Is The Peavey 6505 1992 Original REALLY Superior?? (yes...)

[@SonicDriveStudio]

Can you hear the same differences that I'm hearing?

[@gh0stransist0r]

yes, but it doesn't matter at all

[@SonicDriveStudio]

@@gh0stransist0r unless you find things like tone and response important to a certain degree

[@gh0stransist0r]

@@SonicDriveStudio I'd say it's important to learn to ignore it fast and early especially when you play in a band, where everyone needs to adapt to changes real quick to make things work as fast as possible, together. Unless you are a collector which is a different story.

[@andysoul]

Well, tbh there’s no meaningful difference imo, just some tiny nuances that almost disappear in the mix

[@thibaultabrial]

Yes there is some subtil differences about dynamic and treble,I'm agree with You,the 1992 edition has better dynamic and the treble sounds better and fatter

[@LectroStarwalker]

I own the 6505 II and definitely noticed that the attack is much brighter than Original 6505. The invective transformer and the upgraded parts are actually better sounding. I even noticed here, where the new 6505 sounded tighter, and more fluid. Great job Mr. Peavey. Love the amp.

[@Saurion1]

Honestly they sound 99% identical to me. They're indistinguishable in a mix. BTW the 1992 is also made in China.

[@rmTheWalrus]

Yeah I wonder how different they “feel” (in response to the player) in person, through cabs. He suggested they felt more different than the mix suggests. In a mix they’re so close could attribute it to literally just about anything (tube amps aren’t exactly super high tolerance circuits in most cases, so one amp of the same exact production line could sound a bit different….)

[@ordohereticus3427]

Nothing wrong with the latter. It’s where we are now. Agreed that they sound largely the same for all practical intents and purposes. Either would be great on a record.

[@Saurion1]

@@ordohereticus3427 nothing wrong with what? Being made in China? Of course not, I'm not a snob and Chinese industry has been steadily improving these past decades. I'ts just that Jon pointed out the "older" one was made in China and didn't say anything about the "new" 1992 one. Sounded like he was pointing out a difference where there was none.

[@jcwear89]

The 1992 version does sounds a bit "bigger" but not much so. But I agree that John doesn't need both versions.

[@SonicDriveStudio]

The previous version of that 6505 was in fact made in the USA whereas the 1992 is only made in China. That's why I pointed it out. Otherwise people will ask "where was the 6505 made"

[@tonehammer7276]

Tbh on my Studio Monitors the difference is quiet big and i much prefer the 1992 Original. The old 6505 always had some harsh "chhhhhhh" noise which the 1992 Original did not have. Overall he sounds more rounder/polished in your video. Nice work!

[@SonicDriveStudio]

Totally agree!

[@8KilgoreTrout4]

The production value and information delivery here is on-point! Also, thanks for not begging for likes and follows and notifications and blah blah blah long-winded intro.... THAT is appreciated more than you can know!

[@SonicDriveStudio]

Thanks!

[@Ari_Calamari]

There is a difference. But it’s so subtle, I honestly think it’s so similar, that if you have one, you don’t need the other. I’d use these pretty interchangeably. Although the old one has a cool collectibility.

[@Shred_Rocket]

Cool, thanks, Jon. I have both, or specifically I have the 6505+ and the 6505 1992. The 6505+ has a tad more saturation when tone knobs are set in parity on the lead channel. And yes the 6505+ presence is more present.

[@amitdey6245]

Which do you like more? I am torn apart between the 6505+ and 6505 1992. I just can’t decide which one I want to buy.

[@yessitsme6884]

As is well known, the 5150 "borrowed" the first three stages of the Soldano SLO100 (because that's what Eddie was using at the time). When came time to design the combo, the designer changed a couple parts to cut a LOT of low end early in the circuit to tighten up the gain because the combo sounded too wooly at high volume. Eddie loved the change and from that point on all 5150s and derivative shared that circuit change (mostly it's a 500pF first coupling cap, like on a Vox Top Boost, instead of 22nF). I'm assuming the 1992 version goes back to the original SLO front end, which mostly leaves the low mids to roam free and fatten up the distortion. It's what I'm hearing here. Fun fact, that's also what the "Burn" switch does on the Iconic (nope, not a gain boost, though it sounds gainier by way of letting more low mids through)

[@geoffh8077]

I think a normal 6505 will not have that circuit change, it would be the same as the original 5150. The 6505 is just a rename of the original 5150, they didn't intentionally change anything, anything different is just coming down to the specific parts sourced (tubes, transformers etc) in the old ones vs the new. The changes you mentioned will be in the combo, the 5150II / 6505+, and on from there

[@MickH60]

1992 for the win, warmer and rounder ...

[@smallcorvid]

Both are beautiful additions to any guitarist's collection. I got a 6505 2x12 and it's my prize and joy. Peavey's rule XD

[@conrauxyann5398]

As an owner of old US made 6505+, I'm convinced it's possible to make sound both amps exactly the same dialing with subtle settings...

[@kushasaures]

I love my USA made peavey 6505+, it’s my favorite amp on planet earth. I flip music equipment so I get to try a ton. It’s still my favorite.

[@jonsick445]

I hate to do this to you, but you may have wasted your time. I have repaired near on 60 of these amplifiers I would estimate, owned about six of the 6505 and 4 6505+ amplifiers. Every single one of them sounds a little bit different. Just a touch some of them, occasionally vastly. I also admit, the MIC ones do sound a good deal thinner in general to the USA made ones. While I've never been able to categorically state what it is exactly, for anyone with an aging 6505 series, the filter capacitors on the power supply make a huge difference. Peavey used fit IC branded capacitors. I typically replace them with F&T or Mallory branded caps with a rating of around 750v, higher than the original while still being able to fit into the chassis. It tightens the bottom end up and can remove some of what makes it sound quite thin. I generally replace anything I see with that Illinois Capacitor logo, safer to assume that they are bad as they are a bit junky in my experience. But even after all that, each 6505 and 6505+ are made just that little gnat's whisker bit different. That, and this amplifier is fussy on preamp valve choice. While I have had my favourites, these days it's JJ or bust generally.

[@koonsickgreen6272]

Ooh very interesting. Thanx

[@shredward666]

1992 sounds warmer, more well rounded and less fizzy🤘

[@michaelgriffin5304]

Wow. The difference is definitely noticeable and I definitely enjoy the sound of the new '92! Good on Peavey

[@foreverjulybass85]

This literally sounds like the 5150 I have on the crunch channel from 22 years ago lol. And this is the type of music we played lol. Pop punk. Good job boi

[@tanshaomala]

Definitely a difference, but not worth obsessing over in my opinion when factors like mics and cabs exist. Thanks for doing these comparisons though, they're some of the best on youtube.

[@SonicDriveStudio]

I hear what you're saying but I would counter with the argument that small differences in tone and response can make a big difference for many players. Mics and speakers affect frequency response primarily so they have a different effect on how we perceive tone than an amp does

[@tanshaomala]

@@SonicDriveStudio That's fine too, its completely up to the person. I'd just rather spend my time playing since that's the ultimate goal at the end of the day!

[@aaronbuckrell6505]

Can never get enough of this type of content 🔥

[@SonicDriveStudio]

Happy to oblige! :)

[@joeywilder9708]

Jon the Lord and Master of all that is gain!

[@Scotty_AV]

The 1992 sounded a bit warmer, like a bit more resonance/bass, but with a bit more noise than the newer version, which I thought sounded a little drier, but cleaner overall.

[@blacklion401]

My first half stack was a 5150 head and a Marshall 4x12. I had the script version. Great amps.

[@DemonKingOFFICIAL]

Back with the killer riffs. 🤘🏼

[@nickm.9474]

I had two block logos. Wish I still had them. 😢 I loved the crunch channel. That’s what I used the most.

[@nuclearpurification7260]

Their are no losers in this comparison, simply put the 6505 is the greatest high gain amp ever!

[@kutnersuicide]

I can see why people would like the 1992 more but I prefer the standard 6505. I like the agression and I think the added warmth of the 1992 is detrimental to the clarity. Or maybe I'm just biased (pun intended) cause I own a 6505 (2010 so I believe still made in USA)

[@lordgraga]

There's slightly more low end definition in the 1992 but it's really marginal. I could understand if it feels better to play. This could come down to power tube biasing and balancing, though.

[@eds4754]

did you put the same valves in each amp? Different poweramp valves could be drawing different voltages and give slightly different results that would just be random depending on how each particular set of valves measure. Are the biases the same (they're set with a resistor but it will depend on the power amp valves, tolerance of the resistor, and voltages inside the amp)? Traditionally 5150/6505's are biased REALLY cold and its a part of the sound that gives a harder sound with more crossover distortion. If the biases are not set the same, its not really a fair comparison. Also some Peavey amps have a switch between 220 and 240V, both are probably safe enough if your wall voltage is 230V but it can certainly impact the operating voltages inside the amp. I like the Chinese 6505 here, there's something in the 1992 tone that feels a bit squishy in a way that I don't like. The older 6505 doesn't have so much of that, it feels like it has more headroom and a bit more clarity. Could well just be something in the settings/pot tolerances that can be dialled out though rather than something that is fundamentally different with the 2 models.

[@metalskinn460]

What would you suggest for getting "3 channels out of the 6505 1992? Should I just set the rhythm channel to my preferred clean and toggle the crunch or some combo with a pedal to get the crunch rhythm sound?

[@DielectricFailure]

*This got me sold enough to buy the new Peavey 6505 Original. 🏆🏆🏆🏆 I feel like it’s thick and I love a thick distorted tone. But it has punch too! I’m hoping it’ll get a good chuggy sound with an SD1 in the front. I like jamming Fear Factory so I like that sound too.*

[@jimwguitar3002]

Both amps sound great to me. I wouldn’t pay more for either one. Win win.

[@nikolagenov8881]

Both sound very similar but I slightly prefer the tightness of the non-block letter one.

[@OTCRock4one]

Your EQ settings are always the best! Oh yeah, I'm the first to comment today! 🎸

[@SonicDriveStudio]

Cheers!

[@bcmuzikofficial]

Love this sound!

[@brunoluznunes]

I can see the images changing and my brain thinks is hearing a diferent sound. But If I close My eyes...I don't hear a significant diference :) Any of these would work for me

[@camaroj42]

I'm liking both, but oddly prefer the newer, less original, design lol. But I like the clarity and fullness or range it has, where it seems like the 92 is more dark and compressed.

[@LucasLeCompteMusic]

I liked the peavey

[@enmarecordings]

Another great video, but you should rename your channel to Sonic AWESOME RIFFS Studio Jon!

[@ryanfraley7113]

Maybe my AirPods aren't accentuating much difference, but I only noticed a slight difference on the 6505 block.

[@krailanuar]

Nice Comparison... John can u show how u blend I.R with Amp head n boost with OD

[@jamesraub3985]

Thx for the demo! Can I ask what drum program you're using? Bass drum is fantastic!!!

[@SonicDriveStudio]

Steven Slate Drums

[@-jk-2580]

6505 is just little brighter, but it’s so subtle to have a difference in mix or band situation.

[@MadDjentah]

New one little tighter in bottom frequencies and low mids. New one for me.

[@rd_rae]

Agree with your assessment, though they seem still quite close. Appreciate the feel differences that you tried to convey as good as possible. How did the pick attack differe that you mention at the end? Does one chug better than the other? 😅

[@SonicDriveStudio]

The 1992 feels nicer! As explained in the video, more smooth and saturated!

[@countdowntoforever]

Just got my 1992 Saturday, DUDE! it's definitely Warm and Full in its' behavior; also Killer hammer attack on the low E when doin' James Hetfield style downpicking.

[@MrLotnique]

Love your videos! What drums are you using? Steven Slate?

[@SonicDriveStudio]

Yup, Steven Slate Drums

[@AiiZStudio]

The 1992 has a bit more savagery in the mids, the OG 6505 is a little smoother. To my ears at least!

[@EJK36]

The 92 seems to have just a touch more "balls" and has a even more of that 5150/6505 "big ol' amp" type of thing going on overall. The outgoing 6505 is a bit harsher or whatever and not as well, "even more good" as the 92. Both are interchangeable and I wouldn't swap the outgoing 6505 for the new 92...really splitting hairs here, but yeah...there's "something" there with the new one that seems very cool.

[@AdamYoudell]

Hmmm. Maybe a slight difference but if I already owned an older model I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to replace it with that reissue

[@Henysipper]

Had a 6505+ and that thing was noisy. Does the 1992 have the same issue?

[@harshtruth9148]

What I got on my end was the 1992 original has a more scooped upper mid fq and the old one is bit more pronounced upper mids

[@SonicDriveStudio]

Yes, in EQ! But in terms of dynamics there are also differences in the attack

[@yetimatzenightcat8702]

Same here 👏👏👏👏👏👌👍

[@javiereu]

I found the difference is more noticeable on the rhythm channel, the 92 has more of those tasty low mids and the chinamp was a little more scooped and brighter. In the lead channel were almost the same. I have the 6505 made in usa, great amp. Heavy as shit tho...

[@aalidas8951]

My 6505 looks like the one on the bottom, but the emblem on the far left says 'designed and built in the u.s.a'

[@DerAndereMich]

Hello, I want to ask you a question: how do you use the peavey 6505 120w with the red seven amp central that only supports 100w?

[@SonicDriveStudio]

Just don't turn the amp up all the way

[@rickyturner2742]

A very slight difference on Headphones, i prefer the OG 6505. If i didn't have my USA 6505 I'm not sure if I'd buy the 1992. And already owning a 6505 i wouldn't buy another version, unless it's the 6534.

[@mrcl_]

i just got me a 1992 Original. But it is rated for 120 Watts, can i still safely use a 100W loadbox with it? i see your RedSeven Amp central has 100W aswell, so i assume it can be used without issues?

[@SonicDriveStudio]

Yes, just don't crank up the master volume all the way

[@mrcl_]

@@SonicDriveStudio Amazing! Thank you!! The Tones you got from it are Amazing!

[@KeithMcKissick]

Differences are minor through KZbin. I'm of the mindset that whichever one you can get the best deal on (6505's or 5150's), snag that one. They all sound similar and they all sound great. Can't go wrong...even with the EVH Iconic.

[@SonicDriveStudio]

The older 6505 is still a really cool amp! Far from bad. I used it for a lot of stuff

[@jessemuscato]

The new ones are made in China to I do believe

[@DaveBrons]

6505 sounds way better to me. Just cuts through way better.

[@jessemuscato]

They sound exactly the same. Maybe there’s a difference in feel because of the transformers PV trying to stay relevant literally no one asked for these they’re not made in America you can still get American 6505s for less than 800 bucks. I just think that they’re trying to compete with Ev H what they should do is just come up with something entirely new stop beating a dead horse.

[@justinvzu01]

They just reissued the 6505 and 6505 completely as the 6505 and 6505 II

[@DownDeepFishing]

Lol apples to oranges lol they both sound the same the volume difference could be because the 6505 is older and the tube's are older. The difference is so minute either one does the Job well and in a mix you won't be able to hear any noticeable difference in tone.

[@JohnWiku]

Insert The Office US Pam's meme: "They're the same"

[@SonicDriveStudio]

I think that if you listen closely on proper monitoring you will definitely hear a difference. With the gain tones the differences are more evident with palm mutes riffs

[@JohnWiku]

@@SonicDriveStudio you will hear this much difference with any two 5150/6505 made by Peavey. Components have tolerances, specially the pots and no two amps will sound exactly the same, even though they are the same circuit. Swap out the tube sets between the amps and you will have different results. These amps are exactly the same as the old ones and there's nothing new apart from some marketing speak. They are trying to pass the same amp they have been making since 1992, as something entirely new when it's not! There might be that they are including a magick mumbo jumbo output transformer, that for manufacturing reasons it costs the same to them, but they are changing now double for it and for the little "tweaks and improvements", in the end, these only serve to bring down the cost of the amp and increase their bottom line.

[@david-no]

Eh they're different but not enough for me to go out of my way to swap one out for the other.

[@Satanicwar7]

Won't happen to have the tabs for this song? Lol

[@mikeskis7887]

Highs are definitely different . 100% tell the difference

[@aapddd]

Is de 1992 de reden dat de oude op marktplaats staat ? 😎 ik twijfel tussen de peavey en een Marshall jvm.

[@SonicDriveStudio]

Dat klopt! Ik heb er geen twee nodig en ik heb geen plek meer voor extra amps. Als ik meer ruimte had zou ik hem misschien gewoon houden

[@Professional.Bro.777]

The 1992 sounds the closest to a block letter

[@YsAbTones]

the 1992 is better imo wich is thump up for peavey

[@Metalex_Delarocha]

Still prefere my 6505 to the new one

[@WholeLottaBulldog]

Why domt u have the 6505+?

[@SonicDriveStudio]

Not really interested

[@WholeLottaBulldog]

@SonicDriveStudio thats surprising; it's quite different to the 6505.

[@eds4754]

6505+ is killer in its own right. Offers something a bit different to the 6505/5150 and invective

[@vibrevtonez2421]

Subtle difference but not enough to make me pay any more money.

[@gab.lab.martins]

Clean gain is on 2.5, and it's already clipping. I hate that. Why can't clean channels be clean? I want my clean tone to be 100% clean, and loud!

[@KeepAnOpenMind]

I guess this is why and when the distinction between “high gain” and “not high gain” amplifiers appeared. However, I agree with what you said in general. I also have a 5150 with absolutely clean cleans, and high-gain second and third channels. It is nice.

[@SonicDriveStudio]

I like that so that's why I did that. You can lower the gain of course or even use the low input

[@gab.lab.martins]

@@KeepAnOpenMind I'm probably going to switch to Synergy in the near future, and one of the many reasons is to be able to set up a *loud* über-clean glassy tone, and two high gain ones. Any amp with shared EQ - and worse, shared gain control - for all channels makes me feel constrained.

[@gab.lab.martins]

@@SonicDriveStudio If I use the low input, I'll be compromising the gain on the lead channel. My current amp's clean gain is on 5, it's extremely loud, but doesn't clip at all. Yours was at 2.5, and it was already hairy. Of course it's personal preference, but unfortunately I feel like the 5150/6505 is a bit of a one-trick pony. Works for bands like Machine Head and Trivium, but not for my personal needs.

[@SonicDriveStudio]

@@gab.lab.martins for pristine cleans with very high headroom the Invective is great too btw

[@aaaargl]

gud

[@andyklingensmith401]

Peavey please send me free amps so I can say whatever one your making now is the best. I already know without hearing it...just ship it (just kidding).