Difference between 5150 and 6505

[Onset to putrefaction]

I searched the forum and i couldn't find any threads about 5150's and 6505's(not 6505+) sounding different. I've heard that the original 5150 sounds a little better than the 6505. Is that the case? is it really that noticeable?
Thanks
Alec

 

[Metaltastic]

Totally the same, as are the "block letter" 5150's compared to the signature ones - the only differences between any of 'em are the tubes they come with

 

[Onset to putrefaction]

thanks dude

 

[s34nsm411]

you know, i always assumed they were the same thing also (and im sure they say they are) but one day a band brought in an old original 5150 and i had only dealt with the 6505 i own and other ones in the past. long story short the 5150 sounded less fizzy and more aggressive.

 

[Metaltastic]

Different tubes dude

 

[hoehlentroll]

what is the difference between 6505+ and 6505, only eq section, or also sound issues?

 

[JoeJackson]

The 6505+ has one additional tube in the pre-amp-section. It's also said, that the PLUS-Version is a bit more fizzy and has "less" balls. I guess you could only hear a significant difference, when you compare both directly.

If you need a better clean-sound, go for the PLUS-Version. Otherwise save your money.

 

[Metaltastic]

Yep, +1 to that

 

[hoehlentroll]

I just read in an other forum the plus is like going through the non high gain input at 6505, is that true?

 

[nwright]

I wouldn't say that. I own a block letter 5150 and a 6505+ (5150II) right now. The 5150 has a greater low mid punch over the 5150II/6505+. The II is tighter and more articulate and high mid voiced. I wouldn't say it's fizzier, although the high mid voicing may make it sound that way. I think the 5150II/6505+ has an easier time copping the regular 6505/5150 tone, whereas the 5150/6505 can't reach the level of tightness and articulation of the II/+.

the +/II definitely has less gain, but it's not drastic. Both have more than enough, anyway.

 

[Genius Gone Insane]

5150II/6505+ disguises sloppy playing moreso than 5150/6505, which rewards good playing. two cents there.

Edit: actually, I thought about it and what I wrote above is an overstatement. There is probably some truth there however.

 

[nwright]

5150II/6505+ disguises sloppy playing moreso than 5150/6505, which rewards good playing. two cents there.

Edit: actually, I thought about it and what I wrote above is an overstatement. There is probably some truth there however.

I would disagree with that statement and say that I think the opposite is true, IME, unless I just suck that much :Smug:

I hear better articulation and tightness through the +/II, while the regular has a definite looser feel and isn't as articulate.

IMO, a tight and articulate amp will showcase the weaknesses of the player more than a looser and somewhat more undefined amp will.

 

[egan.]

I just read in an other forum the plus is like going through the non high gain input at 6505, is that true?

IME this is a completely and totally untrue statement.

 

[Exocaster]

Totally the same, as are the "block letter" 5150's compared to the signature ones - the only differences between any of 'em are the tubes they come with

The 5150 has a greater low mid punch over the 5150II/6505+. The II is tighter and more articulate and high mid voiced. I wouldn't say it's fizzier, although the high mid voicing may make it sound that way. I think the 5150II/6505+ has an easier time copping the regular 6505/5150 tone, whereas the 5150/6505 can't reach the level of tightness and articulation of the II/+.

the +/II definitely has less gain, but it's not drastic. Both have more than enough, anyway.

Between those two posts, there's your 5150/6505 FAQ right there. Which should probably be stickied on every guitar forum on the planet.

Oh, and NOS Sylvania 6L6s in the old "block letter" heads, IIRC; cheaper 6L6s after that.

 

[Genius Gone Insane]

I would disagree with that statement and say that I think the opposite is true, IME, unless I just suck that much :Smug:

I hear better articulation and tightness through the +/II, while the regular has a definite looser feel and isn't as articulate.

IMO, a tight and articulate amp will showcase the weaknesses of the player more than a looser and somewhat more undefined amp will.

Actually, I was talking more about that extra high end sizzle, not so much the low end. To me, that high end fizz kind of covers up a bit of sloppiness. Whatever, I mean, they are both easier to play with than my Krank.

 

[nwright]

Actually, I was talking more about that extra high end sizzle, not so much the low end. To me, that high end fizz kind of covers up a bit of sloppiness. Whatever, I mean, they are both easier to play with than my Krank.

haha, THAT I can agree with in reference to the Kranks I've played! They don't saturate the same and seem a bit tighter.

 

[nwright]

One thing I can say in playing both of these more is that the 5150 seems to keep it's thickness at low gain levels on the lead channel. I remember someone posting a clip on here saying the gain was on, like, 2 on the lead channel and i couldn't believe the tone. My 6505+ thins out the lower you set the gain...At 2 it would be kinda anemic. But, as you increase the gain, the "body" of the tone fills out and thickens very nicely. I know the idea of "increasing the gain brings in some thickness" may sound obvious, but it's a little different then how my 5150 reacts...It kinda keeps it body throughout the gain settings. Boosting the lead channel with my OD808 with the gain at 2-3 sounds niiiice. To get that same feeling using the boost and my 6505+, I feel like the gain needs to be higher and the resonance upped a bit. But, it still retains the articulation and tightness over the 5150. The more I play them side by side (with the same tube setup in each), I notice how different they really are.

 

[hoehlentroll]

I wouldn't say that. I own a block letter 5150 and a 6505+ (5150II) right now. The 5150 has a greater low mid punch over the 5150II/6505+. The II is tighter and more articulate and high mid voiced. I wouldn't say it's fizzier, although the high mid voicing may make it sound that way. I think the 5150II/6505+ has an easier time copping the regular 6505/5150 tone, whereas the 5150/6505 can't reach the level of tightness and articulation of the II/+.

the +/II definitely has less gain, but it's not drastic. Both have more than enough, anyway.

I thought the 5150II was uncovered to be exactly the same as 5150/6505 only with different tubes.

 

[Metaltastic]

I thought the 5150II was uncovered to be exactly the same as 5150/6505 only with different tubes.

Definitely not, seeing as how the 5150II/6505+ has an extra preamp tube, footswitchable "crunch" mode on the green channel, a separate eq and pres/res controls for the red channel, etc.

 

[AdamWathan]

I thought the 5150II was uncovered to be exactly the same as 5150/6505 only with different tubes.

You're thinking of the 5150 mk I vs. the 5150 mk II, which how a lot of people seem to refer to the block letter vs. signature heads. The 5150II is a significantly different amp than both of those heads.