fluff191
Well-known member
This post is hilarious. I PM'd that guy on eBay the FIRST DAY it was up, and told him he was full of ****, but he insisted it was a serial number in the 200's, but would not provide pics.........What a douche.
2-channel Dual Rectos questions!
- Thread starter no.mop
- Start date
Help Support The Boogie Board:
YellowJacket
Well-known member
That Ebay clown is a git, I'm glad you are all harassing him!!
Interesting. Can you possibly post a picture of the back panel for your dual as well? It looks identical to mine from the front. Also, what is the serial number? The guy who's doing that website said all Revision G amps that were built in the earlier chassis had a parallel effects loop so if yours is a Revision G and it has a serial loop, then it makes it a special case that deserves to be commented on. THE PEOPLE DEMAND PICS! (I'm totally ripping mine apart when I'm back out for school. I'll have pics for all)
Mine is an early enough serial number that it could be either a Revision F or an Revision G.
I really think the case with Mesa is that they really did use what parts they did have. I agree with what some people have said here:
the trouble is that there are so MANY factors that play into tone and the pots and caps are a small deal by comparison. I mean each tube is unique and you can get different 'colour' tubes from mesa i.e tubes that run at different temperatures because of the fixed bias. This WILL affect tone. You can also try so many different tube combinations and they all affect tone. You technically can mix and match 6L6 style tubes with the fixed bias, provided they are chosen as matched pairs. You can also use EL -34 tubes if you are interested.
Furthermore, people often don't take into account the differences in speakers used. I mean speakers change in tone as they age and speaker combination affects tone greatly. We do know that Celestion has made various revisions to their speakers and that affects tone. I wonder how much of the 'annoying characteristics' of an amp can be canceled out by simply changing loudspeakers in a cab or even insulating it a bit to cancel out annoying resonance frequencies? Also, what about the guitar that is being used? I notice that the guitar being played really affects tone a lot. This is obvious, right? A guitar has a tone as does the pickups it is loaded with. The guitar is also controlled by a player. Maybe everyone just needs to steal petrucci's hands? Should be all be posting less on a forum and playing our scales more? Maybe we need to ditch all the effects and simply play clean through an 'honest' class A combo and work the hell out of our chops?
I know people comment so much on gear but an old amp builder in the city here told me that a good guitarist can find his (or her) 'tone' with almost any piece of gear. This is a very opposite and extreme view to what most players have but there is some truth in it. In my experience there was a certain tone I was looking for and I tried so many pieces of gear but I was never happy. There were these frequencies always present in whatever I played and I could never EQ them out. The tone was always muddy. One day my brother comes downstairs and asks me, "I know you say your like your guitar but what if you are unhappy with the sound of it?" I listened to recordings of all the bands who have a tone I like and then I realized in the end that there was a specific guitar that I liked. The amps, cabs, and speakers were not all to blame! Now that I have my Les Paul, I can get my 'tone' out of many different amps from an Orange Tiny Terror, to a VOX, a Marshall JCM 2000, my boogie, and even a Peavey Rage 158. I mean the peavey sucks but it still sounds like MY sound. The only other factor that I need to consider is this: I need a Celestion G12m paired with a Celestion V30. If I have a 2 x 12 or 4 x 12 with this speaker combo, I am usually happy as a clam!!
I think the last thing to consider is the mics used in a recordings. Mics shape sound in a HUGE way. I really wonder how much of these tones we like are because we hear our favourite artists on recordings? How often do we hear them perform live? I've often noted that I hate live sound compared to recordings. When doing some recording, I was shocked at how important mic placement really is. We had three mics on my halfstack, we had a couple of wide diaphram Audiotechnica mics that are omnidirectional as well as a C1,000. This is a legitimate query: Should all guitarists have their own mic that they gig with? We put so much thought into our gear and our sound that perhaps we should consider the single piece of equipment that transports that sound to the mix?? If we all learned how to mic our amps to get the sound we want, maybe we'd be much happier with how we sound? Incidentally, i LOVE the sound of my rig when I record it with those Audiotechnica mics. I do know that with recorded audio, there is the fact that we can multi track, something that is harder to do live. The real solutions are to run two different amps at once live or even run two different types of speakers in a cab. I'm sorry for the TLDR post but I'm curious what you all think about this.
As an aside, I am a Cellist and I have noticed that many cello players revere old instruments, just like guitarists and old amps, old guitars, etc. I mean it is so ridiculous because the old Stradivari instruments go for millions upon millions of dollars, quite literally. These are instruments that were built before the modern cello dimensions were standardized and a lot of them have since been cut down. I mean classical musicians in general and string players specifically have very few job opportunities and here they want to pay six figures for their instrument. Don't even add the bow onto this since it is four or five figures, even more than many of you pay for your axes, amps, or both combined. Am I correct in assuming that players sometimes forget that it is them controlling their instruments??
Silverwulf said:YellowJacket said:
The website is wrong (on that matter). My '94 is exactly as described above (seen below), built into a "Pre-500" chassis. There's a special run that were done in that manner, probably using up leftover chassis. This includes Dual, Triple, and even some Rackmounts. I speculate less than 50 were done like this during that run, though it's possible that there were some done a little earlier (though I've never seen any evidence of it).
Interesting. Can you possibly post a picture of the back panel for your dual as well? It looks identical to mine from the front. Also, what is the serial number? The guy who's doing that website said all Revision G amps that were built in the earlier chassis had a parallel effects loop so if yours is a Revision G and it has a serial loop, then it makes it a special case that deserves to be commented on. THE PEOPLE DEMAND PICS! (I'm totally ripping mine apart when I'm back out for school. I'll have pics for all)
Mine is an early enough serial number that it could be either a Revision F or an Revision G.
I really think the case with Mesa is that they really did use what parts they did have. I agree with what some people have said here:
the trouble is that there are so MANY factors that play into tone and the pots and caps are a small deal by comparison. I mean each tube is unique and you can get different 'colour' tubes from mesa i.e tubes that run at different temperatures because of the fixed bias. This WILL affect tone. You can also try so many different tube combinations and they all affect tone. You technically can mix and match 6L6 style tubes with the fixed bias, provided they are chosen as matched pairs. You can also use EL -34 tubes if you are interested.
Furthermore, people often don't take into account the differences in speakers used. I mean speakers change in tone as they age and speaker combination affects tone greatly. We do know that Celestion has made various revisions to their speakers and that affects tone. I wonder how much of the 'annoying characteristics' of an amp can be canceled out by simply changing loudspeakers in a cab or even insulating it a bit to cancel out annoying resonance frequencies? Also, what about the guitar that is being used? I notice that the guitar being played really affects tone a lot. This is obvious, right? A guitar has a tone as does the pickups it is loaded with. The guitar is also controlled by a player. Maybe everyone just needs to steal petrucci's hands? Should be all be posting less on a forum and playing our scales more? Maybe we need to ditch all the effects and simply play clean through an 'honest' class A combo and work the hell out of our chops?
I know people comment so much on gear but an old amp builder in the city here told me that a good guitarist can find his (or her) 'tone' with almost any piece of gear. This is a very opposite and extreme view to what most players have but there is some truth in it. In my experience there was a certain tone I was looking for and I tried so many pieces of gear but I was never happy. There were these frequencies always present in whatever I played and I could never EQ them out. The tone was always muddy. One day my brother comes downstairs and asks me, "I know you say your like your guitar but what if you are unhappy with the sound of it?" I listened to recordings of all the bands who have a tone I like and then I realized in the end that there was a specific guitar that I liked. The amps, cabs, and speakers were not all to blame! Now that I have my Les Paul, I can get my 'tone' out of many different amps from an Orange Tiny Terror, to a VOX, a Marshall JCM 2000, my boogie, and even a Peavey Rage 158. I mean the peavey sucks but it still sounds like MY sound. The only other factor that I need to consider is this: I need a Celestion G12m paired with a Celestion V30. If I have a 2 x 12 or 4 x 12 with this speaker combo, I am usually happy as a clam!!
I think the last thing to consider is the mics used in a recordings. Mics shape sound in a HUGE way. I really wonder how much of these tones we like are because we hear our favourite artists on recordings? How often do we hear them perform live? I've often noted that I hate live sound compared to recordings. When doing some recording, I was shocked at how important mic placement really is. We had three mics on my halfstack, we had a couple of wide diaphram Audiotechnica mics that are omnidirectional as well as a C1,000. This is a legitimate query: Should all guitarists have their own mic that they gig with? We put so much thought into our gear and our sound that perhaps we should consider the single piece of equipment that transports that sound to the mix?? If we all learned how to mic our amps to get the sound we want, maybe we'd be much happier with how we sound? Incidentally, i LOVE the sound of my rig when I record it with those Audiotechnica mics. I do know that with recorded audio, there is the fact that we can multi track, something that is harder to do live. The real solutions are to run two different amps at once live or even run two different types of speakers in a cab. I'm sorry for the TLDR post but I'm curious what you all think about this.
As an aside, I am a Cellist and I have noticed that many cello players revere old instruments, just like guitarists and old amps, old guitars, etc. I mean it is so ridiculous because the old Stradivari instruments go for millions upon millions of dollars, quite literally. These are instruments that were built before the modern cello dimensions were standardized and a lot of them have since been cut down. I mean classical musicians in general and string players specifically have very few job opportunities and here they want to pay six figures for their instrument. Don't even add the bow onto this since it is four or five figures, even more than many of you pay for your axes, amps, or both combined. Am I correct in assuming that players sometimes forget that it is them controlling their instruments??
Silverwulf
Well-known member
I'll post some pics of the back as well sometime in the next few days.
I've spoken to El (guy who runs the site) before quite a few times about various things. There's great info on the site, it's pretty much spot on for the most part. I know I've mentioned a "2 Channel Recto User Guide" I've been writing that's months overdue right now. It details various things his site doesn't. It's not meant to replace it...it's there more to compliment it. I've just been slacking off the last few months with a 9 week old now at home, a few major proposals at work consuming time, etc. I'm hoping to still have it out in Aug at least. It's not too long or lengthy, but it does help fill in some gaps.
I've spoken to El (guy who runs the site) before quite a few times about various things. There's great info on the site, it's pretty much spot on for the most part. I know I've mentioned a "2 Channel Recto User Guide" I've been writing that's months overdue right now. It details various things his site doesn't. It's not meant to replace it...it's there more to compliment it. I've just been slacking off the last few months with a 9 week old now at home, a few major proposals at work consuming time, etc. I'm hoping to still have it out in Aug at least. It's not too long or lengthy, but it does help fill in some gaps.
Elpelotero
Well-known member
Silverwulf said:
If you think your overdue, I haven't updated my site in 1 year. Your info about this unique G and my time with an E are the first things to go in, though.
The only things I'd really like to see, and I dont' know if the information is available but approximately what point various options were available, specifically Triple rectifiers and rack rectifiers. I have a rack rectifier with the MKIII transformers that is currently my favorite amp but I was unaware that revision F rectifiers were available in the rack.
Silverwulf
Well-known member
They were both available in '92, serial numbers late 600's, early 700's.
YellowJacket
Well-known member
Elpelotero said:
The people demand sound clips!! Your site has some amazing information and I would personally like to see more updates and clarifications. I've sent the site around to several other boogie owners. I know a guy who got a 2 channel Dual because he heard mine at a show and loved it. He saw your site and commented on it as follows "Looks like i have the latest revision (G), but with an attached power cord, large logo, speaker outputs labelled with 16-8ohm outputs..."
I wonder what his serial number is.
As for your comment about mojo on the webpage, I find that with my Les Paul I simply must roll off the bass on my head because the guitar just has a fat low end and the Standard Rectocab accentuates this. It isn't that my head sounds bad with the bass pointing straight up. I just prefer to give room to the bassist. A Gibson SG, by contrast, will sound fine with all the knobs pointing straight up.
Silverwulf, what is the serial number on your unique Revision G masquerading as an early Dual? Is it sub 3,000 like mine is?
Silverwulf
Well-known member
Serial number is in the 3500's. Most of the ones from this run were similar to my knowledge, give or take 50-ish in either direction. Rackmounts go a little further because of less production. They extend into the 3800's that I've seen.
This is an interesting thread with regards to what components were inclusive on the Rev F through Rev G runs at what exact point in time.
I have JUST purchased a 2 CH DR that the seller says is from the 1993 production year. Aspects of it include the diamond plate grille, Schumacher 606 transformer, non-detachable power cord, smaller logo and serial loop...and the serial number to this unit is in the 3400s.
That being said, are there any other characteristics that I should look for in order to determine how unique my amp might be? I haven't taken apart the chassis yet but from the sounds of it I may have a DR from a rare run of Revision G using components from the Revision F production series.
Anyone that could provide some enlightenment on my purchase would be greatly appreciated and I wanna state that this site is a wonderful plethora of tips and knowledge for Mesa owners.
I have JUST purchased a 2 CH DR that the seller says is from the 1993 production year. Aspects of it include the diamond plate grille, Schumacher 606 transformer, non-detachable power cord, smaller logo and serial loop...and the serial number to this unit is in the 3400s.
That being said, are there any other characteristics that I should look for in order to determine how unique my amp might be? I haven't taken apart the chassis yet but from the sounds of it I may have a DR from a rare run of Revision G using components from the Revision F production series.
Anyone that could provide some enlightenment on my purchase would be greatly appreciated and I wanna state that this site is a wonderful plethora of tips and knowledge for Mesa owners.
Silverwulf
Well-known member
What info in particular do you want? I can answer any questions you have. For what it's worth, I've had over 200 2 channel Rectos, and the Rev G's from 3400-3800 or so have consistently been the best sounding ones, in particular 3501 (which I own) and 3722 which is floating around somewhere.
AudioMonk
Active member
Silverwulf! I've finally spotted you! Do you know about specifics in circuit revisions on a technical level?
Silverwulf
Well-known member
AudioMonk said:
I didn't realize anyone was looking for me, haha. I'm a long term user more than a technical guru, but I may be able to help some depending on what you want to know. Anything in particular you're looking to find out?
AudioMonk
Active member
When we talk about revisions of the 2-channel dual rec., are we talking about circuit revisions as well as front panel color, power cord..etc.? People mention some years of production sound better than others, if this is true, what changed?
Silverwulf
Well-known member
AudioMonk said:
The circuit revisions in the 2 Channel Dual Rec went from Rev C through Rev G. Revisions A and B never went into production, they we're prototypes only with some major label artists apparently having some to give a test run. The circuit was revised over time because the music landscape was changing and they we're targeting a different audience through the evolution. Basically, the amp was made slightly darker, a parallel FX loop took place of the serial, and the clean channel was dramatically improved. Cosmetic changes also occurred, but they don't coincide with revision changes. Tons of small tweaks...the logo was made larger, the power cord was made detachable, slightly different transformer set (though virtually identical to the originals), etc. Having a black diamond plate and/or chrome chassis was always an option available from Mesa for an additional cost.
People will debate all day long that some revisions sound better than others. After having over 200 of the 2 Channel Rectos, including multiple of all revisions (and early artist models), I'm of the opinion that Rev G is the best and that Mesa improved the amp over time, not made it worse. You can make a Rev G sound nearly identical to a Rev C, but you can't make a Rev C cop all of the tones available in a Rev G.
cradlefish
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 11, 2008
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 1
Silverwulf said:
I've only owned two rectos. A 3 ch and a 90's TR rev G. I have not heard the other revisions, but I'm certainly keeping my TR and have no plans of selling or trading it. It's been a great amp for cleans and distorted sounds for my music. Love it!
I must say silverwulf everytime i check this board i am amazed at the well of knowledge you have when it comes to Rectos! What was the largest number of them you owned at any one time? And do you have pics of them?
Similar threads
