Code001
Well-known member
I got my racktifier for 1200 or 1250. I forget.
S
simbasa
New member
>|<>QBB<
Damn... so there is another. They are older versions? I can't even find pics of it. :x :? Is this it? http://guitargeek.com/gearview/413/killshot":8d5e4 said:
B
BOOGIE444
New member
I have had both, the three channel ones sound more aggresive on channel 3 vintage & modern to my ears. I play metal so you can guess which one I like better.
O
Odin
Member
I had a very early 2-channel Triple Rectifier head. It sounded horrible to my ears, nothing but fizzle and flab. I've played newer 3-channel Rectifiers and they also sound bad to me. But then I hate Mesa fizz, so I'm probably not a good person to evaluate their amps. I bought it cheap (around $700) and sold it for a nice profit, so it wasn't all bad.
M
Mr Ten
New member
not getting into too many details, but to me, the 2 channels had a more classic and thick grind, the 3 channels sounded much heavier and solid-state-like. the vintage mode on the 2 channels kills (although i had a 2 ch dual rec tremoverb, not sure if that mode was on the regular recs). i thought the 2 channels were much thicker and more favorable, i've played 2 and 3 chs side by side, hated the 3 ch, not for me.
The last two I owned have been a 94 tremoverb head and I currently have a 92 Racktifier. Both are smokin cool but the Racktifier is a bit more refined, smoother, and MEANER so you can really FEEL it when you're playing 
S
simbasa
New member
Thanks for the info guys. If anyone sees a Racktifier anywhere PM me please. I want one of these pretty bad now. 
digwhisper
New member
Here's my 2 cents, take it for what it is.
I've owned both and played through a fuckload of different models and eras. My theory on why the older stuff gets the love is that although there is a subtle difference in the tones between them I think the older two channels are more consistent from head to head.
I personally like the design and tone of the three channels but I've run into a whole lot more dogs from that litter than from the older batch. Pretty much every two channel I've touched has sounded great and they all sounded very similar.
When it comes to three channels, I've played and owned a some sweet ones but I've also witnessed some that just didn't have it.
I've owned both and played through a fuckload of different models and eras. My theory on why the older stuff gets the love is that although there is a subtle difference in the tones between them I think the older two channels are more consistent from head to head.
I personally like the design and tone of the three channels but I've run into a whole lot more dogs from that litter than from the older batch. Pretty much every two channel I've touched has sounded great and they all sounded very similar.
When it comes to three channels, I've played and owned a some sweet ones but I've also witnessed some that just didn't have it.
S
Slaytallica
Active member
It's a SCAM :flucht:
Seriously though I've played both and can't hear a difference they both sound great.
Mine is a 3 channel though I wanted the extra channel which is why I bought it.
Seriously though I've played both and can't hear a difference they both sound great.
Mine is a 3 channel though I wanted the extra channel which is why I bought it.
S
simbasa
New member
I don't know, dude..... The overall consensus here and everywhere else seems to be Racktifier> 2 channel> 3 channel. Definitley wise to try before you buy anything but I would be willing to get a racktifier sight unseen. Well, a pic would be nice. 
thegame
Well-known member
>|<>QBB<
I believe the early two channel category should be divided between the first 500 batch (1991-1992) and the rest of the two channel units made from 1993 till whenever the three channels came out.
I saw a band a few months ago. Each guitar player had the same exact cabs, similar guitars. One guy had a Racktifier, the other a two channel (doubtfull a first 500) and the rack one sounded better in the exact fashion you described. above.
stratotone":55b69 said:
I believe the early two channel category should be divided between the first 500 batch (1991-1992) and the rest of the two channel units made from 1993 till whenever the three channels came out.
I saw a band a few months ago. Each guitar player had the same exact cabs, similar guitars. One guy had a Racktifier, the other a two channel (doubtfull a first 500) and the rack one sounded better in the exact fashion you described. above.
S
simbasa
New member
Ok, now has anyone tried the Roadster or new Roadking who has also played the Racktifier and early 2 channels? Those early 2s and Racks-if you can find one- seem to be going for 1200-1300 or more. The Roadster was great and no fizz and if it's only 600 more than one of those.... here is a Roadster /Recto red channel comparison by some German dude I found http://www.riskywhisky.de/red%20channels.mp3
S
simbasa
New member
Roadster orange channel http://www.riskywhisky.de/roadster%20orange.mp3 and Recto orange channel http://www.riskywhisky.de/recto%20orange.mp3
Robotechnology
Active member
I like the Rect-o-verb over both the 2 and 3 channel dual rectifiers so it's a moot point for me. If I had to choose though, I liked the 3 channel more.
Code001
Well-known member
They use different parts, so there's more of a difference than just tubes.
AmpliFIRE
Well-known member
>|<>QBB<
true, but the main tone effecting components (transformers, caps etc) are the same. I think it's crazy to say that all Ractifier's sound better then the 2 channel recto's...the tubes make a HUGE difference. I had a 92' Dual Rectifier and it sounded AMAZING. Out of all the amps I ever owned, that's the one amp that I truly regret selling.
Code001":63dcd said:
true, but the main tone effecting components (transformers, caps etc) are the same. I think it's crazy to say that all Ractifier's sound better then the 2 channel recto's...the tubes make a HUGE difference. I had a 92' Dual Rectifier and it sounded AMAZING. Out of all the amps I ever owned, that's the one amp that I truly regret selling.