Soundstorm
Well-known member
For the brutal heavies, low tuned chugs/doom/thrash/black metal. They all seem to have a lot of gain and seem similarly voiced. What are the main differences between these three?
For the brutal heavies, low tuned chugs/doom/thrash/black metal. They all seem to have a lot of gain and seem similarly voiced. What are the main differences between these three?
You've compared it against the others? Leviathan/Butterslax sounds like it could be cool. I'm really liking the Jose sound of the Yeti/Chupa. Not sure which of those two to get.You want the Leviathon.
I agree with this. Especially if you want a little of that Jose tone. Second vote goes to the JoeJoe which is the Cantrell JJ sig clone. With a good boost you get in 800 territory.You want the Leviathon.
It's supposed to be the Meshuggah sig, although Nik said it has less gain than the Yeti or Chupacabra. I love the Neural Nameless X plugin, but I usually use one of the two provided boost pedals to get where I want. I've seen a couple clips of the Yeti that remind me of the Nameless without having to use any pedals.I agree with this. Especially if you want a little of that Jose tone. Second vote goes to the JoeJoe which is the Cantrell JJ sig clone. With a good boost you get in 800 territory.
Is the Gargoyle supposed to be the Meshuggah sig or just a regular Cali? If it’s the latter, I’d stay away from it. Never played the real Meshuggah sig (only Neural plugin) so can’t give a valid opinion on that. Not even sure how different it is.
Since I haven’t played any of these amps, I can only tell you what I’ve read and watched on demos. From Nik (owner of Ceriatone)- the Gargoyle is the most modern but has less gain than the other two and is the tightest. The Yeti is tighter than the Chupacabra and more classic modded Marshall voiced, but can get into modern metal territory if set up that way. The Chupacabra has slightly more gain and snarl, with a slightly looser low end. The Yeti seems like it can do thrash and death metal tones without the need for a boost.Sorry to derail, but I'm curious as well? Which model would work best for thrash/death metal with a seven-string tuned to A? These amps always interested me, but I know shit about them.
I asked about getting the buffered loop, but he said the return pot would take up one of the speaker out jacks, which sometimes I use both with my old Marshall cabs, so I opted out. The only thing I use in the loop is my Decimator II in 4CM. I wonder if he can do one without the return level pot? Is it necessary even only using a noisegate?I have the Molecular 50W, Chupacabra 50W and the King Kong 100W.
They can all easily cover any type of metal. Tighter, modern tones are easy to squeeze out with the help of the "Feel" switch on the Molecular & King Kong and the "pull" Focus mode on the Chupacabra (Gain 1 pot is push/pull).
The key with these amps is to use & explore the bright switches.
Combined with the clipping diode modes (ERA) and the Pussy Trimmer at the back, the amps can cover a LOT of sonic landscape really.
And they are REALLY quiet for the amount of gain they have - good amps.
@Soundstorm if you have the option, get the buffered loop as well. It'll make a lot of difference if you do 4CM, use effects in the loop or a noise gate like the Zuul which hooks into the effects loop.
Mine doesn't have a Return pot (it's a trim pot instead inside the amp & Nik had it dialed in for unity gain) but still a buffered loop. It'll depend on the input / output impedance ratings of the noise gate / effects you throw in the loop. I'd go for buffered if at all possible but I can understand why it's not a priority for others.I asked about getting the buffered loop, but he said the return pot would take up one of the speaker out jacks, which sometimes I use both with my old Marshall cabs, so I opted out. The only thing I use in the loop is my Decimator II in 4CM. I wonder if he can do one without the return level pot? Is it necessary even only using a noisegate?
Does it really make a difference only using a noisegate? Like I said a few posts back, he doesn’t seem very willing to customize the amps anymore, but I can ask him if it’s necessary to have the buffered loop.Mine doesn't have a Return pot (it's a trim pot instead inside the amp & Nik had it dialed in for unity gain) but still a buffered loop. It'll depend on the input / output impedance ratings of the noise gate / effects you throw in the loop. I'd go for buffered if at all possible but I can understand why it's not a priority for others.
Only 1 way to find out I guess. Usually if you go from a higher impedance source into a lower impedance you'd get some parts of the frequency spectrum F-ed up. Most noise gates ought to have high enough input impedance & low enough output impendace. Best thing to do is check the spec sheets of the gate & see if Nik can confirm the impedance rating on the Chupa with the passive loop in.Does it really make a difference only using a noisegate? Like I said a few posts back, he doesn’t seem very willing to customize the amps anymore, but I can ask him if it’s necessary to have the buffered loop.
The standard, non-buffered loop sucks ass. If you need a good loop, you'll be sorely disappointed.I asked about getting the buffered loop, but he said the return pot would take up one of the speaker out jacks, which sometimes I use both with my old Marshall cabs, so I opted out. The only thing I use in the loop is my Decimator II in 4CM. I wonder if he can do one without the return level pot? Is it necessary even only using a noisegate?
I'll ask him if he can do it without the return level pot. Just set to unity like most other loops.The standard, non-buffered loop sucks ass. If you need a good loop, you'll be sorely disappointed.
Don't think he can. That's what's kept me from getting another Yeti. But, maybe he's figured out a workaround. Their standard effects loop is awful.I'll ask him if he can do it without the return level pot. Just set to unity like most other loops.