New slo's vs old slo's

[Shark Diver]

...1987 (Lynch SOLD...)

I took that pic, played that amp. Awesome. Sometimes we sell what has value if we can get by with less

Either way, tubes are usually the biggest factor in what any SLO will sound like.

 

[Clpether]

Slo griff that was you're post I read on the soldano forums. Great heads up on the newer components being better. I was always was under impression the older ones were made better kinda like Marshall's but that's great news that mike hasn't skipped a beat. I should have guessed that. It is a great amp that rewards in spades.

 

[Shark Diver]

Slo griff that was you're post I read on the soldano forums. Great heads up on the newer components being better. I was always was under impression the older ones were made better kinda like Marshall's but that's great news that mike hasn't skipped a beat. I should have guessed that. It is a great amp that rewards in spades.

Love Mike. But what does everyone expect him to say, "we can't get all the original parts, and because of government restrictions and cost we have had to change, sorry it's not as good."

And yes, it's a great amp, I have 4. And no others.

 

[steve_k]

Slo griff that was you're post I read on the soldano forums. Great heads up on the newer components being better. I was always was under impression the older ones were made better kinda like Marshall's but that's great news that mike hasn't skipped a beat. I should have guessed that. It is a great amp that rewards in spades.

Love Mike. But what does everyone expect him to say, "we can't get all the original parts, and because of government restrictions and cost we have had to change, sorry it's not as good."

And yes, it's a great amp, I have 4. And no others.

 

[Shark Diver]

I should add, I don't think the quality has changed. So, please don't read it that way. Top Notch all the way. Best in the biz... But they do sound a little different to me. Old vs New that is. Doesn't mean either is better, just different. I personally find the older ones more open and articulate. The newer ones tighter and more focused. Depending on what you are after would determine which you would like more...

Mike didn't design the amp around the tube sets now easily available. So, as those changed I believe there have been small tweaks. It's apparent in looking inside and comparing them.

 

[SLOgriff]

I should add, I don't think the quality has changed. So, please don't read it that way. Top Notch all the way. Best in the biz... But they do sound a little different to me. Old vs New that is. Doesn't mean either is better, just different. I personally find the older ones more open and articulate. The newer ones tighter and more focused. Depending on what you are after would determine which you would like more...

Mike didn't design the amp around the tube sets now easily available. So, as those changed I believe there have been small tweaks. It's apparent in looking inside and comparing them.

great points for sure!

 

[Clpether]

I should add, I don't think the quality has changed. So, please don't read it that way. Top Notch all the way. Best in the biz... But they do sound a little different to me. Old vs New that is. Doesn't mean either is better, just different. I personally find the older ones more open and articulate. The newer ones tighter and more focused. Depending on what you are after would determine which you would like more...

That makes sense! Having never played an old one I can only guess, would like to hear one though. I actually like more focused and tighter sounds generally so this one seems to be a good fit. It is a common trait in the other amps I own. It's good to have bunch of experienced slo users on this forum

 

[carlygtr]

I owned about 10-12 (lost count) SLO's since the early 90's. They sounded the same to me although I never had the opportunity to A/B any.
The only one that was slightly different was a KT-66 loaded one I had. Seemed to have more lower mids due to those tubes.

 

[Ampaddict]

"That amp is unlike any other SLO I have seen. It almost looks like a prototype
with a serial number. It has Beyschlag Resistors like the old Boogie's, but it also uses some carbon comp. At first glance, it has the typical SLO circuitry but the layout is totally different in many areas. It's obvious that there are only a handful of these out there as everything changed once the clean channel was added. It appears Mike redesigned the entire circuit board and moved many components to a different location, most likely for ease of production. You will also notice all SLO's after 88", or the addition of the clean channel use Metal film resistors. You amp does not have a single Metal Film. It may be a bit warmer in tone due to this."

 

[guitarnerdswe]

You can always ask Mike, he would now

 

[Clpether]

Yeah I think I will call mike after the weekend. Just out of curiosity.

 

[supersonic]

Mike claims they are the same bar a few parts that are unavailable now. I own a 1988 ATM. Can't say it sounds noticably different to any others I've owned.

 

[sahlomonic]

...1987 (Lynch SOLD...)

Might that be the one I saw him with a couple years ago when Lynch Mob rolled through KC? His tech used the SLO on a couple rhythm parts but was mostly unused that night. Lynch was apparently playing through a Friedman that was hidden behind the two halfstacks.

 

[baron55]

Some SLO facts.

Most of the changes to the SLO are due to some components no longer available and or made. But overall they sound the same.

As someone posted earlier, you could take two identical amps and they would sound different due mostly to all of the tolerance variations in components. Filter caps alone vary from +50% to -20% in value. And typically most of the coupling caps are around 10%.

The reason the SLO sounds tighter when turned up, is the 6L6 power tubes compress more and tighten up the tone. There is a lot a bass in the preamp and it can get pretty flubby at low volumes.

The Tone stack is typical Marshall like most of the amps liked on this forum.

The FX loop is a big part of the SLO sound. It is not transparent at all. Basically the loop uses a cathode follower send (common in most tube loops). The way cathode followers are implemented in guitar tube amps they cause 1/2 of the sine wave to become compressed (this adds a tad of compression to the signal) As the signal leaves the Send it returns to the recovery gain stage, since the SLO is line out levels, the recovery gain stage is clipped slightly causing more saturation and compression. The signal is then fed to another cathode follower to drive the tone stack ( which is typical Marshall configuration) This cathode flower also compresses the tone slightly.

The SLO is unique in that you have 2 cathode followers in line in the circuit. This gives the amp that liquid lead tone it is known for. Take the loop out and you loose a little saturation and the amp will be tighter and more aggressive. That is what many of the companies that have copied the SLO preamp have done.

A mod that Mike has had is a level control for the loop dropping the signal to pedal level, it works great, but then the return stage is not clipped and the tone of the amp is less compressed and the gain is not as saturated.

 

[Clpether]

"The FX loop is a big part of the SLO sound. It is not transparent at all. Basically the loop uses a cathode follower send (common in most tube loops). The way cathode followers are implemented in guitar tube amps they cause 1/2 of the sine wave to become compressed (this adds a tad of compression to the signal) As the signal leaves the Send it returns to the recovery gain stage, since the SLO is line out levels, the recovery gain stage is clipped slightly causing more saturation and compression. The signal is then fed to another cathode follower to drive the tone stack ( which is typical Marshall configuration) This cathode flower also compresses the tone slightly.

The SLO is unique in that you have 2 cathode followers in line in the circuit. This gives the amp that liquid lead tone it is known for. Take the loop out and you loose a little saturation and the amp will be tighter and more aggressive. That is what many of the companies that have copied the SLO preamp have done.

A mod that Mike has had is a level control for the loop dropping the signal to pedal level, it works great, but then the return stage is not clipped and the tone of the amp is less compressed and the gain is not as saturated.

Thats some great info and I am going to contact Mike and see if this may be an option. Cheers

 

[FortinAmps]

i have a 92 and a 2001

the are different on the inside interms of different types of caps here and there.

but

they basically sound the same when off a fresh retube.

remember, the older one may need to be recapped!

The same '92 that bought from me?

 

[johnnyjellybean]

Mike ! You've had a few SLO's pass through your hands , haven't you? LOL Kinda like me! LOL.
The changes in the SLO were done early on .... I believe......... but don't quote me, it was mid/late 89.
What no one knows about the Lynch #006 amp is that it was modified on the overdrive channel, either by Lynch or by Brauer with 2 extra resistors and 1 extra cap. The amp had about 40% less gain than when it left Mike Soldano's hands. I own 006 now and it has been brought back to original specs and absolutely kicks ass. I just sold the SLO that Mike Fortin sold me about 6 months ago (thanks again Mike!) because it didnt stand up to #006. Not a HUGE difference but a very noticable one. Here are 2 pics of the preamp CBs . Do they look the same to you? This is an old thread and I may be flogging a dead horse but these pics prove 100% that not all SLO's are the same.
1987.......

1993..........

 

[sled]

My 1990 Loopless SLO...

 

[syncrodude007]

slo x 3

 

[Death by Uberschall]

My 1990 Loopless SLO...

Where's the DeYoung choke?