# School me on the less popular Peavey amps (Windsor/XXX/Ultra)



## KnightBrolaire (Jun 5, 2019)

Windsor=marshall flavored
XXX= more 5150/SLO flavored but with utterly stupid amounts of gain on tap
Ultra= hotrodded marshall??\
XXL=????
I had a XXX head years and years ago, but all I remember is that it was insanely loud and super gainy...
IDK I can't ever keep this shit straight.


----------



## crankyrayhanky (Jun 5, 2019)

You’re missing Ultra Plus= Mesa Mark


----------



## B.M.F. (Jun 6, 2019)

XXX is one of the only amps I played that has so much gain you don't need a boost with it. You just plug in and there is a level of insane gain. Even the Crunch channel is brutal.
I had an XXL combo before I got an XXX head, and the XXX is much better I think than the XXL. One reason being the XXL has more modes but some are not that useful IMO.


----------



## Randy (Jun 6, 2019)

VTM 120 > *


----------



## MASS DEFECT (Jun 6, 2019)

Randy said:


> VTM 120 > *



VTM 120= Toxic Holocaust \m/


----------



## Bentaycanada (Jun 6, 2019)

I’ve owned the XXX and 3120, which are essentially the same amp with different power tubes. I preferred the 3120, but you can change the power tubes on a XXX anyways. They are among the gainiest amps I’ve played, you definitely don’t need a boost with them. 

I’ve also owned the Windsor. It’s a very cool Marshall clone for very cheap. The main drawback being that it’s insanely huge.


----------



## LeftOurEyes (Jun 6, 2019)

I get annoyed everytime I hear the phrase "so much gain you don't need a boost". I know not everyone uses them this way, but I feel like there is a whole group of metal guitarist that have no idea that people use overdrives as a clean boost and not for more distortion. I use overdrives with basically every amp I use, but 99% of the time the gain is at 0. 5150/6505s have an insane amount of gain, but I still use an overdrive cause it has nothing to do with the gain and its to tighten up an amps feel. So when people say it doesn't need a boost it is so misleading to me because I assume they mean the amp is already tight.


----------



## gnoll (Jun 6, 2019)

Yeah I don't use boosts for gain either, and when it comes to modern metal amps like 5150s and rectos and such things that's generally not the point. I'm no amp expert but I think if I want a boost or not depends on how the amp filters low frequencies. With a 5150 using a ts or eq in front works great to cut some lows but with an Engl it doesn't seem to work as well.

On topic, I used to play an XXL in an old rehearsal space years ago but I don't remember much else than it was solid state and didn't sound great. The only way to get it to sound ok was to scoop it but then it didn't cut sufficiently.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Jun 6, 2019)

I owned a 3120 for a short while and thought overall it was a good amp (I think there may have been somethign wrong with mine as it would not get that 'loud'), but I ended up trading it in for a mint 5150.


----------



## Gmork (Jun 6, 2019)

-Vtm120 was based on a modded jcm800. Im currently selling my vtm120 just because it doesnt get used. Awesome amp though. Boosted and with an eq can get super brutal but not too modernly tight. 
-butcher like the vtm but without the mod dip switches and ive heard a bit less gain. 
-XXL is the end all be all of the transtube bandit line. Ive wanted one forever. Love the transtube stuff. 
-stereo chorus 2x12 is peaveys answer to roland jazz chorus but with that oldschool classic peavy gain ch. Loud and a perfect pedal platform. Def would have kept mine if i had more room. 
-musician400 is a 70s doom machine with built in graphic eq and phaser. Super fat and raunchy. Regret selling mine. 
-its too late i have to go to bed lol 
PEAVEEEEYYYY !!!


----------



## mnemonic (Jun 6, 2019)

Circuit-wise I’m not really sure what these amps compare to. I believe they were designed either in full, or at least in part by James Brown who now does the amptweaker pedals. 

Just going based off memory as i remember looking into them at one point. I think they started as the old Ultra and Ultra+ amps. I can’t rememver specifics now, but I think the + models were the ones to get, and the non + models were lower gain, or at least less modern metal? I forget. The Rockmaster preamp was like the preamp from Ultra +, can’t remember if there were any differences. 

After the Ultras came the XXX, then the JSX which was tweaked for joe satriani. One of my friends back in college had a JSX and I always wished I could get a channel between the Crunch and Ultra channel. Ultra felt too compressed and scooped and smooth for me, while the Crunch channel felt like it was a bit too vintage voiced for what I wanted (and also lacked gain). I think I read the Crunch channel on the JSX was meant to sound kinda like a Peavey classic 50, so maybe I would have preferred a XXX or Ultra. 

The JSX did give adjustable presence and depth where the xxx and ultras just had a 3-position switch for depth and presence (called damping). Also adjusable noise gate, where the noise gate / coring circuit in the ultra and XXX were fixed and not adjustable. 

The ultra line of amps predates the 5150, if I remember right, so I wouldn’t expect a xxx or whatever to be that much like a 5150 (which was tweaked from the SLO for Evh). Though James Brown also did the 5150 so I don’t know how much ultra flavour he also carried on into the 5150. 

All the amps had tweaks and changes along the way. The active eq really makes them super tweakable. I’ve kinda wanted to pick up a xxx or ultra, I’m still waiting for a cheap enough used one to come along. They were more common in the USA when I lived there.


----------



## KailM (Jun 6, 2019)

LeftOurEyes said:


> I get annoyed everytime I hear the phrase "so much gain you don't need a boost". I know not everyone uses them this way, but I feel like there is a whole group of metal guitarist that have no idea that people use overdrives as a clean boost and not for more distortion. I use overdrives with basically every amp I use, but 99% of the time the gain is at 0. 5150/6505s have an insane amount of gain, but I still use an overdrive cause it has nothing to do with the gain and its to tighten up an amps feel. So when people say it doesn't need a boost it is so misleading to me because I assume they mean the amp is already tight.



+1.

I've said before, the term "boost" is a misnomer, and is misleading to people just getting into using them in a high-gain amp situation. Most of us that boost high-gain tube amps know that it's not about getting more gain, but we still use the term 'boost' anyway. It's about the EQing that takes place before the preamp, and I suppose some extra compression and focusing.

My 6505+ and especially my 6505 head always felt and sounded a little "spread out" and not precise without an OD boosting them, at least at low volumes. With an OD boosting them, they sound a lot more focused, punchy, and accurate. I then dial-in quite a bit of bass and resonance through the amps' controls, but they still retain that tight, focused sound. The actual gain on the amp, I set to around "3" and it's enough for gnarly death metal tone. In a live setting, I've dropped the gain down even to "2" and it's enough (when boosted).

My EVH 5153 doesn't need a "boost" and in fact I prefer it without. Again, it has nothing to do with gain -- they just tweaked the tone stack just right to where it sounds very similar to my 6505s when boosted by an OD. It has everything to do with the amp's EQ filtering in the preamp.


----------



## budda (Jun 6, 2019)

No love for the roadmaster? Loud and clean and 6550 loaded iirc.

I have rarely heard a xxx sound good so i never suggest them.


----------



## laxu (Jun 6, 2019)

I deeply dislike the XXX. It’s almost like a bad solid-state amp in the way it has zero dynamic range and absurd gain. To me the XXX always sounded like it wanted to be a Recto but totally failed at it. The JSX was a lot better but still not an amp I would want.


----------



## jarledge (Jun 6, 2019)

i have owned a xxx for around 6 years now. It has been a really great amp for me. I rarely use the ultra channel as the amber crunch channel has more than enough gain. The active EQ is great and most of the time i am around 12 on the eq. I changed out the tubes to run an integrated quad of kt66s in the outer sockets and 6l6s in the inner . This gives it more depth imo. The damping switch on the back really does quite a bit for the dynamics of the amp. I was told the xxx was suppose to be signature amp for George Lynch and he pulled out before it was released. Not sure how true that is though. 

I have owned a couple of different 5150s over the years. They are brutal amps, and great at what they do but ultimately lacking in versatility to me. That said I'll probably end up with another one sooner or later. If i could find a deal on an invective i'd go that route for sure. 

I owned an xxl head for a bit. It is the most tube sounding solid state head I have ever played, and has a ton of tone options. For a guitar player on a budget you can find them super cheap. I got it not too long after they came out and I had only be playing a few years at that point but I have played a few since then and still feel pretty much the same way about them. It is hard to beat the dynamics and sensitivity of a tube amp but these are exceptional SS amps for the price. 

I owned a JSX for a while too. The JSX came out after the xxx, but I owned the JSX before getting the xxx I have now. I really liked the xxx's crunch channel and though the jsx might give me that and more. I was disappointed in the jsx. It didn't have as much gain and even the red channel was voiced different from the xxx amber channel. The jsx amber channel didn't have enough gain on tap for me as it was suppose to be based on the peavey classic series. It sounded thin too, which at the time I had a mesa mark 3 too so by comparison it was thin sounding. I just didn't get along with it. I only had it for a few months and sold it.


----------



## Seabeast2000 (Jun 6, 2019)

@NateFalcon knew some stuff about these IIRC. But he's MIA.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jun 6, 2019)

crankyrayhanky said:


> You’re missing Ultra Plus= Mesa Mark


Hmm interesting.. But which era of Mark are we talking about?


----------



## crankyrayhanky (Jun 6, 2019)

KnightBrolaire said:


> Hmm interesting.. But which era of Mark are we talking about?



Maybe iv?
I had one years ago & loved it. At that time there was a video of a dude with a iv & ultra+ back to back comparing....it was damn close
Regardless, it is a phat & thick tone for cheap cheap

Also, one of the few amps that are un-profile-able; CKemper confirmed this to me via pm when I was struggling with it.


----------



## Cynicanal (Jun 6, 2019)

ITT: No one knows what the term "gain" means.

Hint: it's not distortion.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jun 6, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> ITT: No one knows what the term "gain" means.
> 
> Hint: it's not distortion.


feel free to enlighten us


----------



## Cynicanal (Jun 6, 2019)

Gain is an increase in the amplitude of a signal. It is _not_ distortion. I repeat: GAIN IS NOT DISTORTION.

When you use a clean boost, you are most definitely adding gain; the signal is bigger after the boost than it was before. I don't know anyone who runs EQs or ODs at below unity volume (it would sound weak and anemic); everyone turns the volume knobs on their TS-9s and SD-1s way up. 

With that said, in front of a tube amp, increasing the gain of a signal with a completely clean boost pedal will increase the harmonic distortion in the sound produced by the amplifier (because it will make the pre-amp tubes clip more; this is why turning up the gain knob creates more distortion, because as you raise the amplitude of the signal, you get more clipping). So, this isn't just me being a smart-ass on a technicality (getting to be a smart-ass on a technicality is just a bonus). When you're running a clean boost, you're adding distortion to your final sound, even if the signal created by the pedal is undistorted. 

Finally, just because the drive knob on an OD pedal is at 0 doesn't mean it's not adding distortion. It is; every common OD pedal still adds clipping with the drive knob all the way off. So you're all incorrect in that regard, too, completing the trifecta of wrong.


----------



## broj15 (Jun 6, 2019)

Currently own a Road Master (vintage tube series) and a musician 400

Roadmaster is a beefed up marshall-y amp with a few added switches. Takes any pedal I've tried with it very well. Usually don't have to tweak the eq much to get it sounding how I like.

Classic 400 is a LOUD solid-state amp with a pretty tweakable eq section and some cool built in effects. With the right balance of the built in distortion & fuzz effects this amp can get doomy enough on its own. Throw a distortion pedal up front and it's game over.


----------



## viifox (Jun 6, 2019)

The XXX doesn't sound anything like a 5150. It's much thinner, and even tighter. It's not versatile at all, but excels at thrash.

The Ultra Plus sounds much better to me. It's a tad thicker in tone and feel than the xxx, and It's one of the few amps that actually is tremendously improved when using a sonic stomp in the loop (trust me). The UP is probably my favorite Peavey amp of all time.


----------



## viifox (Jun 6, 2019)

laxu said:


> I deeply dislike the XXX. It’s almost like a bad solid-state amp in the way it has zero dynamic range and absurd gain. To me the XXX always sounded like it wanted to be a Recto but totally failed at it. The JSX was a lot better but still not an amp I would want.


What do you mean "wanted to be"? There's like zero recto flavor in the xxx. It's apples and oranges here.


----------



## prlgmnr (Jun 6, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> Gain is an increase in the amplitude of a signal. It is _not_ distortion. I repeat: GAIN IS NOT DISTORTION.
> 
> When you use a clean boost, you are most definitely adding gain; the signal is bigger after the boost than it was before. I don't know anyone who runs EQs or ODs at below unity volume (it would sound weak and anemic); everyone turns the volume knobs on their TS-9s and SD-1s way up.
> 
> ...


You must have a hard time if you need to take money to the bank.

Just chucking it down the side of a river like I'M CORRECT ON A TECHNICALITY


----------



## LiveOVErdrive (Jun 6, 2019)

Boosts are rarely used as clean boosts anyway. They are EQs that cut bass and tighten things up. 

I run a boost with a volume cut on my 6505. It tightens it up and lowers the gain a bit for rhythm playing. Then for solos I turn it off. Looser and more overdriven. Pretty nice.


----------



## jarledge (Jun 6, 2019)

KnightBrolaire said:


> feel free to enlighten us



gain is power increase or decrease. In regular electronics it means amplifying a signal and is typically expressed in db. 

" In electronics, *gain* is a measure of the ability of a two-port circuit (often an *amplifier*) to increase the power or amplitude of a signal from the input to the output port by adding energy converted from some power supply to the signal. ... It is often expressed using the logarithmic decibel (dB) units ("dB *gain*")."

Guitar amps are designed to distort, where just about any other audio amplification is designed to stay as clean as possible. The confusion about gain comes in to play when you boost a signal so much it clips. This clipping causes distortion. So gain isn't actually distortion, but it can cause distortion. This is why old marshall heads have to be turned up loud. You are pushing the power tubes beyond what they can handle and they are clipping the peaks and troughs of the sine waves coming in. For a boost pedal you are ramping up the input signal to try and push it to clip in the pre amp section. The pre amp can now do all the work with cascading gain stages (boosts, od pedals, ect. in front of the amp) and the power amp can give you more clean gain on the signal to amplify it. 

so gain doesn't inherently mean distortion, but too much gain can cause distortion.


----------



## prlgmnr (Jun 6, 2019)

In the context of guitar amps and pedals, everyone has been using gain to mean distortion for about 50 years, it isn't a confusion, it is two different words that just happen to look and sound the same.


----------



## crankyrayhanky (Jun 6, 2019)

LiveOVErdrive said:


> Boosts are rarely used as clean boosts anyway. They are EQs that cut bass and tighten things up.
> 
> I run a boost with a volume cut on my 6505. It tightens it up and lowers the gain a bit for rhythm playing. Then for solos I turn it off. Looser and more overdriven. Pretty nice.



That may work for you, but 99% of metal people are doing the opposite of what you posted


----------



## vick1000 (Jun 6, 2019)

Gain is indeed signal strength, and distortion is clipping, but guess how you get more clipping distortion.

The reason people have traditionally added a boost up front is for three things. Touch sensitivity for lead work, like having hotter pick ups and more harmonics. Saturation or compression, for lead work, makes lead notes more fluid. And EQ for lead work, boosting mids and highs for lead type frequencies.

Now it has become mainstream to use a boost for all of the above, but for rythm tones. That is because modern rythms in the metal genres is more like traditional lead runs of old school rock. Plus lower tuning and faster tempo need clarity a boost can provide.

These aspects are generally accomplished by hitting the input stage of a tube amp with a hotter signal, and pushing it into clipping. That adds distortion, which is clipping. However, older amps did not respond as well, even with a clean boost or treble boost. So you ended up with the traditional Tube Screamer circuit, where you got boost, EQ, and clipping in one unit, and can make a cleaner amp get very hairy.

Digitally of course, you can do anything to the signal, but modelers try to emulate individual parts, so you still get the effects of analog devices in front of the modeled amp. And can use a digital platform as a boost in front of a real amp, which is a major bonus, since a digital noise gate is far more versatile and quicker than analog.


----------



## LiveOVErdrive (Jun 6, 2019)

crankyrayhanky said:


> That may work for you, but 99% of metal people are doing the opposite of what you posted


True about the gain, but cutting the bass is true for almost everyone in the metal world.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jun 6, 2019)

viifox said:


> The XXX doesn't sound anything like a 5150. It's much thinner, and even tighter. It's not versatile at all, but excels at thrash.
> 
> The Ultra Plus sounds much better to me. It's a tad thicker in tone and feel than the xxx, and It's one of the few amps that actually is tremendously improved when using a sonic stomp in the loop (trust me). The UP is probably my favorite Peavey amp of all time.


It's been like 10 years since I've played a XXX and most clips i've seen out there are trying to compare it to a 5150/6505, so I figured it did a pretty good job at aping it


----------



## vick1000 (Jun 6, 2019)

One thing to consider with the Ultra/XXX(3120)/JSX(XXXII) series from Peavey, is they all have active EQ controls. Anything above noon on low/mid/hi, is boosting that freq, before the power section. they are very finicky amps to EQ, a 10-band in the loop gives you better control over the honky mids, and you can eliminate that cocked wah tone easier.


----------



## Smoked Porter (Jun 6, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> Gain is an increase in the amplitude of a signal. It is _not_ distortion. I repeat: GAIN IS NOT DISTORTION.
> 
> When you use a clean boost, you are most definitely adding gain; the signal is bigger after the boost than it was before. I don't know anyone who runs EQs or ODs at below unity volume (it would sound weak and anemic); everyone turns the volume knobs on their TS-9s and SD-1s way up.
> 
> ...


Sure, but even with all that said, pretty often people turn down the gain knob on their amp when they add an OD, so the goal still isn't necessarily more distortion.


----------



## Seabeast2000 (Jun 6, 2019)




----------



## Drew (Jun 6, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> Gain is an increase in the amplitude of a signal. It is _not_ distortion. I repeat: GAIN IS NOT DISTORTION.
> 
> When you use a clean boost, you are most definitely adding gain; the signal is bigger after the boost than it was before. I don't know anyone who runs EQs or ODs at below unity volume (it would sound weak and anemic); everyone turns the volume knobs on their TS-9s and SD-1s way up.


Two comments.

1) While you're not wrong... it's a pretty long-standing convention in the guitar world to refer to distortion as "gain" or "preamp gain," since the first amps capable of producing any meaningful preamp distortion were using cascading tube gain stages. Often times the control is even labeled "gain." If we're going to split hairs you're correct, but I'm not sure if really matters here.

2) An awful lot of people actually do use an OD in front of a distorted amp more or less at unity, as sort of a pre-EQ more than a way to boost the preamp signal and hit the front of the amp harder.

To the OP - haven't plugged into an XXX in years, but I remember it being _stupidly_ gainy - the red channel was unusable for me with the gain knob over 3. I've also never gotten along with active EQ amps, either.


----------



## Cynicanal (Jun 6, 2019)

Smoked Porter said:


> Sure, but even with all that said, pretty often people turn down the gain knob on their amp when they add an OD, so the goal still isn't necessarily more distortion.


Even if you have a similar amount of overall distortion, pushing a bigger signal into the input tube causes you to have a different clipping structure (you end up with an additional clipping stage at the start even with a clean boost). Two more clipping stages if using an SD-1 or TS-9 style pedal (both from a bigger signal into the input tube and the clipping inherent to either of those pedals even with the drive at 0). More smaller clips creates a different sound and feel to the distortion than one larger clip.



Drew said:


> Two comments.
> 
> 1) While you're not wrong... it's a pretty long-standing convention in the guitar world to refer to distortion as "gain" or "preamp gain," since the first amps capable of producing any meaningful preamp distortion were using cascading tube gain stages. Often times the control is even labeled "gain." If we're going to split hairs you're correct, but I'm not sure if really matters here.


The reason the knob is labelled "gain" is because it _is_ a volume (that is, gain) knob for the preamp. It also happens to create distortion.



prlgmnr said:


> You must have a hard time if you need to take money to the bank.
> 
> Just chucking it down the side of a river like I'M CORRECT ON A TECHNICALITY


I guess you didn't read the second half of my post?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 6, 2019)

The 5150 series has a midrange roar that the Ultra/XXX series doesn't have. The 5150 is muddier but much more aggressive. The Ultra/XXX line has a smoother midrange. Has a more trebly cut and a tighter low end. 

I actually miss my XXX. I feel like the Ultra/XXX/JSX could complement a 5150 perfectly.


----------



## Drew (Jun 6, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> The reason the knob is labelled "gain" is because it _is_ a volume (that is, gain) knob for the preamp. It also happens to create distortion.


Again... I'm well aware that a tube preamp creates distortion by increasing the amplitude of the signal until it reaches (and passes) the point of saturation. Technically speaking, you're correct in that a "gain" knob works by increasing the volume hitting the tubes.

But, because in practice you're not actually making the signal "louder" because the circuit is designed with essentially no headroom so all that "volume" turns into saturation... I mean, my Mark-V has a preamp section with a "gain" knob and a "volume" knob, (as well as a "master" knob that controls global output), and only one of those two really has any impact on amplitude. 

Again, you're not technically wrong... but that's an awfully strange hill to choose to die on.


----------



## Boofchuck (Jun 6, 2019)

vick1000 said:


> One thing to consider with the Ultra/XXX(3120)/JSX(XXXII) series from Peavey, is they all have active EQ controls. Anything above noon on low/mid/hi, is boosting that freq, before the power section. they are very finicky amps to EQ, a 10-band in the loop gives you better control over the honky mids, and you can eliminate that cocked wah tone easier.


I have a 3120 and I love the thing but I've been really annoyed about having to turn down the tone knob on all of my guitars to avoid that cocked wah sound. I think I'll try an EQ. Thanks!


----------



## Rex (Jun 6, 2019)

And the first and cheap Valveking?? not bad with a re tube and an od in front for metal


----------



## Smoked Porter (Jun 6, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> Even if you have a similar amount of overall distortion, pushing a bigger signal into the input tube causes you to have a different clipping structure (you end up with an additional clipping stage at the start even with a clean boost). Two more clipping stages if using an SD-1 or TS-9 style pedal (both from a bigger signal into the input tube and the clipping inherent to either of those pedals even with the drive at 0). More smaller clips creates a different sound and feel to the distortion than one larger clip.



Well yeah. That's the point of adding an OD pedal in a metal context, to get a different sound/feel than you would by simply turning up the amp gain and adjusting its eq controls a certain way.


----------



## Cynicanal (Jun 6, 2019)

Drew said:


> Again, you're not technically wrong... but that's an awfully strange hill to choose to die on.


It's not a strange hill to fight on at all -- having a proper understanding of what gain actually is is required to properly understand gain staging.


----------



## LeftOurEyes (Jun 6, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> It's not a strange hill to fight on at all -- having a proper understanding of what gain actually is is required to properly understand gain staging.



Yeah it actually is a strange hill to fight on in a thread that is simply about old Peavey amps and not understanding gain staging. I helped get the thread slightly of topic with talking about clean boosts in the first place but only mentioned it because of people talking about how much gain an amp had and I found it slightly confusing. You came in and had to try and win the smartest guy on the internet award by describing how everyone is wrong and try and describe what gain is. For the context of this thread most people were talking about distortion, and as long as most people knew that then the exact correct wording for it is irrelevant.

Thank you for trying to impress strangers with your knowledge though. I wish I was a smart as you.


----------



## Bearitone (Jun 6, 2019)

Someone tell me about the old teal stripe (vintage shell) Ultra 120. Is it basically an Ultra Plus? Or was it it’s own thing?

I played a used one in GC Hollywood (going for $300) awhile ago and was blown away by it. The only better sounding amp in the store that day was a Mesa MkV 35


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 6, 2019)

Rex said:


> And the first and cheap Valveking?? not bad with a re tube and an od in front for metal



I've always wanted to try one of these to be honest.


----------



## viifox (Jun 6, 2019)

KnightBrolaire said:


> It's been like 10 years since I've played a XXX and most clips i've seen out there are trying to compare it to a 5150/6505, so I figured it did a pretty good job at aping it


The biggest difference is that the xxx completey lacks the girth of the 5150, and the xxx is a bit tighter.

I'd say that's enough of a difference to make them worlds apart.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 6, 2019)

viifox said:


> The biggest difference is that the xxx completey lacks the girth of the 5150. It's enough of a difference to make them worlds apart.


If there's anything the JSX does better than the XXX, it's the power amp EQ. It has resonance and presence controls like the 5150 so you can dial out some of the fizz and add back in some girth.


----------



## viifox (Jun 6, 2019)

I'll also add that the UP/xxx/jsx amps perform really well at lower volumes.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jun 6, 2019)

viifox said:


> The biggest difference is that the xxx completey lacks the girth of the 5150, and the xxx is a bit tighter.
> 
> I'd say that's enough of a difference to make them worlds apart.


tighter and not as girthy sounds good to me. The 5150 always seemed a bit excessive in terms of low end imo


----------



## viifox (Jun 6, 2019)

KnightBrolaire said:


> tighter and not as girthy sounds good to me. The 5150 always seemed a bit excessive in terms of low end imo


Yeah, it just depends on what you're going for. I found the xxx to be too thin for my liking. Still a fun amp though, and can be had for dirt cheap. I think paid $300 for mine.


----------



## Blasphemer (Jun 6, 2019)

Hater's gonna hate, but I always LOVED the Transtube Supreme for anything doomy/sludgy. I wouldn't use it for any modern metal tones, but as a big, loud fuzz machine - hell yes. They can also be had for dirt cheap if you look in the right places.


----------



## Drew (Jun 6, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> It's not a strange hill to fight on at all -- having a proper understanding of what gain actually is is required to properly understand gain staging.


You're not one of those guys who goes on and on about how, well actually, its a vibrato, not a tremolo, are you? 

In common parlance "gain" and "distortion" are synonyms when discussing guitar amps. It's not technically correct, but considering the circuit is designed to use gain to produce distortion, it's sort of a moot point anyway, and I don't really care enough to continue discussing this or stop using "preamp gain" to describe distortion.


----------



## gunch (Jun 6, 2019)

So apparently the XXX was going to be a George Lynch sig? I thought _HE_ was the OG SLO 100 guy


----------



## Cynicanal (Jun 6, 2019)

Drew said:


> You're not one of those guys who goes on and on about how, well actually, its a vibrato, not a tremolo, are you?
> 
> In common parlance "gain" and "distortion" are synonyms when discussing guitar amps. It's not technically correct, but considering the circuit is designed to use gain to produce distortion, it's sort of a moot point anyway, and I don't really care enough to continue discussing this or stop using "preamp gain" to describe distortion.


It's not a moot point at all, a bunch of people back on page 1 seem to be under the impression that boosting signal amplitude into an amp has no effect on distortion.


----------



## ATRguitar91 (Jun 6, 2019)

I don't know if it's been mentioned but I always Stan for the Supreme 160. Solid state death metal perfection with the active EQ.


----------



## MetalHex (Jun 6, 2019)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> I've always wanted to try one of these to be honest.


I have one. Get one. Get an OD pedal. Balls. Plus, It's a bit drier sounding than the 6505+, but some prefer that. For the price of a used one, trust me


----------



## Bearitone (Jun 6, 2019)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> I've always wanted to try one of these to be honest.



I had an old Valveking vk100 and i preferred it with the “Mesa” mod. But, even after modding it was still not high gain enough for my taste. It could do thrash no problem but, couldn’t go as hard as the 6505 so i sold it.


----------



## gnoll (Jun 6, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> It's not a moot point at all, a bunch of people back on page 1 seem to be under the impression that boosting signal amplitude into an amp has no effect on distortion.



I don't know who you are talking about or how you came to that conclusion, and I don't know if you're really trying to educate people or if this is more about boosting your own ego, but either way, maybe you should just stop. People have tried to tell you that no one fucking cares. I mean, come on.


----------



## Rex (Jun 6, 2019)

Bearitone said:


> I had an old Valveking vk100 and i preferred it with the “Mesa” mod. But, even after modding it was still not high gain enough for my taste. It could do thrash no problem but, couldn’t go as hard as the 6505 so i sold it.


Yes I agree, it's not as brutal as the 6505, but with a good ts type pedal in front an a good set of tubes it can do metal without any problem, definitely the 6505 is better, but for the price it's a good option.


----------



## jarledge (Jun 6, 2019)

i have had both the xxx and 5150 and they are totally different amps. They have a lot of distortion and that is about all they have in common. The xxx doesn't have the low end grunt of the 5150 but has a neutral usable clean and 3 channels over the 2 on peavey 5150s/6505 . They complement each other really well but aren't tonally very similar.


----------



## viifox (Jun 6, 2019)

jarledge said:


> i have had both the xxx and 5150 and they are totally different amps. They have a lot of distortion and that is about all they have in common. The xxx doesn't have the low end grunt of the 5150 but has a neutral usable clean and 3 channels over the 2 on peavey 5150s/6505 . They complement each other really well but aren't tonally very similar.


This.


----------



## WarMachine (Jun 6, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> It's not a moot point at all, a bunch of people back on page 1 seem to be under the impression that boosting signal amplitude into an amp has no effect on distortion.


Right, because we _*all *_like to put things in a chain that have absolutely zero effect on the amps we use Makes about as much sense as "educating" us lesser mortals on gain vs giving input on the OP.


----------



## Cynicanal (Jun 6, 2019)

WarMachine said:


> Right, because we _*all *_like to put things in a chain that have absolutely zero effect on the amps we use


Dunno about you, but I like a good tuning pedal.


----------



## youngthrasher9 (Jun 6, 2019)

I’ve owned and played through a: 3120, XXX, and a 6505+. I’ve played through a block letter 5150 as well. 

My favorite was the XXX. I found it to be like a rage baby of the block letter and a triple rectifier. It had that bone crushing bottom end of the latter, but more of saturated crunch in the mids like the 5150. (With a hair less of them, however.) 

The 3120 is the same thing as a XXX, but mine came with EL34’s which translated to an odd honky hollow sound high midrange that I couldn’t dial out with my rig. I think that particular amp needed biased really bad and the tubes were kinda junk as I recall. 

My second favorite was the 6505+. Boosted, I was getting The Black Dahlia Murder tones all day. (Latest album)


----------



## aesthyrian (Jun 6, 2019)

The Rockmaster Preamp... mmm mmm that thing is sweet. I know the dudes from Textures used it on nearly every album.

Dunno why I sold it. 

and yeah, the XXX and 5150 pair together great. The other guitarist in a band I was in for years had an XXX and I had my 5150, our sound together was just perfect to me. Plus, I was always jealous of his tone.. and his usable clean, separate EQ's, the 3 channels, the not piece of shit plastic footswitch, and adjustable bias... and well, ya know.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 6, 2019)

gunch said:


> So apparently the XXX was going to be a George Lynch sig? I thought _HE_ was the OG SLO 100 guy



According to James Brown, yeah, the XXX was tweaked to George's specs. Apparently it has the Recto look and a Recto-ish inspired sound was because in the '90s, one of George's most prized amps was an early-revision Dual Rectifier, that eventually got damaged and the apparent repair fucked up the sound.


----------



## viifox (Jun 7, 2019)

I find it odd that the xxx and the recto even get compared. They seriously couldn't be further away from each other in every regard. Maybe it's the metal faceplate?


----------



## Shask (Jun 7, 2019)

viifox said:


> I find it odd that the xxx and the recto even get compared. They seriously couldn't be further away from each other in every regard. Maybe it's the metal faceplate?


Because the Triple XXX came out in the late 90's when Rectos were super popular with bands like Korn and Limp Bizkit, and the Peavey ads something something like "Designed to get the heavy Rectified tones of today's rock and metal bands". I remember from day one it seemed like they were trying to make a cheap Recto style amp to compete with Mesa.


However, by design, the Triple XXX was a modern Ultra Plus. They basically took the Ultra Plus and fuzzed it up. It was like a cross of the Ultra Plus and Recto/5150/SLO designs.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 7, 2019)

viifox said:


> I find it odd that the xxx and the recto even get compared. They seriously couldn't be further away from each other in every regard. Maybe it's the metal faceplate?



Tonewise compared to the Ultra, the XXX seems to have a slighty saggier, bigger low end and more abrasive, dirtier sound. It seems like they were trying to appeal to the Recto crowd. A combination of George Lynch loving Rectos as the time and the nu metal craze. 

I wasn't saying it was a 1:1 Recto clone, just that the Recto was definitely inspiring the tone and design of the XXX.


----------



## USMarine75 (Jun 7, 2019)

aesthyrian said:


> The Rockmaster Preamp... mmm mmm that thing is sweet. I know the dudes from Textures used it on nearly every album.
> 
> Dunno why I sold it.
> 
> and yeah, the XXX and 5150 pair together great. The other guitarist in a band I was in for years had an XXX and I had my 5150, our sound together was just perfect to me. Plus, I was always jealous of his tone.. and his usable clean, separate EQ's, the 3 channels, the not piece of shit plastic footswitch, and adjustable bias... and well, ya know.



The Rockmaster preamp is a 10/10 for me - most surprising thing for me was the clean channel. It has a spankyness that rivals my tone-snob corksiffing brand amps.


----------



## Roadsterjosh (Jun 7, 2019)

I have an Ultra Plus that I will probably never get rid if. It is so flexible, and has such a wide range of tones available. The clean isn't exactly the best of all time, but it works very well and has some fender qualities to it when EQd a little scooped. The crunch channel and ultra channel share eq but they're voiced differently. They both have so much gain available that it is overwhelming, and this is without the gain boost switches touched. I think they're probably a diode clipping stage that increases the distortion levels by quite a big margin. The resonance circuit is on a switch that can make the amp super tight or really loose depending on the settings. I prefer tight with a 7 string and loose with a 6 in standard, so I leave it in the middle to get a little of each. The amp is super quiet, almost no need for a noise gate in the loop. 
I know the lineage of the ultra series, but I don't hear much similarity from the Ultra Plus to the XXX. There is some, but with the XXX peavey took a step back in terms of tone in my opinion.


----------



## USMarine75 (Jun 7, 2019)

Anyone mention the JSX? You know, the amp Satriani had onstage all lit up, with the covered and mic'd up Marshall behind it.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 7, 2019)

From what i've read, the Ultra 120 is what the Rockmaster preamp is based on. That, or they took a Rockmaster preamp and added a 60/120w power amp to it. Not sure which came first. 


USMarine75 said:


> Anyone mention the JSX? You know, the amp Satriani had onstage all lit up, with the covered and mic'd up Marshall behind it.



It's weird how Peavey designed an amp that sounded nothing like Satch's tone, yet it's a fucking exquisite high-gain metal amp.

It's like the 5150 of the 2000s.

Also listening to clips of the original Valveking... Honestly, it sounds cool. It sounds like it has the grunt of a 5150, and the high end of the Ultra Plus/XXX. Although it lacks the gain of all 3.


----------



## wedge_destroyer (Jun 7, 2019)

USMarine75 said:


> The Rockmaster preamp is a 10/10 for me - most surprising thing for me was the clean channel. It has a spankyness that rivals my tone-snob corksiffing brand amps.



So much this. 
Which is why mine shall never leave me, of my own free will. Even with the shared Eq for crunch and ultra channels, just throw an Eq in the respective loop and tweak away. The circuit and added versatility of the 5 different loops and 3 outputs (1V, 3V -10db xlr) is what makes it (IMO) the best of the ultra series; just add power amp of your choice.

And I'm not totally sure which is the chicken or the egg, I thought it was head then pre. But it's been a long time since I lurked the Peavey forums.


----------



## viifox (Jun 7, 2019)

Roadsterjosh said:


> I have an Ultra Plus that I will probably never get rid if. It is so flexible, and has such a wide range of tones available. The clean isn't exactly the best of all time, but it works very well and has some fender qualities to it when EQd a little scooped. The crunch channel and ultra channel share eq but they're voiced differently. They both have so much gain available that it is overwhelming, and this is without the gain boost switches touched. I think they're probably a diode clipping stage that increases the distortion levels by quite a big margin. The resonance circuit is on a switch that can make the amp super tight or really loose depending on the settings. I prefer tight with a 7 string and loose with a 6 in standard, so I leave it in the middle to get a little of each. The amp is super quiet, almost no need for a noise gate in the loop.
> I know the lineage of the ultra series, but I don't hear much similarity from the Ultra Plus to the XXX. There is some, but with the XXX peavey took a step back in terms of tone in my opinion.


Totally. The xxx to me is like 2 steps backwards from the UP. The xxx is more aggressive though, but is really tight and trashy sounding, which is why i think it excels at thrash based genres.


----------



## Drew (Jun 7, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> Dunno about you, but I like a good tuning pedal.


: 

Well played, lol.


----------



## youngthrasher9 (Jun 7, 2019)

viifox said:


> I find it odd that the xxx and the recto even get compared. They seriously couldn't be further away from each other in every regard. Maybe it's the metal faceplate?


I’m not talking construction or every aspect of tone. It’s more of a feel thing. On the mid or loose setting it feels like a Recto, and I’ll be damned if it doesn’t have a similar vibe tonally.


----------



## EdgeCrusher (Jun 7, 2019)

I picked up a Peavey Ultra 410 combo recently for $250. Couldn't pass it up when I saw it on CL. I plan on converting it into a head to put on top of my Peavey 412MS with G12K-85's. 

It sounds pretty good; not as good as the 5150 block letter or 6505+ 112 combo I used to own, nor as good as the 5150 III 50 watt head I currently also own, though it does the job, and can't really be beat for the price. 

It does not have the clarity or tightness of the 5150 III. I can kinda see how it could be compared to a Recto, as it is thick though a bit loose and fizzy. The cleans do sound quite nice compared to a 5150/6505. The active controls are a bit weird, and an external EQ does help out quite a bit. 

I wouldn't keep in for my main amp, though it's great for a second amp or running in stereo with my 5150 III


----------



## gunch (Jun 7, 2019)

hey nerds explain this video, I thought BBEs were big no-nos!!!

Like it magically made a night and day difference with this Ultra Plus


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 7, 2019)

gunch said:


> hey nerds explain this video, I thought BBEs were big no-nos!!!
> 
> Like it magically made a night and day difference with this Ultra Plus



I can see it working for the Ultra Plus because it's a VEEEERY midrange heavy amp. It'll add some depth that the Ultra series can be missing. Plus it sounds like he dialed in his base tone to be very very dark and midrangey and used the BBE to compensate for that.


----------



## Shask (Jun 7, 2019)

gunch said:


> hey nerds explain this video, I thought BBEs were big no-nos!!!
> 
> Like it magically made a night and day difference with this Ultra Plus



I think anything in the loop to help control frequencies helps the Ultra Plus. Heck, I remember an interview with the White Zombie guitarist back in the 90's talking about how that amp was best with the mids dialed up, and then an EQ in the loop to scoop them back. He said it sounded better than scooping with the amps mid control.


----------



## mnemonic (Jun 7, 2019)

EdgeCrusher said:


> I picked up a Peavey Ultra 410 combo recently for $250. Couldn't pass it up when I saw it on CL. I plan on converting it into a head to put on top of my Peavey 412MS with G12K-85's.
> 
> It sounds pretty good; not as good as the 5150 block letter or 6505+ 112 combo I used to own, nor as good as the 5150 III 50 watt head I currently also own, though it does the job, and can't really be beat for the price.
> 
> ...



I see these come up for sale every now and then really cheap, but they’re always collection only (understandable given the size) and too far away from me. I’m still waiting for one nearby, so I can convert it into a head. 



gunch said:


> hey nerds explain this video, I thought BBEs were big no-nos!!!
> 
> Like it magically made a night and day difference with this Ultra Plus




Good video. I think I liked unboosted with the bbe the most. 

The thing about the BBE sonic maximiser is it’s a tool and it will work for some jobs and not others. A lot of people misuse them, which leads to a bad reputation. 

The marketing copy also doesn’t help, since despite the claims about phase and timing alignment and whatever else, they’re just state variable filters (gyrator eq) fixed to boost-only. At least with the pedals, I assume the rack units are the same thing. Contour boosts bass, and process boosts highs. 

So for an amp that is very mid-focused and lacks bass and treble, they’re a good tool. I liked using one with my Marshall valvestate head since they’re thin on the bottom end, it was like adding depth and presence controls (kinda). But for something that produces plenty of lows and highs, like a Mesa, it’s unnecessary and will probably result in a boomy and scooped tone. 

Also most people will overdo it and crank both knobs up which might sound cool in your bedroom once your ears are acclimated to it, but what you’ve essentially done is scoop all your mids. 

I can get why the bbe works good with an ultra, since it doesn’t have depth or presence controls, and if you set the damping to tight, that is like setting depth and presence at 0.


----------



## viifox (Jun 7, 2019)

youngthrasher9 said:


> I’m not talking construction or every aspect of tone. It’s more of a feel thing. On the mid or loose setting it feels like a Recto, and I’ll be damned if it doesn’t have a similar vibe tonally.


-100.

Seriously, i got rid of my xxx, because it had NOTHING in common with a recto, especially the feel. The voicing and feel are polar opposites.

The xxx is thin, and tight (on all settings), while a recto has a certain girth/thickness that can only be found on certain amps (Uberschall, Archon, etc.), and the xxx is most certainly not one of them. 

Play them side by side, and the difference will be obvious. I was actually running these amps in a stereo rig a few years back.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 7, 2019)

I found the Ultra channel can be saggy at times. Not Recto pudding mushy, but it definitely had more give than the Crunch channel.


----------



## Roadsterjosh (Jun 7, 2019)

The Ultra Plus would benefit greatly with a presence ciruit to give a little more treble content. I typically run mine slightly scooped, with the treble pushed because I feel like it lacks a little high end. I boost with an SD1 with the tone knob set a little higher than half to get a little more grind and jt seems to do the trick. I haven't tried a maximizer in years, but would think it may do a good job pushing the highs a bit. I'll have to see if I can find one cheap.


----------



## viifox (Jun 7, 2019)

gunch said:


> hey nerds explain this video, I thought BBEs were big no-nos!!!
> 
> Like it magically made a night and day difference with this Ultra Plus



I already mentioned this, lol!


----------



## gunch (Jun 7, 2019)

viifox said:


> I already mentioned this, lol!



You did, oops. In my defense this guy was using the rack maximizer and by the time I was looking around on youtube I had forgotten your post 

FWIW now you have video evidence of your claim, which is valid


----------



## viifox (Jun 7, 2019)

gunch said:


> You did, oops. In my defense this guy was using the rack maximizer and by the time I was looking around on youtube I had forgotten your post
> 
> FWIW now you have video evidence of your claim, which is valid


Haha! I'm just giving you a hard time.


----------



## youngthrasher9 (Jun 7, 2019)

viifox said:


> -100.
> 
> Seriously, i got rid of my xxx, because it had NOTHING in common with a recto, especially the feel. The voicing and feel are polar opposites.
> 
> ...


Were you running 6l6’s, hot? I was. My 3120 sounded more like you’re describing. I’m not sure how the response changes with tuning, either. I was doing B standard 100% of the time so perhaps a tuning difference made for change in response.


----------



## viifox (Jun 7, 2019)

youngthrasher9 said:


> Were you running 6l6’s, hot? I was. My 3120 sounded more like you’re describing. I’m not sure how the response changes with tuning, either. I was doing B standard 100% of the time so perhaps a tuning difference made for change in response.


I tried 6l6, el34, and kt77s. I couldn't get close to a recto sound at all, even through the mesa recto cab.


----------



## USMarine75 (Jun 8, 2019)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> I can see it working for the Ultra Plus because it's a VEEEERY midrange heavy amp. It'll add some depth that the Ultra series can be missing. Plus it sounds like he dialed in his base tone to be very very dark and midrangey and used the BBE to compensate for that.



People used to put DBX (266 or 286 cant remember) mic preamp in the FX loop and it absolutely crushed with these amps. The XXX sounded killer it fixed the thinness in much the way that people use midboosters now.


----------



## Elric (Jun 8, 2019)

The XXX has an active EQ/tone stack right? Most people find those weird since few amps sport them.


----------



## viifox (Jun 8, 2019)

Elric said:


> The XXX has an active EQ/tone stack right? Most people find those weird since few amps sport them.


It does. There's even an "easter egg" on the xxx where one of the knobs (can't remember which one) on the lead channel affects the sound (presence, maybe?) on the crunch channel. It's wacky, but true.


----------



## Boofchuck (Jun 8, 2019)

viifox said:


> It does. There's even an "easter egg" on the xxx where one of the knobs (can't remember which one) on the lead channel affects the sound (presence, maybe?) on the crunch channel. It's wacky, but true.


It's the volume knob. It brightens things up. I've had a 3120 for 7 years and I only discovered this a few weeks ago!


----------



## budda (Jun 8, 2019)

Tl/dr buy old peaveys or a 6534+.


----------



## viifox (Jun 8, 2019)

Boofchuck said:


> It's the volume knob. It brightens things up. I've had a 3120 for 7 years and I only discovered this a few weeks ago!


That's right! It's all coming back to me now.


----------



## maggotspawn (Jun 8, 2019)

I have a XXX, JSX and have owned a 6505+. 
The trick with the XXX is to set the resonance switch to loose. It sounds way better this way. Not as tight as the 6505+ but tight enough, and brutal sounding.


----------



## Boofchuck (Jun 9, 2019)

maggotspawn said:


> I have a XXX, JSX and have owned a 6505+.
> The trick with the XXX is to set the resonance switch to loose. It sounds way better this way. Not as tight as the 6505+ but tight enough, and brutal sounding.


Diming the amps' master volume and backing off the tone knob on the guitar also really helps.


----------



## op1e (Jun 9, 2019)

I've had the original green stripe Ultra 120 for 10 years. I can't NOT use it with a Sonic Stomp in the loop. It just adds so much punch that's not there. That and the loop needs a kick to the signal. I use 4 cable method and using the loop halves the volume I'd say. Stay away from the rackmount, not as good and sucks tone, no true bypass. I've been saying it for years, but I finally gotta take it in to have the Pres/Res circuit added to it. It's the only reason I use other amps. That or I'm just gonna get a Power Station 2 cause I need one for recording anyway. Not a super loud amp.

The secret sauce for this amp is Crunch - gain switch in, gain almost cranked. No boost. Best 7 string amp I've played. Tight, saturated just enough but you gotta attack the strings to get it the rest of the way there.

Ultra - gain switch OUT. Very loose but a nice slappy pick attack like an 800 or unboosted Recto orange channel. Add boost here. I use MXR M77 or Friedman BB.

Clean channel is so gainless and sterile you can leave your OD on pretty much. Nice spank though if you turn the bright switch on and crank the bass. EQ on this channel doesn't do much at all.


----------



## op1e (Jun 9, 2019)

Bearitone said:


> Someone tell me about the old teal stripe (vintage shell) Ultra 120. Is it basically an Ultra Plus? Or was it it’s own thing?
> 
> I played a used one in GC Hollywood (going for $300) awhile ago and was blown away by it. The only better sounding amp in the store that day was a Mesa MkV 35



It's very raw in a way. All 3 channels can be very different. The gain switches are key. I've had it nail the tone of my e530 patch on my gsp1101 on the crunch channel. Ultra without the gain switch is where its at. The sag and bottom end is good for 6 string stuff with an overdrive. Gain switch in ruins that. Anything in tuning lower than C play on the crunch channel. The immediate attack and lack of compression is win here. I actually kinda prefer it in ways over the EVH 50w. The big iron feel. Though I do miss that blue channel. It's not a fancy or pretty amp. I keep going away from it and coming back. It's surgical and raw at the same time depending on the two settings I described. People wanting that 5150 red channel grind play it and "Meh" move on. That's me too at times. According to the previous owner it's been down a flight of stairs. It also sat in a barn for years and I had to take a toothbrush and windex to the tolex when I bought it. It's been serviced once due to the giant 4 pin molex type connector melting down and a resistor in the power section with it.
It's a crutch amp. Keep it in your stable. It gets things done. Balanced Sovtek LPS in the PI, Mullards for the rest. Email Eurotubes for a warmer burning 6L6 set. This amps is cold.


----------



## vick1000 (Jun 9, 2019)

All peavey amps in the Ultra and 5150 series are cold biased, REALLY cold.


----------



## Bearitone (Jun 9, 2019)

Tried a Windsor next to a JVM 210H and really did not like the Windsor at all. Pretty bland to be honest.


----------



## youngthrasher9 (Jun 9, 2019)

Bearitone said:


> Tried a Windsor next to a JVM 210H and really did not like the Windsor at all. Pretty bland to be honest.


That’s pretty much it- it’s a watered down 800 clone from what I’ve heard. I’ve heard they can be modded to sound much closer to the JCM800 circuit among other things, but really the only thing I’ve heard them sound good for stock was lofi punk.


----------



## oneblackened (Jun 10, 2019)

This whole "the Windsor an 800 on a budget" thing is just flat out incorrect. That circuit is nothing like an 800 except for like, the first stage.

The Windsor is also frankly an absolutely bizarre circuit. The preamp is considerably different, inexplicably they've got the cold clipper on the 4th stage driving the tonestack. The JCM800 uses a cathode follower for this and has the cold clipper at the second preamp stage. To turn it into a 2203, you're looking at replacing just about every component in the preamp as well as doing some board mods.

The phase inverter is a split load instead of a long tail pair which is SUPER low headroom by comparison (so it gets mushy at volumes where an 800 is firm in response), and that isn't something you could really redo on a PCB.
I suppose you could buy one for cheap and just gut it and use the chassis for a JCM800 build with an extra couple gain stages available (on a switch or something a la Friedman or Fortin).


----------



## Cynicanal (Jun 10, 2019)

oneblackened said:


> The phase inverter is a split load instead of a long tail pair which is SUPER low headroom by comparison (so it gets mushy at volumes where an 800 is firm in response), and that isn't something you could really redo on a PCB.


For most people this is probably a good thing, since 2203s sound their best with the MV up high enough that the power amp starts sagging and compressing, much higher than is generally practical.


----------



## oneblackened (Jun 10, 2019)

Cynicanal said:


> For most people this is probably a good thing, since 2203s sound their best with the MV up high enough that the power amp starts sagging and compressing, much higher than is generally practical.


 A 100 watt amp is never going to start sagging and compressing until it's obnoxiously loud anyway. May as well have a phase inverter design that isn't all mushy. Plus, split loads sound kinda... bad when they're overdriven.


----------



## Cynicanal (Jun 10, 2019)

Power amp sag/compression typically comes from the PI, not the big bottles (this is why PPIMVs work). A PI design with lower headroom should be one way of effectively making a low-wattage amp with EL34s that you can market as "100 watts".


----------



## LiveOVErdrive (Jun 10, 2019)

oneblackened said:


> This whole "the Windsor an 800 on a budget" thing is just flat out incorrect. That circuit is nothing like an 800 except for like, the first stage.
> 
> The Windsor is also frankly an absolutely bizarre circuit. The preamp is considerably different, inexplicably they've got the cold clipper on the 4th stage driving the tonestack. The JCM800 uses a cathode follower for this and has the cold clipper at the second preamp stage. To turn it into a 2203, you're looking at replacing just about every component in the preamp as well as doing some board mods.
> 
> ...


I have pored over the 2204 schematic for hours upon hours throughout my life and never ONCE have I noticed the cold clipper. I guess with a cathode resistor smaller than a SLO it is tougher to spot. I feel like a doof now. 

Is the purpose just to introduce asymmetrical clipping or is there more to it? I did find when I was building a SLO clone that that stage would be biased essentially off at rest, which would gate out the basic rf noise. That was cool but I'm not sure if it was on purpose.


----------



## youngthrasher9 (Jun 10, 2019)

oneblackened said:


> This whole "the Windsor an 800 on a budget" thing is just flat out incorrect. That circuit is nothing like an 800 except for like, the first stage.
> 
> The Windsor is also frankly an absolutely bizarre circuit. The preamp is considerably different, inexplicably they've got the cold clipper on the 4th stage driving the tonestack. The JCM800 uses a cathode follower for this and has the cold clipper at the second preamp stage. To turn it into a 2203, you're looking at replacing just about every component in the preamp as well as doing some board mods.
> 
> ...


Thanks for clearing that one up. I tried to be pretty clear, I’m working with hearsay, so thanks for putting some experience into the conversation


----------



## LiveOVErdrive (Jun 10, 2019)

The real Peavey jcm on a budget would be a vtm, I think.


----------



## Bearitone (Jun 10, 2019)

LiveOVErdrive said:


> The real Peavey jcm on a budget would be a vtm, I think.



Now, the VTM i tried was badass so i believe that


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 10, 2019)

LiveOVErdrive said:


> The real Peavey jcm on a budget would be a vtm, I think.



And the original Butcher. The VTM was the Butcher with dip switches to mod the circuit. 
I brought this up earlier in the threqd but watch the Dave Friedman podcast with James Brown. He talks about the development of the VTM.


----------



## oneblackened (Jun 10, 2019)

LiveOVErdrive said:


> I have pored over the 2204 schematic for hours upon hours throughout my life and never ONCE have I noticed the cold clipper. I guess with a cathode resistor smaller than a SLO it is tougher to spot. I feel like a doof now.
> 
> Is the purpose just to introduce asymmetrical clipping or is there more to it? I did find when I was building a SLO clone that that stage would be biased essentially off at rest, which would gate out the basic rf noise. That was cool but I'm not sure if it was on purpose.


 same basic purpose as an slo's cold clipper, it's there to induce asymmetric distortion. It's just milder. 


Also, 100% on the Butcher/VTM.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jun 15, 2019)

edit: nevermind


----------



## Seabeast2000 (Jun 15, 2019)

Btw, is it confirmed that the xxx II is the JSX rebadged after Joe left?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 15, 2019)

The906 said:


> Btw, is it confirmed that the xxx II is the JSX rebadged after Joe left?



https://www.guitarworld.com/gw-archive/review-peavey-triple-xxx-ii-amp
https://peavey.com/forum//viewtopic.php?f=19&t=19330&hilit=XXX#p144870


----------



## op1e (Jun 16, 2019)

Here's another stinger of a question. Are 333 and 333XL direct circuit copies of XXX/JSX, or is their 333XL just the 333 with a noise gate and fat switches? That would make the latter much more inviting, being a JSX without the Classic series crunch channel.


----------



## exo (Jun 16, 2019)

I’ve owned a Windsor halfstack for years. Best use is as a 100 watt EL34 power amp, using whatever preamp you have straight into the FX return. My latest experiment is an inbound AMT P2. I hope it’s as crushing as I think it will be.......


----------



## bracky (Jun 17, 2019)

I don’t see much mention of the duel 212. I really liked mine when I had it.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Jun 17, 2019)

Every now and then I miss my JSX..but not enough to get another.

For the record those are great amps and I preferred them to the XXX I once had and to the 6505..but ah well.


----------



## MASS DEFECT (Jun 17, 2019)

I had the JSX. Loved it since it is a bit scooped and has that big snarl that compliments my 6505. Had to sell it since I gravitated towards 5150 type sounds anyway. 

But I kept the JSX cab. The speakers sound aggressive, they cut through the mix, and it doesnt sound like your typical Peavey speaker that tries to copy a Celestion. Maybe it is a copy of a Celestion but it has its own unique voice that I found works for my solid state power amp and modeling rig. And those speakers have huge power. 100 watts a piece! I'd go deaf before my Matrix can blow those cones off.


----------



## Shask (Jun 17, 2019)

Damn this thread...... lol

Yesterday I ran across a pretty decent condition Triple XXX for a decent price, so I had to grab it.... now I have another 100W tube head. 

Have it taken apart, cleaning it up, etc.... I like it because it sounds different than my other tube amps, like a Triple Recto, and JCA100HDM. It is very tight and aggressive. It is not as ball-shaking, but has a nice aggressive bark to it. So far I like it best with a SD-1 in front, and a GE-7 in the loop.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jun 17, 2019)

Shask said:


> Damn this thread...... lol
> 
> Yesterday I ran across a pretty decent condition Triple XXX for a decent price, so I had to grab it.... now I have another 100W tube head.
> 
> Have it taken apart, cleaning it up, etc.... I like it because it sounds different than my other tube amps, like a Triple Recto, and JCA100HDM. It is very tight and aggressive. It is not as ball-shaking, but has a nice aggressive bark to it. So far I like it best with a SD-1 in front, and a GE-7 in the loop.



Nah, you have another 120w amp. 

And yeah, I miss my XXX. I sold it initially because I was a dumbass with cab micing. If I had a chance, I'd grab one again and use an IR loader instead.


----------



## mnemonic (Jun 17, 2019)

Shask said:


> Damn this thread...... lol
> 
> Yesterday I ran across a pretty decent condition Triple XXX for a decent price, so I had to grab it.... now I have another 100W tube head.
> 
> Have it taken apart, cleaning it up, etc.... I like it because it sounds different than my other tube amps, like a Triple Recto, and JCA100HDM. It is very tight and aggressive. It is not as ball-shaking, but has a nice aggressive bark to it. So far I like it best with a SD-1 in front, and a GE-7 in the loop.



Didn’t you once say you had a room full of amps and got rid of most of them to go axe FX? Sounds like now you’ve got the room full of amps back, and the axe FX also.


----------



## Shask (Jun 17, 2019)

mnemonic said:


> Didn’t you once say you had a room full of amps and got rid of most of them to go axe FX? Sounds like now you’ve got the room full of amps back, and the axe FX also.


Yeah, pretty much 

I had several amps, like a 5150, Mark III, VHT Deliverance D120, etc... and sold them all when I got my Axe-FX II. I kept my Triple Recto, and I have had a JCM800 based clone I built for years, but it was in pieces at the time. I still have my old Triple Recto, and I found a pretty good mod for the JCM800 and have left it alone for more than a year (extra gain stage, EQ tweaks, depth, etc....). I got the JCA100HDM earlier this year because I have always been curious about them, and now I got this Triple XXX. I moved all my tube amps to the basement on a big metal rack with 4-5 shelves. I keep my Axe/Matrix rig, and my Katana head in my little office room. I also have an Ampeg bass combo in there also, along with way too many pedals.

I actually went to check out the PRS MT-15 and EVH 5150 III 50 W. I was jamming on those back to back (the EL34 5153 is all I could find), because I have been thinking about buying one of those. They both seem to be the amp of the year. Then I ran across this XXX and I thought it sounded pretty good, and was less than 40% of the cost of the others, so I figured why not.


----------



## gunch (Jun 17, 2019)

exo said:


> I’ve owned a Windsor halfstack for years. Best use is as a 100 watt EL34 power amp, using whatever preamp you have straight into the FX return. My latest experiment is an inbound AMT P2. I hope it’s as crushing as I think it will be.......



That's pretty genius


----------



## efiltsohg (Jul 8, 2019)

My dad had a Musician in the 80s



mnemonic said:


> After the Ultras came the XXX, then the JSX which was tweaked for joe satriani. One of my friends back in college had a JSX and I always wished I could get a channel between the Crunch and Ultra channel. Ultra felt too compressed and scooped and smooth for me, while the Crunch channel felt like it was a bit too vintage voiced for what I wanted (and also lacked gain). I think I read the Crunch channel on the JSX was meant to sound kinda like a Peavey classic 50, so maybe I would have preferred a XXX or Ultra.



From what I remember, the JSX ultra channel was supposed to be the same as XXX crunch channel


----------



## Shask (Jul 8, 2019)

Shask said:


> Damn this thread...... lol
> 
> Yesterday I ran across a pretty decent condition Triple XXX for a decent price, so I had to grab it.... now I have another 100W tube head.
> 
> Have it taken apart, cleaning it up, etc.... I like it because it sounds different than my other tube amps, like a Triple Recto, and JCA100HDM. It is very tight and aggressive. It is not as ball-shaking, but has a nice aggressive bark to it. So far I like it best with a SD-1 in front, and a GE-7 in the loop.


I forgot to update this thread! Here it is!

I took some time to clean up this amp. Soap, water, everything. I found a 12AT7 tube in it, which I thought was weird, so I ordered a few new preamp tubes. In checking the bias and everything I found a few missing parts on the circuit board. After some research, I think someone tried to do a low gain mod on it. They took out some caps, and there was a hack repair in the power supply. I replaced all the missing parts, looked through every other part very well, and cleaned up the hack repair to make it look professional. This with the new preamp tubes (Tung Sol, Ruby, and 12AX7LPS) it sounds even better! Gain levels now match what I read online (keep it about 11 oclock or so, before I had it at 1-2 oclock). I am really loving this amp at the moment, and I am having fun just pulling out random pedals to run through it. It looks and sounds MUCH better than it did a month ago!


----------



## viifox (Jul 8, 2019)

Between the UP, XXX, and JSX, I'd take the UP every time.


----------



## Walter W. (Jul 8, 2019)

I'd like to try one of those XXX's. Watched, I believe it was Josh Middleton, playing through one and sounded pretty good. My wife would hate it though because of the curvy cuties on the front.


----------



## jarledge (Jul 8, 2019)

Walter W. said:


> I'd like to try one of those XXX's. Watched, I believe it was Josh Middleton, playing through one and sounded pretty good. My wife would hate it though because of the curvy cuties on the front.



you can turn the face plate around really easily. I have mine turned around. I spray painted the back a teal color.


----------



## Walter W. (Jul 8, 2019)

jarledge said:


> you can turn the face plate around really easily. I have mine turned around. I spray painted the back a teal color.



Ah ok, don't know why I didn't think of that


----------



## Tisca (Jul 8, 2019)

Someone called the Windsor "swamp Marshall". I think that's a perfect description.


----------



## Walter W. (Jul 8, 2019)




----------



## KnightBrolaire (Dec 14, 2019)

Necrobump:
I picked up a XXX a couple months ago and I've been messing around with it off and on. For the price point I really dig it. Cleans are actually pretty solid, distorted tones are great for thrash/death metal/hair metal riffage. My only real quibble is that the sound is a bit hairier/fizzier on the high end than I normally like, though I'm sure I could chop it out in post-processing if I care. 
some clips:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/sx1wuie8yt3m8tt/ratbucker_PVXXX_br00t1.flac/file
https://www.mediafire.com/file/1vox1nlojp5arqp/hellfire_PVXXX.flac/file
http://www.mediafire.com/file/lew5fpi3vveuene/domingerRider_PVxxx_medley1.flac/file


----------



## Shask (Dec 14, 2019)

KnightBrolaire said:


> Necrobump:
> I picked up a XXX a couple months ago and I've been messing around with it off and on. For the price point I really dig it. Cleans are actually pretty solid, distorted tones are great for thrash/death metal/hair metal riffage. My only real quibble is that the sound is a bit hairier/fizzier on the high end than I normally like, though I'm sure I could chop it out in post-processing if I care.
> some clips:
> http://www.mediafire.com/file/sx1wuie8yt3m8tt/ratbucker_PVXXX_br00t1.flac/file
> ...


Yeah, I got one last summer, and it has been the main amp I have been playing for the last few months. I have been loving it a lot. I think the extra scratchy high end is my main complaint also, but I get that because I use the resonance switch on loose, which makes the low end chug, but brings in those highs. A separate presence control would help. I think I keep the highs on like 10 o'clock on the crunch channel. Pretty low.

I have been getting some older Rack Effects Units lately, and it has been a solid platform for testing effects. The clean is even great once your throw some Chorus, Delay, and Reverb on it.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Dec 14, 2019)

Shask said:


> Yeah, I got one last summer, and it has been the main amp I have been playing for the last few months. I have been loving it a lot. I think the extra scratchy high end is my main complaint also, but I get that because I use the resonance switch on loose, which makes the low end chug, but brings in those highs. A separate presence control would help. I think I keep the highs on like 10 o'clock on the crunch channel. Pretty low.
> 
> I have been getting some older Rack Effects Units lately, and it has been a solid platform for testing effects. The clean is even great once your throw some Chorus, Delay, and Reverb on it.


I also keep the resonance switch on loose. As far as highs, I run those at like 11 o'clock on crunch and noon on the ultra channel. Considering you can get these for cheaper than a 5150 or 6505, they're pretty damn good sounding. I haven't really run any effects through it other than some HM2 type pedals.


----------



## efiltsohg (Dec 14, 2019)

with the XXX, turning the volume knob on the gain channel not in use changes the tone of the one you are using, give that a try to tweak it a bit

I run mine on loose damping - crunch channel 24/7, if you need a lead boost then just use the effect loop with nothing in it (if you have a footswitch)

these also love EL34s (I have JJ KT77s right now) and JJ preamp tubes (also try a 5751 in slot 1 or 2)


----------



## Gmork (Dec 14, 2019)

Ive wanted to try/own a XXL or XXX for a long time.


----------



## sharedEQ (Dec 14, 2019)

MASS DEFECT said:


> I had the JSX. Loved it since it is a bit scooped and has that big snarl that compliments my 6505. Had to sell it since I gravitated towards 5150 type sounds anyway.
> 
> But I kept the JSX cab. The speakers sound aggressive, they cut through the mix, and it doesnt sound like your typical Peavey speaker that tries to copy a Celestion. Maybe it is a copy of a Celestion but it has its own unique voice that I found works for my solid state power amp and modeling rig. And those speakers have huge power. 100 watts a piece! I'd go deaf before my Matrix can blow those cones off.



I love the jsx and xxx cabs. They are very similar. The jsx driver has a softer top end. The xxx cuts a bit more but it not sharp like a v30. The jsx is like a xxx speaker with less presence which tames the amps harmonics. Although they are very similar. Both dark speakers.

I owned the xxx and jsx. Loved the xxx high gain channel voicing. The jsx had more eq options and the noise gate, but frankly I liked but didn't love the gain.

I would get a xxx again as a one trick pony. The jsx ...not really that versatile for an all rounder.


----------



## Gmork (Dec 15, 2019)

sharedEQ said:


> I love the jsx and xxx cabs. They are very similar. The jsx driver has a softer top end. The xxx cuts a bit more but it not sharp like a v30. The jsx is like a xxx speaker with less presence which tames the amps harmonics. Although they are very similar. Both dark speakers.
> 
> I owned the xxx and jsx. Loved the xxx high gain channel voicing. The jsx had more eq options and the noise gate, but frankly I liked but didn't love the gain.
> 
> I would get a xxx again as a one trick pony. The jsx ...not really that versatile for an all rounder.


How does the xxx differ from the jsx tonally? 
I had a jsx and wasnt too into it. Too flubby, and it had this sort of hollowness to it, seemed like it was in the mids. I dont know, it was just weird. Hated its 2x12 cab too with the god awful blue marvels, yuck


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Dec 15, 2019)

Gmork said:


> How does the xxx differ from the jsx tonally?
> I had a jsx and wasnt too into it. Too flubby, and it had this sort of hollowness to it, seemed like it was in the mids. I dont know, it was just weird. Hated its 2x12 cab too with the god awful blue marvels, yuck


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Dec 16, 2019)

I always wished they would have made an Ultra series super amp. JSX cleans...Ultra 120+ Crunch, and the XXX crunch as the red channel.

Presence and Resonance controls with noise gate, fat switches and a power section that can take any quad of power tubes.

They could have killed all the other amps..left that one as the sole "ultimate" ultra series amp and called it a day.


----------



## sleewell (Dec 16, 2019)

^ that sounds like a sweet amp.


I have always wanted a XXX. Not sure if they have a half power switch or not but a 50-60 watt version would be cool too.


----------



## sleewell (Dec 16, 2019)

^ that sounds like a sweet amp.


I have always wanted a XXX. Not sure if they have a half power switch or not but a 50-60 watt version would be cool too.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Dec 16, 2019)

sleewell said:


> ^ that sounds like a sweet amp.
> 
> 
> I have always wanted a XXX. Not sure if they have a half power switch or not but a 50-60 watt version would be cool too.


the combos were 60 watts.


----------



## Choop (Dec 16, 2019)

KnightBrolaire said:


> the combos were 60 watts.



Actually it depends, there was a 120W 2x12, a 60W 1x12, and I *think* there was even a 40w 1x12.

On the XXX, a guy in this local band years back always used one in a death/grindcore type band, and his tone was always huge and super gnarly, it definitely worked well for that. When I played one in a store, it was hard to dial back the fizz, but I wasn't able to spend a lot of time on it first hand.


----------



## Shask (Dec 16, 2019)

Choop said:


> Actually it depends, there was a 120W 2x12, a 60W 1x12, and I *think* there was even a 40w 1x12.
> 
> On the XXX, a guy in this local band years back always used one in a death/grindcore type band, and his tone was always huge and super gnarly, it definitely worked well for that. When I played one in a store, it was hard to dial back the fizz, but I wasn't able to spend a lot of time on it first hand.


The Ultra+ was basically the same sound with less fuzz and fizz. They added that to the XXX to make it sound more modern (ie, like the Recto).


----------



## op1e (Dec 16, 2019)

OG teal strip Ultra 120 owner for over a decade. It can hang with anything. The crunch channel with the gain switch in is razor sharp and tight for 7's. I run the Ultra channel gain switch out and it real fat and slappy like an 800, then I boost it for 6 string stuff at C and above. I just always miss having a resonance control.


----------



## Seabeast2000 (Dec 16, 2019)

Eq in the loop of the xxx 40w was fantastic. Ime.


----------



## efiltsohg (Dec 16, 2019)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> I always wished they would have made an Ultra series super amp. JSX cleans...Ultra 120+ Crunch, and the XXX crunch as the red channel.
> 
> Presence and Resonance controls with noise gate, fat switches and a power section that can take any quad of power tubes.
> 
> They could have killed all the other amps..left that one as the sole "ultimate" ultra series amp and called it a day.



...but on the downside, I probably wouldn't have been able to buy one of those for $300


----------



## Shask (Dec 16, 2019)

op1e said:


> OG teal strip Ultra 120 owner for over a decade. It can hang with anything. The crunch channel with the gain switch in is razor sharp and tight for 7's. I run the Ultra channel gain switch out and it real fat and slappy like an 800, then I boost it for 6 string stuff at C and above. I just always miss having a resonance control.


You can probably mod it for a resonance control, if you are serious about it.


----------



## gunch (Dec 16, 2019)

doesn't the waza tube expander do that too


----------



## op1e (Dec 16, 2019)

Shask said:


> You can probably mod it for a resonance control, if you are serious about it.


Been saying I'm gonna do that for years. My guy will add Pres/Res for a hundred. But it's definitely due for a recap and all that. Would be throwing it's worth into a refresh if I do everything I want to it. But a Sonic Stomp in the loop makes it murder.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Dec 16, 2019)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> I always wished they would have made an Ultra series super amp. JSX cleans...Ultra 120+ Crunch, and the XXX crunch as the red channel.
> 
> Presence and Resonance controls with noise gate, fat switches and a power section that can take any quad of power tubes.
> 
> They could have killed all the other amps..left that one as the sole "ultimate" ultra series amp and called it a day.



I wonder if an existing Ultra Plus, XXX, or JSX could be modded to those specs? Or a Rockmaster pre.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Dec 16, 2019)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> I wonder if an existing Ultra Plus, XXX, or JSX could be modded to those specs? Or a Rockmaster pre.


Probably...it's all from the same family anyways. The XXX is a modded 120 and the JSX is a modded XXX.

Seems like you could buy a JSX and just mod it for that. It's what I pretty much had back in the day.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Dec 16, 2019)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Probably...it's all from the same family anyways. The XXX is a modded 120 and the JSX is a modded XXX.
> 
> Seems like you could buy a JSX and just mod it for that. It's what I pretty much had back in the day.



When I had my XXX, it didn't seem like CH2 and Ch3 were that far off from each other. Never had a JSX so I can't say. Would be an interesting project to take on.


----------



## Shask (Dec 16, 2019)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> When I had my XXX, it didn't seem like CH2 and Ch3 were that far off from each other. Never had a JSX so I can't say. Would be an interesting project to take on.


I think the gain stages are shared by all the channels, so if you change one, it effects the others. I think it would be nearly impossible to mod it to all 3 variations without separate preamps for each.


----------



## op1e (Dec 16, 2019)

The Rockmaster crunch didn't seem like the Ultra crunch, same as the Ultra channel. Rockmaster seemed more 5150 like. Even ran it into the same power section. Maybe if I got the mod done for pulling out the gain knobs. Doing that on the preamp made them thin, buzzy and unusable. Very unlike the switches on the head.


----------



## Shask (Dec 16, 2019)

op1e said:


> The Rockmaster crunch didn't seem like the Ultra crunch, same as the Ultra channel. Rockmaster seemed more 5150 like. Even ran it into the same power section. Maybe if I got the mod done for pulling out the gain knobs. Doing that on the preamp made them thin, buzzy and unusable. Very unlike the switches on the head.


The Rockmaster pull knob gain boost things actually activated transistor circuits into the signal, almost like a mini-Tubescreamer, that cut a ton of bass. You could probably change a cap so they don't cut as much bass,


----------



## Shask (Dec 16, 2019)

op1e said:


> Been saying I'm gonna do that for years. My guy will add Pres/Res for a hundred. But it's definitely due for a recap and all that. Would be throwing it's worth into a refresh if I do everything I want to it. But a Sonic Stomp in the loop makes it murder.


I have considered modding my XXX to have adjustable Resonance and Presence if I end up keeping it permanently. Shouldn't be too hard. Just compare to the JSX Schematic.


----------



## op1e (Dec 16, 2019)

Shask said:


> The Rockmaster pull knob gain boost things actually activated transistor circuits into the signal, almost like a mini-Tubescreamer, that cut a ton of bass. You could probably change a cap so they don't cut as much bass,


I read that on the head they activate gates, as well as cutting bass. The switches on the head seem to be far different. My head would definitely benefit from seperate EQ on the crunch/ultra channel. Running the switch in (on) on the Ultra channel makes it seem-ably disappear in the mix. Kinda why I lived on the crunch for most stuff.


----------



## sharedEQ (Dec 17, 2019)

Gmork said:


> How does the xxx differ from the jsx tonally?
> I had a jsx and wasnt too into it. Too flubby, and it had this sort of hollowness to it, seemed like it was in the mids. I dont know, it was just weird. Hated its 2x12 cab too with the god awful blue marvels, yuck



I thought the XXX sounded a bit more aggressive, sharper in the treble. They are close enough that if you didn't like the JSX you probably won't love the XXX.

All I know is that I had a XXX for nearly ten years that I loved, I flipped it for a JSX. I appreciated the noise gate and the res/pres controls, but the amp had a "softer" feel to it. Maybe broader mids, not as cutting. Sold the JSX and didn't regret it.

Edit.. in retrospect, it was the mid gain "crunch" channel that I didn't like on the JSX. It pretends to be a good "mid gain" channel, but its just a high gain channel without high gain. Hard to explain. It doesn't clean up with the volume knob, its still compressed, even tho it doesn't have as much gain.

The jsx ultra channel is the same as the crunch on the xxx. The JSX doesn't have the highest gain/ultra channel from the XXX, and that is the channel I always used for leads.


----------



## sharedEQ (Dec 17, 2019)

Shask said:


> I have considered modding my XXX to have adjustable Resonance and Presence if I end up keeping it permanently. Shouldn't be too hard. Just compare to the JSX Schematic.


Probably much easier to mod a JSX to have the gain channels of the XXX.


----------



## sharedEQ (Dec 17, 2019)

Shask said:


> The Ultra+ was basically the same sound with less fuzz and fizz. They added that to the XXX to make it sound more modern (ie, like the Recto).



I did a lot of recording in isolation with the xxx and jsx cranked (pre IR days). They really are glorious when you get them screaming. All the fizz turns into this "3D" kind of sound.


----------



## op1e (Dec 17, 2019)

I always used my Ultra 120 with my 1101. I gotta tell ya, back and forth the e530 patch and the crunch channel on the Ultra are very close. I also A/B'd with my e530 based MTS module and close, but tighter for the Ultra but not as saturated. The post above about the JSX being a mid gain crunch channel but feeling more like a high gain without the high gain could be spot on for the Ultra too, perhaps. There's no Marshall joy there. But it excels if you're pushing it with hotter pickups and don't wanna fight the balance of tightening with a boost and finding the sweet spot of no feedback when you stop. It just djents without need of excessive gate/boost balancing. Crank the gain, push the switch in. No boost, light gate if you need one at all. What everyone uses a overdrive to get rid of on most heads doesn't exist to begin with on the Ultra series amps.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Dec 18, 2019)

Had a JSX with KT77's. The clean channel was great but the gain channels had this metal, clanky sound to them that I just really didn't jive with and couldn't get rid of. And the noise gate was useless.

I should have heeded the advice from @budda and others here before getting the JSX, and just have gotten a 6505+. Because after getting my Invective, it's the sound I was after. lol


----------



## budda (Dec 18, 2019)

"Just buy a 5150" is the right answer to so many threads  even if the OP has double or triple the budget.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Dec 19, 2019)

budda said:


> "Just buy a 5150" is the right answer to so many threads  even if the OP has double or triple the budget.


Personally I'd take an Ultra series over the 6505.

My JSX sounded a lot better to me in the room


----------



## budda (Dec 19, 2019)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Personally I'd take an Ultra series over the 6505.
> 
> My JSX sounded a lot better to me in the room



I've never sat down with an ultra. But 6505s generally produce the metal tone I hear in my head.

I liked my JSX, partly because no one in town had an equivalent to compare it to.

I should have bought the 6534+ I tried almost a decade ago.


----------



## vilk (Dec 31, 2019)

Guy in chicago built a XXX 40w EFX version into a head (originally a 1x12 combo)

Gotta say, it's pretty tempting. Hard not to buy a USA made all tube amp being sold for only $200 (that's not a crate blue voodoo). And I'd assume it's somewhat cleaned up and some maintenance considering the guy just re-housed it? I wonder... 

is rehousing an amp very complicated? You think there's any chance the guy botched it ?


----------



## MetalHead40 (Jan 1, 2020)

Recently borrowed a 3120 and have to say I feel it's a horrible amp for my tastes. Way over gained/compressed on either ch regardless of how low the gain is set. Compared to the 6505 I have here, the 3120 is absolutely horrible. The 6505 with gain set low on the red ch is raw, crunchy, tight, fairly organic sounding. The 3120 is overly compressed and one of the least organic gain structures I've encountered.


----------



## Necky379 (Jan 1, 2020)

budda said:


> No love for the roadmaster? Loud and clean and 6550 loaded iirc.
> 
> I have rarely heard a xxx sound good so i never suggest them.



Oh I looove the Road Master





No 6550’s though, 6 fuhggin 6L6’s providing 160 watts




James Brown actually used the PT’s from the Road Master in the 5150.


----------



## Shask (Jan 2, 2020)

MetalHead40 said:


> Recently borrowed a 3120 and have to say I feel it's a horrible amp for my tastes. Way over gained/compressed on either ch regardless of how low the gain is set. Compared to the 6505 I have here, the 3120 is absolutely horrible. The 6505 with gain set low on the red ch is raw, crunchy, tight, fairly organic sounding. The 3120 is overly compressed and one of the least organic gain structures I've encountered.


I owned a 5150 for many years and currently have the XXX. I find the XXX kind of sounds similar to when I would use a Tubescreamer OD in front of the 5150 with an EQ in the loop to scoop the mids a bit. The XXX sort of has a similar feel and sound baked in without needing the extra gear.

Personally, I love it. I love that it just sounds and feels so saturated without extra gear. However, yeah, never turn the gain past like noon. The one I got I found later actually had a low gain mod done to it by some amateur. I thought it felt a little weak. It feels more powerful once I restored it to stock values.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Jan 2, 2020)

MetalHead40 said:


> Recently borrowed a 3120 and have to say I feel it's a horrible amp for my tastes. Way over gained/compressed on either ch regardless of how low the gain is set. Compared to the 6505 I have here, the 3120 is absolutely horrible. The 6505 with gain set low on the red ch is raw, crunchy, tight, fairly organic sounding. The 3120 is overly compressed and one of the least organic gain structures I've encountered.


 If I remember correctly, a low gain retube does wonders for this amp


----------



## gunch (Feb 24, 2020)

How are the XXX 40w 1x12 combos? I've seen normal ultra combos here and there but was there ever an ultra plus combo? 

If Peavey gets bored with the 6505/Invective MH they should totally do a Ultra/XXX MH

I think the XXX 1x12 with the sheffield ripped out for something else would be good enough for me


----------



## Seabeast2000 (Feb 24, 2020)

gunch said:


> How are the XXX 40w 1x12 combos? I've seen normal ultra combos here and there but was there ever an ultra plus combo?
> 
> If Peavey gets bored with the 6505/Invective MH they should totally do a Ultra/XXX MH
> 
> I think the XXX 1x12 with the sheffield ripped out for something else would be good enough for me


These are great imo. Use a cab if you can.


----------



## Jeff (Feb 24, 2020)

budda said:


> "Just buy a 5150" is the right answer to so many threads  even if the OP has double or triple the budget.



only if you don’t need a quality clean channel.


----------



## budda (Feb 24, 2020)

Jeff said:


> only if you don’t need a quality clean channel.



Eh, debatable. I'm sure people have heard recorded 5150 cleans, not known that's what they were, and then touted them . I think a lot of it is also probably 5150 owners who don't care about how the cleans actually sound, so they don't dial them in, and that's everyone's reference point.


----------



## Jeff (Feb 24, 2020)

budda said:


> Eh, debatable. I'm sure people have heard recorded 5150 cleans, not known that's what they were, and then touted them . I think a lot of it is also probably 5150 owners who don't care about how the cleans actually sound, so they don't dial them in, and that's everyone's reference point.



Having played all of the iterations of the 5150, anything before the III doesn’t have a worthwhile clean channel. Yes, my opinion. But I’ve felt that way consistently for years, while people constantly said “just buy a 5150”. It’s not that simple.


----------



## op1e (Feb 24, 2020)

I forgot about those 40w combos. With FX that would be perfect for me for live and practice. I'd like to rack mount one.


----------



## budda (Feb 24, 2020)

Jeff said:


> Having played all of the iterations of the 5150, anything before the III doesn’t have a worthwhile clean channel. Yes, my opinion. But I’ve felt that way consistently for years, while people constantly said “just buy a 5150”. It’s not that simple.



yes it is


----------



## Jeff (Feb 24, 2020)

budda said:


> yes it is



If you like fizzy gain tones and dull clean tones, absolutely!


----------



## budda (Feb 25, 2020)

Jeff said:


> If you like fizzy gain tones and dull clean tones, absolutely!



It can be neither of those things though, that's my point. I'd post examples but it seems moot lol.


----------



## KailM (Feb 25, 2020)

budda said:


> It can be neither of those things though, that's my point. I'd post examples but it seems moot lol.



Agreed. That recent video Guitarjon made proves that: https://www.sevenstring.org/threads/peavey-6505-in-depth.340510/

Pretty decent clean tones, if you ask me, and a wide variety of gain tones as well. 

While I would never claim my 6505 has amazing cleans, I can coax passable cleans out of it if need be. As for fizz, I don't have that in my tone either, as I use an EQ pedal in the loop -- and largely the fizz goes away anyway once you give it some volume. Also, once you're in a mix the cymbals make fizz disappear as well.


----------



## Jeff (Feb 25, 2020)

budda said:


> It can be neither of those things though, that's my point. I'd post examples but it seems moot lol.



you must have played different 6505’s then. Dude, I’m just being a smartass. The 6505/5150 is my least favorite popular amp ever.


----------



## gunch (Feb 25, 2020)

Jeff said:


> you must have played different 6505’s then. Dude, I’m just being a smartass. The 6505/5150 is my least favorite popular amp ever.



I used to hate it a lot too but came around. There's no good or bad, just the right tool for the right job at the right time and the 5150 is all 3 of those things _a lot _


----------



## devastone (Feb 25, 2020)

I had a one of the XXX 60W combos, which is a 3 channel version like the head, no built-in fx, it was a great amp! From what I could find out, that was the original design when they were working with Lynch on the design. The head was too much for where we were playing, and I honesly didn't think it sounded as good. I just used a 1-12 cab under the combo and it was plenty loud. I wasn't tuning down but I never ran out of headroom. 

The 40W combo with fx lost one of the channels and I think they cut other corners to cram the fx in there, wouldn't be my first choice.


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 25, 2020)

gunch said:


> I used to hate it a lot too but came around. There's no good or bad, just the right tool for the right job at the right time and the 5150 is all 3 of those things _a lot _



Exactly. 

That complaint about fizzy or bees-in-a-can is usually by people judging the tone based on how the amp sounds all by itself. In a live or band mix it is one of the best amps ever made. Compare it to the Engl Powerball, which is an amazing sounding amp on its own, but nearly useless in live or band mixes (IMO).

And regarding the clean channel, it is not a dedicated clean channel. Think of it as a rhythm channel turned all the way down... So it is always slightly hairy. The beauty is it actually sounds good with a lot of pedals that dial in well with Marshalls at breakup. It is a perfectly usable clean channel as long as you are not looking for bell-like chime, scooped 60s Fender tones, etc. And if that’s what you’re looking for then you should be buying a Delta Blues or Twin Reverb.


----------



## gunch (Feb 25, 2020)

USMarine75 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> That complaint about fizzy or bees-in-a-can is usually by people judging the tone based on how the amp sounds all by itself. In a live or band mix it is one of the best amps ever made. Compare it to the Engl Powerball, which is an amazing sounding amp on its own, but nearly useless in live or band mixes (IMO).
> 
> And regarding the clean channel, it is not a dedicated clean channel. Think of it as a rhythm channel turned all the way down... So it is always slightly hairy. The beauty is it actually sounds good with a lot of pedals that dial in well with Marshalls at breakup. It is a perfectly usable clean channel as long as you are not looking for bell-like chime, scooped 60s Fender tones, etc. And if that’s what you’re looking for then you should be buying a Delta Blues or Twin Reverb.



or a 5153


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 25, 2020)

gunch said:


> or a 5153


----------



## budda (Feb 25, 2020)

Jeff said:


> you must have played different 6505’s then. Dude, I’m just being a smartass. The 6505/5150 is my least favorite popular amp ever.



I know. Helpful for break time banter


----------



## viifox (Feb 25, 2020)

If you want good cleans from a 6505, plug in a fender strat, turn up the bass, treble, resonance, and presence higher than you normally would (like almost cranking them) and put the mids on about 2. You'll be surprised with what the cleans can sound like with those settings.

Sorry for the phone quality.


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 26, 2020)

viifox said:


> If you want good cleans from a 6505, plug in a fender strat, turn up the bass, treble, resonance, and presence higher than you normally would (like almost cranking them) and put the mids on about 2. You'll be surprised with what the cleans can sound like with those settings.
> 
> Sorry for the phone quality.




Basically giving it a 60s Fender scoop.


----------



## viifox (Feb 26, 2020)

USMarine75 said:


> Basically giving it a 60s Fender scoop.


Didn't think about that, but yeah, that's probably accurate!


----------



## KailM (Feb 26, 2020)

Scooped cleans are where it’s at. Think about it in a metal context (or even rock for that matter). When are you playing a clean passage or interlude where you have to contend with a drummer blasting away at 300bpm and a singer belching into the mic and need the mids to cut through it?


----------



## youngthrasher9 (Feb 27, 2020)

I personally never had an issue with with the cleans for any of my peavey’s. I got good cleans from the 6505+, XXX, and 3120. I never did own an OG 5150 and I regret that.


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 27, 2020)

KailM said:


> Scooped cleans are where it’s at. Think about it in a metal context (or even rock for that matter). When are you playing a clean passage or interlude where you have to contend with a drummer blasting away at 300bpm and a singer belching into the mic and need the mids to cut through it?



All true. but there's something to be said about Vox style cleans as well.

Also if you want killer Peavey cleans, check out the Classic and Delta Blues, especially the 115 combo version. Much like the Princeton or any Tweed, it's one of those amps that sounds great clean but even better pushed.


----------



## Cynicanal (Feb 27, 2020)

KailM said:


> Scooped cleans are where it’s at. Think about it in a metal context (or even rock for that matter). When are you playing a clean passage or interlude where you have to contend with a drummer blasting away at 300bpm and a singer belching into the mic and need the mids to cut through it?


Didn't Krieg do this a few times on their early albums? I seem to be recalling it on Sono Lo Scherno in particular.


----------



## KailM (Feb 27, 2020)

USMarine75 said:


> All true. but there's something to be said about Vox style cleans as well.
> 
> Also if you want killer Peavey cleans, check out the Classic and Delta Blues, especially the 115 combo version. Much like the Princeton or any Tweed, it's one of those amps that sounds great clean but even better pushed.



For sure. I had a Classic 30 head that I still really miss to this day. I never bonded with the gain tones, but the cleans had this 3D quality, along with chime and clarity that I haven't been able to achieve with the 5153 I replaced it with.


----------



## KailM (Feb 27, 2020)

Cynicanal said:


> Didn't Krieg do this a few times on their early albums? I seem to be recalling it on Sono Lo Scherno in particular.



Probably, and as soon as I posted that comment I realized there are probably exceptions. As I think about it, Blut Aus Nord actually uses a lot of clean guitars over the top of distortion, and it works. Cleans, by nature, seem to cut through a mix better, with or without a lot of mids.


----------



## Cynicanal (Feb 27, 2020)

KailM said:


> Cleans, by nature, seem to cut through a mix better, with or without a lot of mids.


It's the attack. Think about a snare drum -- even low in the mix volume-wise, it's going to cut through the mix, just by virtue of transients, even if there's other stuff fighting it in the 120-250Hz region. Cleans naturally have _way_ more attack than distorted sounds do (distortion = compression), so they have crazy transients rampaging their way through a mix like a snare.


----------



## trem licking (Feb 27, 2020)

my 5150 II has a STELLAR clean channel. i even turn the gain all the way up on it... still clean but very rich. tone is subjective but theres a lot of say around here that the clean sucks; turn the gain up and split your coils or run middle position humbuckers and bask in clean glory!


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Mar 20, 2020)

I <3 my XXX. Does the brootz with ease. Offers something tonally different enough from the rest of my amps to warrant keeping around.
One of the clips is with my M7 loaded 070, other is with my Mushok loaded with an L500XL.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/lb4rcw1nivxfmb0/pvxxx.zip/file


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Mar 20, 2020)

Ya know what's funny...everyone loves the Ultra series and they sound great in the room...but I've never heard a really good recorded tone from any of them


----------



## efiltsohg (Mar 20, 2020)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Ya know what's funny...everyone loves the Ultra series and they sound great in the room...but I've never heard a really good recorded tone from any of them


----------



## kleinenenten (Mar 20, 2020)

efiltsohg said:


>



He said “really good” - not absolutely fantastic.


----------



## youngthrasher9 (Mar 20, 2020)

KnightBrolaire said:


> I <3 my XXX. Does the brootz with ease. Offers something tonally different enough from the rest of my amps to warrant keeping around.
> One of the clips is with my M7 loaded 070, other is with my Mushok loaded with an L500XL.
> http://www.mediafire.com/file/lb4rcw1nivxfmb0/pvxxx.zip/file


Those clips sound great!


----------



## sharedEQ (Mar 20, 2020)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Ya know what's funny...everyone loves the Ultra series and they sound great in the room...but I've never heard a really good recorded tone from any of them


What do you mean? Lots of 80s and 90s albums that you thought were hot rod Marshalls were actually pv.

Peavy was kicking ass long before the 5150.


----------



## Bentaycanada (Mar 20, 2020)

This is my 4th Peavey XXX amp from over the years. I had my first in 2007, then again in 2011, then last had a 3120 in 2017, and now this. 

I’ve always loved these amps, they’re super reliable. I didn’t know this model existed until last week. Killer little combo!


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Mar 21, 2020)

efiltsohg said:


>




Meh



sharedEQ said:


> What do you mean? Lots of 80s and 90s albums that you thought were hot rod Marshalls were actually pv.
> 
> Peavy was kicking ass long before the 5150.



Such as?


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Mar 22, 2020)




----------



## gunch (Mar 22, 2020)

Controversial opinon: When he switched from voice 1 to 2 voice 1 sounded better and its almost like you need a tiny little bit of squish/flub and dig in a little harder with your attack


----------



## youngthrasher9 (Mar 22, 2020)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Meh




If you count XXX under the ultra family (which it technically is), the 3120 and xxx are on most of suffocation’s middle catalog and Havok’s Time Is Up.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Mar 22, 2020)

youngthrasher9 said:


> If you count XXX under the ultra family (which it technically is), the 3120 and xxx are on most of suffocation’s middle catalog and Havok’s Time Is Up.


Yeah I remember one album in particular that Suffocation was alleged to have used the XXX exclusively.....and the tone was terrible.

I also had a JSX that sounded great in the room but recorded, ehh..not so much. I dunno what it is about those amps. At best they sound alright but not amazing in the studio.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Mar 22, 2020)

Made a half assed video with my XXX.


----------



## gunch (Mar 22, 2020)

KnightBrolaire said:


> Made a half assed video with my XXX.




You should put a peice of nice wood in place of the mudflap-girl-plate like a Driftwood


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Mar 22, 2020)

gunch said:


> You should put a peice of nice wood in place of the mudflap-girl-plate like a Driftwood


I'm making a flamed maple plate for it as we speak


----------



## gunch (Mar 22, 2020)

KnightBrolaire said:


> I'm making a flamed maple plate for it as we speak



_Driftwoodmind_


----------



## Gmork (Mar 22, 2020)

Bentaycanada said:


> This is my 4th Peavey XXX amp from over the years. I had my first in 2007, then again in 2011, then last had a 3120 in 2017, and now this.
> 
> I’ve always loved these amps, they’re super reliable. I didn’t know this model existed until last week. Killer little combo!
> 
> View attachment 78685


Are the xxx and 3120 one in the same just different look?


----------



## budda (Mar 22, 2020)

Gmork said:


> Are the xxx and 3120 one in the same just different look?



Cant remember if its exact, but definitely more roommate than neighbour.


----------



## Gmork (Mar 22, 2020)

budda said:


> Cant remember if its exact, but definitely more roommate than neighbour.


Been looking through a bunch of other threads/sites and it seems that the 3120 IS the xxx but with el34s


----------



## Bentaycanada (Mar 22, 2020)

Gmork said:


> Been looking through a bunch of other threads/sites and it seems that the 3120 IS the xxx but with el34s



That’s what I remember.


----------



## Boofchuck (Mar 23, 2020)

Gmork said:


> Been looking through a bunch of other threads/sites and it seems that the 3120 IS the xxx but with el34s


This is correct.


----------



## youngthrasher9 (Mar 23, 2020)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Yeah I remember one album in particular that Suffocation was alleged to have used the XXX exclusively.....and the tone was terrible.
> 
> I also had a JSX that sounded great in the room but recorded, ehh..not so much. I dunno what it is about those amps. At best they sound alright but not amazing in the studio.



Have you heard Havok’s Time is Up? That tone is almost undeniably awesome.


----------



## budda (Mar 23, 2020)

Gmork said:


> Been looking through a bunch of other threads/sites and it seems that the 3120 IS the xxx but with el34s



That would make sense.


----------



## Shask (Mar 23, 2020)

It seems like the xxx is most popular by the newer, "modern thrash-revival" bands.

It is great for that modern thrashy sound. It kind of has the "Boost in front and EQ in the loop" tone built in. I could see people not liking it if they typically dont use boosts or EQs with most of their amps.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Mar 23, 2020)

youngthrasher9 said:


> Have you heard Havok’s Time is Up? That tone is almost undeniably awesome.



Yeah. The thing is the XXX was seen as the poor man's recto..but it could never get that fat super aggressive sound like the recto. The XXX always sounded thin to me on records, which is weird because I've heard them sound amazing in the room. Ah well


----------



## Shask (Mar 23, 2020)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Yeah. The thing is the XXX was seen as the poor man's recto..but it could never get that fat super aggressive sound like the recto. The XXX always sounded thin to me on records, which is weird because I've heard them sound amazing in the room. Ah well


That is probably more a fault of the marketing than the amp itself. By design, it is basically a Peavey Ultra Plus, that was more fuzzed up. The Ultra Plus had more of that poor-mans Mesa Mark type sound.

The Ultra channel sounds fatter and fuzzier, more in that Recto realm, but most people use the Crunch channel, which is more of that modded Marshall type thing.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Mar 23, 2020)

Shask said:


> That is probably more a fault of the marketing than the amp itself. By design, it is basically a Peavey Ultra Plus, that was more fuzzed up. The Ultra Plus had more of that poor-mans Mesa Mark type sound.
> 
> The Ultra channel sounds fatter and fuzzier, more in that Recto realm, but most people use the Crunch channel, which is more of that modded Marshall type thing.


Truth. Those amps weren't rectos...they were Ultra series Peaveys and were their own thing.

That being said, I always found the Crunch channel to be the thickest channel in the amp. Most people around the time they were popular didn't use the ultra channels all that much, at least on the XXX and JSX


----------

