EVH 5150 III mini vs Peavey 6505+

[JordanStGodard]

Just out of curiousity, do all you 5150 players (be it Peavey or EVH) use Tubescreamers in front of your amp or does it sound good without one?

The 5150iii will get solid sounds effortlessly without using any overdrives. Boosting just helps make it a tad bit heavier than it already is.

 

[WarMachine]

Just out of curiousity, do all you 5150 players (be it Peavey or EVH) use Tubescreamers in front of your amp or does it sound good without one?

Peavey 5150 owner, better without IMHO

 

[sear]

I have only played all these amps in shops, so take this with a grain of salt, but...

1. 5150/6505 original - weak clean channel, but powerful and highly low-mid voiced with tons of gain.
2. 5150II/6505+ - Marshall-style cleans that break up a bit earlier, crunch is brighter and crunchier, more upper-mid voiced, slightly less gain available (still more than you need), probably cuts through a thick mix better and/or makes more room for the bass guitar.
3. 5150III - Fender-style cleans (slightly darker, possibly due to the speakers), crunch channel is a lot smoother, gain levels similar to the original 5150, overall tone is very similar too but also smoother and less gritty. Hard to explain but I feel the crunch and lead channels have less differences between them than on the original models.

All of them are excellent amps and I don't agree with the people who say that the 5150III is "better" - in terms of features, yes (more channels), but you also lose out on presence and resonance switches on the 100W model, which sucks, and the Mini has its share of limitations too.

Personally I think the 5150II/6505+ has the grittiest, rawest tone and sounds the "meanest" out of them, while the other models tend to sound bigger. Depending on what you want, one or the other might be appropriate.

Again, my feeling is the 6505+ sits best in a mix without requiring as much extra processing. However, when actually heard in a full mix, I think you would find someone who can pinpoint which is which with absolute certainty.

Just out of curiousity, do all you 5150 players (be it Peavey or EVH) use Tubescreamers in front of your amp or does it sound good without one?

I boost on my 6505+ because I like the greater articulation in the low-end. Without it tends to get a bit muddy (especially if you don't have brand-new strings). The extra compression is nice too. That said I can get the tone boosted vs. unboosted very similar, and for certain styles of music I prefer the unboosted sound (especially if I want thicker/warmer/darker guitars).

 

[MrFighter]

Thanks to all, nobody more?

 

[atticus1088]

I recently bought the 5153 50w and the 2x12.
Before that I was playing through my 5150 II and custom built cab (mesa 2x12 design).
So far, I've spent 2 months with the EVH. I never play the peavey version anymore.
I can just get way more sounds that I like out of the EVH. Finally, I'm inspired by the sound I hear.

I think I'm going to sell my 5150 II

I have to agree with sear. the 5150 II is "meaner" sounding because of the upper mid voicing, definitely not as "refined" as the III but I prefer that part of the III. I feel that the III can get really close to the II, but not vice-versa. You have to really crank the presence on the III. I really don't want o knock the peavey versions at all. but the EVH version just fits me more.

I don't think either amp needs a ts style boost, but I can see why some people prefer it.
I prefer a warmer and darker sound.

I cant comment on the regular 5150 as I haven't played that model.

 

[MrFighter]

I have only played all these amps in shops, so take this with a grain of salt, but...

1. 5150/6505 original - weak clean channel, but powerful and highly low-mid voiced with tons of gain.
2. 5150II/6505+ - Marshall-style cleans that break up a bit earlier, crunch is brighter and crunchier, more upper-mid voiced, slightly less gain available (still more than you need), probably cuts through a thick mix better and/or makes more room for the bass guitar.
3. 5150III - Fender-style cleans (slightly darker, possibly due to the speakers), crunch channel is a lot smoother, gain levels similar to the original 5150, overall tone is very similar too but also smoother and less gritty. Hard to explain but I feel the crunch and lead channels have less differences between them than on the original models.

All of them are excellent amps and I don't agree with the people who say that the 5150III is "better" - in terms of features, yes (more channels), but you also lose out on presence and resonance switches on the 100W model, which sucks, and the Mini has its share of limitations too.

Personally I think the 5150II/6505+ has the grittiest, rawest tone and sounds the "meanest" out of them, while the other models tend to sound bigger. Depending on what you want, one or the other might be appropriate.

Again, my feeling is the 6505+ sits best in a mix without requiring as much extra processing. However, when actually heard in a full mix, I think you would find someone who can pinpoint which is which with absolute certainty.


I boost on my 6505+ because I like the greater articulation in the low-end. Without it tends to get a bit muddy (especially if you don't have brand-new strings). The extra compression is nice too. That said I can get the tone boosted vs. unboosted very similar, and for certain styles of music I prefer the unboosted sound (especially if I want thicker/warmer/darker guitars).

Well, I'm looking one thing more in the distortion channel. A sound fluid not mired, a head with a fluid distortion and of course, a balanced tone or dark, not so bright and tight, more loose and definite.

 

[MrFighter]

Nobody more?

 

[Mklane]

5150iii for me!

 

[atticus1088]

I have to agree with others.

After owning both, all the descriptions you made in your first post definitely characterize the III

Stop thinking about it and just buy it.