I bought a,soldano that says Mesa?

[siggy14]

lol Ok guys lets clear something up here first of all when talking about grunge that started in the late 80's even though no one was listening to it yet none of those bands used Mesa at the time. Maybe Soundgarden because Kim is using a combo Tremoverb and a Electrodyne now. But most bands early on were not getting the "grunge" sound from Mesa especially the dual Rectifier Rev G which wasn't not out until 95/96. Jerry Cantrell uses Friedman and Bogner, Kurt Cobain used the Mesa Studio .22 and Crest Audio 4801 power amps towards the end of Nirvana. Mike Mccready Used the three channel Dual rectifier which came out in 2000/2001 now uses Fender and Marshalls and the other Pearljam guitarist Steve Gossard uses Marshalls and Fenders as far as I know Pearljam has a very "classic" rock sound. By the time the Rev G had come out Grunge was on its way out because the original bands had deaths and other problems. Now to the rectifier I don't think Mesa was trying for a grunge amp. I feel they where on the search for something that would rival their own Mark series and change tone for years to come and that was the Dual Rectifier its American Metal tone. The 3 channel with its few faults itself is still an amazing amp and you can get a wide variety of tones from it in some ways its my favorite of the Rectifier series. However it was made to have a modern metal tone and a clean channel even though mesa had the Marks they did not think a 2 channel amp would last very long in the market with how many different kinds of music was out at the time hence the three channel. When it comes to mesa if you don't like it then I believe you need to get some help dialing it in before I sold my three channel (2003) I was still learning about it. Sorry to babble but I just don't understand why people think a rectifier is just for grunge or nu metal it can do sooo much more just mu 2 cents guys cheers : )

Some miss information but your jist is right, most grunge bands did not use the recto's, but Mesa did change the revision to try to capture artists in the grunge scene and that is why you went from a blistering solo head in revision C to a loose sounding Rev G.

As to the artists you mentioned Kim from Sound Garden used Peaveys I believe on the first two albums and then switched over to the rectos and currently uses the tremoverb combo/electradyne head like you said.

Kurt's main distortion was a Boss DS1 pedel into the studio 22 (used to warm up the tone) into the crown power amps.

I have no idea about Pearl jam ever used a Recto, but to be fair I lost interest in them after their first album which was all marshall and never kept up with them.

The first band I can remember seeing using the Recto's was candlebox who was labled as grunge even though they are not. Ironically even though they used the recto's they do not sound like the typical recto and their recto's are either Rev C's or Rev D, by the tone I would say Rev C.

As to the Rev G, I believe that was released in 1994 which was right in the middle of the grunge movement and it never really caught on big with the grunge crowd but the nu-metal crowd really embraced them and the rest is history. The two channels lasted a lot longer then you made it seem, from 92 to 2001 and they are a lot more organic sounding and not as brutal as the 3 channels. Mesa released the 3 channels because by 2001 it became as you would say a American Metal sounding amp and artists wanted more brutal sounding amp and that was Mesa's answer.

 

[tech21man]

Just dont hear it...

Change one or 2 components values and
You probably would

Which? I have a blackface early 1000 recto and it sounds different than any later one I've played. But it's not SLO.

The LDRs, small transformers and more complicated circuit plus the different loop make the recto a different amp by definition. It borrows some of the preamp of the SLO though.

 

[Schaf]

All you gotta do is turn up the SLO and it shows you why it is one of the legends...

I would worry about the Peavey's reliability, which is a huge deal breaker for me concerning amps. The DR, especially the older ones, are very cool amps.

Seriously? I've never heard of any reliabilty problems with the 5150. Everybody and their brother toured with those things for a while.

 

[Mr. Willy]

All you gotta do is turn up the SLO and it shows you why it is one of the legends...

I would worry about the Peavey's reliability, which is a huge deal breaker for me concerning amps. The DR, especially the older ones, are very cool amps.

Seriously? I've never heard of any reliabilty problems with the 5150. Everybody and their brother toured with those things for a while.

I didn't call them a POS or anything. But Peaveys just aren't in the same league build quality wise as Mesa and Soldano. The first 5150 I had was the combo. Bought it brand new from a local Peavey dealer. When it was unboxed, it had a loose part rattling around in it that obviously occurred during shipping. That could've easily been from how the thing was packaged for shipping, I realize that. It was a long time ago, but it left an impression on me regarding Peavey quality.

 

[thegame]

That's a great album. I believe Reb Beach also used rectos on the last 2 Winger albums...nice tone there....

In an old guitar mag Reb Beach says he used a DR into a greenback loaded Hughes & Ketner cab for this :
LOL at Winger but its a damn good tone. Must be an early DR as this came out in 93.

 

[Mr. Willy]

The first band I can remember seeing using the Recto's was candlebox who was labled as grunge even though they are not. Ironically even though they used the recto's they do not sound like the typical recto and their recto's are either Rev C's or Rev D, by the tone I would say Rev C.

I saw Candlebox around '95 or so. Peter Klett had two full stacks on stage. One was a Mesa Dual Rectifier, and the other was a Peavey Classic. It was a killer hard rock sound for the time. The first Candlebox album has a Peavey VTM all over it, at least for the dirty tones. Don't know if they also used it for the cleans. I don't think they did because there's one tune on the album where you can actually hear Klett stepping on a switch and changing from clean to dirty. I loved that first Candlebox album. Wore it out back in the day.

Here's the tune I'm talking about where you can hear him switching from clean to crunch.

 

[Mr. Willy]

That's a great album. I believe Reb Beach also used rectos on the last 2 Winger albums...nice tone there....

In an old guitar mag Reb Beach says he used a DR into a greenback loaded Hughes & Ketner cab for this :
LOL at Winger but its a damn good tone. Must be an early DR as this came out in 93.

That does sound pretty SLOish to me. Nice tone. I dug Winger. Not ashamed to admit it.

 

[JCDenton6]

That's a great album. I believe Reb Beach also used rectos on the last 2 Winger albums...nice tone there....

In an old guitar mag Reb Beach says he used a DR into a greenback loaded Hughes & Ketner cab for this :
LOL at Winger but its a damn good tone. Must be an early DR as this came out in 93.

Yeah that's definitely Pre 500 Dual Recto one right there.

 

[reverymike]

That's a great album. I believe Reb Beach also used rectos on the last 2 Winger albums...nice tone there....

In an old guitar mag Reb Beach says he used a DR into a greenback loaded Hughes & Ketner cab for this :
LOL at Winger but its a damn good tone. Must be an early DR as this came out in 93.

That does sound pretty SLOish to me. Nice tone. I dug Winger. Not ashamed to admit it.

This tone is very similar to what I get out of my Rev F Recto. Reb used an SD-1 to boost his by the way.

 

[Racerxrated]

Yup me too...ahem....I have all three albums...you can stop laughing now...btw Kim thayil played peavey vtm 120s for the first 3 soundgarden albums. And I used to own a vtm 60...loved that candlebox tone from the first album but I don't hear a vtm there, maybe a recto? I could never get the vtm to sound like that lol....

 

[reverymike]

Pete Klett used a Recto and a Peavey Classic series for that first record. Eventually, he moved to SLOs for his dirty tone.

 

[Racerxrated]

Just read where it was a Marshall mosfet 100 combined with a VTM on the first candlebox album for dirty tones....love that album. 3 albums define 1993 for me -Candlebox, Cry of Love, and Dogman by Kingsx.

 

[Racerxrated]

Pete Klett used a Recto and a Peavey Classic series for that first record. Eventually, he moved to SLOs for his dirty tone.

Whatever Pete used...killer tone.

 

[Mr. Willy]

I thought the Candlebox amp conversation was familiar.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=61981

 

[siggy14]

Ah would explain why I could not really hear the recto tone on that first album, I know I saw them right around that album was released and he was using boogies so I just assumed that is what he used on the album

 

[RJF]

Oh I see so I would need to mod or or boost and eq the hell out of it to approach that tone like i did with my old 3 channel F that lol I will stick with the Rev F this amp speaks to me it says "i'm better then a expensive hard to find saldano slo" jk

The revision F is a much better sounding amp, yes it has limitations but trust me the tone you get is well worth it. I prefer the Rev F because to me it is the perfect mix of both a Rev C and Rev G, it has a loose bottem like a rev G (not as loose as the G) but it has all the rest of the glory of a Rev C but not as bright. With a boost pedal you can make the Rev F as tight as a Rev C and you can EQ the Rev F to sound just as good as the Rev C, personally the Rev C has too much brightness if you jack the controls up too high and you would never use unless you are losing your hearing and cant hear the highs anymore or in a industrial band.

My rev F with a boost is much tighter than my rev C, with no boost. I do not find a big difference in the revisions like to describe. My rev C and F sound almost identical. Heck, an old rev G I had sounded super close to my rev F ( did not own a C and G at the same time).

I personally think the 2 ch rev thing is more hype than anything else. I do think they sound better than 3ch versions, but I don't think there is much difference in C-F. I think you are buying more of a status thing with having a "pre 500" rather than a unique tone. That is why I think rev F's are such a bargain.

 

[greatmutah]

I'd love to actually sit with all the revisions side by side and run through them. At this point my experience is limited to my Series II Single, 2 Tremoverbs (Heavenly) a Rev G Dual (vintage high gain was aggressive as hell!) and a Series II Triple. In my experience I preferred the 2 Channels and T-verbs (which granted have more upper mids than a standard Recto) to either of the Series II Recs I've played. Especially on Vintage High Gain. No real experience with the Reborns, so I can't comment on them.

 

[BrentSSL]

RJF thanks for the input I would agree but I have never played a REV C i can say that the Rev F is the first rec I have played that sounds good without EMGs or a boost do you think an FJA mod can get the Roadster close to that Rev F rev C sound or even maybe a three channel just curious on your opinion.

Greatmutah if you live in ohio we could hav an amp party lol

 

[siggy14]

Oh I see so I would need to mod or or boost and eq the hell out of it to approach that tone like i did with my old 3 channel F that lol I will stick with the Rev F this amp speaks to me it says "i'm better then a expensive hard to find saldano slo" jk

The revision F is a much better sounding amp, yes it has limitations but trust me the tone you get is well worth it. I prefer the Rev F because to me it is the perfect mix of both a Rev C and Rev G, it has a loose bottem like a rev G (not as loose as the G) but it has all the rest of the glory of a Rev C but not as bright. With a boost pedal you can make the Rev F as tight as a Rev C and you can EQ the Rev F to sound just as good as the Rev C, personally the Rev C has too much brightness if you jack the controls up too high and you would never use unless you are losing your hearing and cant hear the highs anymore or in a industrial band.

My rev F with a boost is much tighter than my rev C, with no boost. I do not find a big difference in the revisions like to describe. My rev C and F sound almost identical. Heck, an old rev G I had sounded super close to my rev F ( did not own a C and G at the same time).

I personally think the 2 ch rev thing is more hype than anything else. I do think they sound better than 3ch versions, but I don't think there is much difference in C-F. I think you are buying more of a status thing with having a "pre 500" rather than a unique tone. That is why I think rev F's are such a bargain.

I still boosted my C to get it super tight, it was tighter then the D,F and G revisions without a boost but once boosted they all got that same tight bottom end. As to the tone at one time I owned all at the same time a Rev C, D, F and G and a rackmount G and did comparisons. I can see what you are saying about not noticing a huge difference because it is not really a huge difference, still based off the same tone with just slight changes in flavor and with the EQ and a boost you could get most of them to sound so damn close.

Where the revisions differed was in brightness and clarity and the way the amp reacted to the way you play. Once again it was not a major difference but enough to take notice. Unless you have them all side by side it is hard to hear and feel the differences, heck even having all side by side can change because of ear fatigue when it comes to tone. I did months and months of side by side and changing tubes etc... In the end I got rid of all two channels because my roadking sounds really good as well, not as good as the 2 channels but was so damn close I was happy to have an amp with 4 channels and sacrifice minor bit of tone. Out of the 2 channel models the Rev F is my favorite and that mostly has to do with the Orange channel on it.

So the revision thing is not really hype, however the prices are hypes but even they have started to come down since it was discovered you can make your Rev G sound like a Rev C just by changing a few components. Now the prices are higher due to as you said the right of saying you own an earlier one, keep in mind the Rev F's are sought after as well and go higher than 1500 with the S/N. The real hype about these amps was that the transformers is what made them sound so different and good, while they did have a very minor impact on tone it was more the different board revisions with different components that made the difference.

 

[siggy14]

Oh I see so I would need to mod or or boost and eq the hell out of it to approach that tone like i did with my old 3 channel F that lol I will stick with the Rev F this amp speaks to me it says "i'm better then a expensive hard to find saldano slo" jk

The revision F is a much better sounding amp, yes it has limitations but trust me the tone you get is well worth it. I prefer the Rev F because to me it is the perfect mix of both a Rev C and Rev G, it has a loose bottem like a rev G (not as loose as the G) but it has all the rest of the glory of a Rev C but not as bright. With a boost pedal you can make the Rev F as tight as a Rev C and you can EQ the Rev F to sound just as good as the Rev C, personally the Rev C has too much brightness if you jack the controls up too high and you would never use unless you are losing your hearing and cant hear the highs anymore or in a industrial band.

My rev F with a boost is much tighter than my rev C, with no boost. I do not find a big difference in the revisions like to describe. My rev C and F sound almost identical. Heck, an old rev G I had sounded super close to my rev F ( did not own a C and G at the same time).

I personally think the 2 ch rev thing is more hype than anything else. I do think they sound better than 3ch versions, but I don't think there is much difference in C-F. I think you are buying more of a status thing with having a "pre 500" rather than a unique tone. That is why I think rev F's are such a bargain.

Oh yeah, besides being a bit darker some of the main difference between the C and F is the Orange channel. They were trying to make the cleans more usuable which effected the dirty on the orange channel as well. I do agree the C and the F is not far off at all, but there was a noticable difference between the two I had but in general most of the 2 channels had more in common. BTW what number Rev C do you have? I had R0005 so it is possible that my Rev C might have been slighly different then even some of the other Rev C's, for the longest time mine was the lowest number owned and it is still uncertain if the R0001 from Germany (I think) is even legit.