Pittbull CLX vs. CAA PT100

  • Thread starter Thread starter garey77
  • Start date Start date
I had the VHT CLX 100 for about a year ~6-7 years ago. It was a great amp. The tone was just spectacular. The clean was very nice and the gain was okay for rock rhythm, but it needed pedals to get into the metal/heavy metal territory - which I play 90% of the time.

A fellow named "Al Estrada" used to have some great clips available of the CAA OD100 and the CAA PT100 but they are not there anymore. He produced some great tone out of both CAA amps. He was also driving Electro-Voice EVM12L-CLASSIC-8 300W guitar speakers too.
 
:) Both are great amps .... The Fryette stuff fits me better. I am more into vintage sounds and prefer the Sig X & Deliverance. The CLX sounds and feels more modern to me. But I would feel very comfortable with any of these amps doing vintage or modern sounds.

When you get to this quality of amps it is nothing more than what fits the individual's needs & wants best...
 
I'd be interested to hear input from those who can compare and contrast these two amps. I am fast becoming a Fryette fanboy. I've been on a huge amp binge in the last 6 months and back in late February picked up a 2004 VHT Ultralead with eq and it did not do much for me at all. Sounded boomy and gain felt very dry just like people always describe especially after playing various boogies in the months prior. Put it away and pretty much forgot about it and then about a month ago came across a good deal on some good Kt88's so retubed and biassed it up and now I absolutely love it. Might not have the saturation of some amps but has shitloads of gain on tap on both overdrive channels (after playing this amp nonstop the last month I'm seeing you don't need as much saturation as the boogies can get and the tone sounds better without it) It is now my new favorite alongside my XTC 101b with pre 2004 gain. Time for the boogies to go me thinks. Just has a killer crunchiness to it and sounds killer to my ears with or without the eq on. Now I'm just dieing to try a CLX thinking it might be even more my thing with the el34's.
 
I've owned both, fantastic amps. If you're looking for a Marshall vibe get the PT100, if you're looking for more modern tone the CLX nails it. Not sure if they've changed the circuits on the CLX or not, but the one I owned had plenty of gain on tap without a boost for metal and had a really unique amazingly clear gain structure.
 
I actually own a CLX and love it. It is a VHT era. I gigged with it for the first time last weekend and had no problems in the mix (unlike my 2007 XTC 101b). I also found that I'm using the series loop instead of the parallel. I just felt that the difference in the sound (i.e. unity) was better with the series than parallel. Which, I might add, I was surprised at. I'll say this, the CLX doesn't seem to have quite the saturation that my CCV had though (not to stoke the fire). But, I haven't even really looked at the tube compliment yet. But used, out of the box, preamp tubes unseen (and definitely not stock), the amp is really awesome. In fact, I get very close to the overall vibe of the CCV (not nailed, of course). I do miss the Metro fx loop... great fx loop.

So, I've been looking for another amp to replace the CCV. There is a PT100 locally on CL that I've sort of been eyeing. I was actually thinking of trying to find a used Einstein, but even though the amp is versatile, I'm concerned with actually how useable the features are in a live setting. For instance, you can't leave the gain on ch. 1 where it needs to be for a good solid clean headroom without sacrificing the amount of saturation that would be good for modern rock on say the Mega setting, correct? So, I started to ask myself, what do I really need? I need a pretty crystal clear clean; very slight hints of break up are okay. I need a rhythm channel that is/can get gain-heavy and cleans up a bit w/vol. knob roll-off. The lead channel needs to be able to get saturated enough to do light touch legato, if need be... yadda yadda, right?!

Stephen, I agree with you in that once you broach these levels of guitar build, it's all personal taste.

I played an Einstein a couple of years ago and remember immediately liking the amp, even after only sitting with it for like 5 minutes. But after recently hearing PT100 clips, I'm starting to lean toward the CAA. It seems like a direct, straightforward amp that sounds great. I know that either amp would be great, I'm really trying to get a good feel for the differences and usability of the two (Einstein/PT100) as another sonic palette besides the CLX.

On a side note, this sort of feels like a therapy session. lol
 
bumping this up as I'm very intrigued with both these amps
 
Why not get a 100w Pitbull? EL34 goodness...
 
maddnotez":2x0zbt38 said:
Why not get a 100w Pitbull? EL34 goodness...
Click to expand...

I see from your sig you have the VHT gh100cl, seem to remember reading you have had several of the VHT's, Fryettes, can you compare and contrast the differences if you have had several? Hope I'm not hijacking this thread.
 
stephen sawall":1i9rlbbf said:
I am more into vintage sounds and prefer the Sig X & Deliverance. The CLX sounds and feels more modern to me.
Click to expand...
Hey Stephen, the "PITTBULL® HUNDRED/CLX" is Fryette's "Classic" model in the "PITTBULL®" series and is the same as far as circuitry since day one. The "HUNDRED/CLX" is IMO more versatile than the Sig X and the Deliverance for a reason.
 
had the CLX for and bit with the Ultra Lead....I preferred the UL actually for modern music but the CLX was an outstanding amp as well, just did not sound as brutal as the UL.
 
Ok, so I tried out an Einstein head at Guitar Center today. I haven't played one for a few years, but it was instantly a bit satiating. Diezel amps have this interesting color to their tone that reminds me of eating flintstone vitamins or something (weird, right?!)... almost sugary/tart, and very immediate. I like that. Well, the immediate part anyway. I definitely don't want another overly squishy, fighting the amp while palm muting sort of vibe. The only problem with that amp was they (GC) didn't have the damn footswitch for it, so I wasn't able to access the second master. I gather that the second master on the amp was for a volume boost?
 
Thor1777":3pe6iuu2 said:
...I preferred the UL actually for modern music but the CLX was an outstanding amp as well, just did not sound as brutal as the UL.
Click to expand...
Precisely, hence my pedal comment...ThorMDCCLXXVII.
 
I thought that the only real difference between the CLX and the UL was the power section. The UL was equipped with KT88's, the CLX w/EL34's. Besides that, the preamp sections are pretty similar, if not the same, yes?
 
garey77":3nvcm20k said:
...the preamp sections are pretty similar, if not the same, yes?
Click to expand...
Couldn't honestly tell yah about this. I only played the UL at the GC in Hollywood for ~2 hours before settling for the original CLX100. The CLX100 Masterbuilt obviously wasn't out at that time.

The original CLX100 (the one I had) accepted only EL34 PTs but had the dual class power mode feature only. So the main board circuitry was obviously different on the UL to accept the KT88s. I do remember that Steven was very picky about PT replacement for the CLX100 and suggested only using the EL34 Mullard (Russia), EL34 Svetlana (Russia) or the EL34 EH (Russia) at that time.
 
I have read that the preamp section of the UL and the CLX is the same....can't say for sure but thats what I have read
 
Thor1777":rqrua2wo said:
I have read that the preamp section of the UL and the CLX is the same....can't say for sure but thats what I have read
Click to expand...
I can't disagree with that. What I do remember is that the CLX100 sounded and felt a bit more open and not as compressed as the UL when I tested them side-by-side A/B.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top