Elmwood vs 6505+ vs SLO

[zee1usa]

Am I loaded, or does the Elmwood M60 have the vibe of 6505+, Elmwood of course 10X more quaility. Elmwood sounds like a badass version of this. I can hear the smoothness of the 6L6 in the peavey vs the EL34 in the Elmwood. Elmwood like I said is quality. Clearer, Bigger Badder, Meaner, Rawer etc. etc. But you may not want the quality sound from the elmwood, for some metal you may want the 6505 which is not so perfect?? Not really, Id keep the Elmo... Off to listen to the SLO....
I thought I hears somewhere the Elmwood is similar to the SLO design, anyone know this? (have any links to discussions of any of these topics?)

 

[glpg80]

slo/ 5150 II= same difference. build quality and component choice is the only difference, plus a tube buffered effects loop. ive played both, and to be honest i was highly disappointed in the SLO. i just expected more. glad and proud owner of a 5150 II that ive taylored.

elmwood's do not record well - yngzaklynch could never get his to record well. i remember all of those tone vids, felt sorry for the guy because he couldnt capture the tone that people say is capable. just came through as a sterile, thin tone. out of all the amplifiers i have heard clips of, that has been the hardest to get consistancy of HQ recordings as well.

5150's, SLO's, and marshalls do NOT have that problem.

havent played an elmwood though so i cant comment on the tone comparison for tone comparison. just calling it like i see it.

 

[stratotone]

slo/ 5150 II= same difference. build quality and component choice is the only difference

That's like comparing a custom shop strat with a bottom of the line squire. Heck, the only difference there is build quality and component choice too, right?

Pete

 

[glpg80]

bottom line squire? a 5150 II is not a cheap amplifier by any means necessary. you are being a little pissy in that comparison, considering more metal recordings have been done with either amplifier then anyone cares to mention.

as far as a squire goes, what the fuck is wrong with a squire? beat the shit out of one on gig's all night long and it gets the job done.

ive heard guys on here say they are affraid to gig X product because it looses value.

then what is the point in owning it?

back to the amplifiers - same taste in tone, only difference being OT/PT manufacturers, relay design, component choice, and a tube buffered effects loop.

thats cold hard facts. the fact i played a SLO that was VERY simillar to a 5150. or you could reword it and say the 5150 was like the SLO, only, 1400 cheaper. dont forget pete you're talking to someone that dislikes every amplifier ever mentioned on this forum. 5150 included, mine isnt stock by any means. but 12 years of playing, 8 of them around 5150's, 5 of those with a 5150 II, i wouldnt throw my money out the door for a SLO, when i can throw my 5150 in the back of my truck and not have a fucking cow about a dent or scratch.

variables in guitars are not the same as amplifiers. thats like comparing your grandmother to a goat. compare analogies all you like, ive played both, spent time with both, and the price difference not justifyable at all in my books.

 

[zee1usa]

Haha, He is kind of a pissy guy. Did you see his avatar?

 

[stratotone]

bottom line squire? a 5150 II is not a cheap amplifier by any means necessary. you are being a little pissy in that comparison, considering more metal recordings have been done with either amplifier then anyone cares to mention.

as far as a squire goes, what the fuck is wrong with a squire? beat the shit out of one on gig's all night long and it gets the job done.

ive heard guys on here say they are affraid to gig X product because it looses value.

then what is the point in owning it?

back to the amplifiers - same taste in tone, only difference being OT/PT manufacturers, relay design, component choice, and a tube buffered effects loop.

thats cold hard facts. the fact i played a SLO that was VERY simillar to a 5150. or you could reword it and say the 5150 was like the SLO, only, 1400 cheaper. dont forget pete you're talking to someone that dislikes every amplifier ever mentioned on this forum. 5150 included, mine isnt stock by any means. but 12 years of playing, 8 of them around 5150's, 5 of those with a 5150 II, i wouldnt throw my money out the door for a SLO, when i can throw my 5150 in the back of my truck and not have a fucking cow about a dent or scratch.

variables in guitars are not the same as amplifiers. thats like comparing your grandmother to a goat. compare analogies all you like, ive played both, spent time with both, and the price difference not justifyable at all in my books.

Before I add to your butthurt, by all means share with us your SLO experiences including 'time spent'.

Pete

 

[Shark Diver]

slo/ 5150 II= same difference. build quality and component choice is the only difference, plus a tube buffered effects loop. ive played both, and to be honest i was highly disappointed in the SLO. i just expected more.

Love ya glpg80 - but build quality and component choice are core, fundamental elements in any product's overall value. And I'm not sure what "more you expected" but the SLO had enough for Clapton, EVH, Lynch, Gary Moore, SRV...etc.

Now I'm a SLO nut job/ fan boy so I'm just busting your chops, and I'm sure the 5150 can get some ripping tones, but not sure it will do what I like about an SLO.

 

[zuel69]

slo/ 5150 II= same difference. build quality and component choice is the only difference, plus a tube buffered effects loop. ive played both, and to be honest i was highly disappointed in the SLO. i just expected more. glad and proud owner of a 5150 II that ive taylored.

elmwood's do not record well - yngzaklynch could never get his to record well. i remember all of those tone vids, felt sorry for the guy because he couldnt capture the tone that people say is capable. just came through as a sterile, thin tone. out of all the amplifiers i have heard clips of, that has been the hardest to get consistancy of HQ recordings as well.

5150's, SLO's, and marshalls do NOT have that problem.

havent played an elmwood though so i cant comment on the tone comparison for tone comparison. just calling it like i see it.

 

[sled]

I have all three, well a M90, and love all three equally.

5150- Growl
M90- - Very Dense Distortion, great Cleans and awesome switching setup
SLO - Tight and cutting

 

[sled]

elmwood's do not record well - yngzaklynch could never get his to record well...

havent played an elmwood...

so i cant comment on the tone comparison

Hum, maybe you should have stopped here. Opinion and experience are not the same. I wouldn't try to convince you otherwise though.

 

[flyangus]

elmwood's do not record well - yngzaklynch could never get his to record well. i remember all of those tone vids, felt sorry for the guy because he couldnt capture the tone that people say is capable. just came through as a sterile, thin tone. out of all the amplifiers i have heard clips of, that has been the hardest to get consistancy of HQ recordings as well.

I dunno, I didn't find the Elmwood difficult to record at all.

 

[Tawlks]

In. I own a 5150 II and would like to see how it's compared to other amps with similar voicings.

 

[sled]

I dunno, I didn't find the Elmwood difficult to record at all.

One of your clips some time back made me take interest in the M90.