TotallyRadGuitars
Well-known member
Hey all, just picked up this amp - sorry, no picture yet, but it's the head. I always want to wait until I have some clips to share before writing anything, but work really takes up all of my time, but I can at least make some comments and I'll try to record some clips/video later on.
Anyway, I remember these coming out when I was still a poor college kid and playing one along with the TA30, but at the time I pretty much just wanted a recto (and couldn't afford either anyway). Fast forward 10+ years now and the RA100 has been on my "I really want to try that amp again" list for a while, and with all of the glowing reviews online I'll admit I had really high expectations for this amp. I got it home and put it on my Mesa traditional 4x12 which is from 2003 with original UK V30's. This cab is super punchy and a bit bright, and works really well with just about every amp I put on it.
In terms of related amps, I also have a Stiletto Trident V2 and a Triple Crown TC50. The TC50 is very similar to the RA from what I understand, but modernized, and I both see that in the physical features of the amp and also hear it in the tone to some degree. The Stiletto on the other hand is extremely different from either the RA or TC, but was billed as the "British" sounding Mesa before either of the other two existed, so there's probably some shared DNA in there somewhere (the logical evolution of the Stiletto now is probably the Badlander I guess, but I don't have one of those yet).
So, first a couple of features that are kind of cool to see, coming from the TC50 and working backwards.
-The RA100 has spring reverb, just like the TC50, but it's a bit different. The RA has a single master reverb knob on the rear, and two mini switches, which lets you have the reverb bypassed, always on, only on clean, or only on clean/lo modes. This is a little more "crude" than the TC50 which simply has 3 knobs, one per channel, to adjust the reverb mix. One advantage I like about the RA though - when you have the reverb disabled on the Lo or Hi channels, it is completely bypassed. To my ear, both the RA and the TC have a problem where the reverb, even if you turn the knob all the way down, still colors the tone as long as it is enabled. I find it particularly annoying on the TC50 but luckily you can bypass reverb on the footswitch on that amp.
-The other similar feature is the power soak on the RA, which can be set per channel. I can't wait to open this up and actually take a look at it - the controls click into preset settings marked with a negative DB value, so at least externally it gives the impression of being a "real" attenuator. I haven't spent a tone of time on this yet, but it sounds good to me even turned down pretty far, but even at full blast the master volumes are good enough that I don't think it's a feature I'll use much, unless I want to try to drive the clean channel. On the other hand, the TC50 just has a full built in CabClone, complete with 3 built-in speaker cab simulations, XLR and DI out, as well as a headphone jack, but this can't be used to reduce the volume between the power amp and the speakers.
Here's the thing, and this is one of those YMMV situations. The TC50's cabclone/headphone jack are a better solution for practicing at whisper quiet volumes. The RA on the other hand with its master vol's alone is easily able to sound good at TV volume, or drop it down to a 1x12 cab and it'd probably be even better. The RA can get those power tubes cooking much better than the TC and it can do it directly into a regular old speaker cab, so if you're the kind of player who is really into those vintage, power tube break up type tones, and wants to be able to actually use those sounds at a smaller gig, the RA's power soak is the better option.
---
And that leads me into the TONE part, and after playing the amp it's obvious to me why the RA has the power soak and the TC50 didn't do it the same way.
The RA is a MUCH more vintage sounding amp - I'd argue, almost plexi-like in that it has a very rounded, kind of loose low end, that can get a little flubby if you aren't careful. It is both fuller and looser than something like a Marshall JCM800 or a Recto's vintage mode, as expected, and on that note I'm actually not quite as happy as I expected in terms of the heavy tones. To be fair, I don't think the amp was designed for palm muted metal rhythms, and of course using a boost that cuts some bass like a tube screamer still sounds incredible, but I think the glowing reviews combined with my experience with the TC50, I expected something a little different. The TC is pretty modern, even with the "tight" switch turned off, on both channels 2 and 3, with very punchy palm mute chugging under high gain, so when I read that the RA would be more vintage sounding, I expected something a little more 80s rock-metal sounding and, while capable of that style with a boost, that's not it's strongest specialty. It's worth mentioning that the V30 cab I used is pretty inherently tight on the low end, so I'd expect an even looser performance from the RA depending on the cab (i.e. open backs, oversized recto cab, etc).
With that negative part out of the way, I'd give it absolutely glowing reviews for any kind of softer rock, blues, jazz, etc tones and it has plenty of gain on tap for absolutely glorious singing leads. The very same vintage low-end character and fullness that makes it a poor metal amp (to my ear) is what makes it one of the best lead tones I've ever heard for single note lines. Even later in the evening, at lower volumes and without the power soak engaged at all, the notes just hang on forever and sound extremely smooth and clear, with just the tiniest hint of hair dialed in to really add definition to pick attack, or better yet the occasional finger picked line. This carries over between both the LO and HI modes well, and they are voiced either the same or very close, so there's no "shock" when jumping between them, such as if you need more gain for a fill but less gain for rhythm. I haven't even mentioned the clean channel yet but it's superb and full of character - in contrast to the TC's clean which I find a bit flat, but perhaps the TC is the better platform for effects. I'm looking forward to cranking up the RA clean's gain control and rolling off the power soak to see just how far I can push that channel as well, but that will have to wait a few days.
All in all, I'm impressed with the amp and what it can do even if it's a little different than I expected. I thought I'd be putting it in the camp with my JCM800's and similar 80s-90s type tones but now that I've played it, it's probably more akin to something like a 1987X, Bogner Goldfinger, Fender Super-Sonic, that kind of thing, but with the usual Mesa polish and clarity. Oh, and it's a tank - 53 lbs compared to the TC's 35 (even the TC100 is "only" 46 lbs). It's also fairly unique sounding, I have a lot of amps, and I'm struggling to think of an amp I'd really describe as similar - I think the Bogner Goldfinger might be the closest thing I have to it, or perhaps the VHT Pittbull 45, both of which have less gain/sing than the RA.
I guess that wasn't really a "short" review, but thanks for reading. I understand the Electradyne is one I need to check out next
PS: If anyone has the schematic for this amp, I would be forever appreciative if I could see it...
Anyway, I remember these coming out when I was still a poor college kid and playing one along with the TA30, but at the time I pretty much just wanted a recto (and couldn't afford either anyway). Fast forward 10+ years now and the RA100 has been on my "I really want to try that amp again" list for a while, and with all of the glowing reviews online I'll admit I had really high expectations for this amp. I got it home and put it on my Mesa traditional 4x12 which is from 2003 with original UK V30's. This cab is super punchy and a bit bright, and works really well with just about every amp I put on it.
In terms of related amps, I also have a Stiletto Trident V2 and a Triple Crown TC50. The TC50 is very similar to the RA from what I understand, but modernized, and I both see that in the physical features of the amp and also hear it in the tone to some degree. The Stiletto on the other hand is extremely different from either the RA or TC, but was billed as the "British" sounding Mesa before either of the other two existed, so there's probably some shared DNA in there somewhere (the logical evolution of the Stiletto now is probably the Badlander I guess, but I don't have one of those yet).
So, first a couple of features that are kind of cool to see, coming from the TC50 and working backwards.
-The RA100 has spring reverb, just like the TC50, but it's a bit different. The RA has a single master reverb knob on the rear, and two mini switches, which lets you have the reverb bypassed, always on, only on clean, or only on clean/lo modes. This is a little more "crude" than the TC50 which simply has 3 knobs, one per channel, to adjust the reverb mix. One advantage I like about the RA though - when you have the reverb disabled on the Lo or Hi channels, it is completely bypassed. To my ear, both the RA and the TC have a problem where the reverb, even if you turn the knob all the way down, still colors the tone as long as it is enabled. I find it particularly annoying on the TC50 but luckily you can bypass reverb on the footswitch on that amp.
-The other similar feature is the power soak on the RA, which can be set per channel. I can't wait to open this up and actually take a look at it - the controls click into preset settings marked with a negative DB value, so at least externally it gives the impression of being a "real" attenuator. I haven't spent a tone of time on this yet, but it sounds good to me even turned down pretty far, but even at full blast the master volumes are good enough that I don't think it's a feature I'll use much, unless I want to try to drive the clean channel. On the other hand, the TC50 just has a full built in CabClone, complete with 3 built-in speaker cab simulations, XLR and DI out, as well as a headphone jack, but this can't be used to reduce the volume between the power amp and the speakers.
Here's the thing, and this is one of those YMMV situations. The TC50's cabclone/headphone jack are a better solution for practicing at whisper quiet volumes. The RA on the other hand with its master vol's alone is easily able to sound good at TV volume, or drop it down to a 1x12 cab and it'd probably be even better. The RA can get those power tubes cooking much better than the TC and it can do it directly into a regular old speaker cab, so if you're the kind of player who is really into those vintage, power tube break up type tones, and wants to be able to actually use those sounds at a smaller gig, the RA's power soak is the better option.
---
And that leads me into the TONE part, and after playing the amp it's obvious to me why the RA has the power soak and the TC50 didn't do it the same way.
The RA is a MUCH more vintage sounding amp - I'd argue, almost plexi-like in that it has a very rounded, kind of loose low end, that can get a little flubby if you aren't careful. It is both fuller and looser than something like a Marshall JCM800 or a Recto's vintage mode, as expected, and on that note I'm actually not quite as happy as I expected in terms of the heavy tones. To be fair, I don't think the amp was designed for palm muted metal rhythms, and of course using a boost that cuts some bass like a tube screamer still sounds incredible, but I think the glowing reviews combined with my experience with the TC50, I expected something a little different. The TC is pretty modern, even with the "tight" switch turned off, on both channels 2 and 3, with very punchy palm mute chugging under high gain, so when I read that the RA would be more vintage sounding, I expected something a little more 80s rock-metal sounding and, while capable of that style with a boost, that's not it's strongest specialty. It's worth mentioning that the V30 cab I used is pretty inherently tight on the low end, so I'd expect an even looser performance from the RA depending on the cab (i.e. open backs, oversized recto cab, etc).
With that negative part out of the way, I'd give it absolutely glowing reviews for any kind of softer rock, blues, jazz, etc tones and it has plenty of gain on tap for absolutely glorious singing leads. The very same vintage low-end character and fullness that makes it a poor metal amp (to my ear) is what makes it one of the best lead tones I've ever heard for single note lines. Even later in the evening, at lower volumes and without the power soak engaged at all, the notes just hang on forever and sound extremely smooth and clear, with just the tiniest hint of hair dialed in to really add definition to pick attack, or better yet the occasional finger picked line. This carries over between both the LO and HI modes well, and they are voiced either the same or very close, so there's no "shock" when jumping between them, such as if you need more gain for a fill but less gain for rhythm. I haven't even mentioned the clean channel yet but it's superb and full of character - in contrast to the TC's clean which I find a bit flat, but perhaps the TC is the better platform for effects. I'm looking forward to cranking up the RA clean's gain control and rolling off the power soak to see just how far I can push that channel as well, but that will have to wait a few days.
All in all, I'm impressed with the amp and what it can do even if it's a little different than I expected. I thought I'd be putting it in the camp with my JCM800's and similar 80s-90s type tones but now that I've played it, it's probably more akin to something like a 1987X, Bogner Goldfinger, Fender Super-Sonic, that kind of thing, but with the usual Mesa polish and clarity. Oh, and it's a tank - 53 lbs compared to the TC's 35 (even the TC100 is "only" 46 lbs). It's also fairly unique sounding, I have a lot of amps, and I'm struggling to think of an amp I'd really describe as similar - I think the Bogner Goldfinger might be the closest thing I have to it, or perhaps the VHT Pittbull 45, both of which have less gain/sing than the RA.
I guess that wasn't really a "short" review, but thanks for reading. I understand the Electradyne is one I need to check out next
PS: If anyone has the schematic for this amp, I would be forever appreciative if I could see it...
