2 Channel vs. 3 Channel Rectifiers: A Comparative Analysis

[Anonymous]

I own a 2 channel Triple Rectifier, and decided to go to a Guitar Center to plug into a 3 channel Rectifier. I wanted to hear both, at low volumes, through a Rectifier 4x12 to note the differences in sound. My goal was to get them to sound fantastic distorted at volumes that are slightly louder than I would speak, and I believe I achieved that.

2 Channel Triple: Very nice, clear articulate tone. Brutal, tight, and at the same time organic. Everything you love about the Recto series without being fizzy or muddy, just at a low volume.

Settings used -
Treble: 2:00
Mids: 11:00 - 2:00
Bass: 12:00
Presence: off
Gain: noon - 3:00

3 Channel Dual: Great full tone, but a little more fizzy. Responded very well to single note riffs, and was noticeably less tight than the 2 channel, but still very articulate. Not a bad tone! What's next to come may surprise you...

Settings used -
Treble: 3:30 - 4:00
Mids: 4:00 - 5:00
Bass: 11:00
Presence: 8:00
Gain: noon - 3:00

Comparison -
This is where it gets interesting. First off, it's definitely worth noting that I like my Triple more, but it's also worth noting that I've carefully thought out and tested the pre section and am using several NOS tubes. That said, it's VERY close. I seriously doubt the different power section had much influence on tone at this point, at such a low volume. However, though the tones are similar, they are a whole world apart. The 2 channel has a tight, focused sound with more mids. It is awesome at rhythm stuff and feels incredible doing it. It can't do leads. Period. The 3 channel, on the other hand, was definitely more fizzy, and not as tight. It still sounded good, but what I liked a lot about it is it has potential for lead tones.

I think my take home message is that the 2 channel sounds best for rhythm. It is the ultimate Rectifier tone, and the 3 channel can't touch it. However, if you like the Rectifier tone, and want to do more, the 3 channels aren't a bad option. No, they don't sound as good, but they'll get you there. They'll give you the Recto tone with more options (with the same sound, ignoring the fact that there's more channels). Me? I'll take the 2 channel.

I think there are a lot of people that like playing with these as bedroom amps in addition to their main band rig, and one thing that I can't get over about my Triple is that it sounds really good quiet, and even better loud. The 3 channel Rectos are nice, and if I could only have one amp - ignoring RKs and Roadsters - I might pick the 3 channel over the 2.

Anyway, hope that helps someone. Certainly would have helped me a couple of years ago! :lol:

 

[siggy14]

Did you use the same cabs? Same tubes etc..? As to the power section, yes it will make a difference even at lower volumes so you do best comparing a 2 channel triple to a 3 channel triple.

I own a 2 channel Triple Rectifier, and decided to go to a Guitar Center to plug into a 3 channel Rectifier. I wanted to hear both, at low volumes, through a Rectifier 4x12 to note the differences in sound. My goal was to get them to sound fantastic distorted at volumes that are slightly louder than I would speak, and I believe I achieved that.

2 Channel Triple: Very nice, clear articulate tone. Brutal, tight, and at the same time organic. Everything you love about the Recto series without being fizzy or muddy, just at a low volume.

Settings used -
Treble: 2:00
Mids: 11:00 - 2:00
Bass: 12:00
Presence: off
Gain: noon - 3:00

3 Channel Dual: Great full tone, but a little more fizzy. Responded very well to single note riffs, and was noticeably less tight than the 2 channel, but still very articulate. Not a bad tone! What's next to come may surprise you...

Settings used -
Treble: 3:30 - 4:00
Mids: 4:00 - 5:00
Bass: 11:00
Presence: 8:00
Gain: noon - 3:00

Comparison -
This is where it gets interesting. First off, it's definitely worth noting that I like my Triple more, but it's also worth noting that I've carefully thought out and tested the pre section and am using several NOS tubes. That said, it's VERY close. I seriously doubt the different power section had much influence on tone at this point, at such a low volume. However, though the tones are similar, they are a whole world apart. The 2 channel has a tight, focused sound with more mids. It is awesome at rhythm stuff and feels incredible doing it. It can't do leads. Period. The 3 channel, on the other hand, was definitely more fizzy, and not as tight. It sounded great, but what I liked a lot about it is it has potential for lead tones.

I think my take home message is that the 2 channel sounds best for rhythm. It is the ultimate Rectifier tone, and the 3 channel can't touch it. However, if you like the Rectifier tone, and want to do more, the 3 channels aren't a bad option. No, they don't sound as good, but they'll get you there. They'll give you the Recto tone with more options (with the same sound, ignoring the fact that there's more channels). Me? I'll take the 2 channel.

I think there are a lot of people that like playing with these as bedroom amps, and one thing that I can't get over about my Triple is that it sounds really good quiet, and even better loud. The 3 channel Rectos are nice, and if I could only have one amp - ignoring RKs and Roadsters - I might pick the 3 channel over the 2.

Anyway, hope that helps someone. Certainly would have helped me a couple of years ago! :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Did you use the same cabs? Same tubes etc..? As to the power section, yes it will make a difference even at lower volumes so you do best comparing a 2 channel triple to a 3 channel triple.

Not a perfect comparison, no, but I think the big things are similar enough. Same Recto 4x12, different tubes, and I think the power section is "close enough".

Put another way, I think the differences between the amps are too big for the comparison's flaws to make a big difference. Tubes, I'm sure, will make the distortion a little sweeter, but they certainly won't change the amp's character. What I wrote is based off of that knowledge.

 

[R_ADKINS80]

I am a firm believer that tubes make or brake an amp. They absolutely change the character of the amp. You take my current tubes out of my amp and then put the stock Mesa tubes back in and you just basically castrated my amp and completely ripped its voice out. Also it would be a better comparison to do it between a 2 channel triple and a 3 channel triple, not a dual. The bigger transformers and extra power/headroom make a big difference in the tone and feel to me. Duals and Triples are not close enough for me to replace my triple with a dual at all.

 

[Anonymous]

I am a firm believer that tubes make or brake an amp. They absolutely change the character of the amp. You take my current tubes out of my amp and then put the stock Mesa tubes back in and you just basically castrated my amp and completely ripped its voice out.

I actually don't agree. Make or break an amp? Sure. Rip out an amp's voice? Not at all. I've done comparisons and while I think having the right tubes is essential to your sound, it won't make a useless amp worth something and a great amp useless. I could put whichever tubes I wanted in my Recto and while I could come up with some lousy combinations, it'll still be my Recto and have the same characteristics. Sure, it might be fizzy, or a little more mushy, but it's not going to make the amp sound, in the grand scheme of things, awful. I'm sure there are people who feel differently, but through my own experience, that hasn't been the case.

 

[R_ADKINS80]

i've went through probably 7-800 dollars worth of tubes now and i will say.....yes, some combinations ruin my amps tone and make it sound like an unplayable piece of crap. The dougs tube combo for one example.

 

[Anonymous]

i've went through probably 7-800 dollars worth of tubes now and i will say.....yes, some combinations ruin my amps tone and make it sound like an unplayable piece of crap. The dougs tube combo for one example.

True. That Tung-Sol reissue in anything other than V4 makes mine pretty much useless. But the Mesa tubes aren't too bad.

 

[Elpelotero]

In my experience, I'll have to disagree with some of the poster's impressions.

When I got my revD, I sat it right next to my 3ch and played both of them back to back to back to back, etc. Using the same tubes each time, and same guitar, cab, etc. This was a Dual to Dual comparison. To me, the 2ch won in every category except cleans and the mid-gain breakup sound. In other words, I really liked channel 1 on the 3ch. It had the clean and Pushed modes which were great to me. The 2ch slays in leads, IMO. I've gotten tones out of it that rival my C+ on any day. To me the 3ch was incredibly stiff; no creaminess.

As for tubes, they did make a small difference. The 420's were better to me in both amps. The 440's were OK. The 2ch with 420's was the best tone, followed by 2ch with 440's. Then 3ch with 420's, then 3ch with 440's.

Just my opinion. BTW, these amps were cranked extremely loud. Again, my opinion, but you can't really have a fair comparison of amps if you used different tubes, different rooms, different models (Triple vs Dual). But at least you have a strong concept of each amps sound. We can both agree the 2ch is the better amp all around.

 

[R_ADKINS80]

I have found I like the TS RI in V2 and it makes a hell of a V5 tube as well, I keep 2 of them as spares to my NOS tubes I run in V2 and V5 .

 

[siggy14]

Tubes will make a big difference on sound, some tubes have more midrange, some have relaxed midrange. Some have bigger bottem end or glassier tops. Going from a mesa stock tube to a JJ resulted in a smoother tone with more clarity, so yes tubes make a huge difference.

Besides tubes, your cabinets were the same, but still different. Huge difference between a cabinet that has been played awhile and one comeing off the showroom floor. A well used V30 cab will be alot smoother, some of the shrill the V30's have are way smoothed out.

Even with the same tubes, cabinets your best comparison is to record a clip using the same everything and then play back. Because so much goes into just listening, such as ear fatigue, or just even that minute or two of switching everything will give you a different perspective.

Now my overall thoughts are, if you want a 3 channel to sound closer to a 2 channel, on the 3 channel play modern on channel 2 and it is alot closer to the modern channel of a 2 channel recto.

 

[Silverwulf]

Yeah, tubes can definitely make or a break a tone for me. Playing a Recto with stock tubes versus ones I'd usually drop in there is like night and day. I didn't even enjoy playing the amp with stock tubes while I was waiting on a new set to arrive. Not only the sound, but the feel was different to me.

And broken in V30's are my fav speakers. I've had my cab for about 5 years now, but I'd say it took a good two years of band practice for 8-10 hours weekly and gigging between 20-30 times both years before they were finally fully broken in IMO, at least for my cab.

 

[MusicManJP6]

I've heard a 3CH DR but not a 2CH. I thought it sounded freaking killer. Without the other to compare it to it sounded just fine - as is usually the case... I thought it was really cool to be able to have clean, rhythm, and lead tones setup. If I was going to get another Recto it would be a 3CH DR...

 

[James Lugo]

I just did the same thing this past week. 2 channel Dual (rack version), 3 channel Dual and 3 channel Triple. To me no comparision the 2 channel Dual won everything hands down. It had THE tone of a rectifier to me. It had old tubes in it during the shootout and after I bought it I had it re-tubed and biased by Boogie and it sounded a bit better but all in all the same. Awesome for lead, you just gotta earn it and dig in, no ghetto fizzy lag over to make things sound smoother then they are, just pure tone. The amp barks bigtime and I have a pretty awesome guitar rig so she's rolling with the big dogs in my studio:

 

[siggy14]

Unless you have had your rackmount modified it shouldnt need a bias, Mesa amps have a fixed bias. In the future just do yourself a favor and buy the tubes and put them in yourself, a hell of alot cheaper!

As to difference between the two amps, the 3 channels have there place, you can get closer to a two channel rec on a three channel but using the orange channel on the 3 channel in modern mode.

I just did the same thing this past week. 2 channel Dual (rack version), 3 channel Dual and 3 channel Triple. To me no comparision the 2 channel Dual won everything hands down. It had THE tone of a rectifier to me. It had old tubes in it during the shootout and after I bought it I had it re-tubed and biased by Boogie and it sounded a bit better but all in all the same. Awesome for lead, you just gotta earn it and dig in, no ghetto fizzy lag over to make things sound smoother then they are, just pure tone. The amp barks bigtime and I have a pretty awesome guitar rig so she's rolling with the big dogs in my studio:

 

[James Lugo]

Unless you have had your rackmount modified it shouldnt need a bias, Mesa amps have a fixed bias. In the future just do yourself a favor and buy the tubes and put them in yourself, a hell of alot cheaper!

As to difference between the two amps, the 3 channels have there place, you can get closer to a two channel rec on a three channel but using the orange channel on the 3 channel in modern mode.

I just did the same thing this past week. 2 channel Dual (rack version), 3 channel Dual and 3 channel Triple. To me no comparision the 2 channel Dual won everything hands down. It had THE tone of a rectifier to me. It had old tubes in it during the shootout and after I bought it I had it re-tubed and biased by Boogie and it sounded a bit better but all in all the same. Awesome for lead, you just gotta earn it and dig in, no ghetto fizzy lag over to make things sound smoother then they are, just pure tone. The amp barks bigtime and I have a pretty awesome guitar rig so she's rolling with the big dogs in my studio:

I guess it's a matter of ones ear and how they perceive sound, to me the 2 channel and 3 channel almost didn't even sound like they were from the same manufacturer. Again, this just my opinion, I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time. :mrgreen:

 

[tomprs]

My main amp is a three channel dual rectifier and I also played often on a friend's pre-500 dual. The main difference between the two for me is that the old one has a bit more punch and sounds colder. It is definitely more "agressive" sounding and may cut a bit better through a mix when playing rythm. BUT I would never trade my 3 channel for a pre-500! I'm always amazed when people talk about the old ones winning hands down and to have the REAL rectifier sound, about the 3 channel version to be fizzy etc ... 3 channel rectos have WAAY better clean and crunch tones, you can actually play rythm AND lead with them and if you think they are fizzy well...please take more time to work on your settings, to try the different modes on the amp, to experiment with different tube combinations (I have Sovtek 5881's powertubes and the stock Mesa pre-amp tubes. I will soon try the Tung-Sol trick in V1, I'm curious to see how it comes out) AND different cabs. I get the most powerfull, thick and still warm rythm tone out of my Dual Recto. I frigging LOVE it!

Tom.

 

[screamingdaisy]

I own a Rev F Dual and a Roadster. I've A/B'd them a lot over the years and I thought I knew a lot about the differences and similarities until I stuck a microphone in front of them and started recording them. Turns out everything I thought I knew was wrong.

I thought that I could get them to sound essentially the same by playing with the EQ settings to thin/brighten the Roadster until it sounded like the Rev F, and to my ear they did sound essentially the same. To an SM57 they sounded like two totally different amps. I was blown away by how different they sounded.

The Rev F was very clean, clear and articulate. By clean, I mean that the distortion doesn't have any extra noise going on around it... I guess you could say its more pure. I found it very easy to get that perfect recorded Recto sound out of the Rev F.

The trade off is the midrange. The Roadster has a lot more midrange. I'd dropped the Roadsters mids down to 8:30 and it was still producing more midrange than the Rev F with it's mids at 12:00. The result was more bloat and less clarity. I don't know if it'd quite call it fizzy but it certainly wasn't as crisp and defined. The trade off there is that the Roadster actually produces a good lead tone.

I think that is why I find the older Rectos to be rhythm monsters that really suffer whey trying to play lead. Much tighter and more articulate, but all highs and lows with a definite lack of body when playing single notes. I've tried various methods to fatten and fill out the lead tone, but the results have generally been underwhelming.

I generally prefer my Roadster for playing live. I prefer both the sound and the features to that of the Rev F when used in that context.... However, when its time to record the Rev F is my go-to amp. It absolutely nails that sound.

 

[cradlefish]

It's always going to come down to personal experienced, for me I like two channel better to my ears.
I've owned the 3 and thought it sounded great! Better cleans than my 2 channel version, but I'm still able to tweak mine to very usable cleans that still sounds really good. The season I got rid of my 3 channel was popping and slight delay when switching channels. The 2 channel may has a lighter popping sound, but there is no latency when channel switching. I also like the tone better but not that far off between the two versions.

 

[kramerxxx]

I owned an early 2ch years ago. I liked but found it uninspiring to play lead with. At the same time I owned a Mark IV and it won out for getting taken to most gigs. I eventually sold the Recto and regretted it later.

In 2006 I bought a Peavey XXX, wanting a Rectfier that could pay lead sounds. I was disappointed and sold it but not before having modded, including having the OT changed to a Mercury. This experiment led me to buying a New Dual Rec and having it modded and I was pretty happy with it. I still need use an OD in front of it, but a great tone.

Spin forward to a few weeks ago...

I did the upgrades/mods that were shared here and I now have the Rec I have always wanted.

 

[siggy14]

Keep in mind people that when this thread was started it was before the reborn recto's, so now the 3 channel recto is a different beast then originally compared.

I settled on a RK1, to my ears it is a nice combination between a rectifier and a tremoverb. Good mid's and just lots of balls.