Dual Rectifier 3rd channel Modern new vs old

[davidosky]

Hi,
I own a Mesa Dual Rectifier 3ch old and I mainly use (99% of the time) the 3rd channel Modern setting. So I'm interested only in this setting...

Since the new rectifiers (2010) has been revoiced I would like to understand if this channel (3rd) with Modern setting has been revoiced.

I have already listened to the comparison between the two by Haggerty's Music (the last comparison of the video...) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJInfJSkMsI

But since I hear some little difference in the video (very subtle respect to the rest of the channels and settings) I cannot understand if this is due to the revoicing or just the different execution...

Thanks

Davide

 

[Third Age Amps]

There is a bit more "presence" or high-mid crunch in the reborn. But you're right, it is very subtle. It sounds much clearer than the 2009 in all of the other modes as well. If I were in the market I would definitely go for the reborn over an older model. Except the 2ch heads, of course.

From what I've read on here the entire amp has been re-voiced to capture more of the original Rev C tone. The clean may be unaffected, but the overdrive and distortion in the Reborn is much more musical sounding to me.

I would think that the Reborn has an overall greater tonal range because of all the fun switches, 50/100 watts, mode, rectifier ... I think they made the perfect gigging amp.

 

[davidosky]

There is a bit more "presence" or high-mid crunch in the reborn. But you're right, it is very subtle. It sounds much clearer than the 2009 in all of the other modes as well. If I were in the market I would definitely go for the reborn over an older model. Except the 2ch heads, of course.

Ok, if I had to buy a new one, I'd buy the Reborn for sure. But since the difference it doesn't seem to be so relevant on the 3rd Channel Modern I'm considering also to keep mine...

About the common conviction of 2Ch being superior to the 3Ch, is there a direct comparison of the two? Some clips that tries to find good settings on the 3Ch to match the sound of the 2Ch... I searched them many times, but didn't find them (only comparison between 2Ch dual vs 3Ch Triple).

Cheers

Davide

PS: I can also trade 2Ch dual vs 3Ch dual clip with a clip of my Soldano SLO 100 (to compare with 2Ch), if someone is interested. :wink:

 

[boss4]

PS: I can also trade 2Ch dual vs 3Ch dual clip with a clip of my Soldano SLO 100 (to compare with 2Ch), if someone is interested. :wink:

That would be very cool... I'm a Boogie man but love the SLO's!

As for the comparison between the 2ch vs 3ch would be nice to take some conclusions from that but... never saw it too.

 

[screamingdaisy]

But since I hear some little difference in the video (very subtle respect to the rest of the channels and settings) I cannot understand if this is due to the revoicing or just the different execution...

In my experience it's very difficult to get something like "feel" to translate into a sound clip. Two amps may sound near identical yet feel vastly different to play through. The only way to know for sure is to try one for yourself.

About the common conviction of 2Ch being superior to the 3Ch, is there a direct comparison of the two?

I have a 2 channel and a Roadster. With the FX loops bypassed I can dial the Roadster in to sound like the 2 channel but I can't dial the 2 channel in to sound like the Roadster.

This assumes we're only talking Modern high gain. There's other differences that can't be replicated... but modern is pretty straight forward.

 

[davidosky]

In my experience it's very difficult to get something like "feel" to translate into a sound clip. Two amps may sound near identical yet feel vastly different to play through. The only way to know for sure is to try one for yourself.

Since I use DR for recording I'm interested in the sound of the recorded amp. Moreover a lot of people believe the 2Ch is a better sounding amp and I think it would be a good thing to "prove" it in some way. I am not saying that they are wrong, just curious to here the difference, if some... Unfortunately, I cannot try both 2Ch and 3Ch now... I think that forum is helpful expecially in this cases.

I know that one of the main difference between the 3rd Channel in the 3Ch and the 2nd channel in the 2Ch is the presence control. Can anybody provide a comparison between this 2 channels set to modern with a similiar resulting sound?

Davide

 

[screamingdaisy]

I know that one of the main difference between the 3rd Channel in the 3Ch and the 2nd channel in the 2Ch is the presence control. Can anybody provide a comparison between this 2 channels set to modern with a similiar resulting sound?

Davide

The differences will vary depending upon the revision of the Recto.

To keep it simple, the original Rev C was both bright and tight. Mesa darkened and fattened the amp up through rev D through F and starting with the Rev G it was given the extended bottom end and looser response that made it famous. The majority of 2 channel heads are the Rev G, and it's the 90s Recto tone we're mostly familiar with.

One of the complaints about the Rev G was that it's darker, smoother sound didn't cut through on stage. Mesa opted to brighten the 3 channel so that it cut through more, but some people complained it was too present. I've never actually played a 3 channel so I have no comment on how it sounds/feels to play. I will say that I've noted a number of professional touring bands switched to the 3 channels on stage.

Since then Mesa has been trying to appease both sides... The Roadster is darker and smoother while the newest 3 channels are brighter and tighter.

Which is better for recording depends on your goal. Brighter and tighter also means dryer and flatter. More sag means a more drawn out response that can create depth... or it can create mud.

 

[Third Age Amps]

I know that one of the main difference between the 3rd Channel in the 3Ch and the 2nd channel in the 2Ch is the presence control. Can anybody provide a comparison between this 2 channels set to modern with a similiar resulting sound?

Presence Control of the 3CH heads. Not including Reborn or Multi-Watt.
CH2 - Raw: Presence acts as a high-cut tone control of the signal without NFB. Vintage/Modern: Presence acts as a high-boost control of the signal with NFB from the poweramp. Presence control uses a 33k resistor and a 25kL pot in circuit.

CH3 - Modern: Presence acts as a high-cut tone control of the signal without NFB. Raw/Vintage: Presence acts as a high-boost control of the signal with NFB from the poweramp. Presence control uses a 22k resistor and a 100kL pot in circuit.

If I'm reading it correctly, a simplified difference between the two channels is that the frequencies involved are shifted a bit higher in CH3. And the NFB involved between the modes changes the gain structure of the signal. What's odd about the NFB is that it works in the opposite fashion as the 2CH heads.

 

[davidosky]

Thanks for all the replies... You are very competent in this forum.

What's odd about the NFB is that it works in the opposite fashion as the 2CH heads.

Can you please explain what do you mean with this sentence?

I translate NFB = Negative Feedback, is it right?

Thanks

Davide

 

[screamingdaisy]

Can you please explain what do you mean with this sentence?

I translate NFB = Negative Feedback, is it right?

Thanks

Davide

Negative feedback loop.

Both Raw and Vintage have negative feedback with a fairly standard high boost presence circuit. Modern mode bypasses the feedback loop, which also bypasses the regular presence circuit so Mesa had to devise another way to control that frequency band and inserted a high cut control instead.

On an original 3 channel Recto channel two's presence values are optimized for raw/vintage and channel three is optimized for modern. It's why modern on channel 2 or raw/vintage on channel 3 generally sound off until you start using more extreme presence positions.

On the Recto Reborns Mesa added a dual stacked presence pot to channel 2 and 3... That way switching modes would also switch pot values each channel would have an optimized value regardless of what mode you're using.

On the other hand, a 2 channel Recto is basically a single channel amp with some trick switching in the tone stack. The orange channel is vintage high gain with a traditional high boost presence circuit and the red channel is modern high gain with the NFB loop bypassed and the high cut presence circuit switched in.

Channel cloning is where it gets weird as it doesn't produce an exact clone. Orange-to-red is a vintage voiced tone stack with the NFB bypassed. Red-to-orange is the vintage voiced tone stack with the NFB active and both the high boost and high cut presence pots are in the circuit (increasing the presence on channel 1 also increases the presence on channel 2).

I find I can dial my Roadster in to sound more or less the same as my two channel on modern mode but the vintage channel does have a different feel and I obviously can't replicate the tones of the cloned channels. That said, the two channel has a marginal clean, shitty FX loop and no solo boost... So it depends on where your priorities lay. For me, I know I'm in a minority but I prefer both the sound and feel of my Roadster to that of my two channel, but it's not like it's a night and day thing... It's more like cold beer vs ice cold beer. Both are great, and the difference is only a matter of a couple degrees.

 

[Third Age Amps]

I agree. I don't think there is a bad sounding recto, only varying degrees of great!

Funny side note, I read the release for the Reborn and it mentions, "... In that time many have mimicked, modeled, dissected and plagiarized it ..."

It's just funny coming from the company that plagiarized the SLO for THAT EXACT AMP. Sure they made changes and IMO improved that circuit in many ways, but the base circuit is exact. BUT It has been said the SLO was based off of the Mark II he had, so there you go ...

 

[boss4]

For me, I know I'm in a minority but I prefer both the sound and feel of my Roadster to that of my two channel, but it's not like it's a night and day thing... It's more like cold beer vs ice cold beer. Both are great, and the difference is only a matter of a couple degrees.

Thank you for the explanation screamingdaisy, got to know the recto family some more.
You may be in minority most because the dark feel the roadster has. At least for me, it reminds the numetal days and the recto being mostly directed for rhythm (high-gain speaking) unless using third party material like OD's on front and EQ in the FX-Loop, etc. This new recto gives, what I like to say, an approach to the old school metal; where is all about riffs, licks, solos and a rhythm tone more sharp and agressive but with a modern feel (and bottom end).
In the end is what you say, its only a matter of taste and they're not that different.

 

[YellowJacket]

I agree. I don't think there is a bad sounding recto, only varying degrees of great!

Funny side note, I read the release for the Reborn and it mentions, "... In that time many have mimicked, modeled, dissected and plagiarized it ..."

It's just funny coming from the company that plagiarized the SLO for THAT EXACT AMP. Sure they made changes and IMO improved that circuit in many ways, but the base circuit is exact. BUT It has been said the SLO was based off of the Mark II he had, so there you go ...

I thought the SLO was based off of a 5150 which was based off a hotrodded JCM800 which was based off of a hotrodded Plexi which was a variation of a fender.

 

[screamingdaisy]

I thought the SLO was based off of a 5150 which was based off a hotrodded JCM800 which was based off of a hotrodded Plexi which was a variation of a fender.

SLO came first. Recto and 5150.

 

[screamingdaisy]

Thank you for the explanation screamingdaisy, got to know the recto family some more.
You may be in minority most because the dark feel the roadster has. At least for me, it reminds the numetal days and the recto being mostly directed for rhythm (high-gain speaking) unless using third party material like OD's on front and EQ in the FX-Loop, etc. This new recto gives, what I like to say, an approach to the old school metal; where is all about riffs, licks, solos and a rhythm tone more sharp and agressive but with a modern feel (and bottom end).
In the end is what you say, its only a matter of taste and they're not that different.

You're pigeon holing the amp in a way it doesn't deserve. Nu-metal is a stylistic decision... dudes have been doing thrash and death metal on all varieties of Rectos for decades and many of them have done it without ODs/EQs.

I'm sure some goof is using a Recto Reborn to play some shitty Nickelback song as we speak... doesn't mean I'm going to judge the whole revision around it.

 

[boss4]

You've got me wrong! I love the Roadster as well the Recto entire family wathever revision, I've just said the roadster have a darker character like my revision G Recto have, for example!
Lets be mature here and get things straight! Why do you think RevG Rectos and Roadsters came out with a darker feeling than its predecessors? When it was the numetal boom and every band was all about playing rhythm guitar and no solos? That genre sold millions and almost every guitar amp company manufactered a model acording to that era tendencie. I dont see what its that holing thing you're talking about!? No one is being disrespectful or underrating this or that amp, its just a fact! Of course you can play wathever style you want in these amps but that doesn't mean they're not focused to a specific audio spectrum more than other models.

 

[screamingdaisy]

I was cranky this morning. My apologies.

 

[boss4]

No problem man.

 

[siggy14]

I do not agree with the highlight part, 2 channel G revisions cut just fine as long as you did not cut the mids or used a speaker that had mid cuts. I saw many bands with 2 channels and they cut just fine. Now if you put a 2 channel up against another amp in a band setting then it did not sound like it was cutting if it was a marshall type. But you put two rectos side by side it was a great sound.

I also played with two channels recto and never had an issue cutting if I was a single guitarist or in a dual recto band.

I know that one of the main difference between the 3rd Channel in the 3Ch and the 2nd channel in the 2Ch is the presence control. Can anybody provide a comparison between this 2 channels set to modern with a similiar resulting sound?

Davide

The differences will vary depending upon the revision of the Recto.

To keep it simple, the original Rev C was both bright and tight. Mesa darkened and fattened the amp up through rev D through F and starting with the Rev G it was given the extended bottom end and looser response that made it famous. The majority of 2 channel heads are the Rev G, and it's the 90s Recto tone we're mostly familiar with.

One of the complaints about the Rev G was that it's darker, smoother sound didn't cut through on stage. Mesa opted to brighten the 3 channel so that it cut through more, but some people complained it was too present. I've never actually played a 3 channel so I have no comment on how it sounds/feels to play. I will say that I've noted a number of professional touring bands switched to the 3 channels on stage.

Since then Mesa has been trying to appease both sides... The Roadster is darker and smoother while the newest 3 channels are brighter and tighter.

Which is better for recording depends on your goal. Brighter and tighter also means dryer and flatter. More sag means a more drawn out response that can create depth... or it can create mud.

 

[screamingdaisy]

I do not agree with the highlight part, 2 channel G revisions cut just fine as long as you did not cut the mids or used a speaker that had mid cuts. I saw many bands with 2 channels and they cut just fine. Now if you put a 2 channel up against another amp in a band setting then it did not sound like it was cutting if it was a marshall type. But you put two rectos side by side it was a great sound.

I also played with two channels recto and never had an issue cutting if I was a single guitarist or in a dual recto band.

I'm not going to argue with you since I agree. I mostly put it because back in the early 2000s when everyone had a 2ch and they weren't considered anything special it was often listed as a reason to "upgrade" from a 2ch to a 3ch.

That said, if I do the all knobs at 12:00 thing my 2ch is way more scooped than my Roadster. I think I have to put the Roadster's mid knob down around 9:00 to get a similar thing going on. Never really noticed it until I started recording both amps a couple days ago.