Truth or BS...2 channel Rectos sound better than 3

  • Thread starter Thread starter simbasa
  • Start date Start date
>|<>QBB<
SQUAREHEAD":22621 said:
I was under the impression that the first 500 Dual Rectos were best? Better transformers?
Is this true?
Or are ALL the older Dual Rectifier 2 channel amps the best ones?

Keith
Click to expand...
Sounds like the first 500 are the better ones from all the forums I have checked. Some guy was selling a #647 made in 92-'93 in my area. I guess he missed the cut. He was saying that this is one of the better ones but he was asking too much $ for me.
 
>|<>QBB<
simbasa":39f99 said:
>|<>QBB< so it's safe to say you like it better than the heads? :o :lol: :lol: Damn, I want one.
Click to expand...

Well I definitely like it better than the 3ch. I had. I'm pretty sure they sound the same as the 2ch. heads as long as you're comparing the same circuit revision.

I'll post a review and pics when I get a chance.
 
IMO, it's true, without a doubt. Smoother, thicker, more gain, bigger sounding, better sounding mids, to my ears.

FWIW, I used to own a 2005 3 channel and a 1992 2 channel. I preferred the 2 ch by a fucking mile.
 
>|<>QBB<
SQUAREHEAD":1b78f said:
I was under the impression that the first 500 Dual Rectos were best? Better transformers?
Is this true?
Or are ALL the older Dual Rectifier 2 channel amps the best ones?

Keith
Click to expand...

In general, the 2 channels are "Better" and there are various differences among the early versions (up to/around 500) including different transformers, components, values, etc. So yeah, under 500 are best but the other 2 channels aren't too shabby either :D
 
>|<>QBB<
Random Hero":ff0fa said:
IMO, it's true, without a doubt. Smoother, thicker, more gain, bigger sounding, better sounding mids, to my ears.

FWIW, I used to own a 2005 3 channel and a 1992 2 channel. I preferred the 2 ch by a fucking mile.
Click to expand...
Ok, so now the question for you is...How does that older channel 2 hold up against your Herbert ? :o :D seriously. Can it compete? Is the mid cut tone comparable to a Recto at all?
 
i had a 2003-2004-ish 3 channel. what a flubby farty piece of shit. bought it new. what a waste of $1600. i did however play an older 2 channel tremoverb 2x12 combo at a GC a long time ago, with an american jackson, and real duncans in it. it sounded much smoother much tighter, much clearer.
i wasted $1600 on a new 3 ch recto and wasted $1600 on a new Rev 100. of the two....i would take the rev back. :lol:
 
>|<>QBB<
BURNTHISCORPSE":e753b said:
i had a 2003-2004-ish 3 channel. what a flubby farty piece of shit. bought it new. what a waste of $1600. i did however play an older 2 channel tremoverb 2x12 combo at a GC a long time ago, with an american jackson, and real duncans in it. it sounded much smoother much tighter, much clearer.
i wasted $1600 on a new 3 ch recto and wasted $1600 on a new Rev 100. of the two....i would take the rev back. :lol:
Click to expand...
That's ok, man. I have wasted much more than that on amps I did not like after awhile. Alot more. I never learn. And tastes constantly change for me. :(
 
$1600 for a Recto is a ripoff. You can find them on Ebay for $1k all the time. Hell, my Rackto (which is pretty rare) was only like $1200.
 
>|<>QBB<
Code001":3d013 said:
$1600 for a Recto is a ripoff. You can find them on Ebay for $1k all the time. Hell, my Rackto (which is pretty rare) was only like $1200.
Click to expand...

it was brand new. i would have went home with a mark IV floor model real cheap, but the sl1 warmoth custom i had with me to check stuff out had a rio grande in the bridge that was soooooo hot you could speak through it and it sounded like ass through the MKIV . and sounded ok through the recto. what a mistake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top