A
Anonymous
Guest
So I picked up the Mark V yesterday at my local GC. Of course, it wasn't until after I got home that I realized they left many things out: the footswitch case, the documentation, the correct footswitch cable - they gave me the Roadster cable - and the correct cover - again, the Roadster. So I go back after calling them and, assuming they'll ignore my request to have this stuff ready for me and will have to find it, decide to bring my Dual in to put up against one of the new 3 ch models.
Of course I was right; they thought they had what was missing but it was AGAIN Roadster gear. So I told them I was going to mess around with their gear and they said that was fine. I get both amps and plugged them into a Recto cab one at a time. First, I set up the 3ch Dual and I have to say, it sounded pretty **** good! The last time I owned a Dual was with a Basson cab that I really couldn't stand. It was much tighter than I remembered, very punchy and the actual tone was pretty sweet!
Here are my settings:
Presence: off
Treble: 2:00
Mids: 2:30 - 3:30
Bass: noon
Gain: 2:00
Master: 10:30
Ch 3 Modern, diodes, bold
Once I get a good feel for it I plug in my Rev. F. After getting it set up for a while, I found that as I expected, it was better. With it, I found there to be a few more low mids that contributed to a thicker, heavier sound. Here's my settings:
Presence: off
Treble: 2:00
Mids: 11:30 - 12:30
Bass: 12:30
Gain: 2:00
Master: 11:00 (this is the equivalent to the 3ch at 10:30)
Ch 2, diodes, bold
For the actual comparison, there are a few things I'm going to take away. First, the 3 ch Rectifiers are AWESOME amps! They are a slightly different beast than the older Rectifiers, and I believe them to be easier to set up badly. They don't have the midrange voicing of the older Rectifiers, and as such - and this is to my taste - the mid knob needs to be set high for them to sound incredible.
Second, the difference in feel between the older and newer Rectifiers is negligible. Both of them will make you very, very happy!
Third, the difference in tone is not dramatic the way some people believe. Again, the Rev. F has more low midrange making for that really heavy Recto sound of the 90s, but the 3 ch keeps up! For recording, I'd take the Rev. F without much thought, but for a gig, the versatility of the 3 channels plus the solo boost can make for a tough choice. Furthermore, though I generally like the 2 ch better on recordings, Volbeat's "The Human Instrument" has one of the best Recto sounds going, and that is unmistakably a 3 ch!
Forth, and this has not so much to do with the comparison although I did come to the realization at that time, is that unless I played exclusively through a full stack of medium to hi powered speakers, I would not get a Triple again. I think the triple pushes the speakers too hard when the power tubes are working at optimum levels. The Dual pushes them just the right amount, so the sound may appear to be more focused and tighter.
I had the GC rep play on both while I messed with controls and listen. We both liked the Rev. F more, though we agreed neither is a bad choice! I suppose the take-away message here is that if you need the versatility of the 3 channels, you can feel good knowing that you've got one of the best amps going. I'll bet if I spent more time with the 3ch, I'd have it dialed in even closer. Hell, if I switched tubes out the differences in tone would be even smaller!
Oh, and the other take-away message is that you MUST learn the controls of the newer Recto before writing it off as lousy. It can be a steep learning curve because the tone stack comes before the gain stages. I also find that the presence control on both amps works to destroy tone. It adds fizz and since it comes so late in the signal path, will take away much of the tightness and definition of the amp. If you want more bite, always go for the treble control. If you need a little high end shimmer, use presence VERY sparingly.
Of course I was right; they thought they had what was missing but it was AGAIN Roadster gear. So I told them I was going to mess around with their gear and they said that was fine. I get both amps and plugged them into a Recto cab one at a time. First, I set up the 3ch Dual and I have to say, it sounded pretty **** good! The last time I owned a Dual was with a Basson cab that I really couldn't stand. It was much tighter than I remembered, very punchy and the actual tone was pretty sweet!
Here are my settings:
Presence: off
Treble: 2:00
Mids: 2:30 - 3:30
Bass: noon
Gain: 2:00
Master: 10:30
Ch 3 Modern, diodes, bold
Once I get a good feel for it I plug in my Rev. F. After getting it set up for a while, I found that as I expected, it was better. With it, I found there to be a few more low mids that contributed to a thicker, heavier sound. Here's my settings:
Presence: off
Treble: 2:00
Mids: 11:30 - 12:30
Bass: 12:30
Gain: 2:00
Master: 11:00 (this is the equivalent to the 3ch at 10:30)
Ch 2, diodes, bold
For the actual comparison, there are a few things I'm going to take away. First, the 3 ch Rectifiers are AWESOME amps! They are a slightly different beast than the older Rectifiers, and I believe them to be easier to set up badly. They don't have the midrange voicing of the older Rectifiers, and as such - and this is to my taste - the mid knob needs to be set high for them to sound incredible.
Second, the difference in feel between the older and newer Rectifiers is negligible. Both of them will make you very, very happy!
Third, the difference in tone is not dramatic the way some people believe. Again, the Rev. F has more low midrange making for that really heavy Recto sound of the 90s, but the 3 ch keeps up! For recording, I'd take the Rev. F without much thought, but for a gig, the versatility of the 3 channels plus the solo boost can make for a tough choice. Furthermore, though I generally like the 2 ch better on recordings, Volbeat's "The Human Instrument" has one of the best Recto sounds going, and that is unmistakably a 3 ch!
Forth, and this has not so much to do with the comparison although I did come to the realization at that time, is that unless I played exclusively through a full stack of medium to hi powered speakers, I would not get a Triple again. I think the triple pushes the speakers too hard when the power tubes are working at optimum levels. The Dual pushes them just the right amount, so the sound may appear to be more focused and tighter.
I had the GC rep play on both while I messed with controls and listen. We both liked the Rev. F more, though we agreed neither is a bad choice! I suppose the take-away message here is that if you need the versatility of the 3 channels, you can feel good knowing that you've got one of the best amps going. I'll bet if I spent more time with the 3ch, I'd have it dialed in even closer. Hell, if I switched tubes out the differences in tone would be even smaller!
Oh, and the other take-away message is that you MUST learn the controls of the newer Recto before writing it off as lousy. It can be a steep learning curve because the tone stack comes before the gain stages. I also find that the presence control on both amps works to destroy tone. It adds fizz and since it comes so late in the signal path, will take away much of the tightness and definition of the amp. If you want more bite, always go for the treble control. If you need a little high end shimmer, use presence VERY sparingly.
