Throwdown: Diezel D-Moll Vs. CAA PT100

[AmpliFIRE]

My Landry smokes both IMO. I'd get anything instead of a PT100. Owned one for a year and didn't bond with it

I owned a Landry for a short time. I don't think it has much in common with the Diezel or Suhr's of the world. I wouldn't exactly call the Landry a high gain amp, especially not compared with the others. Diezels and Suhr amps have a lot more gain but the Landry sounds a LOT more Marshally than the others. I can see why you'd pick the Landry but I can see 85% of this forum picking either of the other 2. For anything from the 70's the Landry is better.

I had the PT-100 a year. I'd take the Diezel sight unseen over it, that's how much I didn't like it.

Dan played your old PT at my house and we both liked it a lot...much more so than his Einstein. Don't forget, there was a bad power tube in the amp when I got it, I'm sure that had something to do with you not liking it. The amp was killer when I installed new tubes in it.

 

[carlygtr]

My Landry smokes both IMO. I'd get anything instead of a PT100. Owned one for a year and didn't bond with it

I owned a Landry for a short time. I don't think it has much in common with the Diezel or Suhr's of the world. I wouldn't exactly call the Landry a high gain amp, especially not compared with the others. Diezels and Suhr amps have a lot more gain but the Landry sounds a LOT more Marshally than the others. I can see why you'd pick the Landry but I can see 85% of this forum picking either of the other 2. For anything from the 70's the Landry is better.

I had the PT-100 a year. I'd take the Diezel sight unseen over it, that's how much I didn't like it.

Dan played your old PT at my house and we both liked it a lot...much more so than his Einstein. Don't forget, there was a bad power tube in the amp when I got it, I'm sure that had something to do with you not liking it. The amp was killer when I installed new tubes in it.

Tubes were fine a whole year I had it. Just not my kinda distorted tone. Plus I thought the thing was bass heavey. Crunch ch worthless Glad it's gone.
I did like the CAE 3+SE when I had it

 

[thiswaythatway]

My Landry smokes both IMO. I'd get anything instead of a PT100. Owned one for a year and didn't bond with it

I owned a Landry for a short time. I don't think it has much in common with the Diezel or Suhr's of the world. I wouldn't exactly call the Landry a high gain amp, especially not compared with the others. Diezels and Suhr amps have a lot more gain but the Landry sounds a LOT more Marshally than the others. I can see why you'd pick the Landry but I can see 85% of this forum picking either of the other 2. For anything from the 70's the Landry is better.

I had the PT-100 a year. I'd take the Diezel sight unseen over it, that's how much I didn't like it.

Dan played your old PT at my house and we both liked it a lot...much more so than his Einstein. Don't forget, there was a bad power tube in the amp when I got it, I'm sure that had something to do with you not liking it. The amp was killer when I installed new tubes in it.

Tubes were fine a whole year I had it. Just not my kinda distorted tone. Plus I thought the thing was bass heavey. Crunch ch worthless Glad it's gone.
I did like the CAE 3+SE when I had it

All the other Suhr amps I played I didn't like, SteveVHT had a few of them. I thought the cleans were great but the gain tones on those amps were aweful IMHO. I only played the PT100 for a little bit and kinda liked it, but it was for a little bit. But when I played the PT100 I wasn't thinking I had to sell stuff to get one. The more and more I play all these amps the more I realize I'm fine with either Mesa or Marshall.

 

[MR MARCUS]

My Landry smokes both IMO. I'd get anything instead of a PT100. Owned one for a year and didn't bond with it

I owned a Landry for a short time. I don't think it has much in common with the Diezel or Suhr's of the world. I wouldn't exactly call the Landry a high gain amp, especially not compared with the others. Diezels and Suhr amps have a lot more gain but the Landry sounds a LOT more Marshally than the others. I can see why you'd pick the Landry but I can see 85% of this forum picking either of the other 2. For anything from the 70's the Landry is better.

I had the PT-100 a year. I'd take the Diezel sight unseen over it, that's how much I didn't like it.

I also had a PT100. It did nothing for me. I kept it for about 6 months before I finally gave up on it.

 

[Nico]

Have not tried the PT-100 based on clips alone I'd go with Suhr.
Own a Diezel Einstein, great amp, but I favor the Marshall tones a lot more...

Theyr are completely different amps, modern, tight, compressed vs hot rodded Marshall tones. Take your pick

 

[ocgeardisorder]

I think that d moll sounded amazing. It seems to do it all. The clean was stellar! Great player also though....

 

[Faxanadu]

I got Dmoll 'cause it sounds / reacts different than a Marshall, I was tired of the Marshall standard of tone.
Yet Dmoll can get close to this Marshall tone everybody wants. It seems so with all the Diezel brand amps.

I have it since few weeks and am completely satisfied. I use it in home studio. I heard a lot of good about it on stage also, but never experienced.

Have no experience with PT100 but colleagues and friends I know all like it. I have heard some guys comparing it to Soldano SLO100...

 

[Schaf]

My Landry smokes both IMO. I'd get anything instead of a PT100. Owned one for a year and didn't bond with it

I owned a Landry for a short time. I don't think it has much in common with the Diezel or Suhr's of the world. I wouldn't exactly call the Landry a high gain amp, especially not compared with the others. Diezels and Suhr amps have a lot more gain but the Landry sounds a LOT more Marshally than the others. I can see why you'd pick the Landry but I can see 85% of this forum picking either of the other 2. For anything from the 70's the Landry is better.

I had the PT-100 a year. I'd take the Diezel sight unseen over it, that's how much I didn't like it.

Dan played your old PT at my house and we both liked it a lot...much more so than his Einstein. Don't forget, there was a bad power tube in the amp when I got it, I'm sure that had something to do with you not liking it. The amp was killer when I installed new tubes in it.

Tubes were fine a whole year I had it. Just not my kinda distorted tone. Plus I thought the thing was bass heavey. Crunch ch worthless Glad it's gone.
I did like the CAE 3+SE when I had it

All the other Suhr amps I played I didn't like, SteveVHT had a few of them. I thought the cleans were great but the gain tones on those amps were aweful IMHO. I only played the PT100 for a little bit and kinda liked it, but it was for a little bit. But when I played the PT100 I wasn't thinking I had to sell stuff to get one. The more and more I play all these amps the more I realize I'm fine with either Mesa or Marshall.

Tha's the thing. I always dial my amps in to sound the same. Doesn't matter what it is. So I'm sure with either amp, I would dial it in to sound like a JCM with a Ts in front. lol