Blind test! Mesa Dual Rectifier vs 'mystery' amp modeler...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 27494
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 27494

Guest
Hey everyone,

I thought we'd have some fun with some 'science' here! So in this blind test we're comparing my 3ch 2000's Mesa Boogie Dual Rectifier to a mystery digital modeling platform. I'm the only one who can't give an unbiased opinion because I already know which one is which, but I can hear some subtle differences in the response mainly. The question is, does this matter and to what extent?

So what would be interesting to know from you guys is:

1. Which one was the real Mesa Dual Rectifier?

2. Which modeling platform do you think it was?

3. Which one do you prefer, regardless of which one you think was the real amp, and why?



A lot of people always claim that they can easily tell modelers apart from real amps and a lot of people also claim that they can recognize certain platforms because of certain sonic traits. But when presented with a blind test, how many of you can tell which one is real and which one is digital? This can be fun! :)
 
1. Mesa was B
2. Kemper powered (maybe, damn good)
3. B - i liked the way it sounded... a bit more open, a little more clarity in the mids/upper-mids...really hard to tell a diff to be honest.
 
I definitely hear a difference between A & B, but there are things about each that make me think it’s the real amp.
1. B
2. No idea, but let’s go with STL amp hub as I’ve heard their Mesa sim is great.
3. I prefer B. There is more clarity and note definition pops out a little more. A is a little cloudier in the bass and low mids region.
 
1. B

2. IDK

3. Can't truly answer until it's in a mix. A was tighter & sounded like it was highpassed around 90 hz compared to B which seems to extend down to 60hz or so. B does that Recto thing where the low end/low mids sound smooth and the higher frequencies carry the grain/grit while A has the grain/grit extending lower than B does. A has more high mid presence while B sounds more "huge/full/round". B sounds "warmer". Hard call on which is better 'cause with A I like the tightness and extra grit in the lower frequencies but B has a warmth thing going on that might sit better in a mix.
 
1. I think the real amp was B as well.
2. Line 6 Helix?
3. I felt B had a tad more movement and felt more reactive to your playing. Would be funny if I'm totally wrong, LOL.
 
B is the real amp. It sounds less compressed in the mids, around 500Hz. All simulators sound compressed in this area to my ears. I would think the simulator is the axe fx but don't have enough experience with it to know.
 
Rex Rocker said:
1. I think the real amp was B as well.
2. Line 6 Helix?
3. I felt B had a tad more movement and felt more reactive to your playing. Would be funny if I'm totally wrong, LOL.
Click to expand...
That's a good word for what I'm hearing as well. Yeah, I'm going to crack up if I'm wrong too lol.
 
Thanks for all your replies so far! I'm currently working on the follow-up video and it should be up within a few days, hopefully before next week!
 
1. B
2. Mercurial plugin.
3. I prefer A as it sounds fuller/wider.
 
Without reading any replies I'm going to say "B" was the real Recitfier. Had a bit more bounce, especially in the low end. If I had to guess on modeler I'll go with Kemper and far as preference, they sounded to close to really care one way or the other but I'd take the Rectifier because I love the smell of tubes and I hate tinkering. :D

BTW - Great job on this Jon. I really dig the riff too - if that is part of a song you created let me know and if it is not - you should. :yes:
 
B is the dual rectifier (more dynamics to the sound) and it sounds the best of the two. Who the hell knows what kinda modeller it is??
 
That's pretty impressive I must admit, but I also feel like the B clip is the real deal Mesa Recto. I notice a similar compressed tone to A that always seems to be in digital clips that I hear like acalaf mentioned. and B had a bit more responsiveness to it and liveliness in a feel way.

I cannot guess what modeler is there.

My biggest thing against 'real' and 'digital is how it feels when I play in the room.

realistically either would suit a recording perfectly fine and I would enjoy either in a recording, but for me it's the in room feel that matters. I am not a recording guru or buff, I like to play more than anything and I personally enjoy playing on tube amps far more than a modeler my self.

great work there bro on the recordings and the playing. I am excited to see the response when you post results.

which
 
B (to me) sounds like the real amp. Who knows what the other piece of gear being used is. It sounds a little more "perfect" to me than the "B" clip.
 
scottosan said:
Was the real amp mic’d or did you use a something with speaker IR’s.
Click to expand...
This. ^
I was thinking A was the real amp since there are a few places I hear more of that recto presence. B seemed to be smoothed out more. It was close though. If I had to guess you’re using a Kemper.
 
As far as tonal differences, most people above that picked B already stated them. B is little more open, a little more clarity, a little more bounce/liveliness in the lows...all pretty subtle. Also B does have a tiny bit more smoothness in the OD. But I have no idea which is the real amp. And I've never played a modeler and don't even keep up with them so I have no idea there either. Nothing against them I just don't have time for a whole nuther learning curve and really only care about 'in-the-room' tone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top