banner

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SLO 100 v Avenger

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SLO 100 v Avenger

    Am I trippin' or does the Avenger sound not only different, but better?

    I have always wanted an SLO 100, but after trying the Avenger, I liked it more. I realize they Avenger is supposed to be an offshoot, but it sounds more focused, more saturated, richer, and with a nice bass response. Maybe I was out of it or something???
    1973 Les Paul Standard
    1973 Marshall Super Lead 100

  • #2
    Re: SLO 100 v Avenger

    That was pretty much the point of the Avenger - to get a more simple tone based off of the famous overdrive tone of the SLO-100. You probably werent out of it. Plus all of those extra controls somewhat screw up the naturalness of the amp. Which is good if you want versitility, but not as good if you just want the SLO overdrive tone. And theyre less than half the price of the SLO too.
    - BlueBurst Campellone Standard CSTM (Kent Armstrong Johnny Smith Mini HB n)
    - Pelham Blue Gibson DG-335 (Antiquity n/'78 b)
    - Goldtop Gibson R7 (Antiquity HBs)
    - Teal Green Metallic Fender '56 NOS Strat (Antiquity Surfers n&m/Antiquity Texas Hot Custom b)
    - Tungsten Buckwheat
    - Fender '57 Tweed Twin-Amp
    - Vintage Sound Amps VS112P (Princeton Reverb clone)
    - Henriksen JazzAmp 110

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: SLO 100 v Avenger

      I like the way they're highgain, but still have just enough sag to make the amp sound fat. The SLO sounds a little more hifi, while the Avenger is more raw and organic sounding. That's the impression I got when demoing it. It's definitely an amp I'd enjoy jamming on. I tried it with an SG and LP, but I'd like to hear it with a strat sometime.
      Originally posted by Boogie Bill
      I've got 60 guitars...but 49 trumpets is just...INSANITY! WTF!

      Comment

      Working...
      X