Top Comments
Video Responses
All Comments (659)
-
@M1thotyn i assume your hearing the mids. metallica had their mids really low i believe. in my opinion it's bad practice to play with scooped mids because nobody will be able to hear you in a resonant room over another guitarist and drummer and bassist. they wont hear you over yourself. i used to scoop my mids but after adjusting my ears to having to much mids i realized they actually make the tone much thicker. you might not even be talking about mids but it seems that way.
-
@M1thotyn Not a rebellion, but an evolution. Music is always changing my friend, for better or for worse but that is entirely subjective. I bet years ago when blues was in its prime no one thought that one day yelling into the microphone would be considered music. Truthfully though, your one of the few who I've heard say that, and thats fine. Your opinion is for you to believe, but most people wouldn't really find this tone 'scratchy' at all. Its all about preference.
-
@mikeygheetarz Oh hell no, thrash metal uses that scratchy tone more than anyone, even slayer used it in the 80's before the scratchy bullshit even caught on. Megadeth used that terrible scratchy tone too. Nails on a fucking chalkboard. I will just never understand it. If anyone hears a kid using that tone, it's cause he doesn't know what he's doing, he's yelled at to stop, and eventually his guitar is taken away. Now 95% of metal guitarists use it professionally. Is this a rebellion?
-
@M1thotyn tl;dr You only like thrash metal? That's kinda what you just said...
-
What the hell happened to the tone on chug riffing. It was supposed to be thick, deep and heavy, like on Metallica's Master of Puppets (Think: Disposable Hero's) and even that was kind of trebly. It's supposed to be smooth and crowly, wet and thick sounding. WTF is with all this scratchy bullshit. Everywhere on newer metal albums, instead of hearing "chugga-chugga-chugga-chugga" I hear "scratcha-scratcha-scratcha-sc
ratcha", wtf is wrong with you people. Why do you all prefer this? I -
The sounds are very similiar. But it seems as though the Peavey has just a pinch more presence or edge to it. With that said, both tones are outstanding.
-
both amps are sounding great and you can really get very badass heavy sound with them ;) but I think the Bugera has just little more power and pressure behind the tone than the Peavey.
-
The Bugera has just a touch more low end. I've A/B'd both amps through the same cab & room set up before, and as always I'll always pick the 5150 II over the bugera anyday of the week. But I will give Bugera kudos' for making an affordable tube amp that can compete with the classics.
-
i actually thought the 6262 sounded thicker. i turned my head from the computer so i wouldn't lie to myself and listened to a random part of the video untill it changed and i was like the first one! looked at the computer and its the 6262. went into denial- listen many times... the 5150 sounds more hollow. i wonder if the 6262 sounds bad without the backing track to hide it's flaws? if not, this is now my dream amp, a $550 amp... cause to my ears it wins with the backing track.
-
The Bugera sounds a bit thinner I think
I have used my Bugeras all over the world for live and studio gigs a like and I can say without a doubt they are some of the best at any price. I have kicked the shit out of them and never had an issue. My 1990 and 6262 are my babies! Next will be the 333XL! It's great to see the look on someones face when they complement your tone with desire in their eyes and then watch their smile fade when they see that your $600 head just kicked their $3500 head's ass in the mud! Priceless!
kromekrush 1 month ago 22
lmfao arnold!
Fearcandy64 1 month ago 9