Bogner Goldfinger SL and Friedman Smallbox thoughts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter retrorack
  • Start date Start date
R
retrorack
Active member
I had the first Goldfinger 45. Possibly my favorite clean channel that I can remember from the amps I’ve had. The OD channel needed the gain up high with treble full up to match the Ceriatone 2204 I had. Found that channel to be a bit darker than I wanted (I like amps on the brighter side). But I haven’t had either amp in 4+ years. It was the Smallbox pedal into the clean channel of my ElectraDyne that actually made me think about the Smallbox amp. Like the black/gold look of both amps.

There are a lot of options for a two channel clean/crunch in the Marshally family. But I’ve narrowed my interest down to the Smallbox 50 and the Goldfinger SL. Anyone owned/tried both and have some thoughts? As I said, I tend to like a bit brighter amp, and am looking to cover the clean to crunch range. I have a Synergy SYN-2with modules that can cover very high gain.
 
I had a small box, and sold it for a GF SL. The small box is brighter, but I didn’t care for the 2nd channel very much. The plexi channel was a great cleanish channel and I’d hit it with whatever pedals I wanted.

GF SL is a great true clean channel that you can’t really get to break up. Gain channel is much more flexible with the 60/70/80 switch for gain structure. The tailorable boosts for clean and gain channels take it over the top.
 
Jccobb2 said:
I had a small box, and sold it for a GF SL. The small box is brighter, but I didn’t care for the 2nd channel very much. The plexi channel was a great cleanish channel and I’d hit it with whatever pedals I wanted.

GF SL is a great true clean channel that you can’t really get to break up. Gain channel is much more flexible with the 60/70/80 switch for gain structure. The tailorable boosts for clean and gain channels take it over the top.
Click to expand...
I’m looking for a “clean” clean channel. I can add a touch grit with pedals (or maybe the alpha boost). What was it about the SB chanel 2 you didn’t dig?
 
It was fine if you want a stiff upper mid Marshall crunch. I prefer more of a Bogner low mid squishy feel. The GF SL can do the small box bright crunch thing as well, but it also does the typical Bogner thing if you want.
 
Not that tone preference transfers, but the smallbox was a religious experience for me the first time I played it. Never really like marshall-type amps before (more of an Orange dude), and the smallbox changed that.
 
The SL is my favorite Bogner and I owned an original GF. The gain channel is a huge improvement on the SL
 
chris lykins said:
The SL is my favorite Bogner and I owned an original GF. The gain channel is a huge improvement on the SL
Click to expand...
That's good to hear. For me, the clean channel of the original didn't need any improvement. Just the gain channel needed some expanding.

I think either amp would probably serve me well. The GF SL seems to be a little more flexible, and I know I like channel 1 already.
 
My vote goes for SL. Friedman is good, tighter with less bounce but so harmonically rich. Clean channel is fantastic on all goldfingers, on the smallbox...well there is clean channel 😀😀
 
I have a Goldfinger SL and matching open back 2x12 cab. I had to scratch the itch and bought a Small Box. The Friedman was returned.

The Goldfinger SL is a beautiful sounding amp on both clean and lead channels. With a lush reverb and boosts it is a great Swiss Army knife of tones.

The Friedman didn't knock my socks off. It was good though.
 
Frehley12 said:
I have a Goldfinger SL and matching open back 2x12 cab. I had to scratch the itch and bought a Small Box. The Friedman was returned.

The Goldfinger SL is a beautiful sounding amp on both clean and lead channels. With a lush reverb and boosts it is a great Swiss Army knife of tones.

The Friedman didn't knock my socks off. It was good though.
Click to expand...
Ah, thanks for that. Yeah I’d be looking to get the matching cab, too. Although I’m currently using IRs and my go to is always a 2x12 with 65W Creambacks. Never had the matching cab when I had the original GF.
 
@Bxlxaxkxe Did you ever have the GF SL a the same time as the Badlander? Were they even comparable?
 
retrorack said:
@Bxlxaxkxe Did you ever have the GF SL a the same time as the Badlander? Were they even comparable?
Click to expand...
No I didn’t. And yea not really comparable. The SL is much closer to the core marshall sound, Badlander is more of a recto with some marshallish qualities
 
I’ve owned both. Fairly similar amps. The SL is more flexible and has a true clean channel. Very weird amp to run though — the channels are not balanced and the Post FX loop is weird. Sounds great, though. For me, the Smallbox WW Edition was better, but it has a Plexi clean not a true clean, so you’d probably want the GF SL.
 
hellzington said:
I’ve owned both. Fairly similar amps. The SL is more flexible and has a true clean channel. Very weird amp to run though — the channels are not balanced and the Post FX loop is weird. Sounds great, though. For me, the Smallbox WW Edition was better, but it has a Plexi clean not a true clean, so you’d probably want the GF SL.
Click to expand...
My plan would be to run a Synergy SYN in the loop to add two additional preamps. Hopefully the PostFX loop setting is compatible with that. It's got a series / parallel switch too, so I'd imagine it does.
 
hellzington said:
I’ve owned both. Fairly similar amps. The SL is more flexible and has a true clean channel. Very weird amp to run though — the channels are not balanced and the Post FX loop is weird. Sounds great, though. For me, the Smallbox WW Edition was better, but it has a Plexi clean not a true clean, so you’d probably want the GF SL.
Click to expand...
My experience as well. Fantastic-sounding amp, but needlessly quirky.
 
retrorack said:
My plan would be to run a Synergy SYN in the loop to add two additional preamps. Hopefully the PostFX loop setting is compatible with that. It's got a series / parallel switch too, so I'd imagine it does.
Click to expand...
Cool. You'd definitely want the GL SL then because it's clean is more like a 60s Marshall clean vs. the Smallbox which will break up much more because it's a Plexi Clean. I've never used those so I have no idea how they would play with the loop. You might consider just buying the Synergy head?
 
hellzington said:
Cool. You'd definitely want the GL SL then because it's clean is more like a 60s Marshall clean vs. the Smallbox which will break up much more because it's a Plexi Clean. I've never used those so I have no idea how they would play with the loop. You might consider just buying the Synergy head?
Click to expand...
Can you expand on this so I get my preference descriptors correct? Being honest here. Ha.

I have a ‘69 Marshall Plexi 100w and it would fit into both camps of 60’s Marshall and Plexi clean, above. The “clean” is around 2 on the volume, loud as balls, little broken up, but it is glorious and chimey. Perfect clean for my tastes.

I have been intrigued by the GF, too…
 
If you want a great clean and a nice Marshall-esque crunch channel with more hi-mid focus, try the Runt 50 and save some money.
 
marvcus said:
Can you expand on this so I get my preference descriptors correct? Being honest here. Ha.

I have a ‘69 Marshall Plexi 100w and it would fit into both camps of 60’s Marshall and Plexi clean, above. The “clean” is around 2 on the volume, loud as balls, little broken up, but it is glorious and chimey. Perfect clean for my tastes.

I have been intrigued by the GF, too…
Click to expand...
Sorry I didn’t mean to confuse you. The GF SL clean channel is a true clean channel. Meaning, it is designed to stay clean as long as possible and avoid breakup. What I meant by ‘60s Marshall clean is that the clean channel is not like a Fender Blackface style clean. It’s got more midrange and is less snappy. Maybe a better comparison would be to the clean channel on the Jubilee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
 
Back
Top