I threaten peoples lives daily due to valvekings

You people who think the distortion sucks, turn on the gain boost and resonance and presence, the tone kicks ass.

quote

Im just generally sick of everyone recommending these every thread.

quote

Jhachey22 wrote on Oct 5th, 2008 at 5:19pm : +1 to lespaul#1. they are not even that good sounding. they're the Fender FM's of tube amps.

Exactly. They are cheap and have horrible tone. Just because they are tube doesn't mean they are good!

quote

+1 to lespaul#1. they are not even that good sounding. they're the Fender FM's of tube amps.

quote

I don't hate them, but I'm f**king sick of people reccomineding them on every thread.

quote

Its called band wagoning.

Guarantee if all the people that hate valvekings today were to have gone to a store and played them before ever hearing about them online, they'd probably like it.

quote

Simsimius wrote on Sep 22nd, 2008 at 5:57am : Jhachey22 wrote on Aug 18th, 2008 at 12:22pm : yeah. valvekings suck. MGs are much better J.K. :haha

Smilies aren't the same as the forums >_<

quote

Jhachey22 wrote on Aug 18th, 2008 at 12:22pm : yeah. valvekings suck. MGs are much better J.K.

:haha

quote

It was between this and a roland cube 60w so if so many people hate them I think ill just stick to getting the roland cube. I dont want something worse sounding than a spider.

quote

yeah. valvekings suck. MGs are much better
J.K.

quote

its true. they are absolutle terribe

quote

I was a bit tempted to make a group about this a while ago.

It's a shame, because at that time the /valveking name was free.

quote

I played a valveking at guitar center. It sounded horrible. It might sound good with some pedals, but it's not worth it. I liked a crate solid state amp they had better. Even the Spider III sounded better.

quote

valve king head through eminence black powders sounds good .. pretty good metal tone just took a good hour of eqing lol but it kicks ass now

quote

Refer to my profile for (IMO of course) a decent valveking tone, specifically on "UG's Trick Sack".

Good Day.

quote

Kevin Saale wrote on Jul 27th, 2008 at 10:53pm : I kind of figured your mic played a part in the sound there. Cheers on the cleans part, you like warm cleans, I like glassy cleans. I will still say though that VKs has crap cleans. I can appreciate warm cleans, but I don't think the VKs sound nice. I think the 112 is actually a pretty decent deal if you need something that is fairly versatile and you like it's voicing. The head is a decent value as well if you already have a nice cab.

well im at least glad we can agree to disagree.
I will admit that the cleans on the VK are not as good as most amps (you get what you pay for) but with an EQ pedal, i can dial in the exact kind of clean i want so i have nothing to complain about.

quote

sg622 wrote on Jul 27th, 2008 at 6:40pm : my post got cut off for some reason but let me continue... ...substance where as i feel your clean clips are thin and not punchy. as for my lead clips, you have to understand that im recording through a 10 year old computer mic and audacity which doesnt take distorted tones too well. The clips dont do it justice and i get a great metal tone out of my VK (with some help with my pedals and cab of course.) anyway, if you going to blame someone for the VK revolution on UG, blame mike h :P

I kind of figured your mic played a part in the sound there. Cheers on the cleans part, you like warm cleans, I like glassy cleans. I will still say though that VKs has crap cleans. I can appreciate warm cleans, but I don't think the VKs sound nice.

I think the 112 is actually a pretty decent deal if you need something that is fairly versatile and you like it's voicing. The head is a decent value as well if you already have a nice cab.

quote

my post got cut off for some reason but let me continue...

...substance where as i feel your clean clips are thin and not punchy.
as for my lead clips, you have to understand that im recording through a 10 year old computer mic and audacity which doesnt take distorted tones too well. The clips dont do it justice and i get a great metal tone out of my VK (with some help with my pedals and cab of course.)
anyway, if you going to blame someone for the VK revolution on UG, blame mike h :P

quote

Kevin Saale wrote on Jul 27th, 2008 at 4:19pm : sg622 wrote on Jul 24th, 2008 at 7:28pm : eh i get a good tone out of my vk. (proof in profile) but -1 for the amp bashing. and -1 to VK n00bs too taht think its the most br0074lz amp out there. I don't know if I'd go so far as to call that good tone. Both the clips demoing the lead sounds are super thin and weak sounding. The cleans are totally lifeless. Also, it's not amp bashing, everything kool said is pretty much spot on. The 50 vs 100 watt thing is more preference than anything, but you shouldn't be looking at a VK212 if you have that much money IMO.

I agree they are whored way too much too. but still its hard to find something brand new that is as versatile as the VK. and yea the 212 version is stupid IMO but the head isnt if you already have a cab.

and lastly, i think you and I have completely different opinions on clean tones(which isnt bad, its just preferance). I like mine thick and meaty. I think my clean clips have a lot of substa

quote

sg622 wrote on Jul 24th, 2008 at 7:28pm : eh i get a good tone out of my vk. (proof in profile) but -1 for the amp bashing. and -1 to VK n00bs too taht think its the most br0074lz amp out there.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call that good tone. Both the clips demoing the lead sounds are super thin and weak sounding. The cleans are totally lifeless.

Also, it's not amp bashing, everything kool said is pretty much spot on. The 50 vs 100 watt thing is more preference than anything, but you shouldn't be looking at a VK212 if you have that much money IMO.

quote