View Full Version : Cyber Twin Vs. Mustangs???
02-13-2011, 07:26 AM
Anyone got an opinion on how the Mustang III, IV, V stack up against the Cyber Twin??? I had a cyber twin shortly after they came out an thought it was good, but not great. The reviews on the Mustangs are really good but the price is so far below where the Cyber Twin is/was, I'm just curious. I understand the features difference, I'm more interested in the sound comparison.
02-24-2011, 09:32 AM
any opinions on this?
02-24-2011, 10:42 AM
Check the humungous recent threads on this very subject in Digital and Modeling gear. Yeah, I know, Cyber Amps aren't exactly digital in the sense that a Spider IV is, but that's where Cyber and Mustang threads do best. I think you'll find some good stuff over there.
02-24-2011, 12:00 PM
I have a cyber-twin and a g-dec (same platform as the mustangs I believe).I think the twin wins out in the tone department. The distortion is better with the tube pre-amp the g-dec just gets a little to fizzy. The g-dec does the cleans and heavy metal sounds ok but I think the cyber-twin is just a little fuller sounding…having said all that I probably getting rid of the cyber twin now that I have the Fargen mini-plexi.
02-24-2011, 02:31 PM
Just FYI, the G-DEC is a conventional digital modeling amp, which is to say it uses pure digital processing to do all the modeling in the front end. Then it's on to an SS power section that's relatively transparent by guitar standards (all power section behaviors being modeled digitally), reportedly with a modeling-style speaker. According to Fender, the Mustangs are direct descendants of the G-DEC, also being conventional digital modelers.
Cyber Twins are a completely different breed of amp that started intially with the H&K Switchblade, the Peavey Transformer series, and Fender's Cyber family. In each case, the amp itself is an analog amp, and so all the distortion behaviors we know and love are likewise analog. What makes these magic is that they can actually re-wire the circuit so that when you switch patches, you really are playing a different analog amp. (Incidentally, the only amps that can re-wire the power section are the Peavey's...nobody else actually re-wires power sections as a function of a patch that I know of.) This breed of chameleon amp doesn't have an industry moniker yet, so I simply describe this approach as "automated deep-switching analog amplification." Catchy eh? The important takeaway is that these aren't digital amps...they're analog. The non-amp-type FX are digital.
(As opposed to good old channel switching, which is another way to re-wire an amp on the fly...although far less Buck Rogers I suppose. Imagine a Road King with MIDI programmable relays. Hm... BTW, another name for automated deep-switching that's been around at least since the seventies and very loosely used here...Cybernetics.)
What makes these chameleon circuits even more confusing is that they all include digital FX to varying extents. Peavey uses DSP for EQ and non-amp FX like chorus and reverb...things that digital processing has been doing in high-end pro audio for decades. Great application for DSP. Fender goes a bit further than that, but how much further is part of their Secret Sauce. Worth noting, btw, that Cyber amps have an analog onboard comp when you add compression to your patch.
Fast forward to the newest amps. Fender's SCXD and VM lines share tons of this deep-switching analog circuitry, so like the Cybers and Transformers, they're not really modelers as much as they are re-configurable analog amps. Like Cyber amps, they too mix and match digital FX freely with the analog circuitry, making the Secret Sauce murky indeed. Peavey's new Vypyr line is also a new breed of automated deep-switching analog amp--they're direct descendants of the Transformer line.
Marshall jumped into the fray spectacularly with the JVM line, though they are decidedly loath to make any such comparison. (Interesting that Marshall got this formula so right, witness the wild success of the JVM.) Hence the presence of JVM's here in Amps and Cabs, but the banishment of Cyber, SCXD, Fender VM, Transformer, and Vypyr amps to Digital Modeling gear.
It's even more fun watching all the digital-heads try to make sense of these analog shape-shifters over in Digital And Modeling Gear. Almost as much fun as watching it in this forum. :)
Anyhoo, worth knowing maybe for those of us who poke around under the hood of these things, and maybe worth thinking about for the front-panel player community as well. Until the two architectures finally sound and feel the same, that difference might be apparent to you if you know what to listen for above the GC din.
02-24-2011, 02:40 PM
Epluribus -- THANK YOU for that detailed description. I was curious because I've read some incredibly glowing reviews of the Mustangs (the reviews of the Cyber's was always mixed and BTW, I had one when they first came out) and there is such a HUGE pricing difference that I'm wondering if there is as big a tone difference.
Maybe the gushing over the Mustangs has more to do with "wow, that's a lot of amp for a few hundred bucks" and the Cyber really does have a sizeable tone advantage.
I looked through the threads and couldn't find anyone that had done a head to head tone comparison between the newer Mustangs and the Cyber Twin.
02-24-2011, 03:08 PM
Guess I oughta go give a Mustang a run. I still have a CT 1.3...nice amp, gotta know what it will and will not do. I use mine a ton.
02-24-2011, 03:22 PM
The new Mustangs are amazing for low volume and low wattage clean Fender sounds. I mean they really nailed it for low volume playing. The higher gain sounds are where it falls short.
The Cyber Twin is a lot more amp for a lot more money. Difficult to compare the two honestly.
02-24-2011, 03:51 PM
Worthwhile point. Cyber Twins, IMHO, were built expressly for use onstage, preferably DI/personal monitor. I've never thought the tone was living-room pretty, but it's tailored really well for sitting in a mix.
02-24-2011, 05:08 PM
Wow...eplurisbus I never knew my Cyber-twin was that cool (automated deep-switching analog amplification)...I think I may keep it now.
02-24-2011, 07:33 PM
Certainly makes the amp that much more intriguing doesn't it? But the real bottom line is the sound...does it work for you or not? Wish I had a nickel for every seductive piece of equipment, musical and otherwise, that just didn't get the job done at the end of the day. If the Fargen plays and sounds better, it's probably the keeper.
But before you ditch the CT, hot-wire your speaker leads with jacks and patch into some other cabs. (I put extension jacks on mine and use Z-Matchers.) The small-amp patches are on a whooole 'nother level running into a well-matched small cab. I sometimes use a 2x10 open-back loaded with Weber Silver Tens, a 12F150 Deluxe-style cab, or a deep AlNiCo 1x10 for the small fry. Like Scotty beamed down a Prin...
...but be sure to mind the ohms and watts. :)
02-25-2011, 08:38 AM
Well it looks like I'm off to Radio Shack...or I'll just hold off a bit until I'm done beating the daylights out of the new mini-plexi....
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.