Soldano Slo 100 Plexi tones vid!

Samhain

Well-known member
v28rixzd3ei5puhoboob.jpg


To my ears a true 68' style JMP would have 100% more headroom & about 60% less gain with about 40% more upper mid bark.
 

blackba

Well-known member
Sounds great, but doesn’t really remind me of a plexi. I have run my plexi Kingsley preamp next to my Soldano hr25 and the difference is pretty apparent. Still I love what the Soldano brings to the table.
 

glpg80

Well-known member
A SLO is great in and of itself and cut great live but it would get eaten for breakfast ran next to another guitarist with a cranked 68 plexi both in headroom and in voicing. I don’t own a SLO no, but both my Marshall and metroplex would bury my 5150 II in a mix without any issue.

The 67-73 are so upper mid and high end voiced it physically hurts to stand next to. No SLO has ever done that to my ears.
 

squealie

Active member
Is this now a volume war?

I don't think anyone here would argue about 'headroom' with a 100 watt tube circuit with 100x less compression (gain).
 

Rick Lee

Well-known member
I have owned an SLO and I have done '68 12000 and '69 SLP clone builds. You can't go wrong with any of them. I really think the transformers make these amps. The older I get, the less gain I use. The SLO is so awesome, but I will never use that much gain again. In fact, these days, I'd probably only ever use the crunch channel and sometimes add a pedal. And for that kind of money, my clone builds are just fine.
 

Racerxrated

Well-known member
A SLO is great in and of itself and cut great live but it would get eaten for breakfast ran next to another guitarist with a cranked 68 plexi both in headroom and in voicing. I don’t own a SLO no, but both my Marshall and metroplex would bury my 5150 II in a mix without any issue.

The 67-73 are so upper mid and high end voiced it physically hurts to stand next to. No SLO has ever done that to my ears.
I love my 72 Supertrem...it is a force of nature. But after owning 3 SLOs, no way would a 100w NMV Marshall bury any SLO. SLOs can keep up with a Wizard 100w, and if it keeps up with a Wizard 100w it'll keep up with a great 100w NMV Marshall. SLOs have a ton of upper mids...just like the Marshall. I boosted my SLOs so maybe that's why they had HUGE headroom; but they were painfully loud just like my 72. Now, maybe the 72 (or the 68s you guys mention) will get slightly louder than the SLOs but no chance they'd bury it. My 72 did bury my C+ Coliseum; but the Coli doesn't have that Marshall upper mid zing like the SLO does.
But as much as I dig the SLO the 72 is my desert island amp. Simply incredible sounding. The tone in my head.
 

FourT6and2

Well-known member
Sounds good to me! Still sounds like a Soldano though.

Change the slope resistor to 33K and the NFB to 47K and it would have more of those Marshall mids. With that 47K slope resistor, the tone stack is on the smoother/scooped side.
 

braintheory

Well-known member
I love my 72 Supertrem...it is a force of nature. But after owning 3 SLOs, no way would a 100w NMV Marshall bury any SLO. SLOs can keep up with a Wizard 100w, and if it keeps up with a Wizard 100w it'll keep up with a great 100w NMV Marshall. SLOs have a ton of upper mids...just like the Marshall. I boosted my SLOs so maybe that's why they had HUGE headroom; but they were painfully loud just like my 72. Now, maybe the 72 (or the 68s you guys mention) will get slightly louder than the SLOs but no chance they'd bury it. My 72 did bury my C+ Coliseum; but the Coli doesn't have that Marshall upper mid zing like the SLO does.
But as much as I dig the SLO the 72 is my desert island amp. Simply incredible sounding. The tone in my head.
I agree. I have to do some comparisons again, but I think my '89 SLO would cut considerably more than my '67 tremolo 50 (may be another story vs '68 or later or 100 watts). The most cutting high gainers I have are probably my '89 SLO and Purpleface. My IIC+, Rev D, Naylor and most others literally sound like they're underwater next to the SLO, yet the SLO and Purpleface both sound actually less fatiguing/grating on the ears. My Schroeder DB and Alessandro Redbone Special actually can make my SLO and Wizard seem comparatively distant, but neither are good for stuff beyond classic rock (they might have other models that could be heavier). Cut doesn't make an amp better to me than another, still to me about just how good the tone is, but sure is a great bonus if it can. SLO and Plexi are both great, but can't sound like each other imo. Gotta have both lol. Every time I think I'm getting a Marshall-y sound with my SLO I do an AB with my '67 or '79 2203 and it just is it's own thing. Different high end, mids and feel

I actually gotta completely disagree here with glpg80 on 2 things:
1) An amp being painful or fatiguing on the ears doesn't necessarily mean it'll cut more than another amp. The '89 SLO and Purpleface cut so well because they have all those mids and uppermids, but both still have smooth, pleasant high end and not overly compressed. Same with the Schroeder and Alessandro. Actually even more so the case with those latter 2

2)The '70's Marshalls are bright yes and perhaps also '68-69 (would have to try), but my '67 Tremolo 50 and all the other Marshall's I've played from '67 or before are actually all dark and super warm, rich sounding (NOT the same thing as dark) and among the least fatiguing amps I've tried along with a Dumble. Those amps interestingly still cut very well because of their midrange voicing, but are so pleasant sounding/not fatiguing that I always forget just how loud and room shaking they are until comparing it to something else. You don't need a grating or unpleasant sound to cut well
 
Last edited:

Kidkramer71

Active member
Sounds great !
However does not sound like a plexi to my ears ?
There are many amps that capture plexi tone well.
I believe the slo does its thing perfect.
Lower or higher gain still has its trademark sound.
Still a cool video.
Thanks for sharing.
 
Top