why does the early 3 channel rectifier not get any love ??

[afu]

If it works for you, its nothing wrong about that. I just wanted to point out, those amps can be hard to dial in, and can be hard to fit smaller stages with a good sound. A Recto has its own unbendable character, if you love it go for it, if not look for something else.

Many ambitious young players look for THAT Recto tone. Especially here in europe the 3CH Rectos are very expensive, so they pay a huge amount of money to learn, that 3CH Rectos don't sound like the expect it. I think it is our responsibility to tell them what the problems can be with this amps.

Many people look for the Pre500 Tone from the hit recordings. We all know that threat... 31 Pages filled with people looking for THAT tone, that can not be achived with something a 3CH.

The Rectos out there sound all very different, some of them bright, some of them dark, some of them dull and flat - some are better for lead playing some for rythm work. But to return to the many topic... I personally think if you have to decide between a old 3CH and a reborn, I would go with the reborn, those are great amps and far easier then old 3CH.

@afu
As you shurely know, each Recto circuit board has its own sound. Even if all the components are the same they sound very different. The differences lie in the parasitic components like trace to trace capacitances and their lenght... Would be great to read some analysis of those electronic topics.

The thing is, I don't think Rev C was used as much as the later revisions. Even Metallica was using various version of F and G before having Boogie and/or their crew make custom setups. Foo Fighters used various amps, notably the Road Series ("One By One", "The Pretender"). Are there any clear examples of Rev C which can be confirmed, outside of AIC? What was Candlebox using? What about Bush? Korn?

There are a ton of presumptions being made, including past posts on this board, but how much of it is just chasing a myth? How much of it just internet "common knowledge" that is just untrue or a subjective matter?

For the people who want a different sound or less bottom, some adjustments to the preamp cathodes will change the sub-bass response. For me, the loop mod is a must and keeping the channel volume from clipping the loop is a must. It doesn't require a Pre-500 mod and I think the idea of trying to chase a tone from an album to be an exercise in futility, since recorded sound is so manipulated, processed, and layered that it will never, ever be reproduced by a single amp of any type.

You are correct about the circuit board making a difference and capacitance issues will affect the brightness of an amp, as will the components. The thing is: most parasitic capacitance should be affecting frequencies way above the 2.4khz roll off on a Recto or the 5-6khz limit of a speaker. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Mr. Smith decided to use it for tone shaping; In fact he sort of alludes to something like that in an interview I saw, but he provided an ambiguous answer. If that's true, even the Pre-500 Mod isn't going to produce a Pre-500 tone. This is all speculation until someone with a ton of Rectos can analyze them with the proper equipment, if that could ever happen.

I think I understand where you're coming from and I agree with you that the amp wasn't exactly what I was expecting when I first got it. The way things interact on the amp are unlike anything else I've played, owned, or borrowed and it has produced moments of massive frustration. I'll agree that it isn't the easiest amp to use, but I find it easier than a Mark V (for example). The hardest thing for me was learning to turn down the frickin' bass control, because that thing is like a fat man in a little coat.

After all this time, though, I feel like I have a love affair going on with my amp, including fights and making up, and the sublime feeling I get when everything is working is something I cannot even express with words. That is why I love it.

 

[Silverwulf]

To throw fuel on the fire, while its been widely speculated that a Mesa Dual Rectifier was used on AIC's "Dirt" album (due to Cantrell saying it a few times), Dave Jerden noted that a Mesa wasn't one of the 3 amps used. Per Jerden, the trio of amps was actually a Bogner Fish/VHT Power Amp for the low end, a Bogner Ecstacy for the mids, and a Rockman for the top end.

If Jerden's claim turns out to be true, then I don't know that you've got any example of a Rev C on a major label release at all. Candlebox, Soundgadren, etc...were early adopters, but you're looking at Rev F in some instances, but mostly Rev G.

Rev G is undoubtedly the Recto heard on most all of the Recto based albums of the 90's, and probably into the 2000's for a while. Since then, it's likely been a mixed bag of Rev G and 3 channels.

 

[Shemham]

The thing is, I don't think Rev C was used as much as the later revisions. Even Metallica was using various version of F and G before having Boogie and/or their crew make custom setups. Foo Fighters used various amps, notably the Road Series ("One By One", "The Pretender"). Are there any clear examples of Rev C which can be confirmed, outside of AIC? What was Candlebox using? What about Bush? Korn?

Here's one live performane with Rev C Rectifier. Silverwulf might have had some experience with this particular unit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bLQD6zsuAg

Not your stereotypical Recto tone or musical context.

 

[Silverwulf]

Indeed. That was one of the many I've owned over the years. It was a cool head unit, though I do think AH would sound fantastic if he plugged into a garbage disposal.

 

[siggy14]

If it works for you, its nothing wrong about that. I just wanted to point out, those amps can be hard to dial in, and can be hard to fit smaller stages with a good sound. A Recto has its own unbendable character, if you love it go for it, if not look for something else.

Many ambitious young players look for THAT Recto tone. Especially here in europe the 3CH Rectos are very expensive, so they pay a huge amount of money to learn, that 3CH Rectos don't sound like the expect it. I think it is our responsibility to tell them what the problems can be with this amps.

Many people look for the Pre500 Tone from the hit recordings. We all know that threat... 31 Pages filled with people looking for THAT tone, that can not be achived with something a 3CH.

The Rectos out there sound all very different, some of them bright, some of them dark, some of them dull and flat - some are better for lead playing some for rythm work. But to return to the many topic... I personally think if you have to decide between a old 3CH and a reborn, I would go with the reborn, those are great amps and far easier then old 3CH.

@afu
As you shurely know, each Recto circuit board has its own sound. Even if all the components are the same they sound very different. The differences lie in the parasitic components like trace to trace capacitances and their lenght... Would be great to read some analysis of those electronic topics.

I have said this before and I will say it again, in order to get the 3 channels to sound more like the older rev G 2 channels, you must not use modern on channel 3, use it on Channel 2 and you will get so much closer. Honestly I find more people's problem with the recto's is they can never get them loud enough to make them sound as good as they expect, and honestly once you get them loud enough and in a band mix it is very hard to tell the difference between a 2 channel and 3 channel.

FYI for the tone I like on rectos which is about everything on None except presence and volume, I can usually get that tone on any recto just be tweaking the EQ, the Roadsters I will add more treble, for the old Rev C's I would have to take the treble down to about 10. I have two Rev G's and one Rev F and a Roadking V1, the RK is my main amp and can get very close to my Rev G's by using Channel 3 on the RK.

To throw fuel on the fire, while its been widely speculated that a Mesa Dual Rectifier was used on AIC's "Dirt" album (due to Cantrell saying it a few times), Dave Jerden noted that a Mesa wasn't one of the 3 amps used. Per Jerden, the trio of amps was actually a Bogner Fish/VHT Power Amp for the low end, a Bogner Ecstacy for the mids, and a Rockman for the top end.

If Jerden's claim turns out to be true, then I don't know that you've got any example of a Rev C on a major label release at all. Candlebox, Soundgadren, etc...were early adopters, but you're looking at Rev F in some instances, but mostly Rev G.

Rev G is undoubtedly the Recto heard on most all of the Recto based albums of the 90's, and probably into the 2000's for a while. Since then, it's likely been a mixed bag of Rev G and 3 channels.

Silver is right, most of the recordings you have heard are either Rev G's which are most of the bands from the 90's and then the 2k bands were 3 channels with some left over 2 channels. I have noticed that a lot of the 2 channel guys switched to the RK's over the 3 channels as they get that much closer to the original 2 channel sound.

As to the big bands that used Recto's, The first candlebox was Peavey amps and I a pretty sure for the rest it is a rev F or early Rev G. Korn used triples and I am pretty sure they are Rev G's as they didnt start on recto's and if you seen rig run downs they normally have the large logo's. Most other bands you see from that time period all have large logos so that pretty much answers the question.

I saw the group "Trust Company" at the DC101 Chili cookoff many years ago and the one guitarist used a small logo recto, very bright tone so i am pretty sure it was a Rev C, he might have recorded with that, I will include a link to there AOL Sessions and you can hear for yourself.

https://youtu.be/ic2mJT0q5BU

 

[afu]

I think this is where I saw verification of Recto on Dirt. It's pretty detailed and quoted, so I figured it was reliable.

 

[Silverwulf]

I saw that as well, but then Dave Jerden had this to say last year about recording "Dirt" when he was doing Q&A:

 

[afu]

Re: Modern Ch2 - That's almost exactly the same as Red cloned to Orange on a 2CH. On a similar note, Vintage on CH3 is closer to the 2CH tone, but... it's not exact and really bright. Going by the tone recommendations in the manual, Vintage doesn't work as well for me. They basically kept it the same as the 2CH manual, but it isn't the same circuit and the settings should have been updated. I think that might be part of the overall problem which is observed when 2CH people use 3CH. The settings really don't translate from one to the other in most cases. It requires some tweaking to "match" tones.

 

[afu]

I saw that as well, but then Dave Jerden had this to say last year about recording "Dirt" when he was doing Q&A:

LOL. Well, I guess it's new Scooby Doo Mystery.

 

[Silverwulf]

LOL. Well, I guess it's new Scooby Doo Mystery.

Pretty much... :lol: The original detailed account does lend some validity to an early Revision C, and Cantrell has referenced a few times that on the self titled album the "5150's took the place of Rectos in the mix used on Dirt"...(paraphrasing)...but, that's an extremely tight timetable for them to get a Recto and be comfortable with it (recording started somewhere in late February to early March of 1992). Plus, Jerry had a good relationship with Bogner at the time. So, I guess we're just left to speculate!

To Todd's point above about Candlebox, definitely no Rectos on the self titled album, but they were used on tour. Earliest I could see was late '93 dates with the Mesa gear, and considering Klett actually had usable clean tones, the timing would lend to that tour being Revision E or F, most likely F (playing the odds) as such a limited amount of E's were made.

 

[afu]

I think a production/engineering person would have been link to Mesa, or a person at the studio. It seems likely that it was auditioned after being recommended and deemed acceptable to use. It's not like Cantrell rocks a Rockman on stage, either.

As an aside: thinking of this topic, I wanted to see how tone matching between different circuits/modes might work out. I tried it between Channel 2 Vintage and Channel 3 Modern with explanations of how it works:

https://warpedmusician.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/matching-vintage-to-modern

I kind of hurt myself by playing too much yesterday and my overall health is not well enough today to work on it further in the short-term. It still kind of makes a point about the Presence control and all that..... Even though it isn't a perfect match, A/B-ing it could confuse a person as to which is which.

 

[siggy14]

Re: Modern Ch2 - That's almost exactly the same as Red cloned to Orange on a 2CH. On a similar note, Vintage on CH3 is closer to the 2CH tone, but... it's not exact and really bright. Going by the tone recommendations in the manual, Vintage doesn't work as well for me. They basically kept it the same as the 2CH manual, but it isn't the same circuit and the settings should have been updated. I think that might be part of the overall problem which is observed when 2CH people use 3CH. The settings really don't translate from one to the other in most cases. It requires some tweaking to "match" tones.

On my Roadking V1 Channel 3 Modern is the same as Modern on the Red channel of a 2 channel, or at least very close. The 2 channel is a bit clearer but not a huge difference.

 

[afu]

Re: Modern Ch2 - That's almost exactly the same as Red cloned to Orange on a 2CH. On a similar note, Vintage on CH3 is closer to the 2CH tone, but... it's not exact and really bright. Going by the tone recommendations in the manual, Vintage doesn't work as well for me. They basically kept it the same as the 2CH manual, but it isn't the same circuit and the settings should have been updated. I think that might be part of the overall problem which is observed when 2CH people use 3CH. The settings really don't translate from one to the other in most cases. It requires some tweaking to "match" tones.

On my Roadking V1 Channel 3 Modern is the same as Modern on the Red channel of a 2 channel, or at least very close. The 2 channel is a bit clearer but not a huge difference.

I made a mistake in there. Vintage cloned Red is like Ch2 on a 3Ch Recto. Modern on CH2 (or CH 3 in your case), is the same as Modern Red on a 2CH version, just as you stated. I was confused about it for some reason.

In reference the tone matching, I meant that part only for Vintage mode between the old 2CH and the 2001 3CH.

I was ill and tired this morning; thank you for pointing out the Modern tone matching so I could clear that up and void my error about it.

 

[APEMAN]

-

 

[siggy14]

True, talking about the old 3Ch Rectos (unmoded!), Modern orange is the closest to the 2Ch models. The orange channel sounded and felt always the best to me, even if the vintage mode didn't do exactly what I expected. I couldn't find the ultimate lead tone so I started modding to achieve that.... until I realized it was not a Recto anymore... more sort of a franken-bogner-recto

I was always fighting the 'ultra sub low gozilla'-content that was introduced with the 3Ch Rectos. In 2001, Mesa advertised the RED Channel as the new Channel, containing the new added sound and feel. And the RED Channel was the one that made me selling it. I tried so hard to make it feel like the Orange Channel but simply couldn't find it, it always felt so liveless and flat. Compared to the great sounding Roadsters and Roadkings the old 3Ch misses something important (to me). I got all the different schematics from mesa and tried to find it... but it is a parameter not shown on them. I think its simply the board itself.

But as you all said before, thats just me and my opinion - if it feels right of course stick with it!!! I learned a lot from my Recto haunting years and build an midi controlled 3Ch bogner clone from my findings that I hook up from time to time to my MarkV, which is my main amp and simply sounds and feels perfect to me the way it is - 3 unbelievable sounding channels from sparkle to monstrous, all perfectly usable from wispering silent to thunder and all in between.

Funny, for me as I'm coming from the Recto side of life the MkV is just perfect the other MkI-IV guys here seem to not like it so much.... I don't know how many times I stood in my rehearsal room playing on Ch2 crunch mode thinking: "That is just perfectly to sound I tried to dial in on vintage orange on my 3Ch Recto (soundwise like Dream Theaters Octavarium) => Maybe it is just the standing for years in front of a loud mesa... it softed up my brain...


(@afu: get well soon!)

Just curious if you have ever played one of the original 3 channel rectos? Some of us in the community are convince the first years of the 3 channels where a bit different and sound the best, there is no proof behind it but these are players that have many rectos or had many rectos and i am one of those people, I purchased one the first year it came out and even as of today i regret selling it.

 

[APEMAN]

-

 

[deeman]

True, talking about the old 3Ch Rectos (unmoded!), Modern orange is the closest to the 2Ch models. The orange channel sounded and felt always the best to me, even if the vintage mode didn't do exactly what I expected. I couldn't find the ultimate lead tone so I started modding to achieve that.... until I realized it was not a Recto anymore... more sort of a franken-bogner-recto

I was always fighting the 'ultra sub low gozilla'-content that was introduced with the 3Ch Rectos. In 2001, Mesa advertised the RED Channel as the new Channel, containing the new added sound and feel. And the RED Channel was the one that made me selling it. I tried so hard to make it feel like the Orange Channel but simply couldn't find it, it always felt so liveless and flat. Compared to the great sounding Roadsters and Roadkings the old 3Ch misses something important (to me). I got all the different schematics from mesa and tried to find it... but it is a parameter not shown on them. I think its simply the board itself.

But as you all said before, thats just me and my opinion - if it feels right of course stick with it!!! I learned a lot from my Recto haunting years and build an midi controlled 3Ch bogner clone from my findings that I hook up from time to time to my MarkV, which is my main amp and simply sounds and feels perfect to me the way it is - 3 unbelievable sounding channels from sparkle to monstrous, all perfectly usable from wispering silent to thunder and all in between.

Funny, for me as I'm coming from the Recto side of life the MkV is just perfect the other MkI-IV guys here seem to not like it so much.... I don't know how many times I stood in my rehearsal room playing on Ch2 crunch mode thinking: "That is just perfectly to sound I tried to dial in on vintage orange on my 3Ch Recto (soundwise like Dream Theaters Octavarium) => Maybe it is just the standing for years in front of a loud mesa... it softed up my brain...


(@afu: get well soon!)

Just curious if you have ever played one of the original 3 channel rectos? Some of us in the community are convince the first years of the 3 channels where a bit different and sound the best, there is no proof behind it but these are players that have many rectos or had many rectos and i am one of those people, I purchased one the first year it came out and even as of today i regret selling it.

How much are you willing to pay? I'd hate to sell mine but if the price is right....

Also, I have played the multi watt 3 channels but I'm not sure I've noticed any difference between the early and later 100 watt 3 channels.

 

[siggy14]

True, talking about the old 3Ch Rectos (unmoded!), Modern orange is the closest to the 2Ch models. The orange channel sounded and felt always the best to me, even if the vintage mode didn't do exactly what I expected. I couldn't find the ultimate lead tone so I started modding to achieve that.... until I realized it was not a Recto anymore... more sort of a franken-bogner-recto

I was always fighting the 'ultra sub low gozilla'-content that was introduced with the 3Ch Rectos. In 2001, Mesa advertised the RED Channel as the new Channel, containing the new added sound and feel. And the RED Channel was the one that made me selling it. I tried so hard to make it feel like the Orange Channel but simply couldn't find it, it always felt so liveless and flat. Compared to the great sounding Roadsters and Roadkings the old 3Ch misses something important (to me). I got all the different schematics from mesa and tried to find it... but it is a parameter not shown on them. I think its simply the board itself.

But as you all said before, thats just me and my opinion - if it feels right of course stick with it!!! I learned a lot from my Recto haunting years and build an midi controlled 3Ch bogner clone from my findings that I hook up from time to time to my MarkV, which is my main amp and simply sounds and feels perfect to me the way it is - 3 unbelievable sounding channels from sparkle to monstrous, all perfectly usable from wispering silent to thunder and all in between.

Funny, for me as I'm coming from the Recto side of life the MkV is just perfect the other MkI-IV guys here seem to not like it so much.... I don't know how many times I stood in my rehearsal room playing on Ch2 crunch mode thinking: "That is just perfectly to sound I tried to dial in on vintage orange on my 3Ch Recto (soundwise like Dream Theaters Octavarium) => Maybe it is just the standing for years in front of a loud mesa... it softed up my brain...


(@afu: get well soon!)

Just curious if you have ever played one of the original 3 channel rectos? Some of us in the community are convince the first years of the 3 channels where a bit different and sound the best, there is no proof behind it but these are players that have many rectos or had many rectos and i am one of those people, I purchased one the first year it came out and even as of today i regret selling it.

How much are you willing to pay? I'd hate to sell mine but if the price is right....

Also, I have played the multi watt 3 channels but I'm not sure I've noticed any difference between the early and later 100 watt 3 channels.

I actually already got a line on a 2001 triple, not sure if I am going to pick it up as I own 2 Rev G's, a Rev F rackmount and also a roadking V1

 

[siggy14]

...

Just curious if you have ever played one of the original 3 channel rectos? Some of us in the community are convince the first years of the 3 channels where a bit different and sound the best, there is no proof behind it but these are players that have many rectos or had many rectos and i am one of those people, I purchased one the first year it came out and even as of today i regret selling it.

I never played a 2001 3CH Recto. If I remember right, mine was a 2003 Dual Rectifier - I didn't know there are differences in the old 3Ch line... can you provide more specific data, maybe pcb pictures or something like that?


Edit:
I always held that sounds coming from that amp (old 3CH) for a joke... as JP shows his new Flashback delay sounds on a parallel loop:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVykvP1knf0 , sparkly clean
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtUEdp6DsW8 , nice crunchy rythm on RED(!)

Authorised Boogie confirmed, its an old 3Ch short before they switched to the reborn showing '100W head' without the multi watt function.

To me that proofed they wanted to punk us and he uses whatever preamp and runs it into the head. If your old 3Ch sounds like that, please sell it to me! :lol:

.. What do you think?

From what I am hearing there is nothing wrong with his tone or the delay, sounds fine to me and a typical recto tone. Personally though I use my RK for most everything and use the serial loop on that, I just picked up my Revision G's and if I start using them live I will just mod the loops to serial as it is very easy to do.