Soldano Slo 100 Plexi tones vid!

SLO's set to medium-lowish gain like in that video sound awesome, but yeah doesn't sound anything like a Plexi.

SLO's have a lot more weight and heft in their sound than Plexis. At those gain levels, a Plexi will sound like a jet engine about to explode, while a SLO will sound more like a beast that just hasn't gotten excited yet, like a hotrodded muscle car slowly gurgling down the street at 20 mph. Both are great, but they're two totally different attitudes and feels.

Great tone in the video either way though.
 
Last edited:
TheGreatGreen said:
SLO's set to medium-lowish gain like in that video sound awesome, but yeah doesn't sound anything like a Plexi.

SLO's have a lot more weight and heft in their sound than Plexis. At those gain levels, a Plexi will sound like a jet engine about to explode, while a SLO will sound more like a beast that just hasn't gotten excited yet, like a hotrodded muscle car slowly gurgling down the street at 20 mph. Both are great, but they're two totally different attitudes and feels.

Great tone in the video either way though.
Click to expand...
What a great way to describe what words often fail to do! Explains why every time I have tried a real Marshall I feel like it's lacking girth and has an annoying top end. The Slo has to be dialed in for me to find the sweet spot but when you do it's glorious.
 
I had an '89 SLO-R and was in love with the crunch channel until I played a Marshall 2204. Then I just couldn't get back into the SLO afterwards. SLO sounded fine but seemed dull in comparison.
 
Rick Lee said:
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.
Click to expand...
How much can cost a clone as you built ?
 
cragginshred77 said:
What a great way to describe what words often fail to do! Explains why every time I have tried a real Marshall I feel like it's lacking girth and has an annoying top end. The Slo has to be dialed in for me to find the sweet spot but when you do it's glorious.
Click to expand...
Lacking girth? Well, in my estimation you haven't played a real Marshall yet. Try a JMP non master Marshall, totally stock (with a boost or two for gain that approaches an SLO) 100w at volume. Jumper the channels for more girth with the rhythm channel blended in....stand back.
 
MKibanez said:
How much can cost a clone as you built ?
Click to expand...

I think I spent about $1300 on my Metro 100w. I used Merren iron and got a purple tolex headshell. Probably had $1000 into my '68 12000 build because I used ClassicTone iron and got a cheapo headshell on eBay.
 
See right there shows how much these big amp makers are profiting. I mean im all for making money but these guys are buying in bulk, You probably be shocked how much a friedman 100 watter actually costs to build. Id say less than a thousand, but hey its expensive in california but thats not my problem. 4k for a new amp is crazy imo
 
panhead said:
See right there shows how much these big amp makers are profiting. I mean im all for making money but these guys are buying in bulk, You probably be shocked how much a friedman 100 watter actually costs to build. Id say less than a thousand, but hey its expensive in california but thats not my problem. 4k for a new amp is crazy imo
Click to expand...
Labor. R&D. The cost to build an amp isn't just the parts. There's labor to build it. Maybe 30-40 hours? Less if it's PCB and populated by a machine. Then there's the cost of doing business: rent, utilities, permits, shipping, employee benefits, tools/machinery, etc. Profit per amp is probably... 8% - 10%. While I agree that $4K for a guitar amp these days is nuts, if I were building/selling amps as a one-man show, I would absolutely charge $3K+ otherwise it wouldn't be worth my time. $1K in parts per amp (if I could sell one per week), would net me $50/hr. Nobody is getting rich off that.
 
Last edited:
FourT6and2 said:
Labor. R&D. The cost to build an amp isn't just the parts. There's labor to build it. Maybe 30-40 hours? Less if it's PCB and populated by a machine. Then there's the cost of doing business: rent, utilities, permits, shipping, employee benefits, tools/machinery, etc. Profit per amp is probably... 8% - 10%. While I agree that $4K for a guitar amp these days is nuts, if I were building/selling amps as a one-man show, I would absolutely charge $3K+ otherwise it wouldn't be worth my time. $1K in parts per amp (if I could sell one per week), would net me $50/hr. Nobody is getting rich off that.
Click to expand...
I agree but someone like Dave F is buying god knows how much in wholesale bulk.
 
Rick Lee said:
Dave has a huge product line - amps, pedals, guitars, pedalboards and probably lots more. That's gotta be a money printing press by now. But he earned it.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think about it 30 years ago he was likely renting a house in LA and modding amps in his garage.
 
Racerxrated said:
Lacking girth? Well, in my estimation you haven't played a real Marshall yet. Try a JMP non master Marshall, totally stock (with a boost or two for gain that approaches an SLO) 100w at volume. Jumper the channels for more girth with the rhythm channel blended in....stand back.
Click to expand...
Ya! Sound guys would love that. But your right I have not tried one. The one I have tried or heard others play (not the same amp you mentioned) sounded like razor blades being chucked at me at EVH would say :geek:
 
cragginshred77 said:
What a great way to describe what words often fail to do! Explains why every time I have tried a real Marshall I feel like it's lacking girth and has an annoying top end. The Slo has to be dialed in for me to find the sweet spot but when you do it's glorious.
Click to expand...

Marshalls are high-mid voice. It can be a bit annoying in a room, by yourself. Put them in the mix with a full band and they cut through and set perfectly where there's space for them. They can sometimes lack some lower mids, but those get taken up by toms anyone once you get going.

The SLO is lower voiced than classic Marshalls, not by enough to matter for being in the mix, but enough that I can see how someone would prefer one over the other. I like both.

Note to above: classic Marshalls do vary quite a bit by year, and even more by how they've aged, so they're always a bit of a crap-shoot on exactly how one will sound. There are magic ones, and there are duds, but most are pretty good.
 
rstites said:
Marshalls are high-mid voice. It can be a bit annoying in a room, by yourself. Put them in the mix with a full band and they cut through and set perfectly where there's space for them. They can sometimes lack some lower mids, but those get taken up by toms anyone once you get going.

The SLO is lower voiced than classic Marshalls, not by enough to matter for being in the mix, but enough that I can see how someone would prefer one over the other. I like both.

Note to above: classic Marshalls do vary quite a bit by year, and even more by how they've aged, so they're always a bit of a crap-shoot on exactly how one will sound. There are magic ones, and there are duds, but most are pretty good.
Click to expand...
Agreed on all ends except IMHO Marshall’s do cut better than SLOs in a live setting comparatively. I think a lot of others seemed to believe I was saying a SLO sounds awful but that couldn’t be farther from the truth. They sound great 👍
 
panhead said:
See right there shows how much these big amp makers are profiting.
Click to expand...
I guarantee you none of these guys are living the high life off building guitar amplifiers. Someone like Friedman is probably comfortable, as he deserves to be. Parts are only a tiny part of the cost of building anything. Add in labor, shop costs, fixed costs, expendables, etc., pay taxes. At the end of the day, I doubt even the best off of them are doing any better financially than if they worked 40 hours a week at aerodynamics company building/repairing FAA approved equipment - a good, solid middle classes career, but nobody is getting rich off it.
 
rstites said:
Marshalls are high-mid voice. It can be a bit annoying in a room, by yourself. Put them in the mix with a full band and they cut through and set perfectly where there's space for them. They can sometimes lack some lower mids, but those get taken up by toms anyone once you get going.

The SLO is lower voiced than classic Marshalls, not by enough to matter for being in the mix, but enough that I can see how someone would prefer one over the other. I like both.

Note to above: classic Marshalls do vary quite a bit by year, and even more by how they've aged, so they're always a bit of a crap-shoot on exactly how one will sound. There are magic ones, and there are duds, but most are pretty good.
Click to expand...
Funny no one distinguishes between the crunch channel and the OD ch in the Slo, they just say Slo. Also what Marshall exactly? They are not all the same.
I am boosting the crunch ch which is voiced very different than the OD channel. Part of my frustration with the Slo, however the crunch is a lot more upper mid voiced giving me a lot more string definition and to my ears. Also amazing cut!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top