# Clips of the Bugera 6202 compared to 5150



## Guiary (Oct 10, 2007)

Alright, 

Here is a clip taken from HCAF of the Bugera 6202.

First part is the 6202, second part is the 5150, and 3rd part are both amps.


http://music.megagoo.com/5150-bugera-test.mp3

Enjoy!

PS. Here is the quoted message...




> raw tracks: http://music.megagoo.com/5150-bugera-test.mp3
> 
> 3 sections, all double-tracked and panned hard left & right
> 
> ...


I'm interested in seeing what the 333 sounds like.


----------



## JSX/6505 (Nov 18, 2007)

The 5150 had more presence it seemed. Bugera couldn't include a resonance control because that is a Peavey tradmark control. Other companies get away with it by calling it "Deep" or something similar.

I love Peavey tube amps, and know their reputation for rugged, reliable lasting tone. This fact alone would keep me from buying one of these Bugera rip offs. Regardless how close they may have copied Peavey's tone on these particular amps.


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

Yep, Bugera = Behringer = shit.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

hm, a used USA made peavey 5150 can be had for $700. that's an affordable amp. why bother with something else?


----------



## Kapo_Polenton (Jun 20, 2007)

The Bugera was tighter in my opinion. 5150 sounded fizzy.. maybe the gain was set higher..... both had gainy tones that are not as much my cup of tea but they are what they are! What is Bugera? A Behringer amp? I read a thread on these and they were suggesting it might unnoficially be based also on a SLO100. The great thing is that with a return to tubes, more companies will put out products that piggy back on effective designs. This will make for better amps and lower price points. Hell JCM800's used to be a lot cheaper!!!! I would buy a SLO clone in a second. Hell you could probably mod components to get a kick ass amp out of it.


----------



## SinCron (Mar 2, 2006)

When you mod an amp, do you have to melt anything to the board? I heard that you can't repair anything Behringer because of the circuit boards they use melt easily. Not sure about the Bugera tube heads though. BUT! If you want to remove the circuit board completely and hand wire everything then you'd have a pretty kick ass amp .

Also, if it's true what they say about the clean being better on the 6202 then I'd be very tempted to try it out. The cleans on the 6505's I've used has been absolute shit and completely useless. Also, Fender is using the Resonance and Presence nobs on the 5150 III.


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

Budda said:


> hm, a used USA made peavey 5150 can be had for $700. that's an affordable amp. why bother with something else?


You get can used XXX heads for that price too.

Cheap Bugera parts vs reliable Peavey. Tough call lol!


----------



## Kapo_Polenton (Jun 20, 2007)

Well first off, I think we are giving the big amp makers too much credit. They all use the cheapest caps and resistors they can get and i am sure their circuit boards are far from top of the line. I am not sure how behringer circuit boards would melt if the components were soldered in there in the first place but maybe I am wrong. BUT I can see someone being smart and releasing drop in PCB boards for these amps. A 5150 or triple XXX head used I only ever see go for 900 or a 1000 which I find interesting because they do not appear to be an amp that will continue to grow in value like some of the others. I am just not sure why Bugera has two models of the 6202? What is the diff? I'd love for one of them to be a Soldano clone though.... good luck finding that cheap for under 1000$ used. Then again, the Peavey Windosr was somewhat of a failed attempt at the JCM800 though I have heard it needs to be run with the MV really high and less preamp gain. (one trick pony amp)


----------



## Kapo_Polenton (Jun 20, 2007)

gearwire had a short clip of the 333 from Bugera at the NAMM show.. sounded pretty raw and good to me. In teh clip you can see two people turn around almost like " hey! where is THAT sound coming from!?"


----------



## Guiary (Oct 10, 2007)

violation said:


> You get can used XXX heads for that price too.
> 
> Cheap Bugera parts vs reliable Peavey. Tough call lol!


Thats funny.

The first time I had my amp biased my tech told me about how crappy peavey components are... So in all reality the components will more than likely be on par.


----------



## pattste (Dec 30, 2007)

Goes to show how tone is subjective. I'm admittedly not much of a metal head, but to me the Peavey sounded WAY better than the Bugera. More dynamic, more overtones and harmonics.


----------



## Guiary (Oct 10, 2007)

pattste said:


> Goes to show how tone is subjective. I'm admittedly not much of a metal head, but to me the Peavey sounded WAY better than the Bugera. More dynamic, more overtones and harmonics.


That is true; although I do believe that the Bugera has some decent qualities about it... Sound wise that is. Until someone actually gets to open one of these things up and see what kind of quality the components are, I'm not passing any judgement. 

Hell there is no way I'd ever give up my 5150 for it, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't add this amp to my arsenal. You can never have too many amps!!!:rockon2:


----------



## Kapo_Polenton (Jun 20, 2007)

Man, it goes to show how diff our ears are.. I found teh 5150 fizzy and not tight like the Bugera. Amps are like girlfriends though.. thankfully we don't all go after the same chicks.


----------



## Guiary (Oct 10, 2007)

I still like my 5150 and it's not going to replace it, But for a "hand wired" alternative it's an awesome idea. Considering if the Bugera is supposed to be voiced closer to the SLO.

PS. Both tracks gain was at 7.75 according to the HCAF post, which is retardly high. Best thing to do is to try it out in person.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

I had a good listen at the clip through my kevlar-cone computer speakers (crystal clear, but expensive) and on first listen they both sounded close enough, but the Peavey did appear to be slightly more 'dynamic' as it was suggested by Pattste. When I listened to it a little more closely, I felt that it was probably due to the fact that some upper-mids were being emphasized in the Peavey, frequencies that I found to sound a bit 'fizzy' when I listened to them with more attention. So, yeah, Kapo and Pattste, it appears you both spotted the same thing, you just interpreted it differently.


----------



## SinCron (Mar 2, 2006)

Here's some recorded clips of the Bugera 6260 that I found.

http://netmusicians.org/?value=RiF&section=user


----------

