R2 - Yay or Nay

[Tre4J]

I don't understand what everyone's gripe is with R2 on the Mark IV. I find it more than adequete for heavy rhythm sounds.

With pentode setting, and channel volume around 2-3 and a 5+ master volume on full power...add tubescreamer in front, engage the EQ and you're in AJFA territory. That's where all the sludge is at!

Of course, I have the treble, presence (pushed) and set fairly high...

The nice thing is, it leaves the lead channel for my liquid lead tones and assigned loop with the delay, so going from a bone crunching rythem to a singing lead tone without tap dancing...


What's everyone's gripe with R2, it fucken rocks the house down everytime and won't squeal like a ***** when you stop playing.

 

[MusicManJP6]

I couldn't use R2 for heavy rhythms. The Lead channel was much better suited for that IMO. R2 to me was most usable for mid-gain type tones like classic-rock-ish stuff. Of course, I play with a Recto now so who am I to talk... :lol:

 

[6L6C]

I use to be not so crazy about R2 on my amp. Cranked the gain to ten and it was almost there but nnaa just a little more. Using the same brand of preamp tubes (Mesa) for years. Then switched it up a bit I have a JJ in my V2 these days and R2 now sings and only have the gain around 7. It has become my favorite gain channel.

 

[MusicManJP6]

Interesting, 6L6GC. Wish I would have known that when I had my Mark IV...

 

[ANIMATED SUSPENSION]

I think R2 sounds great, not quite heavy metal, but certainly everything else and lovely lead tones too. Reminds me of the Vintage channel on my Solo 50 in some ways. I may even try out R2 for leads and the lead channel for rhythms actually !! :shock:

 

[Monsta-Tone]

...add tubescreamer in front, engage the EQ and you're in AJFA territory

That's exactly why I hated it. I had to add pedals. I usually used my EQ for a Lead boost and if it was needed for R2, then it defeated the purpose.

R2 was great for Rolling Stones & ZZ Top stuff, but had no sustain or character when I set the amp up to have the Clean tone that I needed.


In it's current state, it is not versatile enough to be used if you want a great sparkly clean.

 

[adrenaline junkie]

I think it sounds like ****. It's hollow souding, flubby, and the gain is unusably bad and grainy. For a mild OD crunch, I'd rather turn the gain down on the lead channel, then use a boost to get it back up for a lead or just put the amp away and get out one of my Marshalls. That may be my biggest issue, I have a bunch of old Marshalls so I know what a good crunch is supposed to sound like and R2 ain't even close.

 

[6L6C]

It's hollow souding, flubby, and the gain is unusably bad and grainy.

That was pretty much me too but after a JJ in V2 the channel sounded completely different. When I started using different preamp tubes all channels sounded more to my liking but R2 sounded like a different amp all together. Not saying the JJ is the “cure all” but in my case it has worked out great. Funny thing I don’t even care that much for JJ’s (played other Mark IV’s load all the way with JJ’s). My current preamp config

V1 Tung-Sol reissue 12AX7
V2 high gain JJ ECC83S
V3 Penta Labs/Shuguang 12AX7C
V4 Unlabled/Shuguang 12AX7C
V5 balanced Sovtek 12AX7LPS
A typical Doug package.

Interesting, 6L6GC. Wish I would have known that when I had my Mark IV...

Took me back when I first installed them, you might want to try some different tubes in the Recto in the future.

 

[boola]

double post

 

[boola]

I think it sounds like sh!t. It's hollow souding, flubby, and the gain is unusably bad and grainy. For a mild OD crunch, I'd rather turn the gain down on the lead channel, then use a boost to get it back up for a lead or just put the amp away and get out one of my Marshalls. That may be my biggest issue, I have a bunch of old Marshalls so I know what a good crunch is supposed to sound like and R2 ain't even close.

this dude nailed it on R2. one of the reasons I just sold my IV.

The only guys on here that like R2 are the ones who use a distortion pedal with R2. case closed...

I have a JMP2203, which is as crunchy as a marshall gets and a JCM900. Why would I want the R2 in the Mark IV to sound the same?

After the Marshall brutalness, it's nice to have that smooth R2 tone, check out this clip at 3:00, R2 sounding great - to me anyway!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxsLxAHwNl8

I'd never use a distortion pedal infront on the markIV, that's what the lead channel is for.

 

[6L6C]

this dude nailed it on R2. one of the reasons I just sold my IV.

Hey rabies
What are you playing now? Or have you settled on anything yet?

 

[mrd]

I think R2 sounds fine... Just turn up that power amp man, get those mofos roastin'. Then again, every channel sounds sweet like that.

 

[MetalMatt]

R2 in Mark III FTW!

 

[trem]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxsLxAHwNl8

Yep, this is exactly how my R2 sounds like. Without pedals.

 

[MarkofXlnts]

I actually like R2, but probably use it differently than most. I like R2 with my 73 Gretsch Tennessean. The combination of Gretsch and R2 gives me a great alternate (crunchy, slightly dirty and twangy) clean sound. I love it for open chord voicings and early classic rock tones. I don't like R2 with my Malmsteen Strat, the Gretsch just seems to fit very well with it. I would like to try R2 with a Les Paul or something similar.

 

[Tre4J]

I gotta say I am really surprised with the reactions.

When I first got my MK IV, I looked up some tones for MOP and AJFA type of tones but I wasn't really happy with what I got with R2. I began using my LEAD for my lead tone and then LEAD EQ for my scooped rhythem sound.

Then I didn't want to have to engage the delay pedal and change channels when going from lead to rythem or vice versa. Low and behold, all the channal specific FX loop and EQ assignment switches could be set up to avoid the problem of tap dancing and I truly realized the brilliance of the MK IV.

Long story short, with more messing around and using a maxon od-9 I actually REALLY dig the heavy tones from the R2 channel and they're nothing like ZZ top and such classic rock tones. Especially when you give the b!tch full power and get some loud volumes out of the thing I actually have to turn the gain down otherwise it will squeal. I've turned it down to 7-8 and and it is bone crunching, thick, sludgy, tight and saturated. I love it, much different than my initial opinion of R2 when I didn't know how to use it properly and just went by these miscellaneous settings I found on the internet here and there.

 

[Monsta-Tone]

R2 in Mark III FTW!

I really do like the R2 in the Mark III much better than the Mark IV. That is what it should have sounded like, but more importantly, that is the sustain and sensitivity that the Mark IV R2 should have had.



I tried several pedals in the loop of my Mark IV A, just for R2 and all of them seemed to add too much noise or make it squeal, no matter where the gain was set. I tried EQ's, Compressors, very light Overdrive, etc. with no luck.

 

[LithiumZero]

I Love R2! I use it more as a mid gain channel though. I also have JJE34L tubes in the outer sockets. It makes the clean a little harder to dial in but R2 is GREATLY improved and the Lead channel is super fat and smooth.

 

[straitouttahell]

I don't understand what everyone's gripe is with R2 on the Mark IV. I find it more than adequete for heavy rhythm sounds.

R2 is awesome. With a TS in front of it, it just rivals lead channel. It's way spankier than the lead.

 

[srf399]

Sound is subjective... we always hear this and to a point it is true.

So the statement, "When you didn't know how to use it properly" is used i need clarification. Use it for what?

my definition of that statement was... I used R2 to convince myself that it was a complete waste of emotional health to continue wishing this channel would get a nice classic crunch for me. To me this is the worst Mesa channel on ANY mesa amp to date. Other may disagree and that is their right..

I have never heard the R2 sound good. It was useless for any classic rock application I ever tried it on. Rubbery & dull were all that I heard with this channel. I got rid of the MKIV 7 months ago and have never regretted it. Just my opinion... obviously others enjoy playing through that inner tube sound. What I can't believe is that Mesa never did a version 3 of the MKIV and fixed it. Mesa figured R2 was a beaut as well I suppose. Don't get me started on that reverb now LMAO. If I was ever going to go back to a MK it would be a MKIIC+ or a MKIII.