Some advice from those who've owned both Marks and a SLO?

[jdel77]

I'm seriously considering a SLO100. Always wanted one and 99% of the clips I've heard sound great.
I would realistically need to move one of my Marks to afford it though - I have MKIII Blue Stripe head which I've done the R2 Vol Mod to (placed it on the front in the footswitch jack hole, moved that jack to the back next to the R1/R2 jack) and a MKIV long head.
I absolutely LOVE both heads.
Both are running EL-34's in the outside positions - the MKIII is brutal little monster, which has bettered many high gain Marshall style amps I've tried against it. The MKIV is just a knife, super punchy and cuts in a heavy mix. I can get great sounds out of R1, R2 and Lead in both amps.
I use a Mesa Stiletto 4x12 and Mesa horizontal Recto 2x12 with an EVM12L+Mesa C90 Black Shadow

My questions are for people who may have owned either or both a Mark III and/or IV as well as a SLO:

1) Does the SLO bring something to the table that the III or IV can't do? (I'm primarily interested in the tonal difference between the III and IV's Lead channel and the SLO's Lead channel)
2) Did you keep the SLO, or go back to a Mark?
3) any glaring advantages/disadvantages between the two? (I know the SLO needs a 4db boost in the passive loop - does this work to resolve any volume loss? (I'm only going off what I've read on the net - I've only played a SLO for literally 1 minute at talking volume and thought it sounded ok).

Any help or info much appreciated!
Cheers,
Jesse.

 

[RockyStar]

I would agree with the SLO sounding BIGGER. I also would say it takes less time to figure out dialing it in for certain things which isn't a big deal but it is truth. Based on the Mesa amps you have I myself wouldn't feel you are losing anything by moving a Mesa to get the Soldano. You can always get another if you change your mind. If you can use the SLO at volume I think it is a no brainer. If you can never crank it up and let it stretch its legs you will not get to the meat of what it is. To me, an SLO is something everybody should have. If you ever run a stereo rig and SLO can work with just about any other amp you would join with it and sound great. Not a lot of amps can do that. The SLO is indeed a special amp.

 

[Jack Luminous]

I played for a long time with a Triaxis/2:90 rig (somewhat close to the MarkIII/MarkIV tone) before I discovered Soldano about 10 years ago. Since I have my SLO, I fire up the Boogie rig about twice a year and appreciate it for an hour or so and then I go back to the SLO. The Boogie is perhaps more suited for smooth lead tones a la Santana or Allan Holdsworth. The high freqs are a bit subdued to my ears. The SLO is rawer, more agressive. You have to try it at volume with your favourite guitar and see for yourself it that works for you.

 

[cecilbag]

I have owned two mk iv's and a 2c along with other boogies (dc5, tons of rectifiers, nomad 45, etc). I still play my Boogies but mainly at home. Once I played my first show with my SLO it was lights out. I know some will argue that it doesn't have to be turned up. It can sound fine at lower volumes. I just think it takes on a special something when it starts really moving air. The best way I can describe it is that when you are soloing, it feels like you are hard wired to the strings. You just have to play one in a band context to truly appreciate the feel and touch of the amp. Greatest lead amp I've ever played.

 

[SavageRiffer]

Look man, Mesa Boogie is still making some of the greatest amps. I have played many and owned a few vintage Mesas, including a Mark IIC+ and Mark IV, but I think Mesa Boogie's current offerings are even better. Now the SLO will always bring something no other amp can. It just has an amazing sound that is THE epitome of the Soldano sound. It's response is amazing, and short of the JP2C, no Mesa Boogie is going to have that. The single thing about Mesas that never agreed with me is the feel.

As far as I'm concerned, whatever you lose on your Mark, you can easily make up for with a new Mesa Boogie. It's worth getting an SLO. It's 100 solid watts though, but I know a guy who uses one of those Torpedo devices and he has an amazing sound without shattering any eardrums.

 

[cardinal]

I thought the SLO sounds like a Mark that I can actually dial in consistently and has a better/thicker crunch tone. The Marks are cool, but I think the things that the Mark is good at, the SLO is even better at. But I don't play thrashy Metallica type metal. The Mark probably is better at that.

 

[Racerxrated]

I think they are different enough to justify owning an SLO and keeping your favorite Mark. The SLO will sound bigger and bolder with incredible note separation and articulation, because of its awesome power section. The Marks can't keep up with that, unless you slave it out to a great power amp or you have a Coli. I have a 2C+ and owned my last SLO at the same time, different tone IMO. I boost everything including both amps to get more upper mids from the pedal, not necessarily to increase gain. Even doing that they were different enough at volume to give me great variety. Only reason I sold the SLO is the need for cash at the time, and they come up for sale more often so easier to replace than the C+. Thinking of getting another, or a Wizard....that Damn Wizard haunts my dreams! Lol

 

[braintheory]

I'm gonna have to disagree with the others here. I used to have an slo and while it was a great amp I saw no reason to keep it once I got a Mark iic+ hrg and wizard modern classic. I can see why some say the SLO sounds bigger but the Mark iic+ has a much bigger and tighter bottom end which made it seem bigger to me and it's for sure the more raw, organic sounding amp. I haven't played any amps made today that are as raw or organic as vintage mesas or marshalls, but I'd say the Helios comes super close. I much preferred the chugs on the Mesa since they were tighter, bigger and more percussive. I also preferred it for leads. It was more liquidy, singy and felt better to play and the notes in sweeped runs came out more distinctly. The power chords on the iic+ also had much more growl and aggression while the slo was a bit smoother on power chords; less growl. The slo did have a brightness, upper mids, openness and breathed like everyone else said compared to the mark iic+ but I felt the wizard did all that even better and made the slo sound small in comparison. Also, I hear so many guys here rave about the slo's clarity and while I agree, there are other amps with even better clarity imo such as the Cameron ccv, Friedman Phil X and peters fsm. My ccv is probably the most articulate amp I've tried. I also thought the slo had a rubbery feel to it which I wasn't crazy about, while I'd say a 5150 or Mesa mark iic+ for example feels more liquidy and something like a vh4 or Randall thrasher feels more solid/stiff if that makes any sense. Again the slo sounded great and I'm not at all trying to bash it, but I just thought it was overrated. It's funny how when I owned it I kept hearing guys say it's overrated and now that I don't, I start hearing all this praise about it again.

Also to be fair I didn't have the loop mod or know that the gain knob on the 1st channel affected the lead channel, so maybe that could've changed my opinion? I did though try it at all the different volume spectrum and after about 9 or 10 o'clock I didn't think it improved anymore from there. I'd be curious though to give the slo another chance since it seems to be getting a lot of love lately and I'd try messing around with channel 1's gain knob

 

[jdel77]

Very interesting and hugely appreciated guys. Thankyou.
I'm going to try to borrow a friend's for the weekend and A/B it. I'm very keen to hear one of these things for myself and see if it's for me

 

[Racerxrated]

Very interesting and hugely appreciated guys. Thankyou.
I'm going to try to borrow a friend's for the weekend and A/B it. I'm very keen to hear one of these things for myself and see if it's for me

Don't be afraid to boost it, and try it with the presence maxed and treble off/very low. That setting I got off of the Soldano forum, and really paid off with greenbacks/65s. I just used an eq pedal with a little frown. The rest of the eq and gain were set between 5-7. Lead channel.

 

[Marshall Freak]

If you're used to the lead tones, and love the lead tones of a Mark series amp, you're probably not going to be all that impressed with the SLO. I've had two, and while I think they're a great amp, I laugh when I see the guys saying it's the greatest amp ever made. It may be for them... but it's not for everyone. I've owned 2 100 watt Mark 2c+, 3 Mark iii, both versions of the Mark IV and have a JP2C, now, as well as rectifiers. I imagine you're going to find that by the time you get the highs tamed in the SLO, you will dislike the low end. And when you get the low end tight, you'll feel like you're ripping faces off with the highs. Mark series amp have a fatness to the highs while retaining low end thump that not many amps can come close to.

I'm not trying to bag on the SLO, a lot of great tones are in then, just my opinion on what I'm thinking you'll find compared to your amps now.

 

[Mesa\Kramer]

I own both a MK III and a SLO

The SLO delivers a singing lead tone and 3D like sound unique to all other amps
The best lead sound of any amp i have ever played or owned

I still own both but never use the MK III

The SLO's loop is horrible and unusable for me.
Where it is placed in the circut makes delay's/Verbs buried while playing with gain no matter what rack or level the unit is.

If you already have a MK then for sure I would get the SLO
with the master up a bit and in a good live room, no need for effects
(If you rely on and must have a really true wet effects sound, then the SLO's loop will be a deal breaker)

 

[slash57]

I had my Mark IV before I got the SLO.
I prefer the tighter sound of the mark, I'm actually about to sell my SLO.

For Lead sounds, they're both awesome though. I just hate pedals, of course I could run the SLO with a TS style pedal in front, but that really takes away a lot of the body. The Mark for me just sounds bigger and still tighter.

 

[Jack Luminous]

I read that several times on here : "the SLO low end is not tight enough". I really don't understand that statement. Mine is insanely percussive. Palm-mutes are really percussive and huge. I never felt the need to put a pedal in front. Maybe the rest of the gear is responsible for the lack of tightness... Bridge pickup, wood, too thin guitar pick, etc. Or maybe it's time to change preamp tubes.... Also, on the lead channel, the gain is optimal around 6. After that it starts to become mushy because there's really too much if it.

 

[slash57]

Maybe your amp sounds different than mine (maybe it's the tubes, who knows). I never have the gain over 6, and I get tight sounds out of my guitars with my other amps. Lots of people seem to use a clean boost to tighten the SLO up a bit, for metal at least.

Anyways the OP wrote he can borrow an amp, so he can make a picture for himself

 

[Jayy]

I read that several times on here : "the SLO low end is not tight enough". I really don't understand that statement. Mine is insanely percussive. Palm-mutes are really percussive and huge. I never felt the need to put a pedal in front. Maybe the rest of the gear is responsible for the lack of tightness... Bridge pickup, wood, too thin guitar pick, etc. Or maybe it's time to change preamp tubes.... Also, on the lead channel, the gain is optimal around 6. After that it starts to become mushy because there's really too much if it.

I think you are dead on with this. My SLO has plenty of low end and it is tight, but depends on the rest o the signal chain. I found one of my A2 magnet pickups made the low end feel loose because it had a slower response on top of the slightly soft feel of the SLO. It really didn't sound like loose low end as much as it "felt" like loose low end, if that makes sense. You are also right that gain on the overdrive preamp above about six just gets so distorted and fuzzy that it makes things sound looser. Speakers also make a huge difference.

If you use a pickup with a nice fast response and that doesn't over emphasize the bass frequencies and also use speakers that are fast without too much low end emphasis the SLO will respond with a great, tight low end.

 

[gbsmusic]

I've went through just about every amp or played them and the SLO is by far the best amp I have ever played and heard! If you have a good delay pedal the loop is fine. The only thing that's bad if you think it's bad is it sounds better as the volume goes up!!!! Some amps fall apart with volume this one gets better!!!!!

 

[155]

Ive had the slo and mark iv still have the mark iv and got a hr25, the mark iv just has such a great lead channel I can use for most anything and a good clean, the slo on the other hand need to be cranked up too much to get it where I wanted hence the hr25 which gets me where I want at lower volume levels, slo clean isnt great at all either, if I could have one mark iv all the way...

 

[SavageRiffer]

My SLO is as tight as any of my high gain amps. Perfectly chuggy.

Modding the loop to work with all pedals etc is easy and take 15 minutes.
No extra tubes or anything, it's not a incredibly hard mod and can. D done by any competent tech.


Here is what mine sounds like: (Master Volume was BARELY opened up and it was still loud!)

I know it's not cranked up, but man that sounds freaking good. One of the best SLO demos on Youtube to be honest.

 

[Fordman65]

My SLO is as tight as any of my high gain amps. Perfectly chuggy.

Modding the loop to work with all pedals etc is easy and take 15 minutes.
No extra tubes or anything, it's not a incredibly hard mod and can. D done by any competent tech.


Here is what mine sounds like: (Master Volume was BARELY opened up and it was still loud!)

I know it's not cranked up, but man that sounds freaking good. One of the best SLO demos on Youtube to be honest.

I much prefer his C++ vid. A much more liquid feel. If this is the "best" SLO tone, they're not for me personally. I see why people like it though.