Sound Comparisons Dual and Triple Recs 3 channel versions

[Rectified in 95]

Hi everyone, I just joined this site tonight even though I've been searching through the site for about a week or so now. I have a few questions that I would love to hear some input on.

My first question is regarding the 3 channel dual and triple rectifiers. I have read numerous times about the older 2 channel dual rectifiers were the ones with the best tone. But I like the idea of being able to have 2 high gain channels set up each with a little different sound. So I'm definitely leaning towards a 3 channel version. Has anyone played both a newer style 3-channel dual and triple rectifier in a real setting and found much sound difference?

-What I mean by real setting is outside of the local music store where you can be free to experiment at higher volume/gains through a 4x12 without funny looks. I expect the triple to have a more powerful "feel/sound". But other than the extra "horsepower" the triple has pushing the sound with more authority, is there much sound differences between them?

My other question is aside from the older 2 channel dual rectifiers that were noted for better sound, how consistent do you guys feel the sounds are on these 3 channel duals and triples? My concern is renting one from my local music shop, liking it and going after one on Ebay and it doesn't sound quite the same...even with matching tube set-ups. Has anyone experienced much variation from one 3 channel to the next or am I overly concerned here?

Thanks for your time! I appreciate it!

 

[JPIndustrie]

Honestly, I liked the tone of the 3-channel DR I tried at guitar center. In fact, that was the tone that made me decide to get one.

When I got mine off eBay, it actually sounded ALOT better than I expected. Maybe because I did my first soundtest with the amp at band practice and was able to crank it and adjust it for band levels, but it sounded alot better than I expected, honestly.

My DR is completely stock, tube-wise.

 

[mesanomad100]

Too be truthfully honest Ive tried both,I have tried a stock 2 channel triple rec,a friend of mine has that....sounds great but at the end of the day its a mesa,I own and have played many dual rec's,mine is a new 3 channel,bought and shipped from America to scotland,I bought it from ebay as well,great amp,I dunno if the mesa purists always try and fault new mesa stuff but I have mine and I crank it baby ohhh yeh and it sound,well amazing,I do prefer having 3 channels,My band are hard rock/alternative,this said I study in the art form that is Dream Theater,playing almost every album with my 3 channel,it does this well.I also play jazz,the clean channel isnt the best I must say but it does have headroom and live I dont really care much for the tonal brilliance of my cleans as long as they can be heard(Im gonna get killed on this site in a moment),in the studio I use my mesa Nomad for cleans and the DR for all the leads/dirty tracks...................................ITS A MESA FOR GODS SAKE,it IS tone
get a 3 channel

 

[Elpelotero]

they are consistent. these aren't marshalls with different mods on each. whe n Mesa does a board revision, they let you know.

 

[jbird]

Comparatively, like a 50 watter is a little brighter than a 100 watter, so I believe is a 100 watter to a 150 watter! Obviously you gain some headroom, but I notice a deeper breadth at the low end, a wider spectrum seems available, not just volume! It's being able to tap into that powerband that makes 100 watters more desirable though, unless of course your playing arenas?

 

[Rectified in 95]

Thanks for the responses. I originally was leaning towards the older 2 channel version of the Dual Rec. But I think the 3 channel will wind up being more versatile for me with 2 gain channels. Thanks for the help! I appreciate it!

 

[JPIndustrie]

The 3-channels do not sound bad at all. They sound very very very good.

Some say, the 3-channels have that "buzz" over the sound, especially in 'Modern' mode, vs. the 2-channel, which supposedly have a more organic sound.

Honestly, I've heard both, and while the 3-chan does sound a little 'buzzier' than the 2 channel, the extra modes, flexibility, and versatility more than make up the difference.

 

[Rectified in 95]

Thanks, I was kind of thinking the 3 channel flexibility might make up for a little buzz..... But then again, how bad is the buzz you mention?

 

[JPIndustrie]

To tell you the truth, there might be something wrong with my ears. Sometimes I can pinpoint it when just playing the amp in my room by myself, sometimes when I crank it at band practice I don't hear it at all.

I think the buzz is only really apparent at bedroom volumes, but then again any amp will sound buzzy/fuzzy at those volumes. However sometimes if I set my EQ just right at practice, I can hear the fuzz - a little bit.

 

[David.W]

These are both triples the 3ch is mine, ive had the benefit of playing both for about a month now. I think the advice on this page is **** close to my findings. The 3ch is alot more flexibles to work with i think. The buzz is true but when its loud its gone. Also I swapped out my tubes for some svetlana 6L6's and the tone is unreal. I havnt played the 2ch for a while now, im actually gonna send it home to its owner this weekend.

The 2ch is nice no doubt and it has its own voice.

 

[Rectified in 95]

Man, 2 triple recs at your disposal!.... That's almost like waving table scraps in front of a hungry dog only to take them away before he can grab them! Ha! I'm hoping to have my head in place (pun intended) within the next few weeks. Can't wait til all the searching is done though. Thanks!