NAD: Another Engl! The 4th HorSEman of the ApocalypSE...

[Speeddemon]

An ENGL Special Edition EL34 head.


The 4th Engl in the house, next to the Ironball, Savage 60 and InVader 100.

As my previous experience with the 6L6 version was so-so, I never had buyer's remorse of my Invader (also, because the Invader was reachable financially, whereas the SE was a $1000 or so more), but I recently managed to play the SE EL34 and liked it a lot more than I cared for the 6L6.
It has more functions than you can shake a stick at, and almost like a Mesa Mark series, you're best of reading the manual carefully.

It's a very good, if not awesomely versatile amp, but I still see some areas for improvement, when I'm comparing it directly to my InVader.
Otherwise, it has some nice functions that would be welcome to the InVader, but most of these would be in the 'nice to have' category, like the onboard Reverb, Lo/Hi Power mode (50W/100W) or Speaker A/B switch. Also, because some things are MIDI switchable, like the Depth boost (which is variable via a potmeter on the Invader), that *could* make the SE the better choice in combination with a MIDI board.

However...

Since the Depth Boost on the SE is so heavy handed, you'd basically need to run the Channel's Bass knobs a lot lower to not get overwhelmed (or end up with a very pissed off bass player in your band ). Which in turns mean that the sounds without the Depth Boost turned on become kinda thin, so you probably end up not using those.

In a similar fashion, the Gain Boost buttons add perhaps too little gain on Channel 1 (Clean & Crunch) whereas they add way too much in Channel 2 (Lead I and II) which would make it less possible to come up with 8 proper different tones, as especially on Lead I and II you'd probably need to keep the gain below 12 o' clock, so that the added Gain boost doesn't veer into 'over the top insane gain' (similar to a stock 5150III on the red channel).
When it comes to the Crunch mode, personally, I find that adding the Gain boost gives too little kick/steroids to that channel. This is done really well on the Invader, where Channel 2 in Lo gain mode is a sort of thick Plexi-ish tone, which becomes hotrodded JCM800(ish...again) in Hi gain mode.

Where the SE definitely outshines the InVader -IMHO-, is how Lead II is a lot more useable than the way-too-saggy, woolly and almost fuzzy saturated Channel 4 of the Invader. SE's Lead II *can* be made to sound that way, but you can also reign it back in, make it tighter and more aggressive, whereas with the Invader's CH4, there's no way to get rid of that woolliness.
The SE's Crunch mode's *base* tone seems a tad more versatile, but not in its gain range, when compared to the Invader's CH2.
The InVader's CH2 is so much more versatile in its gain range. Its base tone is somewhat comparable to the SE's Crunch mode in Classic Mode.

Modern/Classic mode sounds great on Clean and Crunch, but pretty much ruins Lead I and II, when put in Classic mode. Quite farty.

Both amp's Clean channels can be set to sound really nice, open and chimey, where I think the InVader's clean may have the upper hand by a pinch.
InVader's CH3 does have a variation of the typical tight, high gain, saturated Engl rhythm tone, but just slightly more refined (not smoother per se) than the more aggressive Lead I and II of the SE. The InVader's CH3 also seems a bit more organic perhaps, but therefore the whole amp would be less suited to the most extremes forms of metal and work perhaps better in slightly older metal styles.

All in all, a very cool amp, but it doesn't *slay* the Invader, as some seem to suggest.


Oh, and those chrome knobs are horrific (and heavy!), Engl should have stayed with the Savage knobs; I started to put Davies knobs on them (see Master section on attached image), but I ran out. 20 more are on their way.

 

[MetalHeadMike]

Congrats and enjoy! That's a heck of a detailed review too! I enjoyed my Engls while I owned them.

 

[Speeddemon]

thanks Mike!
but 'enjoyed' past tense? I thought you still had a Savage 120?

 

[turtlefingers]

I loved this amp, but the it is useless for bed room or home players. Your ears starts to bleed when the volume knob goes from 0,9 to 1.
The ENGL assistance sucks too.
If the volume problem could be fixed I would buy another in a blink of eye.

 

[MetalHeadMike]

thanks Mike!
but 'enjoyed' past tense? I thought you still had a Savage 120?

I traded the Savage a while back. I wound up going through quite a few amazing amps since that trade and landed on a Wizard MCII, MW Dual Recto, and an Uber Rev. blue.

I loved the Engl tone, but the response/feel was one aspect that I just had a hard time with. The models I owned were just too stiff. I don't know how to describe it really other than to say I felt I was always fighting the amp. I switched to EVH speakers (a.k.a. Heritage Greenbacks) and this helped a little, but in the end I just wanted something different.

I do regret not swapping out the 6550s for KT88s in the Savage before letting it go however. I have found I'm not really a 6550 guy. Every amp I've played with those tubes seems too stiff.

 

[Speeddemon]

thanks Mike!
but 'enjoyed' past tense? I thought you still had a Savage 120?

I traded the Savage a while back. I wound up going through quite a few amazing amps since that trade and landed on a Wizard MCII, MW Dual Recto, and an Uber Rev. blue.

I loved the Engl tone, but the response/feel was one aspect that I just had a hard time with. The models I owned were just too stiff. I don't know how to describe it really other than to say I felt I was always fighting the amp. I switched to EVH speakers (a.k.a. Heritage Greenbacks) and this helped a little, but in the end I just wanted something different.

I think I understand. Yesterday I played my small Mark V:25 and remembered how over the years I've grown to sometimes rank Mesa higher than Engl. Both have a certain tight saturation, but the Mesa seems more tube-like perhaps, more liquid. Not to mention the Mark's clean is among the best ever, let alone in high gain channel switchers. I've said it before, but if Mesa would come up with a Mark V:45-50 (2x EL34 or 2x 6L6), 3 channels with modes (with the Crunch mode in its own channel) and a footswitchable fx-loop, that might just be 'the' amp'.

I do regret not swapping out the 6550s for KT88s in the Savage before letting it go however. I have found I'm not really a 6550 guy. Every amp I've played with those tubes seems too stiff.

It would be circuit dependant of course, but I found that the KT88's in my Sig:X seem to be rather stiff sounding too. I've been A/B-ing the SE EL34 with the Sig:X and it does show the apparent compression in the Engl.
Both are picky in their EQ settings...the Engl is maybe more versatile in overall sound shapping stuff, but the Sig:X does the gain staging better.

 

[MetalHeadMike]

Yeah the compressed nature of the Engls becomes very apparent when you get the chance to A/B them side by side with some other amps. I had a D60 when I still had the Savage, and it wa night and day next to the Engl. The "processed" description that Engls get labeled with shows up big time when you play one next to something warm, organic, and open in it's gain structure like a Wizard or Fryette.

Don't get me wrong, I still like the Engls I owned a lot, that FB100 I had was a fucking beast as was the Savage 120 If I was rich, I'd still own them

Man, the MW Dual Recto I traded for not too long ago friggin rips Can't believe it took me so long to try a Mesa

 

[Speeddemon]

I hear ya... the thing that bugs me with most Recto's is that they NEED a boost (with low-cut) to get that low-end tighter. I prefer amps where I don't need a boost.

If someone knows a mod how to make the gain boost on the Engl SE's lead channels LESS extreme (so that I can raise the gain more, and the added gain isn't so crazy), I'm all ears!

 

[MetalHeadMike]

I hear ya... the thing that bugs me with most Recto's is that they NEED a boost (with low-cut) to get that low-end tighter. I prefer amps where I don't need a boost.

If someone knows a mod how to make the gain boost on the Engl SE's lead channels LESS extreme (so that I can raise the gain more, and the added gain isn't so crazy), I'm all ears!

Only amp I've ever owned that I didn't like better clean boosted was the Savage 120. The FB when cranked also, but that was REALLY loud.

Could you maybe pop in a lower gain preamp tube?

 

[rottingcorpse]

I have always wanted an SE. Owned a bunch of engl heads before keeping the extreme aggression. Need to pull it out and bang it again. Loves me some engl tone.

 

[Racerxrated]

Congrats on the NAD!

 

[shred-o-holic]

I would love to try an SE EL34. The only Engl that I have never had a chance to play. Love my Ironball..........like it more than my previous Engls much to my surprise. I gotta imagine the SE to be a beast of glorius high gainess. \m/

 

[Speeddemon]

So, a month or so later and I still feel pretty much the same way about the SE EL34 (and also vs. the Invader).




If Engl were to combine some of the best traits of each, you'd have a better all-round amp.

The SE, to me at least, has 3 'faults' that I've mentioned in the OP:
1) the high gain mode (button) on Lead I & II adds too much gain. Dial it down? Sure, but then the low gain mode is WAY too wimpy. This is done a lot better in the Invader.
2) the Gain boost (for Clean and Crunch) adds too little gain. Also done better on the Invader, where the High gain mode really creates 2 different tones per channel, instead of 'base tone with 10% 'more'....
3) NB. this 'fault' can be overcome with MIDI: I feel that the Clean and Crunch channels sound best in Classic mode, but then Lead I and II are left a bit limp, middy, mushy... When that mode is left on Modern, the Clean and Crunch still sound very good though.

And the shared EQ for Clean and Crunch, make it so that you typically would want to keep the Low EQ down a bit, whereas for the Clean channel to match the wide warmth of the Invader's Clean channel, you'd need more lows. The Invader's Clean channel stays clean longer too (more gain can be applied).

So where it does it outshine the Invader?
The base tone of the Crunch channel is more crunchy and open, whereas the Invader's 2nd channel has a rather thick, more compressed and smooth tone, that's hard to 'un-smooth'.
The SE's Lead II channel outshines the Invader's Channel 4 with ease.
Channel 3 of the Invader really gets close to Lead I of the SE (with Mid Edge turned on!), where the Invader has the benefit that the gain range + high gain mode is better implemented.

A practical difference furthermore that I recently found out, is how the Channel volumes affect the FX-Loop output;
with the Invader I can run the channel volumes pretty high; when I do the same with the SE, the FX-Loop tone suffers, becomes more smooth/dull.

 

[Tone Monster]

So, a month or so later and I still feel pretty much the same way about the SE EL34 (and also vs. the Invader).




If Engl were to combine some of the best traits of each, you'd have a better all-round amp.

The SE, to me at least, has 3 'faults' that I've mentioned in the OP:
1) the high gain mode (button) on Lead I & II adds too much gain. Dial it down? Sure, but then the low gain mode is WAY too wimpy. This is done a lot better in the Invader.
2) the Gain boost (for Clean and Crunch) adds too little gain. Also done better on the Invader, where the High gain mode really creates 2 different tones per channel, instead of 'base tone with 10% 'more'....
3) NB. this 'fault' can be overcome with MIDI: I feel that the Clean and Crunch channels sound best in Classic mode, but then Lead I and II are left a bit limp, middy, mushy... When that mode is left on Modern, the Clean and Crunch still sound very good though.

And the shared EQ for Clean and Crunch, make it so that you typically would want to keep the Low EQ down a bit, whereas for the Clean channel to match the wide warmth of the Invader's Clean channel, you'd need more lows. The Invader's Clean channel stays clean longer too (more gain can be applied).

So where it does it outshine the Invader?
The base tone of the Crunch channel is more crunchy and open, whereas the Invader's 2nd channel has a rather thick, more compressed and smooth tone, that's hard to 'un-smooth'.
The SE's Lead II channel outshines the Invader's Channel 4 with ease.
Channel 3 of the Invader really gets close to Lead I of the SE (with Mid Edge turned on!), where the Invader has the benefit that the gain range + high gain mode is better implemented.

A practical difference furthermore that I recently found out, is how the Channel volumes affect the FX-Loop output;
with the Invader I can run the channel volumes pretty high; when I do the same with the SE, the FX-Loop tone suffers, becomes more smooth/dull.

You’re in luck!!! I owned an SE for a few years and the solution is simple. A 5751 tube in the V1 position solves the too much gain problem.

 

[Speeddemon]

So, a month or so later and I still feel pretty much the same way about the SE EL34 (and also vs. the Invader).




If Engl were to combine some of the best traits of each, you'd have a better all-round amp.

The SE, to me at least, has 3 'faults' that I've mentioned in the OP:
1) the high gain mode (button) on Lead I & II adds too much gain. Dial it down? Sure, but then the low gain mode is WAY too wimpy. This is done a lot better in the Invader.
2) the Gain boost (for Clean and Crunch) adds too little gain. Also done better on the Invader, where the High gain mode really creates 2 different tones per channel, instead of 'base tone with 10% 'more'....
3) NB. this 'fault' can be overcome with MIDI: I feel that the Clean and Crunch channels sound best in Classic mode, but then Lead I and II are left a bit limp, middy, mushy... When that mode is left on Modern, the Clean and Crunch still sound very good though.

And the shared EQ for Clean and Crunch, make it so that you typically would want to keep the Low EQ down a bit, whereas for the Clean channel to match the wide warmth of the Invader's Clean channel, you'd need more lows. The Invader's Clean channel stays clean longer too (more gain can be applied).

So where it does it outshine the Invader?
The base tone of the Crunch channel is more crunchy and open, whereas the Invader's 2nd channel has a rather thick, more compressed and smooth tone, that's hard to 'un-smooth'.
The SE's Lead II channel outshines the Invader's Channel 4 with ease.
Channel 3 of the Invader really gets close to Lead I of the SE (with Mid Edge turned on!), where the Invader has the benefit that the gain range + high gain mode is better implemented.

A practical difference furthermore that I recently found out, is how the Channel volumes affect the FX-Loop output;
with the Invader I can run the channel volumes pretty high; when I do the same with the SE, the FX-Loop tone suffers, becomes more smooth/dull.

You’re in luck!!! I owned an SE for a few years and the solution is simple. A 5751 tube in the V1 position solves the too much gain problem.

Just to clarify; without the high gain/gain boost buttons pressed, I don't think there's too much gain.
Therefore, I would think that lowering the gain in V1 position would lower overall gain, and not just the switchable circuit, or am I missing something?