help with recto versions....

[rispsira]

Hi all!

I am considering whether to buy a rectifier head to have some other kind of sound than the mark, but i just cant figure out all that stuff...

I hear about the pree 500 ones made, the rectoverb the dual recto 2 channels instead of the three which is much superior

And what about dual vs triple recto (both three channels?) cant you have less headroom/more warmth by taking some of the triple's tubes out?

Oh then theres the roadster and the roadking..

Please features apart, just SOUND. What to get???

And most importantly i might be able to buy a rectifier rack version from a friend, how does it compare to all of these above and how much should i pay??

And why do you guys still dont have a sticky with all that stuff!! LOL
You should be ashamed! stop playing guitar and spend more time in forums please! remember its NOT about the music! hahaha (just making fun of myself going through the phase of hardly playing guitar)

Thanks!!!!!!!!!

 

[Anonymous]

The first 500 Duals are said to have the best, most brutal tone. However, I wouldn't trade anything for my 2 channel Triple. Having played through several Recto models, I'd say the 2 channel Triples are probably the heaviest, though compared to a pre 500 I don't know because I've never played one. I'd choose it over another 2 channel model because the bigger power section will handle bass better, track more quickly, and have more clean headroom. Also, if you do want to bring down the wattage, it's possible.

As for 2 channel vs 3 channel, I think each has its own place, but to me the 2 channels are far superior. The biggest reason for that has to do with the mids that the older Recto models push out. To me, the tone is warmer and less grainy, and since the frequencies are more balanced, with the right guitar, tubes and pickups, the lows aren't overbearing.

The only real way to know for sure is to play a couple of models, but for me, it's the 2 channel Triple.

 

[droptrd]

The first 500 Duals are said to have the best, most brutal tone. However, I wouldn't trade anything for my 2 channel Triple. Having played through several Recto models, I'd say the 2 channel Triples are probably the heaviest, though compared to a pre 500 I don't know because I've never played one. I'd choose it over another 2 channel model because the bigger power section will handle bass better, track more quickly, and have more clean headroom. Also, if you do want to bring down the wattage, it's possible.

As for 2 channel vs 3 channel, I think each has its own place, but to me the 2 channels are far superior. The biggest reason for that has to do with the mids that the older Recto models push out. To me, the tone is warmer and less grainy, and since the frequencies are more balanced, with the right guitar, tubes and pickups, the lows aren't overbearing.

The only real way to know for sure is to play a couple of models, but for me, it's the 2 channel Triple.

Yeah, What he said. +100000


I miss my 2ch Triple. Best recto ive ever heard.

 

[screamingdaisy]

The first 500 thing is a bit of a myth that's been disproven. The argument was that the first 500 came with Mark III transformers that made them sound different from the rest of the Dual Rectifiers. Truth is that the first 4 revisions (rev C to F) had those transformers, so a little over 2200 amplifiers. By the time they used up the left over Mark III transformers Mesa had developed a transformer specific to the Recto, which was used in all Revision G Rectifiers except for some of the very last ones, which came with what would become the 3ch Rectifier transformers.

Tonally, the first Rectos (revision C... A and B were prototypes) were notably brighter and tighter than what came after, and they progressively became darker and looser with each revision until the final, which was the G (I'm staying with 2 channel Rectos here). The first Rectos also had a pretty shitty clean channel with weak output, which progressively became better with each revision (though the consensus seems to be that that the Rev F cleans are better than the G).

The Rev G was the final 2 channel revision and contained both the new Rectifier specific transformers and a parallel effects loop (rather than the serial loop used in the early revisions). They are darker, looser and have more available bass than the previous revisions. The Revision G is the classic 90s Rectifier tone.

Now... I'm not going to tell you that any specific revision is better than any other, that's for the individual to decide. I will say however that there's a lot of hype surrounding the early Rectos, much of it happily generated by people who're selling them. I suggest you attempt to ignore the hype and figure out which Recto is best suited to your needs.


Oh.. and I have a Recto loaded with Mark III transformers. So it's not like I'm attempting to take them down a peg because I'm jealous. I just have a hate on for excessive hype.

 

[colemaneuclid]

honestly you can't go wrong with ANY 2CH Dual/triple rec with a maxon od808 boosting the preamp.

 

[rispsira]

Great advise and info!! thank you all!!

No one mentionned the rack version of the rectifier, its a two channel too. But i guess that you guys not mentionning it means that its just the same as the 2 channels but fit in a rack- no impact on sound. In other words those versions should just be thought of as rectos with 2 channels having the same transformers depending on which revision that u explained above.

Right?

 

[screamingdaisy]

Great advise and info!! thank you all!!

No one mentionned the rack version of the rectifier, its a two channel too. But i guess that you guys not mentionning it means that its just the same as the 2 channels but fit in a rack- no impact on sound. In other words those versions should just be thought of as rectos with 2 channels having the same transformers depending on which revision that u explained above.

Right?

Correct.

They're basically Rectifiers in a short head chassis. Some people argue that they're superior because the cramped short chassis layout required more careful assembly. Whether you believe that or not is up to you. I don't. The dudes at Mesa build Mark IVs.... building a short chassis Recto is amature stuff compared to building one of those monsters.

Either way, you can't go wrong with them. They are excellent heads, and probably better taken care of than many normal heads by virtue of being protected in a rack.

 

[Silverwulf]

The first 500 thing is a bit of a myth that's been disproven. The argument was that the first 500 came with Mark III transformers that made them sound different from the rest of the Dual Rectifiers. Truth is that the first 4 revisions (rev C to F) had those transformers, so a little over 2200 amplifiers. By the time they used up the left over Mark III transformers Mesa had developed a transformer specific to the Recto, which was used in all Revision G Rectifiers except for some of the very last ones, which came with what would become the 3ch Rectifier transformers.

Tonally, the first Rectos (revision C... A and B were prototypes) were notably brighter and tighter than what came after, and they progressively became darker and looser with each revision until the final, which was the G (I'm staying with 2 channel Rectos here). The first Rectos also had a pretty sh!t clean channel with weak output, which progressively became better with each revision (though the consensus seems to be that that the Rev F cleans are better than the G).

The Rev G was the final 2 channel revision and contained both the new Rectifier specific transformers and a parallel effects loop (rather than the serial loop used in the early revisions). They are darker, looser and have more available bass than the previous revisions. The Revision G is the classic 90s Rectifier tone.

Now... I'm not going to tell you that any specific revision is better than any other, that's for the individual to decide. I will say however that there's a lot of hype surrounding the early Rectos, much of it happily generated by people who're selling them. I suggest you attempt to ignore the hype and figure out which Recto is best suited to your needs.


Oh.. and I have a Recto loaded with Mark III transformers. So it's not like I'm attempting to take them down a peg because I'm jealous. I just have a hate on for excessive hype.

I would agree with a good bit of this. I disagree with the assumption that F's have the best cleans. I think that the G's do. Also, not all Rev G's have parallel loops. I've now owned 2 with factory serial loops, but that seems to be a one-off type deal.

I'll have more info when I release my Recto Guide in a month or so.

 

[fluff191]

I have a modified 3 Channel Dual Recto and am receiving a Rev. E Recto tomorrow. The pre-500 thing is crap but I still can't wait to hear the Rev. E.....its going to slaughter my 3 channel. Hopefully. Haha

And I can't wait to read your Recto Guide, Silverwulf!

 

[Elpelotero]

You guys have pretty much nailed most of it. There are scattered details here and there which can be found in here:

www.TheBoogieArchives.com

Basically, the older = the better distorted tone, whereas the newer = more versatility and buttons to push but a loss of tone.

Maybe you can ask Silverwulf for an advanced copy of his guide? I think he covers stuff I left out of mine.


The best advice I can give you is to be patient for a while and learn the models. Go out and play as many as you can. Call up guys from the board who live near you and test their gear. After a while you'll understand the adjectives people use to describe the amps' tones and you can make a better decision.

P.S. "Pre500" tone can be extended to include revision E =) I got the clips to prove it =)

 

[clutch71]

Silverwulf and screaming daisy (IMO guys) sit in the camp that don't believe in the pre 500 hype. They've both owned them so they are a wealth of knowledge. Elpelotero and I sit in the pro pre500 camp. He's owned em' I've just played his.

The best perspective, as I think each pointed out, is your ears and what you like. I've played several F's I probably shouldn't have walked away from and a G, I probably should have.

Can't wait to see the Recto Guide Silverwulf. You going to link it on the board?

 

[Fixxer6671]

Anyone that says pre-500's are the same as regular 2 channels is full of it. I own one, and its not going anywhere.

I never really get combative here, but saying its all hype and dis proven is crap.

 

[fluff191]

Anyone that says pre-500's are the same as regular 2 channels is full of it. I own one, and its not going anywhere.

I never really get combative here, but saying its all hype and dis proven is crap.

I think they are just trying to say that the initial "magical" ones were more than just the first 500. Obviously with MarkIII trannys and whatnot, they are going to be different than the later production models.

 

[Silverwulf]

Yeah, I'll link it here. I would have had it done a while back, but when you don't regularly save docs you're working on, you run the risk of losing some data... :evil:

I won't get into too much detail here, but I do agree there's a difference in the sound of the revisions. As for Pre-500 opinions, you'll have to read the guide... I'll have to think back, but I think it's now 6 "Pre-500's" I've personally owned, and had the chance to play 4 others. I actually just sold my last "Pre-500" about a week or so ago.

 

[Fixxer6671]

I've played all the revisions, a IIC+ and have owned a few duals. My consensus, the pre-500's are special, and the two channels on average are great.

I am not going to discredit anyones research, but its like saying the vintage fenders or les pauls are not as special either.

Again, if you played them, you would know the science does not match up with what reality should be.

Rock on!

 

[53crew]

So Silverwulf, what do you like better about the Rev G's that caused you to unload your pre500's?

 

[Silverwulf]

So Silverwulf, what do you like better about the Rev G's that caused you to unload your pre500's?

The Revision F and G's suit me best overall. I've sold a handful of Revision C and D head units (6 to be exact). The lack of a clean channel on C/D makes it hard for me to use live. I could channel clone and run dual OD channels, which I do at times...but most of the time I'm using the cleans. I also don't like how the sub-lows sit in the mix versus the later models.

 

[rispsira]

So Silverwulf, what do you like better about the Rev G's that caused you to unload your pre500's?

The Revision F and G's suit me best overall. I've sold a handful of Revision C and D head units (6 to be exact). The lack of a clean channel on C/D makes it hard for me to use live. I could channel clone and run dual OD channels, which I do at times...but most of the time I'm using the cleans. I also don't like how the sub-lows sit in the mix versus the later models.

Silverwulf may i ask you -putting aside the issue of the two and three channels - how to choose between a dual and a triple what did you find are the differences sonically? And what do you think of the roadster and roadking 2?

Im just asking about your taste only (i know the technical side will be in your paper that im waiting for anxiously btw haha)

 

[wildrat666]

got an early 2 channel recto(nr 355) and it sounds very different than others, it is a rev. d.

it sounds not more brutal that some say, it is just tighter and more mids and the overall feeling is different

still prefering my roadster though. the roadster with a maxon od 808 and u can get similar tones

 

[Silverwulf]

Silverwulf may i ask you -putting aside the issue of the two and three channels - how to choose between a dual and a triple what did you find are the differences sonically? And what do you think of the roadster and roadking 2?

Im just asking about your taste only (i know the technical side will be in your paper that im waiting for anxiously btw haha)

Actually, Dual versus Triple is another issue addressed in the guide... :wink:

I like the Roadster and RK II. Not enough to keep one around instead of one of my other amps, but they're nice amps. If you need the versatility for live performance, they're a great value.

They have great clean channels, good mid gain and crunch stuff, and pretty good OD channels. My problem is if I primarily want or need sparkling cleans, I'll get a Lonestar or plug into a Fender or JC-120. If I want Marshall-esque crunch, I'll plug into a Marshall or Stiletto. If I want Recto balls and OD, I'll plug into a 2 Channel Recto because I like how they sound the best. If I needed all of that for a live performance, I'd probably get a RK II or Roadster since they do those things decently, but really master none (IMO). Since all I really need is a great OD channel and decent cleans to get me through live, I prefer the 2 Channel Rectos. In the studio, you can use whatever you want for the most part, so I always base my decisions on what I want and need when I'm playing live - "What is most important to me when I'm on stage?" A great heavy OD channel is my primary need, I can compromise on the rest...so that's why I use 2 Channel Rectos.

It really all depends on what your needs are.