Old vs New Recto's

[Rex Rocker]

Dude what I'm saying is that even though you think your tone is scooped it still has midrange in it because the guitar is a midrange instrument. If you take all of the midrange out of your tone it'll sound incredibly fucking shrill and thin. So even those so called "scooped tones" have midrange in them. It's just an inherent part of the guitars natural tone.

and when I say a blast of midrange I mean a big fat, balanced blast of midrange from 350hz to 3k, not just a narrow beam, like 700hz to 1k, like some little combo amps sound like. A full mid spectrum tone means a lot of different fequencies with no frequency spikes.

Yeah, well, I wouldn't run a Recto with the mids on 0 either, and yeah, there's always mids in there. I mean, many of us are using Vintage 30's, EMG's, and Tube Screamers. And that's exactly my point. You don't need to have the mids above 5 either for an amp to sound good (depends on the amp, obvisously), and many people do that out of vanity nowadays because they've been sold on the notion that d00d u n33d midz to cut through. Much like Fluff does (to be completely honest, I haven't seen the settings he used in the video, but I do know he dials a 5150's mids high ?).

Honestly, a Recto's (as well as a 5150's) mid knob is centered around a frequency that when you have them up, they just sound weird/bad (IMO, of course). It's not the same as many other amps'.

And I think an excess of 350 sounds like pure mud, personally. And it's easy for things to start getting honky around 600-800.

And also, a low E string's fundamental is like 80 something Hz. And that's not even taking into account downtuning.

 

[Racerxrated]

I don't doubt your experience, but that still doesn't sound very objective. So the Rev C has more extended bottom end than like a Multiwatt? OK, but there are many amps that have more extended bottom end than a Multiwatt, and that doesn't necessarily make them better.

I mean, I'd sitlll love to own a classic two channel Rev-whatever one time for sure. But honestly, just because that's what some of the tones I like were recorded with. It will probably sound "better" to me, but that's just going to be my perception. Not something quantifiable.

Unless someone goes ahead and says they were using better components/transformers/tubes back then. Now that would be somewhat more objective. And I mean, tubes? OK, I think that's common knowledge, but components? Transformers? Designs, even?

And I mean, after all, even the oldest Recto is by far newer than a 50's Bassman or AC-30. I mean, those are cool amps, but I have absolutely no use for them compared to a Dual Recto for the style of music that I play.

Is a Rev G triple great? Of course. Boosted, even better. Had a few really good Gs not many years ago. I like them way more than a G dual, which I could not dial the 'bloat' out no matter how I eq'd it, or boosted it..MWs I tried are also killer.
But I was always wondering about an F Triple. Finally scored one, and while it wasn't too far off the G triple it had something going on in the tone that the G didn't have...more harmonic content maybe? Hard to put my finger on it. Ended up selling it, but a year later got another F Triple. Same thing, just had something there that was unique...and this one sounded even better than the first F I had. Now I have a C dual and this thing is a brighter version of the F Triple I had, with even more harmonic content. And, it pushes air like its a Triple. First Recto I've played that has a monster power section/push. They usually are underpowered and saturates in a bad way pretty fast up the MV range.
Hard to put my finger on why these early Rectos have some 'special sauce' but after 2 Fs and one C, it's undeniable to me that they are special.

Maybe not to everyone, and they aren't cheap...but they sound friggin amazing.

 

[Rex Rocker]

Yes, the more extended bottom end doesn’t make it better like you said, I just meant that it’s an undeniable difference that even a deaf person would notice from that physical push it gives. I think it’s better because it’s there if desired, makes the sound heavier, and somehow doesn’t seem to interfere or muddy anything up. It’s also more cutting than the later revisions from its more aggressive upper frequencies

I can’t say about amps or whether components are objectively better, but I do know that some vintage components can’t be replicated the same way now such as the formvar wire used on vintage pickups and the ingredients of the nitro finish back then also had a bit different ingredients

Yes of course those ‘50’s & ‘60’s amps you mentioned are not voiced appropriately to be suitable for metal, but I own or have owned in the past those amps as well and while they’re not metal amps, they sound even more raw & organic that later made amps (even in the ‘70’s), so I hear them as in many ways having better quality tone, but just not the right tools for the job. If there was a metal amp with that quality I’d be in Heaven lol. A good ‘50’s tweed champ is perhaps the most raw sounding amp I’ve tried thus far and if you boost it and use high output pickups I think many would be amazed how ballsy & aggressive it gets and pushes way farther than you’d think a 5w should be doing

BTW, I'm not disagreeing with you. I would take an 80's C+ over a Mark VII any day of the week. But I think that just takes me back to my point. We perceive those amps are better because that's what we've heard and associate with good tone. It's those amps working their "magic". But I don't really think it's magic as much as to what our perception of good tone has been shaped to be from hearing all those sounds from the past. Yes, both you and me enjoy the experience of playing an old amp, but that's just because of what we're perceiving. Not because there is an objective reason as to why those amps are better. JMO.

I mean, even nowadays, Mark III's are starting to catch up when many people viewed them as undesirable at some point. And 70's Gibsons.

 

[braintheory]

BTW, I'm not disagreeing with you. I would take an 80's C+ over a Mark VII any day of the week. But I think that just takes me back to my point. We perceive those amps are better because that's what we've heard and associate with good tone. It's those amps working their "magic". But I don't really think it's magic as much as to what our perception of good tone has been shaped to be from hearing all those sounds from the past. Yes, both you and me enjoy the experience of playing an old amp, but that's just because of what we're perceiving. Not because there is an objective reason as to why those amps are better. JMO.

I mean, even nowadays, Mark III's are starting to catch up when many people viewed them as undesirable at some point.

It’s not in my case from what I’ve heard in recordings. I form my opinions from AB’ing these amps in person. Some of the few great modern amps I’ve got have no solid recordings or any bands using them to influence me. They’re just great amps in quality of tone that I enjoy even more than many vintage ones, but they still don’t have the same raw/organic quality to them. I don’t care about trying to make things objective. I care about getting the most impressive sounds to my ears. This is art anyway, so by nature I don’t know how productive it is to try and make it objective. We have music theory to try to make to make it more explainable why some musical ideas are effective and others aren’t, but it still can’t account for what makes some musical ideas truly moving and others that for whatever reason don’t do it

Also, with these older amps the aspects that make them sound better (more raw, organic, tonally complex) are very hard to tell just from listening to famous recordings of them. It’s the in person experience I have AB’ing these amps that made it painfully obvious that the later ones just comparatively sucked sadly

 

[thegame]

For some reason we always seem to hype up early versions of something as the far superior product and I’m not totally sure why? I can’t believe every amp or pedal company says “hey this is great, let’s fuck it up”, especially higher end companies like mesa or bogner that I would think want to put out the best product they can. I really wanted the old mesa to win here, maybe cause it’s just programmed into my brain “old is better” and vintage is cool but if I was to pick blind folded it would be the new one

Not quite. By that logic most would prefer a MK A, B, or C over a C + and most don't. Most amps (or products in general) have a target price point. To make an amp, X years later, sound as good/same as a previous version would likely overshoot a given price point due to having to procure custom made parts in much lower quantities to replace/replicate certain out of production pieces. Even then, it's no guarantee that particular endeavour would be a success.

 

[braintheory]

Not quite. By that logic most would prefer a MK A, B, or C over a C + and most don't. Most amps (or products in general) have a target price point. To make an amp, X years later, sound as good/same as a previous version would likely overshoot a given price point due to having to procure custom made parts in much lower quantities to replace/replicate certain out of production pieces. Even then, it's no guarantee that particular endeavour would be a success.

Racerxrated liked one of his C’s more than the C+’s. That’s the one mark amp I’ve not tried yet (other than a mark 7 of course lol). I found the Mark I, IIA & AB’s actually to sound more raw & organic in some ways, but the C+ just I think hit the sweet spot with the voicing & feel to make it more likeable. I think it has a more sophisticated, refined tone than the other marks, but refined in a real way, not the bs diplomatic way like when guys say Friedman’s sound refined (they don’t imo, just bland)

 

[RaceU4her]

It's really very simple...the earlier ones sound better. Almost every time. I run the same pedals in front of each different Recto revision I've owned, and through the same cab(s). Same with the C+s I've owned. Now, I've had many 2Bs and the LATER C+ sounds better...there's the exception lol.

But, maybe it's the aging of the components? Then again, not much time difference between a C and a G recto. Huge circuit differences though. Hype would be someone that hasn't played a certain amp, chiming in on how great it is. But they have no experience with it, just regurgitating what they heard on the net.
Is it the transformers? We all know they aren't made anymore. I guess the only way to know would be if Mesa did an exact copy of a Rev C today and compared it to an original. Of course, they did an exact copy of a C+ HRG and the JP, as good as it is still sounds/feels different than a vintage C+.

The problem with this video comp is, I suspect Fluff darkened the D so it would sound like the MW as close as possible; but I'd bet if I dialed in the D it would end up far brighter than the MW could even be dialed. MW are great, no doubt. But unless you're in the room, you rely on a clip which still can hide nuances that you won't get listening on headphones/speakers on your computer.

you say they sound better and more aggressive and Purity says the exact opposite, this is why clips are great. i honestly would have picked them backwards, i thought the earlier versions were tighter with more mids but that seems to be the MW in this video.

 

[braintheory]

BTW, I'm not disagreeing with you. I would take an 80's C+ over a Mark VII any day of the week. But I think that just takes me back to my point. We perceive those amps are better because that's what we've heard and associate with good tone. It's those amps working their "magic". But I don't really think it's magic as much as to what our perception of good tone has been shaped to be from hearing all those sounds from the past. Yes, both you and me enjoy the experience of playing an old amp, but that's just because of what we're perceiving. Not because there is an objective reason as to why those amps are better. JMO.

I mean, even nowadays, Mark III's are starting to catch up when many people viewed them as undesirable at some point. And 70's Gibsons.

Also those mark iii’s I always thought were great amps and the best cheap alternative (along with a iv) to a c+. I was shocked that I was able to get them for $700-800 before Covid and yet others seemed to not talk about them. Those 2203/4’s also imo criminally underpriced before Covid and now just priced imo where they should be based on quality of sound

I’ve still not loved any ‘70’s or ‘80’s Gibsons I’ve tried. Some of them have some really great sleeper pickups in them, but the guitars themselves IME generally had that “furniture with strings attached” sound to them vs the earlier ones with good tone. Maybe they skimped on wood quality? I don’t know what it was. I sold all the norlin LPC’s & RD I had before Covid sadly and just kept my 1978 Gibson S1 just because the pickups give it a a unique sound, but the guitar itself inherently still has that furniture sound to it that I don’t like

 

[braintheory]

you say they sound better and more aggressive and Purity says the exact opposite, this is why clips are great. i honestly would have picked them backwards, i thought the earlier versions were tighter with more mids but that seems to be the MW in this video.

I have a Rev C as well and it’s definitely more aggressive & punchy. In any in-person scenario where it’s not (not clips) either the amp needs a trip to the tech or the listener has questionable hearing. And I’ve tried one other Rev C fwiw besides the one I have. If we relied on clips for this info we’d miss out on experiencing so much amazing gear including your c+, Hermansson & Cameron’s. I honestly thought the Hermansson’s sounded quite bad in the clips I’ve heard on YT (too hollow & brittle), but in person both the 2 ones I tried were very impressive. No valid substitute for trying in-person imo

 

[braintheory]

Is a Rev G triple great? Of course. Boosted, even better. Had a few really good Gs not many years ago. I like them way more than a G dual, which I could not dial the 'bloat' out no matter how I eq'd it, or boosted it..MWs I tried are also killer.
But I was always wondering about an F Triple. Finally scored one, and while it wasn't too far off the G triple it had something going on in the tone that the G didn't have...more harmonic content maybe? Hard to put my finger on it. Ended up selling it, but a year later got another F Triple. Same thing, just had something there that was unique...and this one sounded even better than the first F I had. Now I have a C dual and this thing is a brighter version of the F Triple I had, with even more harmonic content. And, it pushes air like its a Triple. First Recto I've played that has a monster power section/push. They usually are underpowered and saturates in a bad way pretty fast up the MV range.
Hard to put my finger on why these early Rectos have some 'special sauce' but after 2 Fs and one C, it's undeniable to me that they are special.

Maybe not to everyone, and they aren't cheap...but they sound friggin amazing.

Maybe to those where it’s “not everyone”, those guys also think from concentrate juice tastes better than fresh squeezed lol. The only thing I’d say is with my C, it pushes beyond a typical 100w amp like you said, but vs my triple or coli there’s still an extra efficiency or ease with how they put out sound. I think 100w amps just have to work a bit harder when doing so, but that extra work can also be in some ways a more interesting sound

 

[TheGreatGreen]

Saying "the guitar is a midrange instrument" because it technically contains a non-zero amount of mid frequency content is a pretty pedantic, incredibly broad statement though. Literally nobody thinks the guitar is an instrument for creating signal in two entirely segregated areas of the frequency spectrum so yeah it's always going to have *some* mids. However the saying also doesn't define what exactly "mid range" actually is, nor does it comment on what the ratio of lows, mids, and highs should be. So in that sense, every guitar sound ever recorded is "a midrange-centric" guitar tone.

To go the other way, insisting that the guitar should always have its loudest content centered at 1 kHz because of some dogma about "the guitar is supposed to be for MIDS" is silly. If that's not what you mean, you might need to be more specific than just saying "the guitar is a midrange instrument."

 

[braintheory]

Saying "the guitar is a midrange instrument" because it technically contains a non-zero amount of mid frequency content is a pretty pedantic, incredibly broad statement though. Literally nobody thinks the guitar is an instrument for creating signal in two entirely segregated areas of the frequency spectrum so yeah it's always going to have *some* mids. However the saying also doesn't define what exactly "mid range" actually is, nor does it comment on what the ratio of lows, mids, and highs should be. So in that sense, every guitar sound ever recorded is "a midrange-centric" guitar tone.

To go the other way, insisting that the guitar should always have its loudest content centered at 1 kHz because of some dogma about "the guitar is supposed to be for MIDS" is silly. If that's not what you mean, you might need to be more specific than just saying "the guitar is a midrange instrument."

It’s not as bad as the “tone is in the fingers” saying, but it can belong on the same list of bad popular sayings haha. Imo there should be a healthy balance of frequencies, but I want the midrange (other frequencies too, more so midrange) not too necessarily be louder or more emphasized, but to have a complex & growly character to it like on a good Marshall. I consider the opposite of this to be a hollow sound and I especially hate how Splawn QR’s have a very emphasized, but poor character & complexity to the midrange, so you get each powerchord sounding quacky/peaky, like emphasized mids that sound like there are weird notches or filters

 

[RaceU4her]

Is a Rev G triple great? Of course. Boosted, even better. Had a few really good Gs not many years ago. I like them way more than a G dual, which I could not dial the 'bloat' out no matter how I eq'd it, or boosted it..MWs I tried are also killer.
But I was always wondering about an F Triple. Finally scored one, and while it wasn't too far off the G triple it had something going on in the tone that the G didn't have...more harmonic content maybe? Hard to put my finger on it. Ended up selling it, but a year later got another F Triple. Same thing, just had something there that was unique...and this one sounded even better than the first F I had. Now I have a C dual and this thing is a brighter version of the F Triple I had, with even more harmonic content. And, it pushes air like its a Triple. First Recto I've played that has a monster power section/push. They usually are underpowered and saturates in a bad way pretty fast up the MV range.
Hard to put my finger on why these early Rectos have some 'special sauce' but after 2 Fs and one C, it's undeniable to me that they are special.

Maybe not to everyone, and they aren't cheap...but they sound friggin amazing.

man i love my tripleG. GJgo said i have left over F parts i think so maybe i got a good one

 

[VESmedic]

Yeah, well, I wouldn't run a Recto with the mids on 0 either, and yeah, there's always mids in there. I mean, many of us are using Vintage 30's, EMG's, and Tube Screamers. And that's exactly my point. You don't need to have the mids above 5 either for an amp to sound good (depends on the amp, obvisously), and many people do that out of vanity nowadays because they've been sold on the notion that d00d u n33d midz to cut through. Much like Fluff does (to be completely honest, I haven't seen the settings he used in the video, but I do know he dials a 5150's mids high ?).

Honestly, a Recto's (as well as a 5150's) mid knob is centered around a frequency that when you have them up, they just sound weird/bad (IMO, of course). It's not the same as many other amps'.

And I think an excess of 350 sounds like pure mud, personally. And it's easy for things to start getting honky around 600-800.

And also, a low E string's fundamental is like 80 something Hz. And that's not even taking into account downtuning.

Mannnnn if I had to pick ONE frequency that continuously gets cut in…. Well, just about any instrument, it would be 350hz! Or 330, or 300, something around there. That range sounds absolutely garbage on just about anything. I’m not saying it needs to be gone from a mix completely, but it sure as hell doesn’t get boosted, and that range sounds absolutely terrible on just about any drum as well.

@anomaly I know what you are saying about guitars being a midrange instrument, all I’m saying is all these arbitrary ideas people come up with about guitars in a mix just doesn’t really equate to how things are in the real world. I can make a guitar sound choked and distant with tons of mids, and cut like a knife with scooped mids. It’s all about the mix. But generally speaking, tones that people think are mid heavy, in general aren’t even close to that. Most modern signal chains have excessive midrange ( 5150, Mesa cab, 808, sm57 for example), and it needs to be cut drastically sometimes to not sound like a bloated body mess. 350-500hz is the enemy of all things guitar, or mixing in general.

 

[Brandonrz]

Mannnnn if I had to pick ONE frequency that continuously gets cut in…. Well, just about any instrument, it would be 350hz! Or 330, or 300, something around there. That range sounds absolutely garbage on just about anything. I’m not saying it needs to be gone from a mix completely, but it sure as hell doesn’t get boosted, and that range sounds absolutely terrible on just about any drum as well.

@anomaly I know what you are saying about guitars being a midrange instrument, all I’m saying is all these arbitrary ideas people come up with about guitars in a mix just doesn’t really equate to how things are in the real world. I can make a guitar sound choked and distant with tons of mids, and cut like a knife with scooped mids. It’s all about the mix. But generally speaking, tones that people think are mid heavy, in general aren’t even close to that. Most modern signal chains have excessive midrange ( 5150, Mesa cab, 808, sm57 for example), and it needs to be cut drastically sometimes to not sound like a bloated body mess. 350-500hz is the enemy of all things guitar, or mixing in general.

Yes. This is why bands that have been around the block and know how to dial their stuff in sound good live, and local ones sound like ass…no idea what to do. Honestly I was guilty of it in my teenage years, not knowing that literally everything is making the guitar mid forward (57, v30, etc) and not to crank the mids on the knob. Just like you don’t put your gain on 10.

Heck even in that new Josh Middleton plug in he says if you run the mids on a 5150 over 2, you’re going to have a bad time lol.

 

[thegame]

"Cutting the mids" isn't specific enough to properly analyze various sounds. Lots of old school thrash tones are very scooped in the lower mids, yet have tons of upper mid content to them. Otherwise, where does that in your face crunch come from? Some modern tones I hear are literally the opposite of that.

 

[Racerxrated]

man i love my tripleG. GJgo said i have left over F parts i think so maybe i got a good one

They can be killer...the first one I had was a blackout serial 3400 or so; great amp. Next one was a black/chrome, in the 4K range but wasn't nearly as good as the first one. Still good tho....but the 2 Fs I had were a step up for sure. Kinda like your C+.....compared to other Marks, your C+ has something extra going on..however you want to describe it...it's real, and you can hear the obvious differences. This is very similar to the early Rectos I've owned. The later ones are great, the earlier ones on another level IMO.

 

[Tone Junkie]

One day those old two channel rectifiers gonna fetch prices like the late 60’s early 70’s Marshall Plexis.
Wait for it.
A whole generation of kids grew up listening to bands who played them.
Regardless of what any of us think of them.

 

[braintheory]

man i love my tripleG. GJgo said i have left over F parts i think so maybe i got a good one

You wanna trade it now for a MW after watching fluff’s clip?

 

[dead-pan]

I had a 2010 Triple that would punch the fuck out any other amp. Sold it. Regretted it. Bought a 50th Anniversary Triple. Looks sick, sounds different. Took a bit of tube rolling and an eq in the loop and it kills. My Triple Rev G is insane. Tight and brutal. Rev G Dual is not as brutal but does the 90s thing for days. 1994 Tremoverb was mid busting city. I mean crushing mids. 2002 or so Tremoverb sucked. Mini Reco when they were released lame. Three channel dual, not too far off the 2010 Triple but less punch and a bit more raw. Single Rec, well, tiny ass OT so what do you expect?