This guys SLO100 MKII clips sound excellent....

  • Thread starter Thread starter harddriver
  • Start date Start date
H

harddriver

Well-known member
This is from Craigginshred77, the SLO sounds glorious...maybe he can elaborate if he is boosting it or not, mucho crunchy. Is a MKII a BAD produced SLO?




SLO with greenbacks.....Racerxrated was correct the SLO loves greenback, the Friedman cab with V30 and greenbacks also sounds killer.
 
Last edited:
harddriver said:
This is from Craigginshred77, the SLO sounds glorious...maybe he can elaborate if he is boosting it or not, mucho crunchy. Is a MKII a BAD produced SLO?




SLO with greenbacks.....
Click to expand...

Nice chops! From what I can tell, that MKII sounds better than all three of my early SLO 100 heads.
 
So I answered my own question the MKII is the newest BAD owned version and I have to say if it sound like this in person I would be quite happy with everything that I hear in these clips, it's very clear, articulate, punchy and crunchy what's not to like now the MKII has a good loop as well.

I played an HR100 years ago and came away unimpressed but these clips sound remarkable.......

These clips remind me of everything that I liked in the EVH cabo wabo sound clips with the SLO and then some...:2thumbsup:
 
Damn that Marshall sounds great.

I have an original SLO-100. It sounds amazing…if you turn it up enough. 4-5 on the master and it comes alive. That’s where the magic lies. Mine has a Suhr modded loop with global return volume. So I can get away with turning up the MV. But it’s still crazy loud.
 
Serious question - how can you tell from recordings like that? The distant, filtered tone combined with the ridiculous compression makes them unlistenable to me.

I'm not say close miking always sounds good, people screw that up to. But when it's done well - like on every single album we know and love - it sounds superb. It's like youtube has redefined how some people interpret recorded sound, it's really perplexing.
 
ZEN Amps said:
Serious question - how can you tell from recordings like that? The distant, filtered tone combined with the ridiculous compression makes them unlistenable to me.

I'm not say close miking always sounds good, people screw that up to. But when it's done well - like on every single album we know and love - it sounds superb. It's like youtube has redefined how some people interpret recorded sound, it's really perplexing.
Click to expand...
I agree with all this. It’s not just the distant, filtered tone or effect of the room itself that’s problematic for me to discern the tones, but also all the added reverb or delay that guys here often like to do. I get why they do it. It sounds pleasant, smooths out the rough edges and more forgiving, but makes it much hard to discern the actual tone and nuances of the amp. It’s like a girl wearing too much make-up. I never really liked using reverb or delay or stuff like that myself for high gain tones. I really wish more guys would post clips of the amps just dry to really hear the amp’s voice, even if less pleasant sounding because of it
 
Sounds like an SLO - great - but its miced kind of oddly. I cant even tell what that is. Phone mic? Probably an iphone or something.

Prolly a little heavy on the time based fx for me, but i guess that's the way lots of people run them, so makes sense.

SLOs always sound fantastic for lead tones, especially.
 
harddriver said:
So I answered my own question the MKII is the newest BAD owned version and I have to say if it sound like this in person I would be quite happy with everything that I hear in these clips, it's very clear, articulate, punchy and crunchy what's not to like now the MKII has a good loop as well.

I played an HR100 years ago and came away unimpressed but these clips sound remarkable.......

These clips remind me of everything that I liked in the EVH cabo wabo sound clips with the SLO and then some...:2thumbsup:
Click to expand...
The HR 100 is like a clone of the SLO; some similarities but the real deal sounds far better i.e. clarity, thump, just a great 3D tonal imprint. I think the Mk II is darker than the original somewhat; a bud dialed his in how I used to dial mine (EVH settings on the Soldano forum) and it was super bright for me; his wasn't near that bright. Which is a good thing since the OG SLO is a bright amp.
I think anyone who loves the SLO would be impressed with the MKII.
 
braintheory said:
I agree with all this. It’s not just the distant, filtered tone or effect of the room itself that’s problematic for me to discern the tones, but also all the added reverb or delay that guys here often like to do. I get why they do it. It sounds pleasant, smooths out the rough edges and more forgiving, but makes it much hard to discern the actual tone and nuances of the amp. It’s like a girl wearing too much make-up. I never really liked using reverb or delay or stuff like that myself for high gain tones. I really wish more guys would post clips of the amps just dry to really hear the amp’s voice, even if less pleasant sounding because of it
Click to expand...

It's really difficult to capture what an amp sounds like with a phone camera mic unless you know what to listen for, I sometimes do video clips like that on my Instagram and I get compliments on the Larry tones, but in my head I'm thinking "this doesn't really capture what makes the Larry amazing"

But even so, here's some dry Larry rhythm with no delay on a phone mic.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CWe7MkFlDQo/?utm_medium=copy_link
 
DanTravis62 said:
It's really difficult to capture what an amp sounds like with a phone camera mic unless you know what to listen for, I sometimes do video clips like that on my Instagram and I get compliments on the Larry tones, but in my head I'm thinking "this doesn't really capture what makes the Larry amazing"

But even so, here's some dry Larry rhythm with no delay on a phone mic.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CWe7MkFlDQo/?utm_medium=copy_link
Click to expand...
Yeah hard to capture like you said, but sounds really good from what I can tell and I appreciate keeping it dry (no reverb or delay). For the purposes of gear demos that's always how it should be done imo. It's hard enough to tell things from clips as is, no need for the added reverb or delay to further clutter things lol. Honestly, some might flame me for this, but I really would've liked EVH's tone so much more without it too
 
Last edited:
braintheory said:
Yeah hard to capture like you said, but sounds really good from what I can and I appreciate keeping it dry (no reverb or delay). For the purposes of gear demos that's always how it should be done imo. It's hard enough to tell things from clips as is, no need for the added reverb or delay to further clutter things lol. Honestly, some might flame me for this, but I really would've liked EVH's tone so much more without it too
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I would much rather show people close miced clips but they never want actual music, they want ola videos.
 
DanTravis62 said:
Absolutely. I would much rather show people close miced clips but they never want actual music, they want ola videos.
Click to expand...
I think the issue is that guys inexperienced with recording hear a mic'd clip and complain 'it doesn't sound like that in the room'. Of course it doesn't, but neither do room mics or phone recordings, contrary to 'logic'. For starters our ears are vastly dissimilar to microphones of any sort, and room recordings are capturing the ugliness of your room acoustics, massive EQ curve and phone compression as much as the amp. You do get a somewhat cool flanger effect when the guy moves the phone around the room though!

Whilst there are exceptions, 99% of great recorded guitar tones are via a close mic, so anything else just sounds wrong to me. Maybe if you spend a lot of time on YouTube you adjust to the magnificent tone of phone recordings, I don't know. As I said, really perplexing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top