# Peavey introduces Triple XXX II



## RazerX666 (Jan 14, 2011)

I don't know if this has already been posted but...

From Peavey website



> *Peavey Premieres Triple XXX II Guitar Amplifier *
> 
> 
> *January 13, 2011 *
> ...


 













I see a lot of people on other forums are saying it's just a JSX with a different name. 

Thoughts.....


----------



## WickedSymphony (Jan 14, 2011)

It does sound an awful lot like a JSX from the description, but considering how much I love mine I can't say that that means it's a bad thing.


----------



## TXDeathMetal (Jan 14, 2011)

I always loved the original XXX and have wanted one since they first came out and news of a re-launch is like the best news ever to me.

DO WANT!


----------



## Stealth7 (Jan 15, 2011)

I thought the 3120 was the new XXX?


----------



## beneharris (Jan 15, 2011)

isn't 1400 dollars kind of a lot for these?  seems a bit high to me, but who knows


----------



## TMM (Jan 15, 2011)

Sweet! Presence / Resonance controls are the only thing the original was missing, IMO.


----------



## TXDeathMetal (Jan 15, 2011)

On 2nd thought I'm not sure about this.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Jan 15, 2011)

I'm sure it'll sound badass, but seriously? It's the same fucking amp. Couldn't they be a LITTLE bit original on this one? Just a little bit?


EDIT:

I just want to mention that the JSX is one of my favorite tube amps. Ultra channel, with a boost is one of the most crushing tones I've ever heard.


----------



## Pewtershmit (Jan 15, 2011)

It is the rebadged JSX. Totally weird they would call it the XXX II, as they changed the name of the Original XXX to the 3120 in order to shed the cheese of the original scheme/name.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Jan 15, 2011)

Everyone says the same thing..the name is stupid. It's just a re-issued JSX, as the Peavey reps say, HOWEVER there are apparently some preamp mods to make the amp cut through better. Supposedly some complained about the original JSX not cutting through, which is interesting as I've never had that problem. I'd be interested in hearing the difference between this and the first JSX. Why they didn't just name it the 3120+ I'll never know.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 15, 2011)

It probably is the JSX now that Satriani is now with Marshall. Just like when EVH left they re-branded the 5150 to the 6505, now that Satch is no longer a sponsor, they're taking his sig off the product and 're-introducing' it.


----------



## Guitarmiester (Jan 15, 2011)

It's nothing more than a repackaged JSX. Peavey had the entire JSX line on clearance once Satch switched back to Marshall. They were selling the entire JSX half stack for $1100 or $1200. 

Peavey wasn't even creative with the new design. At first, I thought this was a joke about another Bugera JSX clone.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jan 15, 2011)

I look forward to trying it out!

Both the XXX and the JSX are awesome amps, can't speak for the 3120 as I've never tried it.


----------



## groph (Jan 15, 2011)

Look at the grille, now this. Now back at the grille.

Just sayin. I think it looks pretty fly, myself. Sort of cheesy, but better than the mudflap girls.


----------



## smucarolina (Jan 15, 2011)

looks ugly...


----------



## slapnutz (Jan 15, 2011)

Spinedriver said:


> It probably is the JSX now that Satriani is now with Marshall. Just like when EVH left they re-branded the 5150 to the 6505, now that Satch is no longer a sponsor, they're taking his sig off the product and 're-introducing' it.



I'm suspecting this also. Probably 95% JSX with the odd revision/tweak.


----------



## OwainXerath (Jan 15, 2011)

I'm not sure why there's any negative comments here as I'm willing to bet no one's tried one. 

If it sounds half as good as the XXX or JSX then I'd look forward to trying it out and maybe looking to get one. As a JSX user I can't see them making a JSX but worse!!! If you buy Peavey you know you're getting quality!


----------



## smucarolina (Jan 15, 2011)

I don't care how good it sounds...I can't play an amp that I do not find pleasing to look at. Call me shallow.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 15, 2011)

smucarolina said:


> I don't care how good it sounds...I can't play an amp that I do not find pleasing to look at. Call me shallow.



SHALLOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!






I was just coming on here to post this and saw it already. I have to say, I kinda like the mudflap girl scheme they had for the original XXX. I really wanted to buy one for the longest time. I'm hoping to hear some clips of this new one though. The bars are kinda fugly to me too, but frankly I care more about how an amp sounds than how it looks. Having said that, I think that this amp could use a better face plate and the LED lights like the Ultra series had.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Jan 15, 2011)

I'm not too picky with looks, it may not look the greatest but if it sounds good why care? As long as you like the sound it produces isn't that all that really matters?


----------



## themike (Jan 15, 2011)

I think it's foolish to call it the "XXX II" because the original XXX, while decent, was a lower end amplifier when compared to the JSX. I think people are going mistake this and brush it off.


----------



## groph (Jan 16, 2011)

ghstofperdition said:


> SHALLOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The mudflap wasn't TOO bad, it was the EQ controls being called "Hair, Bottom, and Body" that was too ridiculous for me. I hope they're still not called that.

It's still not a great looking head, I agree about the Ultra part. The tone is what counts, but it's nice to have a head that looks as badass as it sounds.


----------



## crush_taylor (Jan 16, 2011)

I'm definitely in the 'as long as it sounds awesome' group... definitely some interest in this amp since I have no clue what I want now...


----------



## Harry (Jan 16, 2011)

TMM said:


> Sweet! Presence / Resonance controls are the only thing the original was missing, IMO.





The original JSX does have Presence/Resonance controls


----------



## Harry (Jan 16, 2011)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Everyone says the same thing..the name is stupid. It's just a re-issued JSX, as the Peavey reps say, HOWEVER there are apparently some preamp mods to make the amp cut through better. Supposedly some complained about the original JSX not cutting through, which is interesting as I've never had that problem. I'd be interested in hearing the difference between this and the first JSX. Why they didn't just name it the 3120+ I'll never know.



Not cutting through? Who the fuck said that about the amp?
The 6505/XXX/JSX range is pretty much mid range city If anything, keeping the mid range honk under control is a significantly greater concern than being able to cut through or not


----------



## jllozano (Jan 16, 2011)

Harry said:


> Not cutting through? Who the fuck said that about the amp?
> The 6505/XXX/JSX range is pretty much mid range city If anything, keeping the mid range honk under control is a significantly greater concern than being able to cut through or not



this


----------



## OwainXerath (Jan 16, 2011)

The JSX is one of the most cutting amps i've ever tried. I originally got one to go alongside my 6505 to make it sound bigger (perils of a one guitar band) but the JSX did the trick so well I sold the 6505!


----------



## Toshiro (Jan 16, 2011)

The "cutting through" thing is just a smoke screen. They say they've modified the preamp, and that it's not a straight JSX, but I highly doubt this.

They pretended the 3120 was a new amp as well, until someone opened it up and that it was a XXX became common knowledge.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Jan 16, 2011)

Toshiro said:


> The "cutting through" thing is just a smoke screen. They say they've modified the preamp, and that it's not a straight JSX, but I highly doubt this.
> 
> They pretended the 3120 was a new amp as well, until someone opened it up and that it was a XXX became common knowledge.



I'm thinking this too. I've NEVER heard anyone say that a JSX couldn't cut through and I've never had that problem before. As a matter of fact my amp eats my friend's 5150 in the mix without even trying.


----------



## Sepultorture (Jan 16, 2011)

no surprise here

the only hing i want Peavey to do is release a 6505 head that has a clean channel, two separate channels and can switch between the sound of the 6505 and the 6505+ and eliminate the two differing amps


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Jan 16, 2011)

Harry said:


> Not cutting through? Who the fuck said that about the amp?
> The 6505/XXX/JSX range is pretty much mid range city If anything, keeping the mid range honk under control is a significantly greater concern than being able to cut through or not


 
A shot in the dark, but I'm assuming Joe Satriani said that.... 

In any case, I might have to get my hands on one of these, or at least a JSX. Either way... 

Now if only they can do the same with the Mini Colossal...


----------



## Harry (Jan 16, 2011)

Bloody_Inferno said:


> A shot in the dark, but I'm assuming Joe Satriani said that....
> 
> In any case, I might have to get my hands on one of these, or at least a JSX. Either way...
> 
> Now if only they can do the same with the Mini Colossal...



He certainly had no issues cutting through at G3 IIRC

Definitely hit up a JSX. Should be plenty on the used market by now.
The XXX II is cool, that's for sure, but it's gonna cost close to 4 grand, and when you can score a used JSX for close to half that.
If you were to sell the XXX, and bought a used JSX, you'd only be losing a few hundred bucks at most I reckon


----------



## Kstring (Jan 16, 2011)

the only way a JSX couldn't cut through is either 1) The person doesn't know how to EG 2) No sound check and 3) Its being played with a Mesa Dual rec((((just my opinion if someone can prove me wrong go for it))). Ive done 1 and 2 at our first band practice and it was my own fault the amp wasn't cutting.


----------



## miked (Jan 17, 2011)

I have a jsx and xxx and besides fat boost and resonance control they are exactly the same amp.fuckin sick!didn't know satch went to marshall.but makes sense putting xxx back on there.after all he used xxx for a year touring and modeled his sig right off it.and to me tone is way better then looking the part.rather sound cool than look it.looking forward to trying one.


----------



## viesczy (Jan 17, 2011)

What I think folks meant about the XXX/JSX not cutting is the lack of articulation maybe due to all the compression. It isn't such much as they don't cut, it is that the compression is over the top. 

It took me a while to dial in the articulation that I want/need into my XXX. Honestly, it is my least articulate amp, even with the gain barely at noon. I won't be w/o my XXX, or my Bugera 333xl, as great tones abound despite the lack of complete articulation!

Now a higher gain amp with awesome articulation is the Genz Benz El Diablo. As heavy as you want to be, cuts, and articulate! 

Now back to the original topic, I'd by the XXX II if it wasn't so expensive and I didn't already have the Bugera equivalent. 

Derek


----------



## bklixuz (Jan 18, 2011)

Spinedriver said:


> It probably is the JSX now that Satriani is now with Marshall.



what? fuck I did not know this! I should try to read newspapers time to time..
peavey is sucking hard OH man! I was planning on getting a jsx and this turned me off...


----------



## WickedSymphony (Jan 18, 2011)

bklixuz said:


> what? fuck I did not know this! I should try to read newspapers time to time..
> peavey is sucking hard OH man! I was planning on getting a jsx and this turned me off...



Satch going to Marshall shouldn't turn you off from getting a JSX. They're still amazing amps regardless of if he's using them or not.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jan 18, 2011)

WickedSymphony said:


> Satch going to Marshall shouldn't turn you off from getting a JSX. They're still amazing amps regardless of if he's using them or not.



+100

JSX is in my very humble opinion the best amp Peavey make, it's just stunning. Lead tones = amazing. Clean tones = amazing. Rhythm tones (with the right cab i.e. Mesa Recto) = amazing.

It really is a fantastic amp.


----------



## Sepultorture (Jan 18, 2011)

i always thought the 3120 ws suypposed to be the remodelled JSX and the new triple XXX, well was supposed to be the new triple X.

either way i'm not seeing anything NEW new from Peavey

and the new butcher isn't even worthy of it's name, unless you meant butchered tone, it's an expensive paper weight. still love the 6505 though, they should really do something newish with that head instead, like 3 independant channels, and a better clean


----------



## Pewtershmit (Jan 18, 2011)

Harry said:


> He certainly had no issues cutting through at G3 IIRC
> 
> Definitely hit up a JSX. Should be plenty on the used market by now.
> The XXX II is cool, that's for sure, but it's gonna cost close to 4 grand, and when you can score a used JSX for close to half that.
> If you were to sell the XXX, and bought a used JSX, you'd only be losing a few hundred bucks at most I reckon



The XXXII Will probably be cheaper than the JSX was at full MAP pricing. Although I don't know how australian pricing goes down. 

Where'd the info for a modified preamp come from? It sounds like someone making shit up just to sound like they are in the know. 

Straight from my Peavey Rep AT NAMM. The XXX 2 is simply a re badged JSX. Circuit for circuit, same as the 3120 being exact same as the original XXX (except shipped with different tubes) and the 5150/6505's.


----------



## Sepultorture (Jan 18, 2011)

Pewtershmit said:


> The XXXII Will probably be cheaper than the JSX was at full MAP pricing. Although I don't know how australian pricing goes down.
> 
> Where'd the info for a modified preamp come from? It sounds like someone making shit up just to sound like they are in the know.
> 
> Straight from my Peavey Rep AT NAMM. The XXX 2 is simply a re badged JSX. Circuit for circuit, same as the 3120 being exact same as the original XXX (except shipped with different tubes) and the 5150/6505's.



seams Peavey is doing alot of recylcing these days, come out with new stuff then just rebadge it later


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Jan 18, 2011)

Sepultorture said:


> seams Peavey is doing alot of recylcing these days, come out with new stuff then just rebadge it later


 
This is all because of the endorsed product being both popular and actual great amps. It would be a marketing waste to just discontinue the product entirely, even if the endorsee has moved on, otherwise there won't be any 6505s. Even the Wolfgangs were reissued under the HP sig line, with even more options that EVH wouldn't allow (rosewood board, set neck etc). 

The new Butcher is essentially the short lived JSX50, and was never like the original. The premise was the same (low watt, vintage) so they tagged the name on it.


----------



## seth-ep (Jan 18, 2011)

5150 = 6506
5150II =6505 plus
XXX = 3120
JSX = XXX II

yup just recycling, and yes bugera has their own version of each one of this amps


----------



## koolaider (Jan 19, 2011)

wow. they should of have kept the girls. so that we'll kno its the triple xxx. xD hahaha but i would wanted to try it out.


----------



## Razzy (Jan 19, 2011)

Infinity Complex said:


> I'm sure it'll sound badass, but seriously? It's the same fucking amp. Couldn't they be a LITTLE bit original on this one? Just a little bit?
> 
> 
> EDIT:
> ...



They can't sell the JSX anymore because Satch moved on. That's the reason for this rehash of such an awesome amp. Kinda like how they replaced the 5150 with the 6505/5150 II with the 6505+, etc...


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Jan 19, 2011)

We're aware of WHY they did it..we're saying the name itself doesn't make sense


----------



## CynicEidolon (Jan 25, 2011)

Regardless of what it sounds like... It looks like shit.


----------

