This is it.. Friedman Marsha/SLO/or PT100..update question!!

[suhrimmetal]

Alright..with all my thinking and thoughts from fellow members I have narrowed down my choices to a Marsha(Friedman), SLO 100, or keep my PT100. If any of you have played all, or heard all, or just have an opinion...please let me have it. I play everything from Andy Timmons to John Petrucci, 80's rock and modern hard rock...no nu metal. I play lead and rhythm for Rock cover band and we cover ALOT of ground

ex.. GnR, Skid Row, Andy Timmons, John Petrucci, Alice in Chains, Shinedown, Winger, STP, Cinderella, Journey, Black Stone Cherry, etc... Thanks guyz

 

[LP Freak]

I'd go with the Friedman but I think the PT100 would fit the bill too. It's really personal preference. You won't get a better modded Marshall tone than the Friedman though and it can be really versatile depending on the options you choose.

 

[rokker]

I have the Marsha and SLO and have played a PT multiple times.
From the "lot of ground" need I would stick with the PT. You will lose one of the PT's channels with the others.
The SLO's clean was OK nothing great, but not bad. Marsha now only comes with the simple clean which I don't think can sound as clean as the PT's clean.
with the PT you truly have clean/crunch/lead. You won't have that with the other two.
If you have any need for a straight clean stay with the PT. If you need to boost the PT to marsha levels of gain get a naked or similar OD or a Suhr isoboost.

 

[Mr. Willy]

That's a hard decision. All three are awesome. I'd go for the Marsha, I dig hot-rodded Marshall tones. Have you played all three?

 

[Ayrton]

In this order for your needs...

PT100
Marsha
SLO 100

 

[LP Freak]

I have the Marsha and SLO and have played a PT multiple times.
From the "lot of ground" need I would stick with the PT. You will lose one of the PT's channels with the others.
The SLO's clean was OK nothing great, but not bad. Marsha now only comes with the simple clean which I don't think can sound as clean as the PT's clean.
with the PT you truly have clean/crunch/lead. You won't have that with the other two.
If you have any need for a straight clean stay with the PT. If you need to boost the PT to marsha levels of gain get a naked or similar OD or a Suhr isoboost.

The Simple clean sounds great by adding a eq in the loop.

 

[suhrimmetal]

I haven't played a Marsha yet..played a SLO back in the day but don't remember much about it..too many beerz since then. I love the tones and versatality of the PT and I also run a Kokoboost out front with midboost at 9o'clock, freq toggle far left and set to true bypass. I think with the prez around 5, feedback(controls tightness/sagginess) around 6-7(higher being tighter) and whomp at 1/2...I could come fairly close to the Marsha tone..or at the least, have a killer Hot rodded Marshall tone. My only question is this since Im no sound guy or amp guru in the least. With my ss fx loop active and using my return on back of amp as master volume, is it better to have my channel levels on front of amp up higher and keep return on back of amp lower(since stage volume isn't real loud) or should I have channel levels on front lower and return(master volume) cranked up higher??..or does it even matter? Just want to make sure the tubes are heating up and finding the sweet spot correctly.. Also want to make sure that Im using the PT100 to her full potential. Thanx guyz

 

[Even Bigger D]

I would go with the PT100 - the other two are pretty limited from a live perspective unless you also use other amps.

Or you could shell out the cash and run a CAE 3+SE into a Soldano SM-100R. Best of several worlds IMO.

 

[LP Freak]

I would go with the PT100 - the other two are pretty limited from a live perspective unless you also use other amps.

Or you could shell out the cash and run a CAE 3+SE into a Soldano SM-100R. Best of several worlds IMO.

Not true with the Friedman.

 

[petethorn]

Hi- yes on your PT run the channel masters higher (between 3 and 6 or so) and use the loop vol. on the back to set overall level, this sounds best to me.

I have a Marsha too- it's a great amp- I wouldn't classify it as having more gain- they are comparable amps, gain-wise. Both are a take on the modded Marshall thing, on ch2 (or ch2/3). In laymans terms, in spirit i think the Marsha is modded plexi and PT is a cross between modded plexi and modded-out jcm800. Both have a mode that adds a tube for more gain (boost on PT, HBE on Marsha), yadda yadda. The voicing of the CAA PT is a bit different, but you can make them sound pretty close.

You should have it covered, with your PT. Love the koko boost! It's addictive as a lead boost.

 

[rokker]

I don't think the Marsha is anywhere as flexible as the PT. The Marsha is the pinnacle of hot rodded Marshall tone but the PT is one of a handful of true 3 channel amps that are reasonably priced that can do a lot. The others that appear to have lots of tone shaping options are the 20th A XTC, CCV, a few Diezels, Fortin Meathead, maybe a few others....of all these the PT is the least expensive. PT with the KOKO mid boost sounds like a good combo to me. I wouldn't run V30's like the CAA cabs come with but that's me...don't like V30's. Use Pete's wisdom and run some M75's and the PT will sound even more like the Marsha. Nearly all Marsha clips are either M or M&H75 Scumbacks. PT clips are using lots of speakers. This is an overlooked detail to getting the smoking Marshall sounds IMO.

 

[Even Bigger D]

I would go with the PT100 - the other two are pretty limited from a live perspective unless you also use other amps.

Or you could shell out the cash and run a CAE 3+SE into a Soldano SM-100R. Best of several worlds IMO.

Not true with the Friedman.

Assuming I'm not getting my amps mixed up, the Marsha has a shared EQ and only semi-cleans, right?

That's what I mean by limited.

 

[suhrimmetal]

Thx so much Pete for your advice and time! Appreciate it greatly. U r an incredible player and cool dude and an inspiration to me. Lookn forward to gettin guitar nerd. Good luck and keep rockin! My pt100 is staying put. Thx guys 4 all the advice!

 

[LP Freak]

I would go with the PT100 - the other two are pretty limited from a live perspective unless you also use other amps.

Or you could shell out the cash and run a CAE 3+SE into a Soldano SM-100R. Best of several worlds IMO.

Not true with the Friedman.

Assuming I'm not getting my amps mixed up, the Marsha has a shared EQ and only semi-cleans, right?

That's what I mean by limited.

The EQ's not shared and the clean is clean, not semi-clean.

 

[Even Bigger D]

The EQ's not shared and the clean is clean, not semi-clean.

Uh, what? The Marsha I saw had one EQ. Are we talking about the same amp?

 

[rupe]

The EQ's not shared and the clean is clean, not semi-clean.

Uh, what? The Marsha I saw had one EQ. Are we talking about the same amp?

There are many different builds of this amp. Mine has the full clean on the back (Blackface Fender pre with V, B, T) with the normal compliment of Marshall controls on the front, plus a second set of gain/MV knobs that essentially makes this a 3 channel amp for gigging purposes, albeit with shared eq on the dirty tones. This is no problem for me but can be "fixed" by using an eq in the footswitchable loop. I take this rig to a funk gig one week (yes, the cleans are THAT good) and a metal gig the next...I believe that I've found "my" amp.

I love the SLO but find it needs to be too loud to sound good for most applications and for some reason doesn't seem to like to be attenuated...not sure if others have had this issue or not. Its cleans are also fairly pedestrian. For pure blazing aggression, nothing beats it IMO...one of my all time favorite amps.

Never played a PT100 so I can't comment other than to say I've liked the OD100's that I've played...especially the clean tones.

 

[LP Freak]

The EQ's not shared and the clean is clean, not semi-clean.

Uh, what? The Marsha I saw had one EQ. Are we talking about the same amp?

Yes, the Simple Clean has a preset EQ. There aren't any controls.

 

[Nico]

Cool thread. I think you make the right decision keeping the PT. It appears as you love the amp and you're gassing for something else. I assure you there is no thing as an ultimate amp. There is always another one on your mind...

 

[The Hoff]

I've played all three and have owned the PT/SLO. I'd definitely go with the PT for your needs. It didn't sound as "modern" as I liked but that's probably a good thing for your needs.

Either way, that is one hell of a list to choose from

 

[rokker]

For ME the PT is too modern LOL.
You wouldn't need a PA with an SLO....it could sub for a concete jackhammer in a pinch.
IMO SLO's are just wayyyy too loud. I'm talking permanent deafness not just hearing loss.
To truly experience an SLO you have to blast it (master above 6). Do that with the gain up and look out.
Don't get too close to the cab or it might crush your balls....seriously.