Triple Recto Rev G vs "C Modded" Rev G

GJgo

GJgo

Well-known member
So for my latest trick I picked up a really killer sounding Rev G Triple Rec and loved it just like it was. Unfortunately I can't leave well enough alone so I sent it in to Mesa for a service & had Mike B. do his "Rev C" mod as well as convert it to a serial loop. I've had umpteen Rectos of all flavors including a very early Rev C so I wanted to C how this stacked up. C what I did there?

When I got the amp back 6 weeks later my first impression was a mixed bag of emotions. Thinking about how unreliable my opinions are over all that time, I remembered that before I set it in I reamped one of my band's songs through the amp stock- and I still had everything set up in the studio just how I left it so I referenced a photo to dial the knobs exactly the same and re-reamped it so we could get a proper close mic comparison of before & after the mod. Here's the test, check it out. What do you hear?

One thing I will add, looking at the stems in the DAW the Rev C modded version has more pronounced peaks where the stock version looks more squished. FWIW.. Time stamps-

In The Mix
Rev G 1:15
Modded to C 2:22
Rev G 3:23
Modded to C 4:31

Guitar Only
Rev G 5:13
Modded to C 6:20
Rev G 7:21
Modded to C 8:29

 
Seems like the Rev G sounds a bit more harsh to me for some reason, like there's an upper frequency my brain doesn't like somewhere. The Rev C mod despite the stems sounds less "peaky" and doesn't have it.
 
That just made me feel that anyone paying 1000’s more for a C is nuts. It seemed any difference could be achieved with the right boost (more EQ variance than drive) or an actuall EQ, either up front or in the loop. The difference was so slight it could be the difference between two G’s.
 
Are there any boosts in this or just straight up amp? The C definitely sounds like it has more aggression, wondering if it negates the need for a boost. I'm also curious as to what components Mike B changed out to make it a Rev C.
 
I have to agree here the amp sounds like it’s balls were cut off in the C like it has less gain on tap. Yes it has less fizz but it also sounds more anemic. You could have flipped the titles and I’d believed you.

I know I’ve heard C’s that sound better than G’s but with this amp it sounded great as a G.
 
skoora said:
That just made me feel that anyone paying 1000’s more for a C is nuts. It seemed any difference could be achieved with the right boost (more EQ variance than drive) or an actuall EQ, either up front or in the loop. The difference was so slight it could be the difference between two G’s.
Click to expand...
If your goal is recording, yes for the reasons you stated, it is nuts. See below.

If your goal is in the room, I promise just like a IIC+ vs a JP2C, there is a big difference in feels and that's what you're paying for. The early serial Rev C I had had feels and lead tone on par with a IIC+. No joke.



 
vultures said:
Are there any boosts in this or just straight up amp? The C definitely sounds like it has more aggression, wondering if it negates the need for a boost. I'm also curious as to what components Mike B changed out to make it a Rev C.
Click to expand...
Yes, both are using the Chiron boost as everything is identical but the mod. For my needs in the band even the real Rev C needed a boost. I've never tried a Recto in the band that didn't need one for our style.
 
Bxlxaxkxe said:
Man I gotta say that thing sounded more lively as a G. Little more tamed as a C. Never thought I’d say this but I kinda preferred it stock in this case
Click to expand...
I think there has been a dis on the Rev G for years now driven by cool kids like us geeking out on the early rare shit, and I don't think it's deserved. The G is still better than any 3 channel, and the sound of the 90s!
 
glpg80 said:
I have to agree here the amp sounds like it’s balls were cut off in the C like it has less gain on tap. Yes it has less fizz but it also sounds more anemic. You could have flipped the titles and I’d believed you.

I know I’ve heard C’s that sound better than G’s but with this amp it sounded great as a G.
Click to expand...
This particular amp was a phenomenal example of a G- @Beyond Black played it. That said, real Cs do have less gain on tap and are more organic so this fits. Real Cs also have less fizz, and really, that recto fizz is what helps it cut through the live mix.
 
GJgo said:
This particular amp was a phenomenal example of a G- @Beyond Black played it. That said, real Cs do have less gain on tap and are more organic so this fits. Real Cs also have less fizz, and really, that recto fizz is what helps it cut through the live mix.
Click to expand...
In the recordings, I think the G is a little more aggressive. But, in the room I'm sure the difference favors the C/G. When I C modded the F Triple, the feel improved even more (Fs have great feel to start with).

It's interesting though, that you say there's less gain with a C? Because, part of the C mod is switching out the gain pots to a much higher value, which adds a TON of gain from my memory of that mod I did. Presence pots, and gain pots on both channels are increased a bunch.

Removing a couple LDRs(bypassing) also increased the gain, and made the clean ch less clean. The biggest change I remember other than more bright/gainy was the Red Modern was more open/organic and closer to an Orange/modern thing. Much better than stock. But, this mod is what the Boogie forum guys deciphered and not an actual Mike B job.
 
skoora said:
That just made me feel that anyone paying 1000’s more for a C is nuts. It seemed any difference could be achieved with the right boost (more EQ variance than drive) or an actuall EQ, either up front or in the loop. The difference was so slight it could be the difference between two G’s.
Click to expand...
This doesn't represent how a real Rev C actually compares vs a Rev G or F that's been modded to C specs. I had a Triple F that Mike B did the C mod to. The before and after was similar to what you hear in this clip of the Triple G. Nice improvement, but not a massive overall change. I was very happy with mine until I got an actual Rev C and then it sounded comparatively stale/flat/2D. It’s sorta like the ++ mod on mark iii’s. Nice improvement in the right direction, but still doesn’t sound like a iic+
 
Racerxrated said:
In the recordings, I think the G is a little more aggressive. But, in the room I'm sure the difference favors the C/G. When I C modded the F Triple, the feel improved even more (Fs have great feel to start with).

It's interesting though, that you say there's less gain with a C? Because, part of the C mod is switching out the gain pots to a much higher value, which adds a TON of gain from my memory of that mod I did. Presence pots, and gain pots on both channels are increased a bunch.

Removing a couple LDRs(bypassing) also increased the gain, and made the clean ch less clean. The biggest change I remember other than more bright/gainy was the Red Modern was more open/organic and closer to an Orange/modern thing. Much better than stock. But, this mod is what the Boogie forum guys deciphered and not an actual Mike B job.
Click to expand...
Yeah when I had both that C modded F and the Mike B C modded F Triple (still have) it seemed to me like it was close, but still differed from the Mike B modded one. The Mike B modded was cleaner on the clean ch also
 
braintheory said:
Yeah when I had both that C modded F and the Mike B C modded F Triple (still have) it seemed to me like it was close, but still differed from the Mike B modded one. The Mike B modded was cleaner on the clean ch also
Click to expand...
Admittedly, I did the easiest of the C mods on the Boogie forum, and left out 3-4 resistor value changes since the space in those amps is so tight. So, my C mod left out a few things. But, the 8 of 11 things still made a noticeable improvement to the stock F.
 
Last edited:
the revG is glued in and sits better in the mix here, the C sounds a little nasally and lost some of the "recto". i probably would have guess the C was a mark iv or something
 
skoora said:
That just made me feel that anyone paying 1000’s more for a C is nuts. It seemed any difference could be achieved with the right boost (more EQ variance than drive) or an actuall EQ, either up front or in the loop. The difference was so slight it could be the difference between two G’s.
Click to expand...
Mic recordings always make amps sound much more similar than they do in the room.
Unless you’ve played and felt a Rev C and compared it to other two channel Rectos, you don’t get it.
It’s hard to justify the going prices for these, but it is what it is. They are without question the best sounding and feeling Recto ever made imo.
 
GJgo said:
This particular amp was a phenomenal example of a G- @Beyond Black played it. That said, real Cs do have less gain on tap and are more organic so this fits. Real Cs also have less fizz, and really, that recto fizz is what helps it cut through the live mix.
Click to expand...
Yes, that was a really great sounding G. My buddy just scored a G Triple that sounds very similar to yours and he just sent it to Mike for the C mod. When it returns we’ll be able to compare it to my Rev C.
The Rev C has no fizz whatsoever. You can dime the presence and treble and it still sounds great. There’s no out of bounds with the C presence/treble/bass knobs like with other Rectos. You can literally dime everything and it’s still useable.
Great vid man. I prefer the extra aggression of the C’s highs. It must also be considered that the amps are set exactly the same in both clips which isn’t exactly optimal for the C mod, now that it’s its own thing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top