glpg80":q9vs7cmd said:
sixstrings":q9vs7cmd said:
glpg80":q9vs7cmd said:
i've played 3 of them - splawn's shop is about 35-40 minutes from where i live. so theres a few that pop up around here at GC's and such.
i can say one great thing about the quickrods i have played - look for a very early model from him. the one model that he made that was the oldest i had seen sounded absolutely stunning.
the other 2 models i have played have been... well... for lack of words just dont jive - they suck. he keeps tweaking all his models and its gotten to the point where the QR II that i most recently played was ice-picky and real high-end focused. the mesa's and THD's in the same soundproof room sounded way better through the same cabinet so i was extremely disapointed in the latest one ive seen.
all im saying is that if you want any of his lower-gain modded marshall tones i would recommend the much MUCH earlier models that are older. i dont own one but i have played a handful of them and feel comfortable saying this
No, that's not accurate. That's what Splawns, and any Marshall for that matter, sound at low volume. The treble response is very hard to tame when you have it really low. I'm sorry, but most people who "try" amps in shops just don't get it 95% of the time. I'm not saying that necessarily because people don't know how to dial amps, but they usually never open up the volume and the salesmen are typically clueless about how to dial specific amps. Add to that the fact that shops usually have new equipment and the speakers on the cabs are usually not broken in. A new speaker can be harsh sounding.
Anyway, nah. Ice-picky they're not. You have to push those power tubes a bit to start getting that smooth midrange response. Splawn amps also come stock with 1/2 power switches so if you want to play at lower volumes, you should switch the power.
Splawns are powerful amps man. Those things can bring a damned house down. I have a Marshall JCM 800 and it sounds absolutely killer but when the volume is under 2 it's just really trebly and metallic sounding. Same thing with Splawns.
Furthermore, Splawn started using Tung-Sols lately. They give you a choice between Tung-Sol and Mullard. 99% of the time people choose Tung-Sols because Mullards are less reliable. They're smoother sounding and less bassy. The Tung-Sols they're using now are also EL34B's. To my ears, EL34B's sound unbalanced. Maybe it's just me but the added bass in the tubes don't sound natural or something.
I changed my Quickrod to use JJ's and Jan Phillips EL34's before and got good results. The tone controls also became slightly more responsive. With the Tung-Sols, the tone controls kind of fall into a rut unless the amp is really loud; at least in my experience.
Don't buy into the misinformation you read about Splawns. They are fantastically made amps that sound incredible. Some people buy them and find out they're basically hot-rodded Marshalls and that doesn't jive with them. I guess they go in expecting something different; however, you will be satisfied if you go in with the right expectations.
One more thing is that I've heard some people say they're "one-trick-ponys." That simply isn't true. The new clean channel is pretty damned good for a Marshally clean tone and the overdrives go from plexi cleanish all the way to JVM level distortion.
Badass amps man.
yes, it is accurate.
first off i know how to dial in a marshall. secondly i dont appreciate you marking me down in 3rd person as if my opinion doesnt matter and yours does.
its a forum - you take the opinions you hear with a grain of salt, and move on. ive been playing long enough to understand not only how to build marshall circuits blind, but also how to dial them in. power tube distortion aside or not - that amplifier was ice picky as fuck. buyer be warned on the newer series quickrod marshalls. i have a friend that was even there that can testify to this - we both were in shock. and theres a reason there isnt 700 people flocking to this thread to help this guy out. furhtermore, you werent there to even back this up reguardless. thats probably why it was traded or still for sale in the first place. hence why i bothered wasting my breathe to mention this was one of 3 others that i have played. the oldest one of them all was NOT a simple tube change at loud volumes. there was a substancial tone difference and it was for the better of the latter models.
my last point is my suggestion to get an earlier model. he does tweak each amplifier internally as he learns from his own progress and has admitted it full-heartedly. you can especially tell this in his nitro amplifier series. he knows how to build them - so it is not blamed build quality.
third - i was playing cabinets at such sick volumes the matter of the speakers not being broken in is irrevalent. new speakers or not it was the amplifier and there is no doubt about it. that amplifier had a frequency shift WAY up dude. i have experience with circa 1980's 65 original speakers as well - i would know what speaker mid range differences would sound like and i would describe that if in fact it was the difference.
not knocking the amplifier, the builder, or the tone choices of anyone else. but you did all three in that nonsense. to each their own in tonal quests. good luck on whickever model you choose.
Dude you need to relax. I wasn't directing that at you but people who typically say "I tried that amp at the store...," so don't get so uptight over it. Also, the icepick you're describing is how Splawns sound at low volumes. I've owned several Splawns so I know from experience. There's no need to defend every sentence because I wasn't attacking you. I'm just saying that from my experience as a Splawn owner and dealer, that I don't agree with your assessment unless we're talking about bedroom volumes.
I had my JCM 800 vintage reissue on top of my Splawn Quickrod for a couple of months and I can say that they sound very very similar. BOTH of them at low volumes had a trebly bleed and sounded metallic. At higher volumes they start sounding incredible.
Like I said, the tubes do make some difference if the Tung-Sols sound a bit harsh. The problem with the Mullards is they aren't reliable tubes. I personally haven't had issues with Mullard tubes, but a lot of people have reported that.
So pardon me when I hear shit like "buyer beware" and "they suck" about perfectly good amps because to me it's like spreading misinformation. Sure you said what you didn't like about it, but you left out a lot of specific details in how you arrived at that conclusion. What pickups/guitar, speakers, cab, volume, settings, tubes, power setting, etc...
At least when I offer a critique, I don't just say something sucks or that it sounds icepicky or whatever. At least I try to offer an explanation of why I think something sounds a certain way. That's something you failed to do so I felt the need to point it out.
Try to understand that we can disagree or dispute each other's opinions without becoming enemies. I'm not trying to go head to head with you here. I'm just offering more perspective on Splawns since I have more experience with them than you. It's certainly not anything personal.
Oh yeah, and the whole thing about seeking out older models and all that shit, well I just don't buy it. The new Quickrod has a nice sounding clean channel and whatever modifications Scott made in the past years have improved the amp in my opinion. The new Splawns sound incredible and I seriously doubt any experience Splawn player could possibly PROVE older Splawns sound better than new ones. I challenge anyone to setup a controlled environment with high quality recording and show a debateable difference favorable to older Splawns.
Just my two cents. No need to make it a war.
