Differences In Tone Between Savage 120 and an SE

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jaek-Chi
  • Start date Start date
J

Jaek-Chi

New member
Hi All,

I've had a bunch of Engl amps, and played a few others, and they are overall brilliant for the tone i like. My Fireball 60 was great for what it was. Apart from getting lost next to other amps and the shared EQ, it was awesome. Played a powerball and didn't gel with it all that much, but was still nice. My Invader was awesome, huge sounding and awesome tone, and i love my Savage to pieces. I prefer it over the rest - comparing to the Invader i liked it because it was a little less low end focussed and had a little bit more bite and punch. It's been my favourite amp i've ever had.

I'm more focussed on the gain channels, and was curious. What's the biggest differences in tone between the Savage 120 and an SE.

Cheers guys.
 
I don't have exactly these two amps but I have Savage SE and E570 SE preamp and I played ENGL SE next to Invader 100 that I had for quite a while.

Savage SE`s Lead channel has rawer, more natural tone, very punchy with broad mids and more emphasis on hi-mids. Rough/Smooth button brings even more mids with softer bass and highs - perfect for leads but there is a drop in gain when switched in, so I have to balance it with Timmy - it works the same way on Savage 120.
Crunch 2 channel is what it says - your heavy crunch channel but not tight enough on its own. Funny thing is that it's louder than the Lead channel but this is sorted by separate Volume pots for each channel so no big deal.
Crunch 1 is very dynamic and musical and Preshape button works really well with single-coil pickups to bring more body to the sound. I really enjoy it even though I'm a metalhead.
Clean channel is nice and stays clean longer than e.g. Invader's clean (but Invader has warmer clean sound)

E570 SE preamp:
Clean is really pristine and with two bright buttons and modern/classic option it is really versatile.
Crunch channel is not as nice as Savage SE's. It's good with single-coils but it took me quite some fiddling to find passable sound with my other guitars. Bear in mind that I play metal mostly and my main guitars are Jackson SL1 (with Perpetual Burn in the bridge), ESP M-II (EMG81) and Caparison TAT (factory pickup) so nothing with light crunch purposely in mind.
Lead 1 - main rhythm channel - tight with great note definition. Very usable in both modes - modern and classic. I like it with Contour on. Otherwise it's too scooped to my taste. Emphasis is similar to Invader's on lower-mids but Classic mode works similar to Smooth mode on Savage so you can bring more mids if you need them.
Lead 2 - main lead channel - I like it in Classic mode with both Contour and Mid Edge on to bring the goods.
Both Lead channels can get pretty harsh so you must be careful with the treble pot (I put a darker tube in V1 as well).
I play the preamp through the poweramp of Savage SE and it would benefit from more open sounding poweramp. Savage SE's is quite focused.
I tried it also through Invader's poweramp (JJ E34L's) but I didn't like the sound. It was a lot more trebly with woofer lows. I definitely preferred Savage SE's poweramp with it even if it's a bit choked.

When I tried ENGL SE next to my Invader, its sound was fizzy with too much bass (and Invader is quite bass heavy amp already) and I couldn't get enough gain from Lead 1 without Hi gain button engaged. I believe there had to be something wrong with the tubes because my SE preamp is nothing alike.
 
Cool man, thanks for the response. Just loved all my ENGL's and figured the next place to go would be the flagship amp haha.
 
I've owned an SE Preamp, Powerball II, Screamer combo, E530 rack tube preamp, and a Steve Morse Sig Engl. They all did their own thing really well. My favorites were the PBII and the SE preamp through the Engl 850 100w power amp.

The SE pretty much covers most of the tones of the PBII, plus it gets into Invader crazy high gain areas. I ran the SE pre through other power amps (including the power section of the PBII), but nothing was as good as the 850 rack power amp. It has a depth knob on the power amp to give a nice boost to the low end, and it also has a footswitchable lead boost. It's the most versatile power amp I've ever seen. Definitely a perfect match with the SE pre.

In the end, I got what I needed out of the PBII and sold the other Engls. The SE was nice to have, but I couldn't justify all the money I had tied up in that rig when the Powerball covered my for half as much.
 
The SE is my favorite of the Engls I have played. The Savage is also sweet but the multiple loops and flexibility is amazing on the SE. Also the tone is more pissef off sounding.
 
If you asking to compare the Savage 120 (E610) compared to the Special Edition (E670)... I can help. I've owned 3 Savage 120s and 4 Special Editions. Between the two I like the SE a bit more. The SE has 2 different Lead channels I really like... both have plenty of gain and the right eq sweep for what I like. The Savage is a great amp and my #2 favorite Engl. As far as features go, there is no comparison the SE wins hands down... not only against the Savage, but against any other high gain channel switching amp out there. It's overkill on features... but lots of them are very useful.

The Savage 120 has the modified Marshall 2203 tone in spades, more high-mids and upper-end cut. Not a modern heavy Recto-ish saturated low end. More old-school Marshall tone and feel. It has a very tight and percussive lowend, even at high volumes. Great example of recorded tones: Hammerfall Legacy of Kings... or most any Exodus album from mid-90s to now.

The Special Edition (of which there are 2 versions, with 6L6GC power tubs and EL34 power tubes respectively: and of which I like the EL34 variant more due to the extra mid-range crunch, attack, and Marshallesque power section feel/tone) is just a more massive and bigger sounding amp in all respects. It has more low end, thicker overall sound, has more preamp gain on tap, and you get more sound coloration from the power section especially with EL34s. The clean and crunch channels on the SE are far better than those on the Savage. Cleaner more open chime clean sound and thicker meaner crunch. So if you need good clean or decent mid-gain crunch tones... the SE easily wins here. The SE has so many different tone shaping buttons and knobs, that I won't go into detail, but combined with direct midi capability it opens a huge range of tones and options. The basic tone is more modern and heavier than the Savage. But the EL34 variant can be dialed in to sound surprisingly like the best sounding Marshall channel switcher Marshall never made. The cool thing about the SE is the 2 lead channels can be dialed in to give you that modified Marshall 2203 lead sound on Lead 1, but then you can flip over to the heavier chunkier more saturated rhythm sound on Lead 2. It gives you 2 great high gain channel in one box. I really only like channel 4 in the Savage. The other sounds from the Savage are nice, but channel 4 is the money channel. The SE is really an amazing amp and my favorite Engl to date. Great example of recorded tone: Anything from Blind Guardian from 2000-present or Jag Panzer from around 2000-2005.
 
sinnersmoon":3t9oioe9 said:
I don't have exactly these two amps but I have Savage SE and E570 SE preamp and I played ENGL SE next to Invader 100 that I had for quite a while.

Savage SE`s Lead channel has rawer, more natural tone, very punchy with broad mids and more emphasis on hi-mids. Rough/Smooth button brings even more mids with softer bass and highs - perfect for leads but there is a drop in gain when switched in, so I have to balance it with Timmy - it works the same way on Savage 120.
Crunch 2 channel is what it says - your heavy crunch channel but not tight enough on its own. Funny thing is that it's louder than the Lead channel but this is sorted by separate Volume pots for each channel so no big deal.
Crunch 1 is very dynamic and musical and Preshape button works really well with single-coil pickups to bring more body to the sound. I really enjoy it even though I'm a metalhead.
Clean channel is nice and stays clean longer than e.g. Invader's clean (but Invader has warmer clean sound)

E570 SE preamp:
Clean is really pristine and with two bright buttons and modern/classic option it is really versatile.
Crunch channel is not as nice as Savage SE's. It's good with single-coils but it took me quite some fiddling to find passable sound with my other guitars. Bear in mind that I play metal mostly and my main guitars are Jackson SL1 (with Perpetual Burn in the bridge), ESP M-II (EMG81) and Caparison TAT (factory pickup) so nothing with light crunch purposely in mind.
Lead 1 - main rhythm channel - tight with great note definition. Very usable in both modes - modern and classic. I like it with Contour on. Otherwise it's too scooped to my taste. Emphasis is similar to Invader's on lower-mids but Classic mode works similar to Smooth mode on Savage so you can bring more mids if you need them.
Lead 2 - main lead channel - I like it in Classic mode with both Contour and Mid Edge on to bring the goods.
Both Lead channels can get pretty harsh so you must be careful with the treble pot (I put a darker tube in V1 as well).
I play the preamp through the poweramp of Savage SE and it would benefit from more open sounding poweramp. Savage SE's is quite focused.
I tried it also through Invader's poweramp (JJ E34L's) but I didn't like the sound. It was a lot more trebly with woofer lows. I definitely preferred Savage SE's poweramp with it even if it's a bit choked.

When I tried ENGL SE next to my Invader, its sound was fizzy with too much bass (and Invader is quite bass heavy amp already) and I couldn't get enough gain from Lead 1 without Hi gain button engaged. I believe there had to be something wrong with the tubes because my SE preamp is nothing alike.
Click to expand...

I have a Savage SE E660 and I'm tempted about swapping it out for newer amps like the Invader, how do they compare? Is it really worth it? It's so hard finding opinions on the E660 as so few of them are out there. I've never played another ENGL other than my Savage SE.
 
fireal":1wljudso said:
I have a Savage SE E660 and I'm tempted about swapping it out for newer amps like the Invader, how do they compare? Is it really worth it? It's so hard finding opinions on the E660 as so few of them are out there. I've never played another ENGL other than my Savage SE.
Click to expand...
Depends. Is there anything you miss in your Savage SE?
Invader sounds quite different. Clean channel is a bit warmer but it also breaks up earlier. Ch2 is hairier and can go into metal territory as well but I like the dynamics of Savage SE's Crunch 1 more.
Ch3 has a lot of low end and highs. It sounds bigger and fills room better than Savage SE but the focus of mids is more in lower mids and I wished I could dial them in more. I like the mids of Savage SE's Lead channel more because they are broader and shifted more in mid- and higher mids.
Ch4 is very mid-oriented and great for leads. It could have less treble though.
Invader is more polished, not as compressed and with a lot more bass.
At the end of the day I traded the Invader for Caparison TAT and kept the Savage SE but that's just my preference. I like that amp a lot even though there are some things that I would change (Lead channel less compressed, footswitchable loop, gain adjustment in Smooth mode, depth pot instead of just a depth boost).
Invader is a very versatile beast and covers a lot of ground with 4 separate EQ. This may suit other people more than Savage SE.

I would be tempted with Invader II with the Sound Wizard module and Retro 100. I'm really curious also about new Marty Friedman's sig.
 
To add to sinnersmoon's findings, this weekend a buddy came over and he brought his Savage SE (and JVM410H) to compare to my Savage 60, Invader 100 and 5150III (which we hardly played).
Most of the testing was done on my Engl 4x12" Pro cab (all Vintage 30's at the time, but since yesterday I threw in two G12-K85's).

One of the first things we noticed that the Savage SE's clean was nice, but not as lush, wide and sparkly as the Invader's (in bright mode). You could get closer by increasing the treble and presence, but then the Savage SE's crunch (which is on the same main channel as the clean) would be overly bitey and bright.
Also to get the most out of it; Preshape and Pentode Mode needed to be engaged, otherwise it would sound very limp and thin.

Also, this is -depending on your taste- an area where both amps fall slightly short;
the capability to have two great high gain tones that can both be used as either rhythm or lead.

In the case of the Savage SE, I found the 'Crunch 2' to be indeed too much Crunch instead of a good higher gain, saturated (in typical Engl-fashoon) tone. It lacked the 'searing' quality of what most Engls have as their 'Lo Lead'. The Savage SE's Lead channel kills, sure.

For the Invader, Channel 3 is the money-maker and gets very close and thumping, although the Savage SE's lead channel is a bit more raw. The thing with the Invader is, Channel 4 is pretty 'meh' to me. High gain yes, but too loose, middy and smeared. I run the mids at 0 to compensate there.
Now both amps have 2 master volumes, so you could still use the one channel with 2 volumes, but hey, we're not buying 4 channel amps to have 1 or 2 channels be 'so-so' right? ;)

On paper the Savage SE might even be the more versatile one, with the additional buttons, but some were just needed to be left on, whereas with the Invader you have more useable sounds easily switchable. With the clean channel's gain between 9 and 10 'o clock in lo gain mode (and bright ON), you have an awesome wide, sparkly clean tone, even with humbuckers. Switch on High Gain mode on that channel and you have a nice chimey break-up. The same with channel 2.

That being said; I haven't played the Savage 120, SE EL34 (only the 6L6, which was perceived a tad lacklustre with maybe 2 great tones) or the new Invader II.
Judging from the Invader II clips, it seems they reigned in Channel 4 to make it more like a souped-up Channel 3. This sounds positive at least.
Also, using a footswitchable fx-loop all the time and lacking an onboard noise gate, that makes the Savage 120 less attractive.
From a design standpoint, the 5150III on the red channel is definitely less noisy/hissy than the Savage 60 when setup with a similar crushing high-gain tone. I can imagine (and I've heard many users concur already) that the Savage 120 would need a noise gate most of the time too.

And who knows, there was talk of a Savage 120 version 2. Engl would be smart to include both the noisegate and footswitchable fx-loop (2 fx-loops, set #1 to 100% dry and #2 to 100% wet...switch between them, voila!) to that. :thumbsup: :yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top