Soldano SLO 100

[Rick Lee]

It's good to have options. I wonder what the poor people are doing today.

 

[marvcus]

I've been A/B'ing my SLO100 and Suhr SL67 a lot recently. Man, it's tough to pick just one.

Haha - this is easy. ch1, ch2

 

[Dfwxjer1]

It's good to have options. I wonder what the poor people are doing today.

 

[Rick Lee]

The next two weekends we're practicing in a large space for the first time in almost a year. Until now we've been doing near silent practice either virtually with Lutefish or using my GK 250ML and IEMs. Love my GK to pieces, but I'll finally get to bring the SLO and wind it up properly with the band. Gonna be glorious.

 

[glpg80]

The next two weekends we're practicing in a large space for the first time in almost a year. Until now we've been doing near silent practice either virtually with Lutefish or using my GK 250ML and IEMs. Love my GK to pieces, but I'll finally get to bring the SLO and wind it up properly with the band. Gonna be glorious.

That’s one thing that’s is indisputable about the SLO is that they really wake up at band volumes. I don’t know about the refreshed design that BAD did but the original designs had to be cranked up loud to sound their best. Every SLO that I’ve played loud the cabinets start to tap out well before the SLO is hitting its sweet spot especially when boosted.

I think it was @Racerxrated that said the real benefit of a SLO is that there is no bad sound to be found in them - every knob is usable from 0 to 10 as a tone shaping feature.

 

[Rick Lee]

What I know about running my SLO-30 is that it was "meh" when playing alone at home, but with the band it cut like a gamma knife. I lean toward less gain these days, so I think having the headroom of a 100 watter will be a little better with the band. Besides, and this is obviously the most important thing, it just looks cool.

 

[Lightning]

Soldano goes to 11 not 10

 

[Uzi Nein Millimetah]

What I know about running my SLO-30 is that it was "meh" when playing alone at home, but with the band it cut like a gamma knife. I lean toward less gain these days, so I think having the headroom of a 100 watter will be a little better with the band. Besides, and this is obviously the most important thing, it just looks cool.

I putzed around with an SLO30 in a guitar store and wasn't really wowed by it, but I have no doubt it comes alive with more volume.

I have the SLO pedal and it sounds awesome through my Mesas on the clean channel, even at moderate volume. I have yet to play the SLO 100 in anger, but I'm leaning toward the X88-IR anyway since I already have an awesome power amp (aye....but it's not purple..... ).

 

[tjnx]

popped up in the feed

 

[Dfwxjer1]

That’s one thing that’s is indisputable about the SLO is that they really wake up at band volumes. I don’t know about the refreshed design that BAD did but the original designs had to be cranked up loud to sound their best. Every SLO that I’ve played loud the cabinets start to tap out well before the SLO is hitting its sweet spot especially when boosted.

I think it was @Racerxrated that said the real benefit of a SLO is that there is no bad sound to be found in them - every knob is usable from 0 to 10 as a tone shaping feature.

Admittedly I have a BAD version, but one of my favorite aspects of the SLO is that it can still sound great at normal volumes. I have an 87 2555 that has to be really damn loud before it's in the sweet spot, while the SLO is more even across the board. I'm not sure how it compares to the previous Mike built SLOs so take it for what it's worth.

 

[Rick Lee]

I had a pre-BAD version and now the newest. It'd have to be next level cork sniffery to say one is better than the other. I don't think Soldanos are like old Marshalls, where some are beyond great and some are ok. Quality control has come a long way and I'm pretty sure Mike would not have let a substandard product out the door with his name on it. YMMV.

 

[rstites]

I had a pre-BAD version and now the newest. It'd have to be next level cork sniffery to say one is better than the other. I don't think Soldanos are like old Marshalls, where some are beyond great and some are ok. Quality control has come a long way and I'm pretty sure Mike would not have let a substandard product out the door with his name on it. YMMV.

I agree on this. I suppose the oldest ones have aged components, but still, late 80's and early 90's higher end components are far beyond what early Fenders and Marshalls were constructed with. I suspect the variance in SLO's is pretty minimal.

I also never found them a problem to play at home levels. They sound great. They sound better cranked up, but then so does every good tube amplifier.

 

[LPMojoGL]

I'd never run it this way before but I like it. Thanks for sharing the settings.

Found it while trying to make the SLO sound like my Marshall.
Dialed an SLO that way in the GC amproom that most pros hit when coming thru Dallas, when Robbie, the amproom man, said, "That's the way Mick Mars dials it in."
Guess I'm onto something.

 

[LPMojoGL]

What I know about running my SLO-30 is that it was "meh" when playing alone at home, but with the band it cut like a gamma knife. I lean toward less gain these days, so I think having the headroom of a 100 watter will be a little better with the band. Besides, and this is obviously the most important thing, it just looks cool.

I've found that the amps n pedals that sound best with a band, sound strident at home.

 

[LPMojoGL]

Admittedly I have a BAD version, but one of my favorite aspects of the SLO is that it can still sound great at normal volumes. I have an 87 2555 that has to be really damn loud before it's in the sweet spot, while the SLO is more even across the board. I'm not sure how it compares to the previous Mike built SLOs so take it for what it's worth.

Not much of a difference between OG and BAD. BAD is my fav, mostly due to the effects loop.