Talk:Peavey 5150

General clean-up[edit]

External links wrongly classified as 'References' - corrected,
External links contained at least one double pipe - now removed,
External links used in attempt to include pictures in article - removed.
Any pictures required for the article should be uploaded to Wikipedia with due attention to copyright and licensing,
External links are mostly broken anyway,
Not convinced on notability of subject - looks more like a commercial

Simon Latham (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal[edit]

Merged. Following Manning's suggestion, we'll keep it at 5150. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge his article with Peavey 6505. This newly created article describes anv amplifier as a rename of the 5150.

Agree , should be merged. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree also. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.58.193.254 (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed. Aside from the endorsement history with EvH, 5150 is a reference in modern metal to this day. 6505 hasn't reached that status. 80.101.43.205 (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agree. same amp with different name. 6505 mean metal just as much as 5150 does because they are the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.235.243 (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Disagreed. Upon the dissolution of EvH's endorsement by Peavey, Peavey retained the 5150 circuit design (EvH kept the brand) and developed the 6505 on that basis. Both amps are, however similar, not exactly the same thing. Also, the 5150 made by Peavey is a hallmark amp, whereas 6505 isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.225.222 (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yep good idea to merge the two, 6505 is just a continuation of the 5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.139.33 (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - there is no need for different articles about what is simply a product rebranding (as a result of EVH ending his relationship with Peavey). What the title should be is a little less clear. Although the 6505 is the current name (which gives it some entitlement to being the article title), the name "5150" has achieved a level of prominence in the industry which the 6505 will probably never achieve. I'm leaning toward 5150 as the name. Manning (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Needs a Cleanup[edit]

Currently, the first section reads like a advertisment, with lots of subjective terms as well as statements that sound nice but don't make any sense: "This design and implementation allowed the individual components to carry themselves" and "placing the transformer so as to ensure acoustical integrity by minimizing transconductance". What is acoustical integrity bt minimizing transconductance even supposed to mean? I don't intend to offend or attack the original authors, but currently it reads as something written by a musician that think he knows more about the topic than he actually does (from an EE point of view).

Parts read as advertisement: "Despite its shared "plain" PCB, each component was generally high quality, allowing manufacturing ease while providing high quality tone at an affordable price."...

There are pretty much no references, and a lot of subjective statements/claims: "tube-amps are still uncontested in music amplification as far as tonal quality is concerned" and " providing high quality tone".

I think it's clear what I'm getting at. Most of this should be removed or re-written. Even if references are added (I added the reference issue banner eariler today) the tone and style of the first half of the article needs some serious cleanup.

TheUnnamedNewbie (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article is terrible. It is almost entirely woo woo or pseudoscience. It should be deleted in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.81.5 (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have started working on this clean-up myself. TheUnnamedNewbie (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]