Engl Invader II - Defies Expectations And Here's Why

[SavageRiffer]

To be quite honest, after seeing all the fancy circuitry of the Invader II, I wished they would have just gone back to the relative simplicity of the Invader 100. The Invader 100 was the elusive amp which I could never seem to keep my hands on, but it's sound is one intimately familiar to me. As fate would have it, I happened to come across a player of limited soloing skill who at least played clearly enough to where you could appreciate his tone. I recognized the sound, but it was faintly tweaked somehow in a way I could not recognize with 100% confidence. Turns out, it was the Invader II.

Luckily enough, though he wasn't a great player, he was able to go through a myriad of rhythm and lead tones of it's quad-channel design. The cleans were a bit crisper on channel 1, channel 2 was a bit crunchier yet slightly warmer, channel 3 was just really really really good in both rhythm and lead playing, and the 4th channel, though it still does the over-the-top saturation thing, had kind of an Engl Retro vibe.

Then I finally looked and understood what they put on the back panel which is basically sets of little dip switches which you can set to change the inherent EQ voicing of each channel. WOW! That's so cool because, for example, there were some times when the Invader 100 wanted to sound like a Marshall but I couldn't quite get it there. Now, you can give it an inherent EQ curve which allows you to tweak the sound to preference. It's great for adjusting to different speaker cabs, guitar pickups, etc...

I don't understand exactly what the Sound Wizard module does, and at this point, I don't care that it's obscure to me because I couldn't imagine wanting any more flexibility from one amp; nor would I want to add to the circuitry as I'm kind of a fan of minimal circuitry (which in my mind amounts to purer tone and fewer points of failure). Anyway, aside from that the built-in noise gate works better than any noise suppression pedal as far as I'm concerned. On the same note, even gained out on channel 4 was very quiet, so I'm not sure how necessary the noise gate is.

I never thought the Invader 100 could be improved in terms of tone, and I'm not sure that it has in the Invader II except that they somehow made the channels more individually characteristic and somehow increased the usefulness while decreasing the redundancy of the channels. I don't know if that necessarily makes a lot of sense, but you would understand if you play one.

It doesn't seem clear whether Engl receives the rewards it deserves. On one hand, people seem to always speak highly of them yet on the other hand, they don't seem to hold the market reverence of some mainstream brands. Dealers seem to start carrying them, then fail to market them or present them properly to customers, and then stop carrying them. Despite all this, Engl seems to remain worldwide and going strong.

All I can say at this point is that if you are like I was an kind of ignoring the fancy new Invader II, I would say it's well worth it to get over that and give it a try. The Invader has always had great cleans, but the Invader II elevates them a bit. In every aspect as far as I could tell, the Invader II carries on the great, great legacy of the Invader 100. By the way, I always talk about the Invader 100 exclusively because the 150 just seemed like too much to me; too many tubes and the 100 was plenty loud as it was, so I never got why there was 150 watt version. Anyway the Invader II man.... awesome, awesome, awesome.

 

[JackBootedThug]

never played one, but love their tonez....

 

[the4thlast1]

To be quite honest, after seeing all the fancy circuitry of the Invader II, I wished they would have just gone back to the relative simplicity of the Invader 100. The Invader 100 was the elusive amp which I could never seem to keep my hands on, but it's sound is one intimately familiar to me. As fate would have it, I happened to come across a player of limited soloing skill who at least played clearly enough to where you could appreciate his tone. I recognized the sound, but it was faintly tweaked somehow in a way I could not recognize with 100% confidence. Turns out, it was the Invader II.

Luckily enough, though he wasn't a great player, he was able to go through a myriad of rhythm and lead tones of it's quad-channel design. The cleans were a bit crisper on channel 1, channel 2 was a bit crunchier yet slightly warmer, channel 3 was just really really really good in both rhythm and lead playing, and the 4th channel, though it still does the over-the-top saturation thing, had kind of an Engl Retro vibe.

Then I finally looked and understood what they put on the back panel which is basically sets of little dip switches which you can set to change the inherent EQ voicing of each channel. WOW! That's so cool because, for example, there were some times when the Invader 100 wanted to sound like a Marshall but I couldn't quite get it there. Now, you can give it an inherent EQ curve which allows you to tweak the sound to preference. It's great for adjusting to different speaker cabs, guitar pickups, etc...

I don't understand exactly what the Sound Wizard module does, and at this point, I don't care that it's obscure to me because I couldn't imagine wanting any more flexibility from one amp; nor would I want to add to the circuitry as I'm kind of a fan of minimal circuitry (which in my mind amounts to purer tone and fewer points of failure). Anyway, aside from that the built-in noise gate works better than any noise suppression pedal as far as I'm concerned. On the same note, even gained out on channel 4 was very quiet, so I'm not sure how necessary the noise gate is.

I never thought the Invader 100 could be improved in terms of tone, and I'm not sure that it has in the Invader II except that they somehow made the channels more individually characteristic and somehow increased the usefulness while decreasing the redundancy of the channels. I don't know if that necessarily makes a lot of sense, but you would understand if you play one.

It doesn't seem clear whether Engl receives the rewards it deserves. On one hand, people seem to always speak highly of them yet on the other hand, they don't seem to hold the market reverence of some mainstream brands. Dealers seem to start carrying them, then fail to market them or present them properly to customers, and then stop carrying them. Despite all this, Engl seems to remain worldwide and going strong.

All I can say at this point is that if you are like I was an kind of ignoring the fancy new Invader II, I would say it's well worth it to get over that and give it a try. The Invader has always had great cleans, but the Invader II elevates them a bit. In every aspect as far as I could tell, the Invader II carries on the great, great legacy of the Invader 100. By the way, I always talk about the Invader 100 exclusively because the 150 just seemed like too much to me; too many tubes and the 100 was plenty loud as it was, so I never got why there was 150 watt version. Anyway the Invader II man.... awesome, awesome, awesome.

Did you hear the amp in person , or were you watching a youtube video or something like that ? Ive ha both the original Invader and the Invader II ,...Did not hvae the sound wizard though I could give my full opinion on both amps if you so desire. Long story short the best tone out of either one of them is Channel 2 on the original version but thats just my opinion I'm sure others might disagree.

 

[the4thlast1]

I have heard some dodgy things about the size, quality and build of the their transformers. Any clarification on that?

The transformers look to me like a different design that what we are used to seeing, I cant say if they are "cheap" but I can say......

The issue is the more complicated multi channel ENGLs are difficult to work on unless you specifically have a lot of experience with there amps. I had an SE that I turned on one day and smoke started pouring out of it. Turns out half of one of the boards fried ... I contacted several credible amp repair shops and techs that wouldnt touch it because the ENGL designs are very different from your typical Marshall or something like that. You should see the inside of an SE it looks like a computer with a shit load of ribbon cables and several circuit boards one on top of the other upside down. You have to take apart a lot of the amp to get to anything. Thankfully at the time there was one place in Florida that is very knowledgeable when it comes to ENGL.... Sent it over there, cost me $650 to repair.

 

[Fuego]

Best amp I have ever played,jmo,and I've been lucky enough to have play most modern amps. From what I understand, the wizard "mods" the amp temporally without having to solder. It works fabulously. If you can't find good tone in this amp, you might want to give up.
The noise gate is just there for audible hum. I agree the amp is near dead quiet and doesn't need it, but if u use a lot if pedals it might come in handy.

 

[Fuego]

I have heard some dodgy things about the size, quality and build of the their transformers. Any clarification on that?

It's German. They don't make shit. Best engineering in the world. I highly doubt they're gonna start now? I don't know though, sounds awesome.

 

[glip22]

I have heard some dodgy things about the size, quality and build of the their transformers. Any clarification on that?

Very lightweight and small trannys. Little plastic PCB mounted pots. I had several Engls. 8 to be exact. Cool amps but every time I opened one up I was asking myself why I paid the asking price of one. They look like they are designed to be very quickly assembled with play by numbers. Kind of remind me of a Peavey build.

 

[the4thlast1]

I have heard some dodgy things about the size, quality and build of the their transformers. Any clarification on that?

It's German. They don't make shit. Best engineering in the world. I highly doubt they're gonna start now? I don't know though, sounds awesome.

So nothing thats made in germany could be "shitty" ?

 

[Fuego]

sure it could but that's not their work ethic typically.Look at their cars,watches, planes,rockets,etc.lets get back to the amp.

 

[Fuego]

I have heard some dodgy things about the size, quality and build of the their transformers. Any clarification on that?

Very lightweight and small trannys. Little plastic PCB mounted pots. I had several Engls. 8 to be exact. Cool amps but every time I opened one up I was asking myself why I paid the asking price of one. They look like they are designed to be very quickly assembled with play by numbers. Kind of remind me of a Peavey build.

Have u ever looked in this model? I owe one and love it to death but that would suck if it had less than a great build. Nevertheless, it sounds phenomenal so it must be working. I've heard the same thing about jcm800's, but they're still working from 30 years ago. There's a review online from premier guitar or something and they rate the build and quality 4.5/5. I unfortunately don't know enough to judge.

 

[the4thlast1]

Yes, Ok lets get back to the amp... Not to sound snobish but this probably will...

Out of the ENGLs Ive owned which is all of them except for the Retro and maybe one other I cant think of at the moment, the Invader II was one of the least impressive, ...yes it has tons of tweaking possibilities but for me it was overly compressed and small sounding compared to other amps I had at the time. I actually had an ENGL Artist Edition at the time and compared the two amps extensively,.... The Artist was way more natural and open sounding, also sounded a lot "Bigger" to put it simply...... I tried different preamp and poweramp tubes in the Invader II and it still sounded a bit like a toy compared to some other amps to be completely honest.... I am lucky enough to be able to really crank my amps in my home without anyone being bothered, I find thats really the way to see what an amp is made of especially when comparing one to another.

 

[Fuego]

I use mine live, not at home. Pretty cranked. Tight, muscular, can be fat or thin, it is pretty compressed on 3 and 4 but that allows a lower gain setting for more clarity. Did u own the wizard? If u did, u would know there is a 3rd gain stage setting for much less compression and more openness. Different strokes for different folks I guess. I don't think you're a snob though, real snobs know there are two b's in snobbish.

 

[SavageRiffer]

To be quite honest, after seeing all the fancy circuitry of the Invader II, I wished they would have just gone back to the relative simplicity of the Invader 100. The Invader 100 was the elusive amp which I could never seem to keep my hands on, but it's sound is one intimately familiar to me. As fate would have it, I happened to come across a player of limited soloing skill who at least played clearly enough to where you could appreciate his tone. I recognized the sound, but it was faintly tweaked somehow in a way I could not recognize with 100% confidence. Turns out, it was the Invader II.

Luckily enough, though he wasn't a great player, he was able to go through a myriad of rhythm and lead tones of it's quad-channel design. The cleans were a bit crisper on channel 1, channel 2 was a bit crunchier yet slightly warmer, channel 3 was just really really really good in both rhythm and lead playing, and the 4th channel, though it still does the over-the-top saturation thing, had kind of an Engl Retro vibe.

Then I finally looked and understood what they put on the back panel which is basically sets of little dip switches which you can set to change the inherent EQ voicing of each channel. WOW! That's so cool because, for example, there were some times when the Invader 100 wanted to sound like a Marshall but I couldn't quite get it there. Now, you can give it an inherent EQ curve which allows you to tweak the sound to preference. It's great for adjusting to different speaker cabs, guitar pickups, etc...

I don't understand exactly what the Sound Wizard module does, and at this point, I don't care that it's obscure to me because I couldn't imagine wanting any more flexibility from one amp; nor would I want to add to the circuitry as I'm kind of a fan of minimal circuitry (which in my mind amounts to purer tone and fewer points of failure). Anyway, aside from that the built-in noise gate works better than any noise suppression pedal as far as I'm concerned. On the same note, even gained out on channel 4 was very quiet, so I'm not sure how necessary the noise gate is.

I never thought the Invader 100 could be improved in terms of tone, and I'm not sure that it has in the Invader II except that they somehow made the channels more individually characteristic and somehow increased the usefulness while decreasing the redundancy of the channels. I don't know if that necessarily makes a lot of sense, but you would understand if you play one.

It doesn't seem clear whether Engl receives the rewards it deserves. On one hand, people seem to always speak highly of them yet on the other hand, they don't seem to hold the market reverence of some mainstream brands. Dealers seem to start carrying them, then fail to market them or present them properly to customers, and then stop carrying them. Despite all this, Engl seems to remain worldwide and going strong.

All I can say at this point is that if you are like I was an kind of ignoring the fancy new Invader II, I would say it's well worth it to get over that and give it a try. The Invader has always had great cleans, but the Invader II elevates them a bit. In every aspect as far as I could tell, the Invader II carries on the great, great legacy of the Invader 100. By the way, I always talk about the Invader 100 exclusively because the 150 just seemed like too much to me; too many tubes and the 100 was plenty loud as it was, so I never got why there was 150 watt version. Anyway the Invader II man.... awesome, awesome, awesome.

Did you hear the amp in person , or were you watching a youtube video or something like that ? Ive ha both the original Invader and the Invader II ,...Did not hvae the sound wizard though I could give my full opinion on both amps if you so desire. Long story short the best tone out of either one of them is Channel 2 on the original version but thats just my opinion I'm sure others might disagree.

I began my review by explaining how I came across the amp to get experience with it, so I'm not sure if you usually leave out entire parts of your reading or if you disagree with my assessment. If you have a different opinion then, by all means, be a man and say so up front instead of some roundabout question like "did you play it in person or hear it on youtube." It makes you sound like you're trying to be a dick about it.

 

[MetalHeadMike]

Always wanted to try an Invader 100 and hopefully will someday. From what I've read, I take it with a grain of salt, the reading that is, Kreator used the Invader 100 on Hordes of Chaos which is one of my all time favorite guitar tones right there. There's something really unique going on in the tone on that album.

 

[rottingcorpse]

I've had a bunch of ENGLs,and still have the extreme aggression(huge kreator fan). Loved them all. Haven't had a problem with any of mine(and my old savage is still rocking hard local with an old buddy from back in the day).

Tom had me gassing for an invader II with the module. I will probably get one used one day when they drop in price,as all used gear does.

My question would be why doesn't ENGL start adding this type of super tweeking ability to all the amps in their line? Tom says it's awesome,and he is one of 4 people I really trust.

 

[Fuego]

I've had a bunch of ENGLs,and still have the extreme aggression(huge kreator fan). Loved them all. Haven't had a problem with any of mine(and my old savage is still rocking hard local with an old buddy from back in the day).

Tom had me gassing for an invader II with the module. I will probably get one used one day when they drop in price,as all used gear does.

My question would be why doesn't ENGL start adding this type of super tweeking ability to all the amps in their line? Tom says it's awesome,and he is one of 4 people I really trust.

The amps would have to be updated and thus more expensive, but that may very well happen for an updated SE or new model and become more universal than solely for the invader. However they may see it as taking away from the Invader's uniqueness.? Would be cool to use it with my Ironball though.

 

[braintheory]

Yes, Ok lets get back to the amp... Not to sound snobish but this probably will...

Out of the ENGLs Ive owned which is all of them except for the Retro and maybe one other I cant think of at the moment, the Invader II was one of the least impressive, ...yes it has tons of tweaking possibilities but for me it was overly compressed and small sounding compared to other amps I had at the time. I actually had an ENGL Artist Edition at the time and compared the two amps extensively,.... The Artist was way more natural and open sounding, also sounded a lot "Bigger" to put it simply...... I tried different preamp and poweramp tubes in the Invader II and it still sounded a bit like a toy compared to some other amps to be completely honest.... I am lucky enough to be able to really crank my amps in my home without anyone being bothered, I find thats really the way to see what an amp is made of especially when comparing one to another.

I agree with pretty much all of what you said here. The Artist is my favorite Engl and the only that's been a keeper. I find it to be the most open and organic of all the Engls. Still not as organic as stuff like Friedman, Wizard, or Gower, but the most organic that Engl offers and compared to most modern style amps. It has also has this awesome upper mid growl that I've never heard in any other amp which is mainly why it's been a keeper for me. If my other amps could get that same type of upper mid thing I'd have sold it already but they can't. I'd also like to AB the savage with the Artist because I remember that also having a similar upper mid growl but it was too compressed for my taste.

 

[the4thlast1]

To be quite honest, after seeing all the fancy circuitry of the Invader II, I wished they would have just gone back to the relative simplicity of the Invader 100. The Invader 100 was the elusive amp which I could never seem to keep my hands on, but it's sound is one intimately familiar to me. As fate would have it, I happened to come across a player of limited soloing skill who at least played clearly enough to where you could appreciate his tone. I recognized the sound, but it was faintly tweaked somehow in a way I could not recognize with 100% confidence. Turns out, it was the Invader II.

Luckily enough, though he wasn't a great player, he was able to go through a myriad of rhythm and lead tones of it's quad-channel design. The cleans were a bit crisper on channel 1, channel 2 was a bit crunchier yet slightly warmer, channel 3 was just really really really good in both rhythm and lead playing, and the 4th channel, though it still does the over-the-top saturation thing, had kind of an Engl Retro vibe.

Then I finally looked and understood what they put on the back panel which is basically sets of little dip switches which you can set to change the inherent EQ voicing of each channel. WOW! That's so cool because, for example, there were some times when the Invader 100 wanted to sound like a Marshall but I couldn't quite get it there. Now, you can give it an inherent EQ curve which allows you to tweak the sound to preference. It's great for adjusting to different speaker cabs, guitar pickups, etc...

I don't understand exactly what the Sound Wizard module does, and at this point, I don't care that it's obscure to me because I couldn't imagine wanting any more flexibility from one amp; nor would I want to add to the circuitry as I'm kind of a fan of minimal circuitry (which in my mind amounts to purer tone and fewer points of failure). Anyway, aside from that the built-in noise gate works better than any noise suppression pedal as far as I'm concerned. On the same note, even gained out on channel 4 was very quiet, so I'm not sure how necessary the noise gate is.

I never thought the Invader 100 could be improved in terms of tone, and I'm not sure that it has in the Invader II except that they somehow made the channels more individually characteristic and somehow increased the usefulness while decreasing the redundancy of the channels. I don't know if that necessarily makes a lot of sense, but you would understand if you play one.

It doesn't seem clear whether Engl receives the rewards it deserves. On one hand, people seem to always speak highly of them yet on the other hand, they don't seem to hold the market reverence of some mainstream brands. Dealers seem to start carrying them, then fail to market them or present them properly to customers, and then stop carrying them. Despite all this, Engl seems to remain worldwide and going strong.

All I can say at this point is that if you are like I was an kind of ignoring the fancy new Invader II, I would say it's well worth it to get over that and give it a try. The Invader has always had great cleans, but the Invader II elevates them a bit. In every aspect as far as I could tell, the Invader II carries on the great, great legacy of the Invader 100. By the way, I always talk about the Invader 100 exclusively because the 150 just seemed like too much to me; too many tubes and the 100 was plenty loud as it was, so I never got why there was 150 watt version. Anyway the Invader II man.... awesome, awesome, awesome.

Did you hear the amp in person , or were you watching a youtube video or something like that ? Ive ha both the original Invader and the Invader II ,...Did not hvae the sound wizard though I could give my full opinion on both amps if you so desire. Long story short the best tone out of either one of them is Channel 2 on the original version but thats just my opinion I'm sure others might disagree.

I began my review by explaining how I came across the amp to get experience with it, so I'm not sure if you usually leave out entire parts of your reading or if you disagree with my assessment. If you have a different opinion then, by all means, be a man and say so up front instead of some roundabout question like "did you play it in person or hear it on youtube." It makes you sound like you're trying to be a dick about it.

Ok so you havent even tried the amp yourself yet you say in the title of the thread that it "Defies Expectations", you go on further to say in your own words that its so awesome ! ... .. You came to that conclusion by listening to someone else play it ? you still dont want to say ? And I'm "trying to be a dick" for asking these questions ? What a joke.

 

[the4thlast1]

never played one, but love their tonez....

Aparently neither has the O.P.

 

[Deleted member 22177]

Maybe the OP really likes the amp and the technology involved. I love the Fortin Meathead and never played one. haha