Marshall Silver Jubilee or Soldano SLO

[kannibul]

If you could have your pick of either a Marshall Silver Jubilee 100w Head or a Soldano SLO which would you choose and why?

SLO...no contest.

 

[glpg80]

Can I vote for neither?

If I had to choose, I guess it would be an SLO so I can sell it like I did my last 2 for a profit

+1

Aren't you a big 5150 fan? I find it odd that you wouldn't care for the amp that inspired it.

exactly. i have played a SLO 100.

it was an over-hyped 5150 II. i can dig the same exact tone out of my own amplifier, with a footswitchable effects loop, resonance/presence controls for individual channels, and at about a 3rd of the price of a SLO - and actually a bit more saturation on my side which works out great for solo's.

the SLO is not known for being forgiving - but tone wise i was highly dissappointed. i expected more. and the SLO did not deliver.

anyone looking for that tone i would tell them to play a few 5150 II's and tell them to get the one that sounded best out of the bunch for less than a 1/3 of the price of a SLO with more usable features.

Not to argue with you again, but don't you think there's a difference between owning an amp and using it as intended vs playing one at GC that could have been biased wrong, had bad tubes, been playing through a shit cab, etc?

I'm not posting this as an SLO fanboy, because I don't own one anymore... but it just doesn't seem a fair comparison IMHO - an amp you know intimately vs one that you spent 10 minutes on in a music store.

Pete

I had it running through a marshall cabinet with V30's - granted probably not broke in - and had store allowance to crank the thing as loud as a tube amplifier like the SLO needs to be cranked to get it to sound properly. they knew i was not a guitar center kid with a guitar that did not know how to play and had no common sense of what i was doing.

i gave the clean, slightly overdriven, blues licks, and heavy rhythm a go through it. i spent well over 2 hours cranking it on some parts and lower at others. easily within the area my 5150 sounds its best - 2.5-3 and i was hitting 4 on the heavier stuff.

sorry, but as much time as i have on 5150's, 5150 II's, 5150 combos, and then the SLO - the 5150 II's do it fine if not better at higher volumes for the saturation which makes playing easier - and without the $2,600 price tag.

neither amplifier i am talking about was at volume talking levels. i had people standing around listening to the riffs and solo licks while i dicked around on it. and i asked other guitarists before i cranked it if it would be alright since i had store permission as it was. and to be honest, it felt, sounded, and had the same character as my 5150 II, but i had no resonance controls, tube buffered effects loop, and felt cheated into what was supposed to be the be all end all amplifier of my entire life.

i will give the SLO the benefit of the doubt in the fact that you can grab an insane ammount of different tones with the presence knob itself and none of them sounded bad. my 5150 II has a few spots that sounds like ass, but still sound great and well within usable.

the guitar was one of my own on top of it.

it is what it is.

 

[gibson08]

I figured the SLO at about five to one over the Jube,,I may have been a little light on that number!!,,,got to get one of those SLOs.

 

[diagrammatiks]

hmm interesting discussion.

I'd vote for the slo.
I'll throw another opinion into the pot. I haven't liked any of the 5150s I've heard or played. They have a fair bit of saturation definitely but they don't have the string to string clarity that the slo has. There's always a fuzziness there that doesn't go away. I wouldn't mind having both but if I had a choice I'd grab a SLO before a 5150/6505.

This is a clip I recorded earlier for my own records after doing some set up on my prs. I'm not the greatest player so flame away if need be...but I've been chasing this crunch forever and the slo does it for me.

I'm surprised that James says it's one-dimensional though. I quite liked the clips in his 2009 shootout. I thought the character definitely changed depending on the guitar.

 

[glpg80]

hmm interesting discussion.

I'd vote for the slo.
I'll throw another opinion into the pot. I haven't liked any of the 5150s I've heard or played. They have a fair bit of saturation definitely but they don't have the string to string clarity that the slo has. There's always a fuzziness there that doesn't go away. I wouldn't mind having both but if I had a choice I'd grab a SLO before a 5150/6505.

This is a clip I recorded earlier for my own records after doing some set up on my prs. I'm not the greatest player so flame away if need be...but I've been chasing this crunch forever and the slo does it for me.

I'm surprised that James says it's one-dimensional though. I quite liked the clips in his 2009 shootout. I thought the character definitely changed depending on the guitar.

there are alot of 5150 models that exist. i mentioned souly the 5150 II out of all of the series. was this the model that you have played? if so, at what volumes were you playing it at?

if any other model is to be put against the SLO, the SLO wins in that tonal battle regardless of the comments im making below about all 5150's because you are right - the gain tone of the SLO is very defined and also tweakable with the presence knob.

as for the fuzz:
you need a good set of tubes in the amplifier both pre and power to even the playing field, the amplifier needs to be biased properly with no characteristics of crossover distortion, and you need to be moving some serious air with all 5150's to do them justice and get out of the low volume fuzz characteristics. they were not built to be bedroom amplifiers - their design is made for higher volume playing.

if you do this you will be seriously surprised at the outcomes of each - especially the 5150 II's. enough that the SLO was not worth the extra money and by a long shot to me.

 

[diagrammatiks]

hmm interesting discussion.

I'd vote for the slo.
I'll throw another opinion into the pot. I haven't liked any of the 5150s I've heard or played. They have a fair bit of saturation definitely but they don't have the string to string clarity that the slo has. There's always a fuzziness there that doesn't go away. I wouldn't mind having both but if I had a choice I'd grab a SLO before a 5150/6505.

This is a clip I recorded earlier for my own records after doing some set up on my prs. I'm not the greatest player so flame away if need be...but I've been chasing this crunch forever and the slo does it for me.

I'm surprised that James says it's one-dimensional though. I quite liked the clips in his 2009 shootout. I thought the character definitely changed depending on the guitar.

there are alot of 5150 models that exist. i mentioned souly the 5150 II out of all of the series. was this the model that you have played? if so, at what volumes were you playing it at?

if any other model is to be put against the SLO, the SLO wins in that tonal battle regardless of the comments im making below about all 5150's because you are right - the gain tone of the SLO is very defined and also tweakable with the presence knob.

as for the fuzz:
you need a good set of tubes in the amplifier both pre and power to even the playing field, the amplifier needs to be biased properly with no characteristics of crossover distortion, and you need to be moving some serious air with all 5150's to do them justice and get out of the low volume fuzz characteristics. they were not built to be bedroom amplifiers - their design is made for higher volume playing.

if you do this you will be seriously surprised at the outcomes of each - especially the 5150 II's. enough that the SLO was not worth the extra money and by a long shot to me.

I've played the 5150 III, the 6534+, the 6505, and the 6505+. I liked the crunch channel on the 65xx series. I just thought the lead channels were a little over the type and unusable. I actually like the 5150 III. It didn't seem to have as much on tap as the others though.

I was lucky to find a really good deal on my slo so that's part of my opinion of course. I don't know if I would pay the average used price for one at around 2500. However, since having owned one, I have to say I love the clarity.

However, I know that a lot of people don't like the type of gain tones I do so there is that as well. I like my gain to be compressed, dry, and clear. I run a pittbull ultralead and a slo after trying amps like the xtc, ktre, splawns, etc.

If the 5150 and the slo were the same price I think I'd still take the slo. My buddy has a MM'd avenger that sounds pretty good too.

I hear what your saying on the loop though...I had mine relayed and the depth knob added. In the stock from it's an 80s machine and not much else.

 

[stratotone]

hmm interesting discussion.

I'd vote for the slo.
I'll throw another opinion into the pot. I haven't liked any of the 5150s I've heard or played. They have a fair bit of saturation definitely but they don't have the string to string clarity that the slo has. There's always a fuzziness there that doesn't go away. I wouldn't mind having both but if I had a choice I'd grab a SLO before a 5150/6505.

This is a clip I recorded earlier for my own records after doing some set up on my prs. I'm not the greatest player so flame away if need be...but I've been chasing this crunch forever and the slo does it for me.

I'm surprised that James says it's one-dimensional though. I quite liked the clips in his 2009 shootout. I thought the character definitely changed depending on the guitar.

there are alot of 5150 models that exist. i mentioned souly the 5150 II out of all of the series. was this the model that you have played? if so, at what volumes were you playing it at?

if any other model is to be put against the SLO, the SLO wins in that tonal battle regardless of the comments im making below about all 5150's because you are right - the gain tone of the SLO is very defined and also tweakable with the presence knob.

as for the fuzz:
you need a good set of tubes in the amplifier both pre and power to even the playing field, the amplifier needs to be biased properly with no characteristics of crossover distortion, and you need to be moving some serious air with all 5150's to do them justice and get out of the low volume fuzz characteristics. they were not built to be bedroom amplifiers - their design is made for higher volume playing.

if you do this you will be seriously surprised at the outcomes of each - especially the 5150 II's. enough that the SLO was not worth the extra money and by a long shot to me.

How did you know the SLO you tried at GC had good tubes and was properly biased?

Pete

 

[gmcelroy]

Can I vote for neither?

If I had to choose, I guess it would be an SLO so I can sell it like I did my last 2 for a profit

+1

Aren't you a big 5150 fan? I find it odd that you wouldn't care for the amp that inspired it.

exactly. i have played a SLO 100.

it was an over-hyped 5150 II. i can dig the same exact tone out of my own amplifier, with a footswitchable effects loop, resonance/presence controls for individual channels, and at about a 3rd of the price of a SLO - and actually a bit more saturation on my side which works out great for solo's.

the SLO is not known for being forgiving - but tone wise i was highly dissappointed. i expected more. and the SLO did not deliver.

anyone looking for that tone i would tell them to play a few 5150 II's and tell them to get the one that sounded best out of the bunch for less than a 1/3 of the price of a SLO with more usable features.

I currently own an SLO w/ the depth mod and have owned a couple of 5150 II's in the past. I will definately agree that the 5150 II's lead tones at a loud volume level are very close to the SLO's but the 5150 II's clean/crunch channel is fairly flat and dull when compared to the SLO.

 

[glpg80]

I currently own an SLO w/ the depth mod and have owned a couple of 5150 II's in the past. I will definately agree that the 5150 II's lead tones at a loud volume level are very close to the SLO's but the 5150 II's clean/crunch channel is fairly flat and dull when compared to the SLO.

the clean of the 5150 II has to be dialed in differently than normal amplifiers - crunch engaged. i also have to use a jan-phillips 12AU7 on top of it as well - so i agree there definately.

for crunch or clean i just roll my volume knob back - works great since the 5150 is responsive to volume knob adjustments. glad to see someone who owns both can justify im not talking out of my ass just to hear myself speak

How did you know the SLO you tried at GC had good tubes and was properly biased?

Pete

how do you know the lightbulb in your lamp is good? does it work? or does it not?

there were no microphonic problems in the power tubes, and if there were, they are rare. the preamp tubes were fine. they worked. just like a bulb should.

the $2,600 used price was only because someone paid half down - played it in the store, and decided not to get it. that is about as new used as you can get.

for the street price of $2,600 used, you pay for mil spec build quality and consistant build quality from both the transformers and the components. idle tube drift is measured in hours with an amplifier like this - enough that 2 hours of playing will only drift +/- 2mA based on the PT's construction quality and the wall voltage being sent to it. Tube drift with an amplifier like the SLO should be the last of its worries.

but why am i defending the SLO? it should be the hands down winner here. my amplifier could have been +/- 5mA at the time and it should not have mattered. but for the used price of $800 versus $2,600 - the clear winner is obvious in my books, even if it is not in every category.

 

[stratotone]

All I'm saying is, if you want a valid comparison between two items, they should both be in good working order. You mention that the 5150 has to have good tubes and a good bias - I'm saying you had no way of knowing the SLO you checked out had these things. Heck, I'd want to hear the amps with the matching cabinets anyways... cabs can change the sound of an amp a lot.

Yes, an SLO is much more expensive than a peavey amp, but I don't care if it was TEN times the price - it's not going to make the amp magical and able to transcend things like a bias and tubes - and your comparison wasn't valid unless you knew it was in good working order.

How many of us have checked out an amp at a music store and it was plugged into the wrong ohm setting on the cab, or if it's used had ragged out tubes, etc?

Your opinion is yours, mine is that a properly set up SLO is one of the finest lead tones ever. Just my opinion, based on ownership and giggage of an SLO and a block letter 5150 that had sylvania power tubes, but no bias mod.

Again, I have no current dog in this fight as my 'go to' amp right now is a '72 100 watt Superlead which IMO pwns the SLO and the 5150s

Pete

 

[fuzzyguitars]

hmm interesting discussion.

I'd vote for the slo.
I'll throw another opinion into the pot. I haven't liked any of the 5150s I've heard or played. They have a fair bit of saturation definitely but they don't have the string to string clarity that the slo has. There's always a fuzziness there that doesn't go away. I wouldn't mind having both but if I had a choice I'd grab a SLO before a 5150/6505.

This is a clip I recorded earlier for my own records after doing some set up on my prs. I'm not the greatest player so flame away if need be...but I've been chasing this crunch forever and the slo does it for me.

I'm surprised that James says it's one-dimensional though. I quite liked the clips in his 2009 shootout. I thought the character definitely changed depending on the guitar.

there are alot of 5150 models that exist. i mentioned souly the 5150 II out of all of the series. was this the model that you have played? if so, at what volumes were you playing it at?

if any other model is to be put against the SLO, the SLO wins in that tonal battle regardless of the comments im making below about all 5150's because you are right - the gain tone of the SLO is very defined and also tweakable with the presence knob.

as for the fuzz:
you need a good set of tubes in the amplifier both pre and power to even the playing field, the amplifier needs to be biased properly with no characteristics of crossover distortion, and you need to be moving some serious air with all 5150's to do them justice and get out of the low volume fuzz characteristics. they were not built to be bedroom amplifiers - their design is made for higher volume playing.

if you do this you will be seriously surprised at the outcomes of each - especially the 5150 II's. enough that the SLO was not worth the extra money and by a long shot to me.

i have an slo with depth knob
i have a block logo 5150
i have avenger.

the slo is still my favorite.

may not be the best bang for buck, but i find it very versatile, you really need to spend a lot of time tweaking the knobs.

dont be afraid to run the mids higher, treble lower and presence higher.

speakers are very important too.

k100's are awesome with it.

but i feel that v30;s record the best.

 

[Mr. Willy]

Can I vote for neither?

If I had to choose, I guess it would be an SLO so I can sell it like I did my last 2 for a profit

+1

Aren't you a big 5150 fan? I find it odd that you wouldn't care for the amp that inspired it.

exactly. i have played a SLO 100.

it was an over-hyped 5150 II. i can dig the same exact tone out of my own amplifier, with a footswitchable effects loop, resonance/presence controls for individual channels, and at about a 3rd of the price of a SLO - and actually a bit more saturation on my side which works out great for solo's.

the SLO is not known for being forgiving - but tone wise i was highly dissappointed. i expected more. and the SLO did not deliver.

anyone looking for that tone i would tell them to play a few 5150 II's and tell them to get the one that sounded best out of the bunch for less than a 1/3 of the price of a SLO with more usable features.

An SLO is an over-hyped 5150 II?

You're funny.

 

[fuzzyguitars]

Can I vote for neither?

If I had to choose, I guess it would be an SLO so I can sell it like I did my last 2 for a profit

+1

Aren't you a big 5150 fan? I find it odd that you wouldn't care for the amp that inspired it.

exactly. i have played a SLO 100.

it was an over-hyped 5150 II. i can dig the same exact tone out of my own amplifier, with a footswitchable effects loop, resonance/presence controls for individual channels, and at about a 3rd of the price of a SLO - and actually a bit more saturation on my side which works out great for solo's.

the SLO is not known for being forgiving - but tone wise i was highly dissappointed. i expected more. and the SLO did not deliver.

anyone looking for that tone i would tell them to play a few 5150 II's and tell them to get the one that sounded best out of the bunch for less than a 1/3 of the price of a SLO with more usable features.

An SLO is an over-hyped 5150 II?

You're funny.

the slo was first.

maybe what he meant to say was that the 5150 II was what he felt the slo should have been?

 

[Shark Diver]

Depends on what you do. If 80s mid rangy stuff is your thing the SLO gets that. I had an SLO and an Avenger for years, IMO they are not that great as studio amps. Very one dimensional sounding and the sound is very dated. A good Marshall will always sound relevant to one degree or another. The SLO is a time capsule IMO.

Wow, considering the variety of players that have toured with the SLO I just can't agree with that statement. Both Clapton and Ratt have used the SLO, not sure that qualifies as one dimensional.

Can I vote for neither?

If I had to choose, I guess it would be an SLO so I can sell it like I did my last 2 for a profit

+1

Aren't you a big 5150 fan? I find it odd that you wouldn't care for the amp that inspired it.

exactly. i have played a SLO 100.

it was an over-hyped 5150 II. i can dig the same exact tone out of my own amplifier, with a footswitchable effects loop, resonance/presence controls for individual channels, and at about a 3rd of the price of a SLO - and actually a bit more saturation on my side which works out great for solo's.

the SLO is not known for being forgiving - but tone wise i was highly dissappointed. i expected more. and the SLO did not deliver.

anyone looking for that tone i would tell them to play a few 5150 II's and tell them to get the one that sounded best out of the bunch for less than a 1/3 of the price of a SLO with more usable features.

Well, I recently played Eddie's 5150, and don't agree with this either. 5150 is a great amp, but even if you like it better than a SLO, to say the SLO is a disappointment compared to a 5150 just doesn't make sense to me.


Obviously I like Soldano, but to say it is a one dimensional amp, or that it is dated, or is smoked by an amp it inspired, just really inaccurate imo. As far as the Marshall, well there are great ones, and not so great ones. Depending on the application would be the deciding factor to me.

 

[Shark Diver]

Depends on what you do. If 80s mid rangy stuff is your thing the SLO gets that. I had an SLO and an Avenger for years, IMO they are not that great as studio amps. Very one dimensional sounding and the sound is very dated. A good Marshall will always sound relevant to one degree or another. The SLO is a time capsule IMO.

Wow, considering the variety of players that have toured with the SLO I just can't agree with that statement. Both Clapton and Ratt have used the SLO, not sure that qualifies as one dimensional.

Can I vote for neither?

If I had to choose, I guess it would be an SLO so I can sell it like I did my last 2 for a profit

+1

Aren't you a big 5150 fan? I find it odd that you wouldn't care for the amp that inspired it.

exactly. i have played a SLO 100.

it was an over-hyped 5150 II. i can dig the same exact tone out of my own amplifier, with a footswitchable effects loop, resonance/presence controls for individual channels, and at about a 3rd of the price of a SLO - and actually a bit more saturation on my side which works out great for solo's.

the SLO is not known for being forgiving - but tone wise i was highly dissappointed. i expected more. and the SLO did not deliver.

anyone looking for that tone i would tell them to play a few 5150 II's and tell them to get the one that sounded best out of the bunch for less than a 1/3 of the price of a SLO with more usable features.

Well, I recently played Eddie's 5150, and don't agree with this either. 5150 is a great amp, but even if you like it better than a SLO, to say the SLO is a disappointment compared to a 5150 just doesn't make sense to me.


Obviously I like Soldano, but to say it is a one dimensional amp, or that it is dated, or is smoked by an amp it inspired, just really inaccurate imo. As far as the Marshall, well there are great ones, and not so great ones. Depending on the application would be the deciding factor to me.

 

[johnnyjellybean]

I'm on my 7th SLO. I've decided I just need to keep one around. They have something very special and recognizable in the mids. When I go back and listen to tracks I have done in the past, I can always tell the SLO. I personally think they record really well and don't find them one dimensional in the least. In fact, I find them quite multifaceted. A good SLO with KT66's and a depth mod along with a well chosen set of preamp tubes is hard to beat.

Also......... They are built like tanks and will out last all of us!

 

[zuel69]

You need to try another SLO, hydrox cookies are not oreos...you like what you like and thats fine, it's just that most people will not agree on your opinion which you so humbly throw around.

Can I vote for neither?

If I had to choose, I guess it would be an SLO so I can sell it like I did my last 2 for a profit

+1

Aren't you a big 5150 fan? I find it odd that you wouldn't care for the amp that inspired it.

exactly. i have played a SLO 100.

it was an over-hyped 5150 II. i can dig the same exact tone out of my own amplifier, with a footswitchable effects loop, resonance/presence controls for individual channels, and at about a 3rd of the price of a SLO - and actually a bit more saturation on my side which works out great for solo's.

the SLO is not known for being forgiving - but tone wise i was highly dissappointed. i expected more. and the SLO did not deliver.

anyone looking for that tone i would tell them to play a few 5150 II's and tell them to get the one that sounded best out of the bunch for less than a 1/3 of the price of a SLO with more usable features.

 

[mikey]

SLO No question.

I gigged Jubilees for 10+ years, switched to an SLO about 2 years ago and have not used my Jubilees in a live setting since. Jubilees are one of my favorites, but the SLO is more articulate and has more depth/complexity to it, IMO.

 

[IntenseJim]

Very one dimensional sounding and the sound is very dated...... The SLO is a time capsule IMO.

And so is a great pair of tits.

SLO.

Use different speakers/cabs and it's a chameleon. I have a 2x12 cab with Scumback H5/H75 and I get the most beautiful chimey cleans and sweetest sick thick singing overdrive. With my 4x12 with Eminence Legend or old Soldano Power x1200 it sounds more typical 80s 90s in your face.

One dimensional? Knopfler, Clapton, Dimartini, Haynes, Lou Reed, Motley Crue, Vai, EVH, Larry McCray, etc etc.


$3000? Used for about $2450+/- and hold that value forever.

5150: I don't know how it got into the thread. I have one. Fun amp. Bang for the buck it's great but I keep it in the home office for practicing; I don't like it live.

 

[glpg80]

You need to try another SLO, hydrox cookies are not oreos...you like what you like and thats fine, it's just that most people will not agree on your opinion which you so humbly throw around.

he asked for my opinion. so i gave it. read the original reply, and all i said was "+1"

tell me how +1 is so humblingly being thrown around.

hell, i didnt even suggest not choosing either of the OP's amplifiers. someone else did. i was going to my opinion to myself because its not worth fighting over - hence my +1 reply. but someone went the extra mile to wonder why i said it - so the can of worms was opened.

if you dont like my opinion you dont have to. i respect the SLO's strong points, but there are plenty other weak's and im not the only one on the board that agrees with this - especially for the money.

so continue to buy and run a SLO for the $3,000k price tag. ill enjoy the same tone at a fraction of the price and still have road worthy reliability