not drop as much because the 2nd stage of clean/crunch is not linear in the operating range in question (which is why it's distorting) but output will typically drop about -10 to -15dB LUFS depending on exactly where you have various controls set.