Killertonetexas MESA 90s DUAL RECTIFIER RENEWED - METAL

  • Thread starter Thread starter Simon Dorn
  • Start date Start date
NewWorldMan said:
Clips sound good. I’m going to try one and see how it goes.

I’m far beyond wanting anything these days and own most everything I’d ever want and need. I just buy to try these days, and go in with the assumption I’ll keep very little (if anything) that I buy.
Click to expand...
Your Mesa (and modded Marshall) collection has been epic over the years. Good to see you here again!
 
killertone said:
I would say it has the chug and low end of an F but the attack of a G. My Rev F is a very special one, it often beats other Fs that it has been put up against, and the reissue had the nice full bottom of the F with a slightly brighter overall tone.
Click to expand...
That seems to follow the same path as the C+ Ri....definitely a little brighter overall than the OG circuit.
 
Last Rev F I had went head-to-head with my Triple Rec Multi-Watt and they were really close - the F had massive balls for the 100 vs 150 power section. Plugged into my Triple yesterday just to make sure I don't need to buy this 90's vibe one...still debatable.
 
JTyson said:
Sounds great Jason, is that a Pultec midrange EQ in your rack?
I’ve wanted one of those for years!
Click to expand...
Thanks, man!

Those EQs are the EQP-1A but I would like to get the MEQs as well. I loooove the EQP-1As on my master buss. I have the SSL comp feeding into them and it is a great final polish for mixes.
 
This sounds killer!! Glad to hear someone doing this amp some justice!
 
killertone said:
Maybe? I have never taken it out of the chassis to look at it.
Click to expand...
They started not using them anymore around serial number 1300-1500. That might be why if yours is sub 1300 that it just has IT. Only 650 or so rev fs have the mark iii transformer.
 
Bram576 said:
They started not using them anymore around serial number 1300-1500. That might be why if yours is sub 1300 that it just has IT. Only 650 or so rev fs have the mark iii transformer.
Click to expand...
My Rev F is from revered forum member Steve K who passed a few years ago. I got it from him about 4 years before he died. When we were working out the deal on it he told me it was the best sounding one he ever had and I think at the time he had 3 of them and was selling them all.

Anyway, at some point I'll take a look at it but honestly it sounds so damn good I don't even care hahaha.
 
No such thing as Mk III transformers, y’all. No magic cutoff in what was used in the middle of the Rev F run, either. Mesa had the 561140s on hand by the start of Rev F. You’ll find them scattered all through the run, and they’re sonically the same as the earlier 561136 that everyone likes to call “Mk III.”

The Recto RI uses the same 561142/562105 transformer set that the MW was using.
 
NewWorldMan said:
No such thing as Mk III transformers, y’all. No magic cutoff in what was used in the middle of the Rev F run, either. Mesa had the 561140s on hand by the start of Rev F. You’ll find them scattered all through the run, and they’re sonically the same as the earlier 561136 that everyone likes to call “Mk III.”

The Recto RI uses the same 561142/562105 transformer set that the MW was using.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s a generalization about serials. Everyone knows Mesa has random things in the middle of each revision. They’ve done that forever.

People call them mark iii since they were used then and then in the mark iv a. Also tremoverb.

The power transformer and output transformer both changed in the middle of rev f. As they did in the mark IV. I know it’s easy to say the it’s sonically the same comment but is it? I mean a good example of this is the peavey 5150 going to the 6505 and switching transformer… they’re close but not the same. Then on the now 1992 reissue they went back and fixed this and stated personally that was the difference.
 
Bram576 said:
Yeah, it’s a generalization about serials. Everyone knows Mesa has random things in the middle of each revision. They’ve done that forever.

People call them mark iii since they were used then and then in the mark iv a. Also tremoverb.

The power transformer and output transformer both changed in the middle of rev f. As they did in the mark IV. I know it’s easy to say the it’s sonically the same comment but is it? I mean a good example of this is the peavey 5150 going to the 6505 and switching transformer… they’re close but not the same. Then on the now 1992 reissue they went back and fixed this and stated personally that was the difference.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is easy to say that they’re sonically the same. Because they are, as much as Internet tin foil hat theorizing says different ? The only difference is the 561140 is better equipped to handle rectifier tubes/spongy. It’s literally a better transformer for every single 2 channel Recto - regardless of revision - than the 561136. Spongy on Recto is the same as Tweed on the Mk IV, just a different name because no one wants “tweed” on a Recto.

Fun fact - the best Rev C I ever owned (and it’s been a lot) had a 561140 replacement in it.
 
Bram576 said:
Yeah, it’s a generalization about serials. Everyone knows Mesa has random things in the middle of each revision. They’ve done that forever.

People call them mark iii since they were used then and then in the mark iv a. Also tremoverb.

The power transformer and output transformer both changed in the middle of rev f. As they did in the mark IV. I know it’s easy to say the it’s sonically the same comment but is it? I mean a good example of this is the peavey 5150 going to the 6505 and switching transformer… they’re close but not the same. Then on the now 1992 reissue they went back and fixed this and stated personally that was the difference.
Click to expand...
Just looked. My amp is #1272. It has the 561136 transformer and one labeled 562100. Seems like the 561136 had to be the mains transformer and the other one is output, correct?
 
Is it just me or does the chrome on the chassis look a little off compared to original chrome chassis units? Just seems to have too bright a look. I know the chances of having chrome plating turning out the same between the two eras would be unlikely but in every video it’s jumped out at me as not melding as well with the black treadplate like actual 90’s ones.
 
skoora said:
Is it just me or does the chrome on the chassis look a little off compared to original chrome chassis units? Just seems to have too bright a look. I know the chances of having chrome plating turning out the same between the two eras would be unlikely but in every video it’s jumped out at me as not melding as well with the black treadplate like actual 90’s ones.
Click to expand...
anything online for the 90s chrome it sorta looks aged/Faded to me. I have a memory of what they looked like but. No idea if it's an accurate memory though.

That said this thought did not cross my mind. Seemed on par. But that was just like my opinion man. I'm sure others paid attention better.
 
gritstogroats said:
anything online for the 90s chrome it sorta looks aged/Faded to me. I have a memory of what they looked like but. No idea if it's an accurate memory though.

That said this thought did not cross my mind. Seemed on par. But that was just like my opinion man. I'm sure others paid attention better.
Click to expand...
Yeah, all I can say is as soon as I saw the reissue in a video the chrome just didn’t seem to look right. Nothing scientific, just how it hit me. It’s been the same in every video I’ve watched so far. Hopefully I’ll get to see one in person. Gotta say though, don’t really have any interest in this amp at the price and already having a Tremoverb. Over the years I would have liked to have a chrome chassis model again for the pure gluttony of having a sexy amp..?
 
skoora said:
Is it just me or does the chrome on the chassis look a little off compared to original chrome chassis units? Just seems to have too bright a look. I know the chances of having chrome plating turning out the same between the two eras would be unlikely but in every video it’s jumped out at me as not melding as well with the black treadplate like actual 90’s ones.
Click to expand...
It looks pretty normal next to my originals
 
killertone said:
I would say it has the chug and low end of an F but the attack of a G. My Rev F is a very special one, it often beats other Fs that it has been put up against, and the reissue had the nice full bottom of the F with a slightly brighter overall tone.
Click to expand...
Yeah man, I really don't like dual rectifier. Have played a couple and watched many videos. Just not for me but the one video that I thought sounded great was your 1992 F boosted with the St9
 
OldGtrGuy said:
Yeah man, I really don't like dual rectifier. Have played a couple and watched many videos. Just not for me but the one video that I thought sounded great was your 1992 F boosted with the St9
Click to expand...
I completely skipped Rectifiers until about 2016. Was not a fan at all. Now they have become one of my favorite amps of all time. That '92 Rev F is definitely a magic one. All of them, regardless of Revision, channel count. etc., respond extremely well to boosts which make them super fun to play with when crafting tones.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top