Tech-savy people: What is really the same on a Recto and an SLO?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rex Rocker
  • Start date Start date
The way I look at it and I've only build maybe a dozen amp(all fender and Marshall though) is that amps have a lineage to them. Like a BE100 or quick rod have a lineage from a Marshall. Recto, 5150, KSR, etc have a SLO lineage. I could very well be way off but that's basically how I classify them in my mind
 
ClintN667 said:
The way I look at it and I've only build maybe a dozen amp(all fender and Marshall though) is that amps have a lineage to them. Like a BE100 or quick rod have a lineage from a Marshall. Recto, 5150, KSR, etc have a SLO lineage. I could very well be way off but that's basically how I classify them in my mind
Click to expand...
This is exactly why I am so pumped my Larry 300 watter is arriving next week...after all this time...
 
The main thing that people cite is that the SLO used 1.8k / 1uF cathode pairs, and that 39K cold clipper. Those are pretty specific values that the Recto and 5150 also use. Both of those amps changed a whole bunch of other stuff though, which is why they sound much different. Even those values in the SLO are not so far fetched because they are similar to what is in a JCM800, except the frequency cutoff is a little lower, and the 39K makes it a little more fuzzier in the gain.
 
As far as I know the recto in it's early incarnation (like rev C) was a direct ripoff of the SLO, the pre-amp that is. We all know that the poweramp can shape the tone dramatically too though, so that's why they sound different. That's what I was told.
 
From what I understand from this thread, and from what I knew before, I think that saying the whole "preamp" is a ripoff is a bit of an exaggeration.

Maybe a part of the preamp is, but for example, I think I understood the tone stack is very different? And then again, the Recto has two high-gain modes with different tone stacks, right?
 
Rex Rocker said:
From what I understand from this thread, and from what I knew before, I think that saying the whole "preamp" is a ripoff is a bit of an exaggeration.

Maybe a part of the preamp is, but for example, I think I understood the tone stack is very different? And then again, the Recto has two high-gain modes with different tone stacks, right?
Click to expand...
It’s a ripoff with slight changes and options to offer more versatility over the slo, and as time went on more of the recto changed.
The slo tonestack is a 47k slope 0.022 mid and bass caps with a 470pf peaker on the slo, compared to the recto which is the same although one TS has a 500pf peaker and the other a 680pf.
I’d argue most of the criticism comes from a large builder ripping off a newer, small company who had only been in business for a few years. It’s akin to Marshall releasing a Friedman copy in 2013, or a Cameron, or pick any given small builder. At a minimum give the guy some time to make a name for himself. Had mesa released the recto in the mid to late 90’s I don’t think many people would have cared.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top