Splawn question

[braintheory]

So I've tried the Splawn Quick Rod, Nitro, Street Rod, and one of the single channel quick rod variations (forgot what it was called) and none of them were for me. I found them to generally be too congested/boxy and lacking the rawness of a good Marshall. But a while ago I tried a Splawn that was again the single channel 100 watt version of the Quick Rod and it sounded amazing and way better than any of the other Splawn I've tried before. I asked the guy who owned it why it sounded so much better, and he said one of his friends upgraded the transformers and caps and that it's also an older model. What do you guys think? Is it the Transformer upgrade or did some of the older models sound that much better?

 

[crwnedblasphemy]

No comment.

 

[311boogieman]

I've heard that some of the older ones had more mojo (the 3 pre versions). Scott added a 4th (3rd technically as V4 is the PI) preamp tube for the clean channel (V1) sometime after '06?

Mine is an '08 and has Heyboers. It is definitely not congested or boxy - unless the volume is real low maybe.

I have yet to hear a 'bad' Splawn (outside of maybe my own clips)

I would love to try his latest incarnation which has the B+, mid-cut, old-new. That would be interesting switching back and forth between old-new.

I honestly cannot see why anyone would need to upgrade the trannys or the caps but anything is possible.

 

[sahlomonic]

It's very difficult to get a high gain amplifier to get that old school Marshall roar because you're talking about 2 different types of gain basically. Older non-master volume Marshalls relied on driving the power tubes to get them to distort and get that great sound, but nowadays amps are designed to use more preamp distortion to we can get gain at lower volumes.

Now, having said that, my Splawn QR does everything I've wanted in terms of that hot rodded Marshall sound. Mine is an '09 (I think has Classic Tone iron), and it roars. Next to my Friedman modded Jet City amp it's the best amp I've ever owned.

It's also my opinion that the more features you add to an amp, the less "pure" it's going to sound. So with that theory, I'd bet the older 'non-gear' Quickrods sound more ballsy than the latest versions.

 

[Lord Toneking]

I've played a lot of QRs built in different years and I can honestly say that my old 3 pre sounds the best. It's a tad bit noisy but it does have a special mojo that was lost over the years when Scott was trying to make the amp better for the complaints of many (more gain, more saturation, a better clean channel, etc)
I think nowadays he's seeing that the older ones get the most praise so he's incorporating that into the newer builds. Kind of like the best of all of worlds of Splawn...not that any of them sound bad, just different

 

[Tone Ranger]

I have a 3 pre version. Sounded meaner than an old bandmates 2010. It needs a new home though.

 

[braintheory]

What exactly does it mean "3 pre"?

 

[hammered]

What exactly does it mean "3 pre"?

3 preamp tubes

 

[Gadzz]

Having a 50 watt Competition currently being built I did add the new/old switch hoping it will deliver that older mojo.. It's going to replace my SR head which I absolutely love but I never use clean channel and the head is on the larger side.. The Comp is getting done in a small box head! I'll report back when she arrives

 

[Chris6870]

I hear a lot more people saying how the older versions sounded much better. Sometimes absence makes the heart grow fonder. The reason they were updated was because the complaints were the clean channel was horrible,they were loud as fuck and had a volume taper that was hard to control unless you were playing a stadium. They had little saturation, were dry and you had to fight with it a little to get notes at low volume. So Scott made improvements through the years to address his customers concerns. I think the 2012 through present are some of the best amps made at a great price point. I had a 2007 and a 2012. The 2012 is much better IMO. Just remember when your chasing that "mojo" that may or may not be in the older versions, you also get all the shortcomings that come with it.

 

[peckhart]

I hear a lot more people saying how the older versions sounded much better. Sometimes absence makes the heart grow fonder. The reason they were updated was because the complaints were the clean channel was horrible,they were loud as fuck and had a volume taper that was hard to control unless you were playing a stadium. They had little saturation, were dry and you had to fight with it a little to get notes at low volume. So Scott made improvements through the years to address his customers concerns. I think the 2012 through present are some of the best amps made at a great price point. I had a 2007 and a 2012. The 2012 is much better IMO. Just remember when your chasing that "mojo" that may or may not be in the older versions, you also get all the shortcomings that come with it.

That is some great perspective right there!

 

[messenger]

I hear a lot more people saying how the older versions sounded much better. Sometimes absence makes the heart grow fonder. The reason they were updated was because the complaints were the clean channel was horrible,they were loud as fuck and had a volume taper that was hard to control unless you were playing a stadium. They had little saturation, were dry and you had to fight with it a little to get notes at low volume. So Scott made improvements through the years to address his customers concerns. I think the 2012 through present are some of the best amps made at a great price point. I had a 2007 and a 2012. The 2012 is much better IMO. Just remember when your chasing that "mojo" that may or may not be in the older versions, you also get all the shortcomings that come with it.

It's funny how that works. Amp manufacturers continue to update their amps to please their customers and then the customer says the originals are far better. Mesa is a prime example.