Wizard Modern Classic compared to Friedman

[FLYINRYAN11]

Has anyone had a chance to play the Modern Classic 2 and the Phil X side by side? Trying to decide on my next amp. I'm a Friedman fan for sure and really like the percussive thing the Phil X has compared to Daves other amps but from the clips iv heard the Wizard also has that quality and maybe a little more. Hard to tell on clips though so if anyone has any input that would be great! Thanks!

 

[LP Freak]

Has anyone had a chance to play the Modern Classic 2 and the Phil X side by side? Trying to decide on my next amp. I'm a Friedman fan for sure and really like the percussive thing the Phil X has compared to Daves other amps but from the clips iv heard the Wizard also has that quality and maybe a little more. Hard to tell on clips though so if anyone has any input that would be great! Thanks!

What makes you think the X is more percussive than other Friedman amps?

 

[FLYINRYAN11]

From the clips it seems the X has more "clank" if you will on the front of the note and more attack if that makes sense. Maybe because its less gainy. Iv got a be100 2015 and it seems to give a little or squish a bit on the attack. However I think the 2016 revisions made the amp more raw and open and less compressed compared to mine.

 

[lespaul6]

I have not tried the phil x but the modern classic is a mix of plexi and jcm 800... notes are big with toothy definition and clank.

 

[journeyman73]

The phil x attack is more immediate than other friedmans, to me...

But NOTHING compares to the attack, crunch, and clank of the wizard.

Side-by-side, the wizard will make a friedman seem like marshall jvm levels of compression and ‘smear’..

I dont mean that as negative as it may sound about the friedman - some find the wizard TOO brash and immediate to the point of fatigue...

Just really depends on what you want - the X is a very immediate Friedman but not compared to a Wizard.

 

[LP Freak]

The phil x attack is more immediate than other friedmans, to me...

But NOTHING compares to the attack, crunch, and clank of the wizard.

Side-by-side, the wizard will make a friedman seem like marshall jvm levels of compression and ‘smear’..

I dont mean that as negative as it may sound about the friedman - some find the wizard TOO brash and immediate to the point of fatigue...

Just really depends on what you want - the X is a very immediate Friedman but not compared to a Wizard.

I had an MC2 and couldn’t agree more about being brash. It caused ear fatigue to the point where it literally hurt.

 

[Racerxrated]

Has anyone had a chance to play the Modern Classic 2 and the Phil X side by side? Trying to decide on my next amp. I'm a Friedman fan for sure and really like the percussive thing the Phil X has compared to Daves other amps but from the clips iv heard the Wizard also has that quality and maybe a little more. Hard to tell on clips though so if anyone has any input that would be great! Thanks!

In a Marshall style amp, nothing is more percussive than a 100w Wizard. I had a MTL50 and it was percussive as hell. I've owned 2 BEs and played most of the Friedmans and they are not at the level of a Wizard for that percussive feel. But the Friedmans will track faster giving you the impression that they are easier to play, but are also more compressed than the Wizards. But the Wizard is SO uncompressed it almost feels like it needs some lol....

Both are great and it's just a matter of taste.

 

[Alex_S]

The phil x attack is more immediate than other friedmans, to me...

But NOTHING compares to the attack, crunch, and clank of the wizard.

Side-by-side, the wizard will make a friedman seem like marshall jvm levels of compression and ‘smear’..

I dont mean that as negative as it may sound about the friedman - some find the wizard TOO brash and immediate to the point of fatigue...

Just really depends on what you want - the X is a very immediate Friedman but not compared to a Wizard.

I had an MC2 and couldn’t agree more about being brash. It caused ear fatigue to the point where it literally hurt.

Hahaha, that’s exactly why I love the Wizard (no experience with the PhilX but owned a BE). It plays and sounds much more direct, not smearing. Like an amp and not a modeler or recording of an amp. Tastes are different...

 

[zuel69]

The phil x attack is more immediate than other friedmans, to me...

But NOTHING compares to the attack, crunch, and clank of the wizard.

Side-by-side, the wizard will make a friedman seem like marshall jvm levels of compression and ‘smear’..

I dont mean that as negative as it may sound about the friedman - some find the wizard TOO brash and immediate to the point of fatigue...

Just really depends on what you want - the X is a very immediate Friedman but not compared to a Wizard.

I had an MC2 and couldn’t agree more about being brash. It caused ear fatigue to the point where it literally hurt.

I had a 2016 loaded Wizard MC2, Friedman Phil X, 2016 BE-100 all at the same time.

The only one I kept is the 2016 BE-100. The BE-100 played and sounded better than the Phil X to me, I think the attack is faster on the the BE-100.

The Wizard is an amazing sounding, built amp but running the 4cm with the fx8 the Friedman loops are still the best.

 

[LP Freak]

The phil x attack is more immediate than other friedmans, to me...

But NOTHING compares to the attack, crunch, and clank of the wizard.

Side-by-side, the wizard will make a friedman seem like marshall jvm levels of compression and ‘smear’..

I dont mean that as negative as it may sound about the friedman - some find the wizard TOO brash and immediate to the point of fatigue...

Just really depends on what you want - the X is a very immediate Friedman but not compared to a Wizard.

I had an MC2 and couldn’t agree more about being brash. It caused ear fatigue to the point where it literally hurt.

I had a 2016 loaded Wizard MC2, Friedman Phil X, 2016 BE-100 all at the same time.

The only one I kept is the 2016 BE-100. The BE-100 played and sounded better than the Phil X to me, I think the attack is faster on the the BE-100.

The Wizard is an amazing sounding, built amp but running the 4cm with the fx8 the Friedman loops are still the best.

I have the same set up and agree

 

[marshall2553]

I've had an MC25, Smallbox and BE50. I have not tried a Phil X though. If you want immediate, percussive attack and less compression the MC is for you. I swear that 25W Wizard hit harder than any 50W amp I've had. I like the smooth, more compressed Friedman thing, but the Wizard was very cool.

 

[flimz]

Dont count out the MTL...the "saturation" knob has a very slight way of impacting the attack of the notes. Yes, it adds a tremendous amount of gain...but if you lower the gain knob and turn up the saturation, it almost seems to add a bit of pseudo-compression to the attack. Maybe other MTL players can confirm this.
But all Wizards are very very punchy!

 

[RedB4Black]

Wizards are definitely more percussive, open and uncompressed. I've hardly touched my BE-100 since I got the MTL and subsequently the MC2. It's a great amp, but to me, it doesn't compare with the Wizards. I lean toward the super-tight, uncompressed, not overly saturated percussive amps. To me, the Wizards, my Ultra Lead and Gemini are perfect for that. I finally put the BE up for sale last week. I liked having it, but it seemed stupid to sit on something - just to have - when I hardly played it.

 

[Racerxrated]

One thing to mention are the mids, on the MTL I had they were very different than a Marshall. To me anyway. If you want more of a true Marshall midrange don't get the MTL. MCII is closer.

 

[braintheory]

One thing to mention are the mids, on the MTL I had they were very different than a Marshall. To me anyway. If you want more of a true Marshall midrange don't get the MTL. MCII is closer.

I've never tried a MCII, but I have a 2016 MTL and used to own a 1996 Modern Classic and I didn't think it's mids were any closer to the Marshalls than my MTL. They were about the same, so I'm skeptical if the MCII will really have it either. Based on the clips I've heard, the MCII doesn't seem to. That being said my MTL is still one my favorite amps ever and I definitely prefer it overall to any Friedman I've tried (I've tried them all except the Buxom Betty and BE50 deluxe), but no amp for me has had it all for what I like.

Also, no one seems to talk about it, but the MTL has imo the 2nd best cleans of any amp I've owned behind my iic+ and iii++ coliseum. The only other channel switching amp that I remember with really good quality cleans was the Landry, but I think the wizard's clean channel is still better from what I remember of the Landry

 

[flimz]

Also, no one seems to talk about it, but the MTL has imo the 2nd best cleans of any amp I've owned behind my iic+ and iii++ coliseum. The only other channel switching amp that I remember with really good quality cleans was the Landry, but I think the wizard's clean channel is still better from what I remember of the Landry

I agree. Stellar cleans. The only other high gain amp Ive owned that has cleans this great are the XTC 20th, Shiva 20th and Mark V. Even with the shared EQ, I love the cleans.

 

[braintheory]

Also, no one seems to talk about it, but the MTL has imo the 2nd best cleans of any amp I've owned behind my iic+ and iii++ coliseum. The only other channel switching amp that I remember with really good quality cleans was the Landry, but I think the wizard's clean channel is still better from what I remember of the Landry

I agree. Stellar cleans. The only other high gain amp Ive owned that has cleans this great are the XTC 20th, Shiva 20th and Mark V. Even with the shared EQ, I love the cleans.

Yeah I have to dial in the presence differently for the clean channel than on the od channel, but when I do I'd say it's a higher quality clean sound than those amps

 

[glip22]

Dont count out the MTL...the "saturation" knob has a very slight way of impacting the attack of the notes. Yes, it adds a tremendous amount of gain...but if you lower the gain knob and turn up the saturation, it almost seems to add a bit of pseudo-compression to the attack. Maybe other MTL players can confirm this.
But all Wizards are very very punchy!

Accurate. I have owned 7 Wizards from the earliest to one that is five months old. MC, MCII's, MTL's. There is quite a bit of variance in all I have owned with the newest having the most linear tone, and best loop. Doesn't mean it is better. They all were different but still had the Wizard core tone. I never played the friedmans aside from a modded Kitchen sink JCM800 I didn't care much for but I did have 2 Camerons next to it.

 

[MistaGuitah]

What am I missing here? The opinions are so divided, kind of digressed a bit, and I haven't seen anyone take into consideration things like pickups and technique. Maybe Phil has a more percussive technique or pickups than people demoing Wizards? I was curious about this thread to see exactly how the Phil X compares to the Wizard Classic. The PhilX is an intriguing amplifier because with all that Friedman offers, I'm very curious to understand how this single channel amp fits in. Does it have clean headroom, or is it kind of a old school, rely your guitar volume kind of amp. Someone please explain in some detail because I'd like to know too.

 

[braintheory]

Dont count out the MTL...the "saturation" knob has a very slight way of impacting the attack of the notes. Yes, it adds a tremendous amount of gain...but if you lower the gain knob and turn up the saturation, it almost seems to add a bit of pseudo-compression to the attack. Maybe other MTL players can confirm this.
But all Wizards are very very punchy!

Accurate. I have owned 7 Wizards from the earliest to one that is five months old. MC, MCII's, MTL's. There is quite a bit of variance in all I have owned with the newest having the most linear tone, and best loop. Doesn't mean it is better. They all were different but still had the Wizard core tone. I never played the friedmans aside from a modded Kitchen sink JCM800 I didn't care much for but I did have 2 Camerons next to it.

Having the Cameron's next to is what made me feel the same about my hbe/be modded Marshall and other the Friedmans I also used to own as well (butterslax and Phil x), but until I did the AB comparisons the hbe/be sounded really good! Which of the 7 wizards was your favorite and 2nd favorite out of curiosity?