Peavey Cirrus vs. Ken Smith 5
I've owned the Peavey Cirrus in walnut and maple. Sold both because the tone was thin and lacking in the low end, though I liked how they played.
I have no experience with Ken Smith, and for the first time today played it at the store.
It was a neck tru version. I like how it played--thin body, nice neck. And generally I like how necktru basses play. I liked the tone too--very punchy, defined. And had a better, more organic low end than from what I remember about Cirrus.
Further, the smith has a more refined mid character. Whereas, from what I remember, the Cirrus had a grindy mid more appropriate for rock.
Is my general observation above correct how these two basses differ?
No comments here?
I can state only that I've (briefly) tried out a Cirrus 5, and that I was knocked out by it in every way - including the exceptional capacity for low end. No direct experience with Ken Smith. Yet.
FWIW, most of my basses are some combination of maple & walnut. Each one offers a LOT of low end. It's hard for me to understand why your maple & walnut Cirri were somehow deficient.
|All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:23 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.