GJgo
Well-known member
There is, Beyond Black & others have had their Gs modded to C spec by Mike B.
SLO vs. the ripoff Rev C Dual Recto- Have you actually played them both?
- Thread starter GJgo
- Start date
Racerxrated
Well-known member
It brings it closer; but Mike B would say it will still be different because the board layout is different. I did a few very simple and easily reversible mods to my F Triple; jumped 4 resistors, bypassed 1 LDR and changed the gain pots to a higher value. The amp got brighter, a little clearer but the Red/Modern became more 'organic' or just more similar to the Orange/Modern; with more upper mids. The transformers are the same according to Mike B, with the advantage going to later version Rectos as those early C/D versions could have issues if you run them with 16 ohm cabs. Which led to some transformer replacements.
These mods are found on the Boogie Board. Very easy to do.
rstites
Well-known member
There's no controversy about this. The early Recto (maybe all) lift the SLO preamp channel. It has some fairly unique part selections in it that are shared, and are not going to be selected by chance by two manufacturers. This is akin to reading a book and seeing that whole sections were lifted verbatim from another book you've read. It just takes being fluent in English (or electronics to the original topic) to immediately see this. If they'd both started independently with the Marshall 2203 that those designs clearly derive from, they would have had slightly different parts selections at a few points, even it topology and overall design were similar otherwise. That's all EE me speaking.
While, we're at it, the SLO definitely doesn't show any Mark DNA. Neither does the Recto. It's easy to see that the Mk's start as Fender designs and add stages to get more gain from that. They're a very unique design. I'm not familiar with any other high gain amp that starts from there. Pretty much everyone else starts with a Marshall and builds from there. You can see this pretty easily in schematics, again. Guitar amplifiers are not complex circuits and share a lot of anachronistic concepts in them that are gone from the electronics world for years/decades.
Now, I'm sure they sound different. I've played a number of Rectos over the years, but couldn't possibly tell you which iterations, so no idea what I was ever comparing. None of the rectos have ever sounded like the SLO. However, your tonal descriptions don't really match my experience with the rectos either. I wouldn't describe any of them as tight or in any way fast responding, so don't know. I also own a '93 SLO. I wouldn't describe it's tone the way you described the SLO tone either, but then sound descriptions are definitely subjective.
……no
SLO BIGGER in the bottom end? That’s hillarious.
Extremely close? Get your hearing checked….
rstites
Well-known member
That's interesting. I have a '93 SLO. I bought it via mail way back. It's the only SLO I've played, so I really don't know how much they vary. It definitely defies a few the internet myths I hear about SLOs. I always assume those are just perpetuated by guys who really haven't played one or just demo'd them in the store or something. Maybe they just varied that much. There really aren't that many of them out there, so hard to tell.
I always compare the SLO to my old Marshalls (which I've played tons of). It reacts like many of them overall. Nobody ever complained that you can't play metal on a Marshall 2203. If they can do it, so can the SLO. The SLO is a bit more polite, so I'd probably go the Marshall route personally for that sound, but the SLO is in the same space. I can make either work.
EDIT: Oops, I have played few of them in the store, but still store demos, not in real action. (Can't recall the name of that place - northern Twin Cities 'burbs about 15-20 years ago? Getting old....)
I have owned and gigged both. I had a Rev C I picked up used in '93. ...#43 possibly? It was a very early one and long before anyone was concerned about revisions. (I traded it to a guy from, if memory serves, OH in the late '90s via the old HC forums) I bought an '02 SLO in '08 which I still have. Not having them at the same time might not be a completely fair assessment but they are different enough to not cloud my memory. You can look at them and know they're very different animals. The SLO has a shared eq and none of the options that the DR has, different power stage as mentioned etc. All of this influences what comes out of the speakers. ....and neither of them are what I would consider tight.
When I was building a SLO clone type amp I did a lot of research into this circuit and really found out how many amps lifted the design of the SLO but also had very much there own sound or sounded nothing like the SLO. The Rectifiers are no different. Having different voltages, transformer specifications, and how Mesa lifts the feedback circuit in the power amp and reconfigures the presence control to be a treble cut in the tone stack (in modern mode) really changes the tone of the amp, of course there are other things contrubting to the differences like the LDR's not fully turning off in the circuit and the design of the effects loop to name a few.. When the amp is in vintage mode on the orange channel is when the amp is most like the SLO circuit and will find somewhat simular tones there.
I Owned a Rev. C that I got when I had a Mesa deal back in 1992. Sold it a few years ago. Buddy of mine at our rehearsal space had an SLO and we used to compare them and use them together quite a bit.
The thing about the C is that it had the same type of "sizzle" or "bite" in the top end as the SLO, but the bottom end was quite different between the two. I pretty much always ran orange mode and with some EQ changes I could dial it in to be very close to the SLO. The Power section in the Mesa made a big difference to my ears as well and because of that I have never heard a Recto sound Exact to an SLO.Close, but just a different flavor if that makes sense. I'm sorry I never tried just the using the preamp and going into an external poweramp but I honestly wasnt that interested.
Someone asked why didnt they just keep the Rev. C if it sounded so good? I had this discussion with Mark Snyder on one of my many times visiting the place. Lots of people at the time were complaining that the clean channel sucked so they were trying to accommodate those guys without altering the overall sound of the amp. Altering the clean also altered the overall sound of the amp. Today that wouldnt really have mattered, but in 1992 when this amp debuted, people were used to that "Boogie Clean" from the Mark series. Not having a usable clean was a deal breaker for a lot of people back then.
The thing about the C is that it had the same type of "sizzle" or "bite" in the top end as the SLO, but the bottom end was quite different between the two. I pretty much always ran orange mode and with some EQ changes I could dial it in to be very close to the SLO. The Power section in the Mesa made a big difference to my ears as well and because of that I have never heard a Recto sound Exact to an SLO.Close, but just a different flavor if that makes sense. I'm sorry I never tried just the using the preamp and going into an external poweramp but I honestly wasnt that interested.
Someone asked why didnt they just keep the Rev. C if it sounded so good? I had this discussion with Mark Snyder on one of my many times visiting the place. Lots of people at the time were complaining that the clean channel sucked so they were trying to accommodate those guys without altering the overall sound of the amp. Altering the clean also altered the overall sound of the amp. Today that wouldnt really have mattered, but in 1992 when this amp debuted, people were used to that "Boogie Clean" from the Mark series. Not having a usable clean was a deal breaker for a lot of people back then.
mooncobra
Well-known member
Rectifiers copied the SLO which was “inspired by” earlier Mark series Mesas which were created when Randall started modifying Fenders.
At the end of the day the only original builder with tonz for dayz is Billy Blades. Legend has it, Elon Musk copied a Blades amp and started Tesla.
This is absolutely true, within the center of every Tesla engine is a bladez amp, it rocks so hard, that musk figured out how to harness the immense rock (he made a 3 fret fretboard, used specially designed Tesla pickups, and a robotic arm to repeatedly strike a powerful note) to power his cars. Everyone knows that, but what they don’t know, is that when musk hooked up an AI to the bladez that the amp took control of the AI and delivered the blue prints for space x, as well as powering the rocket engines to beast through the stratosphere. Turns out everything bladez said about his own greatness (and I was a lot!) was true.
blackba
Well-known member
Let’s keep in mind when we say nothing alike on a gear forum, that is cause we know the ins and outs. We are tuned into the differences.
I haven’t played either of the amps, but after repairing a jet city jca20 and a single recto, it made me want a Soldano. So I got the hr25, which I love. I later got to repair another jca20 and yes it’s significantly different than the hr25, but I can hear the dna.
I haven’t played either of the amps, but after repairing a jet city jca20 and a single recto, it made me want a Soldano. So I got the hr25, which I love. I later got to repair another jca20 and yes it’s significantly different than the hr25, but I can hear the dna.
se7en
Active member
Rectos have a stiff feel that makes me feel like I'm always fighting the amp. I absolutely HATE playing lead on them. That said I like the rhythm tone when cranked and layered with other more midrange heavy amps. Maybe Mark Tremonti's MT100 will be a "better Recto" for my tastes.
As far as the SLO goes, they have a lot of high mids which makes them sound strident with V30's so use Greenbacks or 65's. The low end is not something most understand because when you have it cranked at 12 o'clock or higher the low end fills out and the amp comes alive with an amazing feel under the fingers. I think Mike Soldano sought out to create a better Mesa Mark series amp that removed any mud whatsoever. There is a smoothness to the SLO which makes it one of my less favorite rhythm guitar amps but the lead tone is one of the best there is. If you want to cut thru the mix with confidence the SLO is the amp for you. You will always be heard (for better or worse). The honesty of the amp turns some off as they're now hearing their mistakes more clearly, but if you can really rip you'll be rewarded for it.
As far as the SLO goes, they have a lot of high mids which makes them sound strident with V30's so use Greenbacks or 65's. The low end is not something most understand because when you have it cranked at 12 o'clock or higher the low end fills out and the amp comes alive with an amazing feel under the fingers. I think Mike Soldano sought out to create a better Mesa Mark series amp that removed any mud whatsoever. There is a smoothness to the SLO which makes it one of my less favorite rhythm guitar amps but the lead tone is one of the best there is. If you want to cut thru the mix with confidence the SLO is the amp for you. You will always be heard (for better or worse). The honesty of the amp turns some off as they're now hearing their mistakes more clearly, but if you can really rip you'll be rewarded for it.
Last edited:
Racerxrated
Well-known member
I would add that, while I agree with Rev G or newer Rectos having a less than desirable lead tone the earlier version (F or earlier) have a pretty nice lead tone, in my experience.
Not to the SLO level though.
PurityS.L.G
Well-known member
I couldn't give a shit about the hoopla of this topic as to me its asinine. The low end chatter is what drives me mad and the most baffled. I had a bone stock '98 SLO and then later in 2008 a mid 2000's SLO loaded with the Haynes and depth mods. The depth mod was a certain improvement over stock but still couldn't even hold a candle to half of what the Recto puts out. All it is just people who want to gloat about their expensive purchases they made and justify it with false claims to ease their shortcomings.
With that said, I like the SLO and it was legendary for a reason at the timeframe of its release but its not even in my top 10 of favorite amps personally. Times have changed. MUCH more versatile amps out there IMO. Not to mention you still have to crank this amp pretty damn loud to sound its best. I'm not a bedroom player. I crank my amps. The ones I own have awesome master volumes and sound amazing at both lower and loud volumes.
PurityS.L.G
Well-known member
How do you like your Rev E? I had an opportunity on CL to play one and I cancelled on the guy like a douche to get some poonNever played a C, but I absolutely love my Rev E (thanks @SBlue). I’ve owned 2 SLO’s and they were just ok. Nothing special IMO.
All this talk makes me want to mod my G into a C but I honestly don't want to sacrifice my clean tone. I actually enjoy the clean and pushed modes of my G. However I wouldn't mind a Rev C high gain channel either so I'm a bit split on the idea.Jack Luminous
Well-known member
You didn't get the memo apparently. The SLO cannot do metal. Even less "modern" metal (whatever that is). It can perhaps do old 70s blues and rock but hardly. It's a farty, fuzzy, muddy, undefined mess. Attack is slow and not tight enough. Not percussive in the least. Squish city. It cannot be in the same time-space continuum as a 2203 that defined the sound of thrash metal and was used by Fredrik Thordendal of Meshuggah to invent djent and everything that modern metal is about. Oups....
Those threads are always great fun. I read them then go back to the studio where I fire up the 2203, rev G Dual rec and SLO that are plugged in the amp switcher and start playing while shaking my head. LOL
Last edited:
Racerxrated
Well-known member
Check out the G to C recto mods on the Boogie Board…I did some of them (jumping 4 resistors, bypassing 1 LDR, and changing the gain pots) and it became a little brighter, the Red became more ‘organic’ like the Orange modern, but with better mids and the clean is usable but a little dirty-cleans up with guitar vol). Super easy and reversible. I never touched the board.How do you like your Rev E? I had an opportunity on CL to play one and I cancelled on the guy like a douche to get some poon
AmpliFIRE
Well-known member
How do you like your Rev E? I had an opportunity on CL to play one and I cancelled on the guy like a douche to get some poon
It's absolutely killer. I've owned various recto revisions over the years and the E is my fav (the triple multi watt is my 2nd fav). The E is clearer, more balanced and not harsh compared the other revisions I've owned. Still has that punishing recto tone of course. It's also extremely quiet
PurityS.L.G
Well-known member
Relax. Nobody is saying any of that. This thread is about the ludicrous claims of it sounding like a recto. I've never understood any of that and others who have experience with both amps will tell you the same. The SLO is killer and responsible for the birth of some of the best high gainers out in the market today.
scottosan
Well-known member
They are very alike in the preamp. The main difference is in the power section. They lifted the design no doubt. To me they sound different as well, but ultimately it’s about the mix and in a mix the SLO will cut so much better than the MesaThat SLO thread has gotten pretty intense, so maybe people have more to stay still.
I've been wondering. There's all the controversy about how Randall ripped off Mike and the original Recto circuit, Rev C presumably, is basically a direct copy. I've read all about it. Everyone copies everyone else's designs, the power sections are different, blah blah.
A few months ago I had a BAD SLO for a few weeks. I jammed it at home and also rehearsed & did a gig with it. I was extremely impressed with the tone, but it wasn't my style so I moved it.
Last week I was fortunate enough to acquire a DR Rev C. I've been playing the $hit out of it. It is exactly my tone & it's going nowhere.
Here's where I'm confused. THEY ARE NOTHING ALIKE! Well ok, they both do have excellent upper mids & cut in the band mix. Oh and they both have crappy cleans. That aside..
The Rev C is TIGHT as hell- oddly so for a Recto. The SLO is very soft in the ass. Even softer than a Rev G Dual. So soft a boost can't fix it (for me).
The Rev C has most excellent rhythm characteristics for metal. The SLO has most excellent rhythm characteristics for rock.
The Rev C has a so-so lead tone. The SLO has an all-time lead tone. I will definitely give it that win.
They both have big power sections, but how they present is different. Can't really describe it well, though.
I can EASILY see how a guy would prefer one over the other depending on his playing style, and after reading about it for years I'm baffled about one being compared to the other.
What am I missing?