NAD: Dual Recto R01xx

[Dr.G]

thanks for the reply. this seems funny that you didn't like the rev F so much, as many people think they are the best DR to get with its usable clean channel. Everyone has a different taste.
Would be interesting to know which changes were done between the rev F and G amps.

 

[Shemham]

I've tried to trace any differences between Rev F and G, but all I can find is that A) the channel/LDR switching is better in rev G and B) rev G has parallel fx loop. I also assume that some sort of change was done to presence pot value although I can't confirm this. So far I think most of the Rev F tone and feel differences comes from different presence pot value and the Mark III transformer.

If anyone knows any other differences between the two revisions, please contribute.

 

[LesPaul70]

this seems funny that you didn't like the rev F so much, as many people think they are the best DR to get with its usable clean channel. Everyone has a different taste..

No slight towards Rev F intended. I have no doubt that it is a great amp and many players swear by it and get stellar tones from it. The problem was definitely me, not the amp.

Bear in mind, this was a single session, and I just couldn't get a tone that worked for me during that time. By contrast, I have had my G for years, and know how to dial it in, and, most importantly, how to play it. And given my long history and background with Marshall amps, I instinctively, almost instantly, got the hang of the ultra-tight C. But the F - which I would describe 'bright and loose' compared to the other two (with the C being 'bright and tight', and the G 'dark and loose') - I failed to adjust my playing style in order to make the F sound flattering to my playing, in that limited time.

 

[JCDenton6]

thanks for the reply. this seems funny that you didn't like the rev F so much, as many people think they are the best DR to get with its usable clean channel. Everyone has a different taste.
Would be interesting to know which changes were done between the rev F and G amps.

I've tried to trace any differences between Rev F and G, but all I can find is that A) the channel/LDR switching is better in rev G and B) rev G has parallel fx loop. I also assume that some sort of change was done to presence pot value although I can't confirm this. So far I think most of the Rev F tone and feel differences comes from different presence pot value and the Mark III transformer.

If anyone knows any other differences between the two revisions, please contribute.

From what I've gathered, the difference between Revs F and G was the cap at C55, it was rated at .005uF in Rev F and that got changed to .01uF in Rev G to darken/fatten the amp.

 

[LesPaul70]

One more update. Don't write off the Revision C cleans just yet. I've made an interesting discovery...

Looking for more information on the older revisions, I came across this suggestion to set the Orange channel to Modern for the Clean mode.

I tried this.

First observation, regarding pure cleans. The Orange Modern Clean mode is not as thin, cold and stiff as the Orange Vintage Clean mode, it's more mellow and sonorous. Still not as good as what some later revisions (like the G) - let alone amps with really good cleans - are capable of, but definitely more usable than the usual Orange Vintage Clean on the C. Mix in some Chorus and Reverb in the loop, and it's quite ok. Not great, not even very good, just ok.

However...

Next I decided to try something a bit more bluesy. I removed the effects, added some more Bass, cranked the clean-mode Gain and added a clean boost pedal in front. Alternating between Gibson LP neck pickup and both pickups. (Still Rev C Orange Modern Clean.)

First impression: :shock: WOW!
(For the lack of a better word. )

Talk about heavenly tube breakup sound! It was right there! Big, meaty, just on the edge of starting to crunch. In some ways comparable to a G with the same setup but better clarity, more alive-sounding. I would say it was actually closer to the Blues mode sound of a Tremoverb.
I tried to match the sound with my Bogner Ecstacy Blue pedal - normally my go-to pedal for the bluesy Plexi-style sounds nowadays. And failed! The boosted tube-breakup sound on the Orange Modern Clean was so much more tubey, ballsier and meatier that there was no comparison, really.

Wish I could record a sample for you. :|
I feel like I've discovered a tasty Easter egg in my amp and it's not even Easter yet! Just goes to show that even the simpler (relatively speaking) Mesa amps are far more versatile than we sometimes give them credit for.

 

[Dr.G]

this are similar experiences I made with my pre-500. Or actually someone told me thats it's more about the orange channel than the red (although he set up the orange channel to variable high gain):

"In case you don't know, there is a certain way you run these amps for the "Magic" tone. The amp is run on the "Orange" channel only and the switch is set to "Veriable High gain" for the orange ch. and the other switch is set to "Orange to Modern" This makes the amp very fat sounding. Running it on the Red channel for high gain does not sound the same or as good. This is the way George Lynch and others run the pre-500 DR's."

I think this has something to do with the architecture of the of the orange channel ******* up the cleans but shining when gain is added.