Greetings Randall fiends! I recently picked up a barely used Cyclone for $400 at a local music shop, and I must say, it pretty much makes most other amps I have tried run and hide in a corner. Volume, chunk, weight :lol: , and everything in between. I have tried a Warhead in the past, and I remember it being...well...less than perfect. The clean channel was awful, and I have heard that they like to die young. A lot. What do you guys think?
Cyclone vs. Warhead
- Thread starter AVman9
- Start date
Help Support Synergy/MTS Forum:
Juggernaut
Well-known member
it's the exact same amp minus the crappy effects.
i had a cyclone and hated every minute of it and at one point my drummer said i had the worst tone he 's ever played with, that eq on it just screwed everything up for it. got better with a sonic maximizer but still i fought that eq forever. its really the same amp as a warhead?
my middle slider was very touchy just a little bump and the mids shoot up alot. i saw crowbar use these when they first came out( the cyclone) and they had the sickest tone of all time that night but they ran theirs boosted outfront with mt-2's like kirk does with his rg100's, i should have tried that when i had it 
Soulinsane
Well-known member
I love the Cyclone for its SS melt your balls off crunch and sizzle. It is the same amp as the Warhead but without the effects and yes, the clean channel on it does blow. I found that it does wonderful things when A/B with the RM100.
trendkill1168
Well-known member
I like the tone you can get out of a Warhead, a sonic maximizer, and an upfront EQ. But **** that era of amps were unreliable. I had 2 Warheads...the original head with the power switch in back and the 2X12 combo and there was aways something that didn't work on both of them. I like either the older RG's or the X2. Never owned the Cyclone but I've played on them.
