new clip comparing sl2 and sl2x!

  • Thread starter Thread starter fuzzyguitars
  • Start date Start date
gtr31":1e4ltg2x said:
I am waiting for the clips but I really think the 3/4X is what I want .I dig the mid bite of the SLX but like a bit more low end and thickness .I am thinking if EG3/4 X sits in the middle of the SLX & Eg5 it may be perfect
Click to expand...

The SL2X is great for that upper mid Marshall tone, that has a fair amount of tight low end, but not a great deal of low mid girth. The EG34X was an experiement that Nick did and that turned out awesome. Taking Jeff's X mod and applying it to the EG34, and also lowering the treble bleed cap to add more top end. It kept the low mid focus of the original EG34 and added some bite to the top end and some upper mid grind to it. It's for me that best of all of the SL2 / SL2X / EG34 / EG34X Marshall style modules where you want high gain. If you like your tones a bit loose, or very warm, then this isn't your module. What I personally didn't like about the SL2 was that it was "bleh" to me...not a typical Marshall. All of my favorite Marshalls (Silver Jubilees, JCM800s, etc) have the right amount of bite and grind. The SL2 and EG34 stock were just too polite for me. Hence why Jeff figured out the "X" mod. It put those tones closer to what I was hoping. In the end for me, the EG34X was the best for me...and I never really played the original "GNR" module (now called the SL2X) since the EG34X was more of what I personally liked and leaned towards.

The EG34X and EG5 are a great pair. Best of both worlds of high gain IMHO. EG5 is super tight, chunky, and great for rhythm play... EG34X is more brown, warm, and lacks a wallop on the low mids. With the EG34X, you can get in a similar territory to the SL2 and SL2X with the right EQ. The EG5 is one of the best rhythm modules I've played. That and Hilligan's XTC mod! :)
 
thanks Aeroric.
I do not personally care for loose or sag so If EG3/4x stays tight then that is perfect.
Don't get me wrong i like the Sl2x a lot but if I could get it close out of Eg3/4 then that is fine for me.the Whitesnake still of the night tones is what I am going after for rythm .I am thinking Sykes used a Mesa so it has some of that low mid girth but he still had a very Marshall bite too.
One day when all the clips get posted on the new Egnater website maybe these questions will stop.Tone is really difficult to explain IMO it is kinda like trying to describe a color
 
gtr31":2qcnfobq said:
thanks Aeroric.
I do not personally care for loose or sag so If EG3/4x stays tight then that is perfect.
Don't get me wrong i like the Sl2x a lot but if I could get it close out of Eg3/4 then that is fine for me.the Whitesnake still of the night tones is what I am going after for rythm .I am thinking Sykes used a Mesa so it has some of that low mid girth but he still had a very Marshall bite too.
One day when all the clips get posted on the new Egnater website maybe these questions will stop.Tone is really difficult to explain IMO it is kinda like trying to describe a color
Click to expand...

EG34X is what you are looking for. Have you heard any of my EG34X clips on youtube? if not, here's the video of the EG34X and EG5.

 
I was worried for the longest time that the EG3/4X would not be warm....but I do actually find it warm. I agree with Eric, the stock SL2 is warmer....but if you compare it side by side with the EG3/4X....it doesn't sound as lively! I missed that so I re-did the X mod and like it more. I also swapped the tubes to get something more vintage than the EG3/4X. This is great because the SL2X now gives me a barky, vintage Marshall while the EG3/4X gives me the more modern medium/high gain with its Marshall roots. The EG5 never did anything for me so I sold it, but we all have preferences. I guess it was too Soldano or metal to me and I don't play metal. :)
 
aeroic":37kk4voq said:
gtr31":37kk4voq said:
thanks Aeroric.
I do not personally care for loose or sag so If EG3/4x stays tight then that is perfect.
Don't get me wrong i like the Sl2x a lot but if I could get it close out of Eg3/4 then that is fine for me.the Whitesnake still of the night tones is what I am going after for rythm .I am thinking Sykes used a Mesa so it has some of that low mid girth but he still had a very Marshall bite too.
One day when all the clips get posted on the new Egnater website maybe these questions will stop.Tone is really difficult to explain IMO it is kinda like trying to describe a color
Click to expand...

EG34X is what you are looking for. Have you heard any of my EG34X clips on youtube? if not, here's the video of the EG34X and EG5.
Click to expand...

FYI....when I start demoing my lead tone...that is the B side of the EG34X....i think it's very "mark / marshall" type of tone.
 
gtr31":2arkwd3u said:
thanks Aeroric.
I do not personally care for loose or sag so If EG3/4x stays tight then that is perfect.
Don't get me wrong i like the Sl2x a lot but if I could get it close out of Eg3/4 then that is fine for me.the Whitesnake still of the night tones is what I am going after for rythm .I am thinking Sykes used a Mesa so it has some of that low mid girth but he still had a very Marshall bite too.
One day when all the clips get posted on the new Egnater website maybe these questions will stop.Tone is really difficult to explain IMO it is kinda like trying to describe a color
Click to expand...

I bet you will love the EG3/4X. I found the EG5 too stiff and metal-ish...but that is me. The EG3/4X is outstanding, but I think the SL2X is as well. For older Marshall, AC/DC like crunch, classic rock...I love the SL2X.........

You might be able to add back some of the lows you desire by only having half of the SL2X mod. Just have the upper mid part and leave the bass stock. The bass will still be tight. That upper mid bit is what gives the tightness I have found. I tried it with and without the upper mid mod. It didn't matter what was modded in the low end, it was always pretty tight if the upper mid mod was in place.

I'd be curious if anyone still uses and prefers the stock SL2?

Eric, I am still on the fence as to whether or not the X versions solo better than stock. I feel my solos were easier to pull off on the stock versions. You?
 
richedie":22mo1pv5 said:
gtr31":22mo1pv5 said:
thanks Aeroric.
I do not personally care for loose or sag so If EG3/4x stays tight then that is perfect.
Don't get me wrong i like the Sl2x a lot but if I could get it close out of Eg3/4 then that is fine for me.the Whitesnake still of the night tones is what I am going after for rythm .I am thinking Sykes used a Mesa so it has some of that low mid girth but he still had a very Marshall bite too.
One day when all the clips get posted on the new Egnater website maybe these questions will stop.Tone is really difficult to explain IMO it is kinda like trying to describe a color
Click to expand...

I bet you will love the EG3/4X. I found the EG5 too stiff and metal-ish...but that is me. The EG3/4X is outstanding, but I think the SL2X is as well. For older Marshall, AC/DC like crunch, classic rock...I love the SL2X.........

You might be able to add back some of the lows you desire by only having half of the SL2X mod. Just have the upper mid part and leave the bass stock. The bass will still be tight. That upper mid bit is what gives the tightness I have found. I tried it with and without the upper mid mod. It didn't matter what was modded in the low end, it was always pretty tight if the upper mid mod was in place.

I'd be curious if anyone still uses and prefers the stock SL2?

Eric, I am still on the fence as to whether or not the X versions solo better than stock. I feel my solos were easier to pull off on the stock versions. You?
Click to expand...


SL2X w/o the bass mod still has flubby loose bass that I can't stand. The SL2 stock...was just a really bland module for me. I never really bonded with it at all..

SL2X and EG34X are much better... Solos on EG34X are heavenly. Definitely my favorite lead tone I've had out of anything modular.

Eric
 
Totally agree Eric. I was playing about an hour tonight on the EG3/4X and it is unreal for rhythm and lead.
 
If you listen to the SL2X and SL2 in the drum mix - you can hear the SL2X sounds bigger and more robust. I think they can both be spongy though and warm depedning on EQ.
 
richedie":2jmp06wn said:
If you listen to the SL2X and SL2 in the drum mix - you can hear the SL2X sounds bigger and more robust. I think they can both be spongy though and warm depedning on EQ.
Click to expand...


i think they both can be made to sound similiar, but the bottom end stays tighter on the sl2x
 
fuzzyguitars":243odxte said:
yep tons of gain

gain dials at noon only!
Click to expand...

So, were all controls at noon? How ab out volume? I ask because the X version sounds louder.

Any chance you'd be able to throw a basic lead over the rhythm or another example showing difference in lead tone? ;)
I wish I had both to compare, etc.

I am curious if the stock modules have a fatter lead tone. Not because of the upper mids as I thikn that can add to the thickness of the mids. More because the bass cap is smaller. Larger caps are supposed to sound fatter/wider. :)
 
Hey Fuzzy ,

How do you like the 3/4X vs the Sl2x now that you have had some time to crank them up?

Can't wait to hear your clips .the Sl2x was really helpful
 
I had practice yesterday and had a chance to use both the SL2X and EG3/4X at high volume. The SL2X cuts through more like a good Marshall. The EG3/4X is definitely darker and doesn't jump out of the mix like the SL2X. Since the EG3/4X has more low mids like a Bogner it doesn't kill in the mix like a Marshall. I like having both depending on my mood. The SL2X was the big surprise because I tend to like the EG3/4X better at home....but at rehearsal, the SL2X was killing it.
 
I am not surprised at all .I find similar .
low mid amps like Bogs and Mesa are much less harsh on the ears at home alone .
But in a heavy mix those upper mids blend well.
I know i will take crap for this but if you are not on your game and amp with that voicing is not a comfortable feeling .lol you cant hide.
Splawn is like that it is very noticeable if you are not muting strings. VHT as well you have to work for it
 
That is one thing I like about the EG3/4X...I can hide a bit if I am having a bad day or night. If you have a bad day with the SL2X, you are F'ed. For that reason...some guys may prefer the stock SL2 or EG3/4X.
It is not as big a deal with the EG3/4X.....but there are times I miss the stock EG3/4 with the addition of a tube board upgrade to bring up some treble. The SL2 I sometimes miss because that one was easier to play in a band setting when stock....not quite as stressful and having to be on your game 100% all night. We are human and mistakes happen...but you really hear them on an amp with cutting upper mids. I noticed my solos can be less comfortable and put me on edge more, LOL. I think the SL2 or X without the upper mid mod is thicker and warmer/smoother. I might stick to that. Sound sore Joe Bonamassa than the SL2X. :D


My VHT is very much like that.....it's like BAM...here I am...you can hear everything! Makes you a better player.

I just loved how the Mod 50 with these modules punched through with huge balls.


gtr31":33f26kay said:
I am not surprised at all .I find similar .
low mid amps like Bogs and Mesa are much less harsh on the ears at home alone .
But in a heavy mix those upper mids blend well.
I know i will take crap for this but if you are not on your game and amp with that voicing is not a comfortable feeling .lol you cant hide.
Splawn is like that it is very noticeable if you are not muting strings. VHT as well you have to work for it
Click to expand...
 
I think people who have not played the SL2 need to realize it still has plenty of upper mids for cut. The SL2X just has more. I basically prefer half an SL2X mod.....tighter bass but without the extra upper mids.

After listeing to those clips, I find SL2 channel A sounds better than SL2X channel A. SL2X channel B sounds better than SL2 channel B.
 
Hi,
I agree, it is thick and smooth sounding - but keep in mind, it is one guitar playing! Imagine a second guitar playing e.g. powercords or a strong rhythm.
And - for me - for me!!! it is not the typical Marshall sound (JCM 800). I think Marshalls are more agressive. It is more some kind of cultivated - Egneterated (excuse me for that) - it is good and sounds awsome, but for me not typical Marshall.

Hope I am not offending somebody.

Cheers
ed
 
The 'X' version is more what you describe.

SL2? Smoother than Marshall? That is sort of how Bruce designed it....to be a Marshall without the annoying traits of the real thing or the cut your head off upper mids/treble. I would love to hear a back to back clip of the SL2X/SL2 doing lead.
I like em both.

I will use the SL2X at our next practice and see what happens. I didn't use it enough last time.

I know you mention two guitarists.....but it also matters what the other guy is using. I know plenty of people using the SL2 and some using the stock EG3/4 and have no issues in a two guitar band.

eddiespaghetty":3642yxq9 said:
Hi,
I agree, it is thick and smooth sounding - but keep in mind, it is one guitar playing! Imagine a second guitar playing e.g. powercords or a strong rhythm.
And - for me - for me!!! it is not the typical Marshall sound (JCM 800). I think Marshalls are more agressive. It is more some kind of cultivated - Egneterated (excuse me for that) - it is good and sounds awsome, but for me not typical Marshall.

Hope I am not offending somebody.

Cheers
ed
Click to expand...
 
I have to say I always liked SL2 channel A and now I am loving SL2X channel A as well. I played for a long time today with the gain between noon and 3:00. These days I am liking much less gain than I used to, because I find the tone fatter and cleaner, more percussive. In fact, after playing this for a while today, the EG3/4X sounds squashed by comparison. I am just finding the SL2X to sound better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top