NAD: Mesa Rectifier Connoisseurs

[Snave]

Nice score but it sounds thin compared to the unboosted Rev F and Multiwatt.

 

[Metal1977]

Sounds thin compared to the unboosted Rev F and Multiwatt.

Transition to the big recto sound and looser feel they're known for came after Rev D.

 

[Wizard of Ozz]

Nice score but it sounds thin compared to the unboosted Rev F and Multiwatt.

Yep. It is not nearly as thick, bass heavy, with way less lower mids in the voice. The orange channel is different as well. Not as clean.

The “classic” recorded Recto sound most are familiar with came from some Rev Fs and mostly the Rev G. These have that lower mid, bass heavy, low mid voicing... the modern Rectifier sound.

The Rev C is held in high regard for its clearer, more present, and tight tone. You really do not need to boost it... which is hard to imagine with a Rectifier.

 

[psychodave]

Nice score but it sounds thin compared to the unboosted Rev F and Multiwatt.

Yep. It is not nearly as thick, bass heavy, with way less lower mids in the voice. The orange channel is different as well. Not as clean.

The “classic” recorded Recto sound most are familiar with came from some Rev Fs and mostly the Rev G. These have that lower mid, bass heavy, low mid voicing... the modern Rectifier sound.

The Rev C is held in high regard for its clearer, more present, and tight tone. You really do not need to boost it... which is hard to imagine with a Rectifier.

Exactly...the C sounds way different. I’ve been in a room with a Rev. C, D, F and G...it was fun.

 

[Metal1977]

Nice score but it sounds thin compared to the unboosted Rev F and Multiwatt.

Yep. It is not nearly as thick, bass heavy, with way less lower mids in the voice. The orange channel is different as well. Not as clean.

The “classic” recorded Recto sound most are familiar with came from some Rev Fs and mostly the Rev G. These have that lower mid, bass heavy, low mid voicing... the modern Rectifier sound.

The Rev C is held in high regard for its clearer, more present, and tight tone. You really do not need to boost it... which is hard to imagine with a Rectifier.

If you had to choose only one between them, which one would you keep and why?

 

[PRS]

Very cool!

 

[Wizard of Ozz]

Nice score but it sounds thin compared to the unboosted Rev F and Multiwatt.

Yep. It is not nearly as thick, bass heavy, with way less lower mids in the voice. The orange channel is different as well. Not as clean.

The “classic” recorded Recto sound most are familiar with came from some Rev Fs and mostly the Rev G. These have that lower mid, bass heavy, low mid voicing... the modern Rectifier sound.

The Rev C is held in high regard for its clearer, more present, and tight tone. You really do not need to boost it... which is hard to imagine with a Rectifier.

If you had to choose only one between them, which one would you keep and why?

Tough question:

1. For straight up tight, focused high gain tone for classic metal (Metallica, Maiden), thrash, prog or power metal with no boost, overdrive pedal or anything extra needed... Rev C

2. Versatility with great cleans and mild overdrive along with high gain tones in one box: Multi-Watt

3. Classic ‘90s to modern agressive bass heavy classic Recto tone and grind... Rev F or Rev G

If people hear the a Rev C in person they will be shocked. Looks like a Recto... sounds like a Mark + Recto hybrid.

 

[Racerxrated]

Nice score but it sounds thin compared to the unboosted Rev F and Multiwatt.

Yep. It is not nearly as thick, bass heavy, with way less lower mids in the voice. The orange channel is different as well. Not as clean.

The “classic” recorded Recto sound most are familiar with came from some Rev Fs and mostly the Rev G. These have that lower mid, bass heavy, low mid voicing... the modern Rectifier sound.

The Rev C is held in high regard for its clearer, more present, and tight tone. You really do not need to boost it... which is hard to imagine with a Rectifier.

If you had to choose only one between them, which one would you keep and why?

Tough question:

1. For straight up tight, focused high gain tone for classic metal (Metallica, Maiden), thrash, prog or power metal with no boost, overdrive pedal or anything extra needed... Rev C

2. Versatility with great cleans and mild overdrive along with high gain tones in one box: Multi-Watt

3. Classic ‘90s to modern agressive bass heavy classic Recto tone and grind... Rev F or Rev G

If people hear the a Rev C in person they will be shocked. Looks like a Recto... sounds like a Mark + Recto hybrid.

In the room does the C have more clarity than the F or G? I'm thinking of sending the G Triple in to Mike B and have it modded to Rev C Dual Specs, if possible.

 

[Wizard of Ozz]

Nice score but it sounds thin compared to the unboosted Rev F and Multiwatt.

Yep. It is not nearly as thick, bass heavy, with way less lower mids in the voice. The orange channel is different as well. Not as clean.

The “classic” recorded Recto sound most are familiar with came from some Rev Fs and mostly the Rev G. These have that lower mid, bass heavy, low mid voicing... the modern Rectifier sound.

The Rev C is held in high regard for its clearer, more present, and tight tone. You really do not need to boost it... which is hard to imagine with a Rectifier.

If you had to choose only one between them, which one would you keep and why?

Tough question:

1. For straight up tight, focused high gain tone for classic metal (Metallica, Maiden), thrash, prog or power metal with no boost, overdrive pedal or anything extra needed... Rev C

2. Versatility with great cleans and mild overdrive along with high gain tones in one box: Multi-Watt

3. Classic ‘90s to modern agressive bass heavy classic Recto tone and grind... Rev F or Rev G

If people hear the a Rev C in person they will be shocked. Looks like a Recto... sounds like a Mark + Recto hybrid.

In the room does the C have more clarity than the F or G? I'm thinking of sending the G Triple in to Mike B and have it modded to Rev C Dual Specs, if possible.

A bit more. You get more sweep in the presence pot and more headroom with it in the C. If you want more of the tighter, faster Mark feel/sound... but the C does have less bass and not as chunky feeling. Overall I like the C a lot.

 

[Racerxrated]

Cool thanks for the info!

 

[Snave]

At least part of the difference can be imitated by running the presence really high on a later revision Recto. As the Recto guru NewWorldMan said, you can dial in a Rev G to sound like a Rev C but not the other way around.

 

[Racerxrated]

At least part of the difference can be imitated by running the presence really high on a later revision Recto. As the Recto guru NewWorldMan said, you can dial in a Rev G to sound like a Rev C but not the other way around.

I already run it pretty high..prob cuz I'm losing my upper range hearing. But playing REALLY loud is addicting.........I've never gigged as loud as I play at home lol...

 

[Dale B]

Is this the version with Soldano SLO circuit?

There are still some differences that make it more Recto sounding than the SLO which would be obvious. The output transformer in these Rectos is the same one from the non-Simul-class Mark 3. The plate voltage on the power tubes was about 20 mA lower on the one I had. The overal bandwidth EQ is similar.

The SLO OT is a HiFi type of OT. The ones Mesa tend to always use are what people dun as “underspecified” for the application, as core saturation is brought on much earlier.

Anyway, the SLO feels a little gooey, this Recro feels in-between the SLO and the later 2 channel ones. The highs aren’t as clear on this Recto as they are on the SLO.

Basically, it’s not the same, and it wasn’t intended to be that way. You can hear and feel the similarities. They’re both great amps for what they do.

My internet with this post is to share my thoughts on my experience with the two amps in question. Nothing is superior here. It’s just different with some similarities.

Cool amp!

 

[Wizard of Ozz]

At least part of the difference can be imitated by running the presence really high on a later revision Recto. As the Recto guru NewWorldMan said, you can dial in a Rev G to sound like a Rev C but not the other way around.

Well as I have them both in front of me... I wouldn't go that far. Still 2 different amps regardless of settings. Too far apart to cop the tones of the other. Swapping out the presence pot will help, but the mid voicing (upper vs lower is different). Also the amount/type of bass... a lot/a little... saturated/constrained.

 

[Fordman65]

Welcome to the "C" club. Big fan of the early recto's. Boosting mine with a Suhr KoKo Boost. Gets close enough to Mark territory for me. I had a C+ and the Rev C at the same time; ended up selling the C+. There are differences for sure, but the gap was not big enough to justify the price difference. Mesa tone is kind of Mesa tone, if that makes sense. All IMO.

I recently bought the AxeIII, which is holding up surprisingly well when compared to the real thing.

 

[Wizard of Ozz]

Is this the version with Soldano SLO circuit?

There are still some differences that make it more Recto sounding than the SLO which would be obvious. The output transformer in these Rectos is the same one from the non-Simul-class Mark 3. The plate voltage on the power tubes was about 20 mA lower on the one I had. The overal bandwidth EQ is similar.

The SLO OT is a HiFi type of OT. The ones Mesa tend to always use are what people dun as “underspecified” for the application, as core saturation is brought on much earlier.

Anyway, the SLO feels a little gooey, this Recro feels in-between the SLO and the later 2 channel ones. The highs aren’t as clear on this Recto as they are on the SLO.

Basically, it’s not the same, and it wasn’t intended to be that way. You can hear and feel the similarities. They’re both great amps for what they do.

My internet with this post is to share my thoughts on my experience with the two amps in question. Nothing is superior here. It’s just different with some similarities.

Cool amp!

+1 to all of this... and as a former three time SLO owner...

The different output/power transformers, power tubes, plate voltage (lower), additional preamp filtering (in the Recto), and fx loop layout... and the tone stack B/M/T is a little different... they sound pretty different to my ears. But you could intentionally dial them in close... but you'd never confuse one for the other.

 

[Dale B]

Is this the version with Soldano SLO circuit?

There are still some differences that make it more Recto sounding than the SLO which would be obvious. The output transformer in these Rectos is the same one from the non-Simul-class Mark 3. The plate voltage on the power tubes was about 20 mA lower on the one I had. The overal bandwidth EQ is similar.

The SLO OT is a HiFi type of OT. The ones Mesa tend to always use are what people dun as “underspecified” for the application, as core saturation is brought on much earlier.

Anyway, the SLO feels a little gooey, this Recro feels in-between the SLO and the later 2 channel ones. The highs aren’t as clear on this Recto as they are on the SLO.

Basically, it’s not the same, and it wasn’t intended to be that way. You can hear and feel the similarities. They’re both great amps for what they do.

My internet with this post is to share my thoughts on my experience with the two amps in question. Nothing is superior here. It’s just different with some similarities.

Cool amp!

I love autocorrect on this phone too. LOL

+1 to all of this... and as a former three time SLO owner...

The different output/power transformers, power tubes, plate voltage (lower), additional preamp filtering (in the Recto), and fx loop layout... and the tone stack B/M/T is a little different... they sound pretty different to my ears. But you could intentionally dial them in close... but you'd never confuse one for the other.

I love autocorrect on this phone too.

 

[Wizard of Ozz]

Welcome to the "C" club. Big fan of the early recto's. Boosting mine with a Suhr KoKo Boost. Gets close enough to Mark territory for me. I had a C+ and the Rev C at the same time; ended up selling the C+. There are differences for sure, but the gap was not big enough to justify the price difference. Mesa tone is kind of Mesa tone, if that makes sense. All IMO.

I recently bought the AxeIII, which is holding up surprisingly well when compared to the real thing.

Thanks!

+1 to your post. This is what I'm discovering too. The boosted Rev C is very, very Mark 3-ish to my ears. Which is a good thing in my book... as I love the MK3 tone. I want to add my Mesa 5 band equalizer pedal to the loop, set the "V" shape... and then see what happens.

 

[Metal1977]

Nice score but it sounds thin compared to the unboosted Rev F and Multiwatt.

Yep. It is not nearly as thick, bass heavy, with way less lower mids in the voice. The orange channel is different as well. Not as clean.

The “classic” recorded Recto sound most are familiar with came from some Rev Fs and mostly the Rev G. These have that lower mid, bass heavy, low mid voicing... the modern Rectifier sound.

The Rev C is held in high regard for its clearer, more present, and tight tone. You really do not need to boost it... which is hard to imagine with a Rectifier.

If you had to choose only one between them, which one would you keep and why?

Tough question:

1. For straight up tight, focused high gain tone for classic metal (Metallica, Maiden), thrash, prog or power metal with no boost, overdrive pedal or anything extra needed... Rev C

2. Versatility with great cleans and mild overdrive along with high gain tones in one box: Multi-Watt

3. Classic ‘90s to modern agressive bass heavy classic Recto tone and grind... Rev F or Rev G

If people hear the a Rev C in person they will be shocked. Looks like a Recto... sounds like a Mark + Recto hybrid.

I also notice from the pre-500 that switching between 6 string/7 string guitars doesn't need drastic changes in EQ settings. Its so raw and focused that it cuts easier in a band, you will be heard for sure!
Thanks!

 

[Scumback Speakers]

First big thank you to Jim Seavall @ Scumback Speakers for helping get this amp! Jim you are the man!! Thanks!!

You're welcome for the help, Wiz. I tested it out with a quad of M75 65w speakers, and the seller told me he'd never heard it sound that good before...and of course, was regretting selling it to you. LOL

I'm glad the packing job I did got it there in good shape, and no issues, now get off the keyboard and back on the fretboard with that monster! Enjoy.

Jim