Pre 500 vs Soldano SLO - Can someone with a Rev. G try this?

[Anonymous]

I'm looking at the schematic for a Rev. F 2-channel, and except for the presence control, the Boogie is just about identical to the SLO. People describe the Pre 500 as being tighter, less fizzy, and more aggressive, and I'm wondering if maybe the Pre 500 had a presence control similar to the SLO with a negative feedback loop. It would certainly fit the bill.

Anyone have any info? I'm building a Rectifier clone and am thinking of making this an option.

EDIT: Can someone with a Rev. G / F try running their Rec in Red Vintage, turn Red presence (literally) all the way up, and then run Orange presence where they see fit? Looking at the schematics, this should get pretty damn close to where the SLO does run and where I think Pre 500s run.

 

[screamingdaisy]

I could do it... but I've never used a SLO so I couldn't offer you any sort of comparison.

 

[YellowJacket]

I'm looking at the schematic for a Rev. F 2-channel, and except for the presence control, the Boogie is just about identical to the SLO. People describe the Pre 500 as being tighter, less fizzy, and more aggressive, and I'm wondering if maybe the Pre 500 had a presence control similar to the SLO with a negative feedback loop. It would certainly fit the bill.

Anyone have any info? I'm building a Rectifier clone and am thinking of making this an option.

EDIT: Can someone with a Rev. G / F try running their Rec in Red Vintage, turn Red presence (literally) all the way up, and then run Orange presence where they see fit? Looking at the schematics, this should get pretty damn close to where the SLO does run and where I think Pre 500s run.

I have a Rev F. In Red to Vintage with the presence cranked, it gets REAAALLLLY fizzy with my Gibson Les Paul. My Godin LG with Seymour Duncans works better with the Vintage voicing. I would never confuse a Dual Recto Rev F with an SLO though. They do have such a distinct voice, in spite of the similarity . . .

I don't have any instrument mics but in the event I acquire some, I can try doing some recording. I just have a lot to LEARN about it.

 

[Anonymous]

Is it fizzy even if you turn off Orange presence? In Red Vintage, Orange presence is now in the circuit as part of the negative feedback loop.

How about Red Vintage with Red presence at at noon?

Thanks!

 

[YellowJacket]

Ok, I just tried it. Looks like I was wrong. It was just my thiele cabinet that hates the uber high frequencies.

I tried it in the Mock212B with the v30 and c90. Here is what I noticed: With red set to vintage, as I turned up the presence on the red channel the blanket came off of the amp. The tone cleared up, opened up, and became very 'chainsaw' like. This is with the gain at 2:00, Presence dimed, everything else at noon. The orange channel presence was set to around 9:00.
The tone is very open, clear, and even. Not overly bassy like rectos can tend to get. I recall playing a Soldano Hot Rod 50. There is this clear chainsaw like quality to that amp where there is no mushy or squishy-ness. The recto is surprisingly similar with these settings but it is still thicker sounding. It is a fantastic rhythm tone setting and the lack of bass would be great with some guitars. I wouldn't say it is an SLO but it is definitely more 'Soldano like' than any other way I have set up my amp.

I AB'd the presence dimed vintage channel mode with the modern mode. With fairly conventional red channel settings with the red channel set to modern, the amp becomes crunchier, more scooped, and much more 'recto - like' in its tone. The bass thickens up and becomes phat and pounding. Definitely less like a chainsaw. I WISH I HAD RECORDING equipment. It would be interesting to record this stuff properly. The Zoom H2 doesn't cut it for guitar recording. It captures far too much room noise.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, I just tried it. Looks like I was wrong. It was just my thiele cabinet that hates the uber high frequencies.

I tried it in the Mock212B with the v30 and c90. Here is what I noticed: With red set to vintage, as I turned up the presence on the red channel the blanket came off of the amp. The tone cleared up, opened up, and became very 'chainsaw' like. This is with the gain at 2:00, Presence dimed, everything else at noon. The orange channel presence was set to around 9:00.
The tone is very open, clear, and even. Not overly bassy like rectos can tend to get. I recall playing a Soldano Hot Rod 50. There is this clear chainsaw like quality to that amp where there is no mushy or squishy-ness. The recto is surprisingly similar with these settings but it is still thicker sounding. It is a fantastic rhythm tone setting and the lack of bass would be great with some guitars. I wouldn't say it is an SLO but it is definitely more 'Soldano like' than any other way I have set up my amp.

I AB'd the presence dimed vintage channel mode with the modern mode. With fairly conventional red channel settings with the red channel set to modern, the amp becomes crunchier, more scooped, and much more 'recto - like' in its tone. The bass thickens up and becomes phat and pounding. Definitely less like a chainsaw. I WISH I HAD RECORDING equipment. It would be interesting to record this stuff properly. The Zoom H2 doesn't cut it for guitar recording. It captures far too much room noise.

Awesome; thanks for the feedback!

I'll bet the lead tone was a bit more usable? With the SLO - and I'll bet for the Pre-500 as well - the effect would be even more dramatic. Switching to Red Vintage introduces negative feedback to the power amp, "stabilizing" and evening out the frequencies a bit. When the Orange presence is completely off, it's (nearly) as if it's out of the circuit. The opposite is true of Red presence in this situation.

And any clips - terrible quality or not - would be greatly appreciated, though I'll find out for myself what all this sounds like in a week or two! Which setup do you prefer, by the way?

 

[94Tremoverb]

I'm looking at the schematic for a Rev. F 2-channel, and except for the presence control, the Boogie is just about identical to the SLO.

What schematics do you have?! I have both schematics, and although they're very nearly identical in the early preamp (to the point I'm quite certain the Mesa was copied from the Soldano - there are too many coincidences otherwise), after that they are very different. The loop on the Soldano in particular (which is always in the signal path even when not in use, and adds another full DC-coupled cathode-follower stage) is completely unlike that of the Mesa even when then Mesa's is in use.

For what it's worth, a friend of mine who uses a SLO normally has just bought a Rev G Dual, and they don't sound the same *at all*.

 

[fluff191]

I have owned a Rev. E Recto and recorded a record with an SLO and they are similar, but the SLO I would say is tighter than the Recto and had a little more dynamics in the overdrive tones. But like I said, they are similar in feel. But not the same thing.

That probably doesn't help haha sorry :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

I'm looking at the schematic for a Rev. F 2-channel, and except for the presence control, the Boogie is just about identical to the SLO.

What schematics do you have?! I have both schematics, and although they're very nearly identical in the early preamp (to the point I'm quite certain the Mesa was copied from the Soldano - there are too many coincidences otherwise), after that they are very different. The loop on the Soldano in particular (which is always in the signal path even when not in use, and adds another full DC-coupled cathode-follower stage) is completely unlike that of the Mesa even when then Mesa's is in use.

I hadn't realized that until after I posted originally. There's six "main" differences I can see from the SLO, then. One, the extra stage for the loop (though I did read a member of HCAF's post saying he had his loop modded to after the tone stack with no noticeable effects). Two, the presence control and negative feedback circuit are different (this - I think - is the main difference between pre an post 500 Rectifiers). Three, the voltages to earlier preamp stages on the SLO are lower. Fluff, this could have been part of what you were hearing with added dynamics. Four, the OT is different and will obviously change the tone, though I have no idea how. Five, the cap that connects the plates of the phase inverter is larger on the Boogie, allowing more treble to be rolled off. Six, the cap to the treble pot is larger in the Recto, shifting the voicing a little lower. Of course, biasing can play a factor too.

I definitely want a Rectifier and not a SLO, but I think adding just a little negative feedback into the PI is a neat way of making the Rectifier more ballsy. It would certainly take away from the "heaviness factor" of the amp, but a switch to go back and forth (a la Red Vintage) would be seriously cool!

 

[Neptical]

I'm a Mesa dude through and through, but I think the Soldano SLO is better then any Rectifier I've heard and played by leaps. As someone mentioned above, it's definitely tighter..and easily way more suitable for lead playing in the saturation department. I think it's closer to the 5150 than a Rectifier.

~Nep~

 

[Silverwulf]

Two, the presence control and negative feedback circuit are different (this - I think - is the main difference between pre an post 500 Rectifiers).

Bingo. I've been telling people for years that you can make a Rev F/G sound nearly identical to "Pre-500" so to speak, but you can't get all the Rev F/G sounds out of a "Pre-500." What you observed is the main difference to me - the presence. If you want your Rev F/G to get that type of sound, you have to crank your presence control. I stand firm that "Pre-500" Rectos are an internet monster that date back to George Lynch, and the myth just grew. The reality to me is that Mesa improved the Recto as they tweaked, they didn't make it worse...and you can dial in Rev C/D type sounds on any ole' Rev G you'll find used on CL for $800 and get a usable (and underrated) clean channel with it too. Just my two cents, YMMV.

 

[Anonymous]

Two, the presence control and negative feedback circuit are different (this - I think - is the main difference between pre an post 500 Rectifiers).

Bingo. I've been telling people for years that you can make a Rev F/G sound nearly identical to "Pre-500" so to speak, but you can't get all the Rev F/G sounds out of a "Pre-500." What you observed is the main difference to me - the presence. If you want your Rev F/G to get that type of sound, you have to crank your presence control. I stand firm that "Pre-500" Rectos are an internet monster that date back to George Lynch, and the myth just grew. The reality to me is that Mesa improved the Recto as they tweaked, they didn't make it worse...and you can dial in Rev C/D type sounds on any ole' Rev G you'll find used on CL for $800 and get a usable (and underrated) clean channel with it too. Just my two cents, YMMV.

I have absolutely no problem believing every word of that!

 

[YellowJacket]

Awesome; thanks for the feedback!

I'll bet the lead tone was a bit more usable? With the SLO - and I'll bet for the Pre-500 as well - the effect would be even more dramatic. Switching to Red Vintage introduces negative feedback to the power amp, "stabilizing" and evening out the frequencies a bit. When the Orange presence is completely off, it's (nearly) as if it's out of the circuit. The opposite is true of Red presence in this situation.

And any clips - terrible quality or not - would be greatly appreciated, though I'll find out for myself what all this sounds like in a week or two! Which setup do you prefer, by the way?

Zoom H2 = YUCK for recording. =-/

Well, I find I like a smooth lead tone. Honestly, I didn't try playing much lead. I was more playing with riffing etc. For the record, the Recto lead tone is SEVERELY UNDERRATED. Yes the Mark V lead tone is mind blowing but the Recto lead tone is not bad at all. The problem is that most people try to play lead with the gain set for crunch. You have to either boost it, or set up the amp with enough gain for leads and roll back the volume knob to get a good crunch. Backing off the volume also helps remove any excess fizzies.

I'd say with my Recto I prefer the Mock212B cab with the v30 and the c90 best. The cab sounds like it was made for the head. There aren't annoying frequencies I can't dial out. Every tone control works as it should. Of course when the amp is BARELY on it sounds fizzy, but once you bump the master up a bit it opens up and roars. (mostly because of speakers. a duet will roar faster than a quartet but they won't sound as thick or beefy)

The thiele cab sounds great too, especially for cleans and lead tones. Not so great for crunch unless you crank it a bit. I replaced my one v30 with a second g12m Heritage and I think I want the v30 back in. I'd also be curious to try a c90 in the other side but I'm sick of dropping $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$s on gear, especially when I 'really' just want a Stiletto sized 4 x 12. The Mock212B is BY FAR the next best thing.

For tones. I ALWAYS like Red to Modern with my Les Paul exclusively for rhythm crunch. If I 'need' a gain boost for leads, I'll turn the gain up on the amp and roll my volume knob back a bit. With my Godin LG (seymour duncan Alnico II Pro (Neck) and SD Custom Custom (bridge) I prefer vintage hands down. With that guitar, I really like Red to Vintage with the presence maxed and then I can adjust the presence on the orange channel to balance the channel out. I never could get a good tone with Red to Vintage and my Les Paul until I tried this presence trick. Thanks for that. It is great to know how many tones Mesa hid in this thing. The tone is definitely less heavy but it is VERY usable. It sounds great and would be awesome for where a slightly lighter tone is desirable i.e. punk rock or anything that isn't NUMetal.

I think I have commented on this before, but with my Rev F the Orange channel set to vintage has a unique warm, liquid, and elastic feel to it that the modern channel does not have. I think both this tone and the Red to Vintage with the presence control are where the tones differ from the original 3 channel heads. (Of course, the presence control is much more aggressive on channel three of the original 3 channel heads) With conservative tones dialed in, the 2 and 3 channel rectos are actually very similar. I'd say the original 3 channel head has the Red to Vintage tone with conventional settings, as well as the Red to Modern. The DIFFERENT tone on the 3 channel is obviously channel 3 to modern. With the 2 channel head you get differences with orange to vintage, and with red to vintage and the two presence controls. When you start mucking about with both, there are different flavours of recto available. The last and really WEIRD point is Orange set to clean. I HONESTLY thought the clean on my Rev F actually better than on the 3 channel. Even my friend commented on how much better it was.

Now I need to try Orange to Modern with channel cloning and see what lurks in there. I've never done this before and I expect yet another flavour of recto is hiding and I have yet to sample it. If it has the warmth of the orange channel with the aggression of the red channel, we might have a winner!!

[
I definitely want a Rectifier and not a SLO, but I think adding just a little negative feedback into the PI is a neat way of making the Rectifier more ballsy. It would certainly take away from the "heaviness factor" of the amp, but a switch to go back and forth (a la Red Vintage) would be seriously cool!

Going to try Orange to Modern sometime soon. I'll report back on that.

Two, the presence control and negative feedback circuit are different (this - I think - is the main difference between pre an post 500 Rectifiers).

Bingo. I've been telling people for years that you can make a Rev F/G sound nearly identical to "Pre-500" so to speak, but you can't get all the Rev F/G sounds out of a "Pre-500." What you observed is the main difference to me - the presence. If you want your Rev F/G to get that type of sound, you have to crank your presence control. I stand firm that "Pre-500" Rectos are an internet monster that date back to George Lynch, and the myth just grew. The reality to me is that Mesa improved the Recto as they tweaked, they didn't make it worse...and you can dial in Rev C/D type sounds on any ole' Rev G you'll find used on CL for $800

I think there are differences in the flavours of Recto but they are definitely subtle. When I listen to recordings of Early Duals, I think they definitely sound more 'soldano-ish'.

and get a usable (and underrated) clean channel with it too. Just my two cents, YMMV.

THANK YOU! When I first got my Recto I was in absolute awe of how good the cleans were. I don't like the edge of breakup tones but the squeaky clean Fender type tones are in there in spades. My clean on my Dual will blow away any marshall, any day. Peaveys cry themselves to sleep at night. ENGLs cower in fear of my amp's clean as well.

 

[YellowJacket]

2 Channel Rev F Orange to Modern.

Well, there is a subtle difference in tone between the Orange and Red channel when they both are set to Modern via channel cloning. The Orange channel set to modern is slightly more scooped sounding and it still retains the fluid and elastic feel that the red channel doesn't have. I can understand why bands would only use the Orange channel on a 2 channel dual. It is simply better, vintage mode as a lead, and modern as a crunch tone. I found it was really awesome to boost the mids to about 1:00 and it started to crunch like crazy!!

 

[screamingdaisy]

Two, the presence control and negative feedback circuit are different (this - I think - is the main difference between pre an post 500 Rectifiers).

Bingo. I've been telling people for years that you can make a Rev F/G sound nearly identical to "Pre-500" so to speak, but you can't get all the Rev F/G sounds out of a "Pre-500." What you observed is the main difference to me - the presence. If you want your Rev F/G to get that type of sound, you have to crank your presence control. I stand firm that "Pre-500" Rectos are an internet monster that date back to George Lynch, and the myth just grew. The reality to me is that Mesa improved the Recto as they tweaked, they didn't make it worse...and you can dial in Rev C/D type sounds on any ole' Rev G you'll find used on CL for $800 and get a usable (and underrated) clean channel with it too. Just my two cents, YMMV.

I dialled in my Rev F and Roadster to sound pretty much identical. All that was required was that I bring the Rev F presence down and bypass the loop on both amps. I always thought the Roadster had more bottom end than my Rev F, but once I dialled in both amps with their loops off it was pretty similar.

I think most of the differences between the two can be attributed to the presence circuit and the tone imparted by the effects loop. The loop on the Rev F obviously cuts a large amount of bottom end while shifting the midrange focus up in frequency, whereas the loop on the Roadster changes relatively little if you have volume matched between bypass/non-bypass modes.

I suspect that in the early days Mesa kept looking at artists amps and noticing they had their presence either low or on zero, then kept adjusting the circuit until peope started using it around the 12:00 mark. I know my Rev F is quite usable with the presence zeroed, but the Roadster gets pretty murky that way. For the test I found they sounded similar when the Roadster's presence was on 12:00 and the Rev somewhere around 8:00 and 9:00.

The effects loop changes were a bit of a no-brainer as the early serial loop altered the tone a fair bit. I sometimes wonder how "Soldano-ish" my Rev F sounds with the loop engaged... I know I did a (bad) recording of it once and people said it sounded quite Marshall-ish.