MESA/Boogie 90s Dual Rectifier full demo & tutorial ft. Doug West & Tommy Waugh

xfactor23 said:
There will be some, but I doubt it will be as bad as some think. It does a great job capturing the OG especially its very close to the OG with Mark III transformers the differences are very small.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you on the sound side at all. all the people with OG amps have said it's very close and I do trust Ola's judgement on this. He's as fair of a "gear demo" as you can find imo. I guess Ben Eller is also on that list because he doesn't take money for the demos and says what he wants.

as far as how many will flood the market, my money is on a lot. It happens with every mesa product, look at the Mark V's...selling for what $1500 - $1750 for the heads? I'll wait as long as I have to lol...I'm not paying $3k - $4k for these. if anyone else decides to, thats totally cool, spend your hard earned cash how you want!!!
 
So why would i buy one of these if I have a ‘99 rev g? I mean did they at least make the fx loop usable on this one?
 
Nashville Riff Co said:
I don't disagree with you on the sound side at all. all the people with OG amps have said it's very close and I do trust Ola's judgement on this. He's as fair of a "gear demo" as you can find imo. I guess Ben Eller is also on that list because he doesn't take money for the demos and says what he wants.

as far as how many will flood the market, my money is on a lot. It happens with every mesa product, look at the Mark V's...selling for what $1500 - $1750 for the heads? I'll wait as long as I have to lol...I'm not paying $3k - $4k for these. if anyone else decides to, thats totally cool, spend your hard earned cash how you want!!!
Click to expand...
Eventually as with any product, depends on how many they produce and sell. I'm simply arguing it's not going to happen fast. I think it's evident that a lot of people aren't going to drop $3500 on the reissue... I predict that Rev F non Mark III prices are going to drop way lower than the reissue. It will be interesting to see, because Mesa did do a great job with this aside from the price.
 
xfactor23 said:
There will be some, but I doubt it will be as bad as some think. It does a great job capturing the OG especially its very close to the OG with Mark III transformers the differences are very small.
Click to expand...
I had a Rev D, 2 Rev F, Rev Gs, Dual and Triple Multi Watt, a Roadster...all of them for a significantly lower Price than this one new. I guess i'll simply pass.
 
xfactor23 said:
…the OG with Mark III transformers…
Click to expand...
No such thing as a “Mk III transformer”, but I understand why the internet uses the term to reference a specific number (I’ve done it too). People get hung up on this over nothing.

The 561136 is sonically the same as the 561140, while the 561140 is actually a better choice for all 2 channel Rectos (including Rev C-F). Some Rev F even came with a 561140 stock. The only reason they all didn’t is because Mesa finished using the leftover 561136s they had laying around.
 
NewWorldMan said:
No such thing as a “Mk III transformer”, but I understand why the internet uses the term to reference a specific number (I’ve done it too). People get hung up on this over nothing.

The 561136 is sonically the same as the 561140, while the 561140 is actually a better choice for all 2 channel Rectos (including Rev C-F). Some Rev F even came with a 561140 stock. The only reason they all didn’t is because Mesa finished using the leftover 561136s they had laying around.
Click to expand...
Remember, the Mark III is inferior to the Mark II because of the transformer, but the early Dual Recs are superior to the new ones because they use the Mark III transformer. :ROFLMAO:

lol gotta love the internet. All these amps sound absolutely massive.
 
NewWorldMan said:
No such thing as a “Mk III transformer”, but I understand why the internet uses the term to reference a specific number (I’ve done it too). People get hung up on this over nothing.

The 561136 is sonically the same as the 561140, while the 561140 is actually a better choice for all 2 channel Rectos (including Rev C-F). Some Rev F even came with a 561140 stock. The only reason they all didn’t is because Mesa finished using the leftover 561136s they had laying around.
Click to expand...
Whatever you want to call it, they are all not the same. After having 10 or so Rev F's various serial numbers and formats. Earlier Rev F's sound 1000x better than the later ones.
 
desertdweller said:
Remember, the Mark III is inferior to the Mark II because of the transformer, but the early Dual Recs are superior to the new ones because they use the Mark III transformer. :ROFLMAO:

lol gotta love the internet. All these amps sound absolutely massive.
Click to expand...
Gotta love people!

xfactor23 said:
Its Rev F based and it has the updated FX loop. Some other improvements in there as well.
Click to expand...
Well Mesa sent a buddy one to demo and he says it’s pretty spot on to his G…
 
xfactor23 said:
Whatever you want to call it, they are all not the same. After having 10 or so Rev F's various serial numbers and formats. Earlier Rev F's sound 1000x better than the later ones.
Click to expand...
No 2 vintage amps sound the same. Some of the earliest Fs used the 561140. Mesa had a stock of them by mid-to-late ‘92. There was a run in the mid-1000s where the 561140 was consistently used, presumably because that’s the box they grabbed while making them.

You may have found Fs that you prefer, but the month it was made or PT it has isn’t lending anything unique to it.
 
JerEvil said:
Gotta love people!


Well Mesa sent a buddy one to demo and he says it’s pretty spot on to his G…
Click to expand...
I agree, it’s close to my F
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1954.jpeg
    IMG_1954.jpeg
    5 MB · Views: 14
So far Ola’s demo is the best one but still nothing $2400 better sounding than my Rev G. I had the loop mod done on mine and blacked it out so it looks cool too! Lol.

I get the nostalgia factor but hard pass for this guy.
 
NewWorldMan said:
No such thing as a “Mk III transformer”, but I understand why the internet uses the term to reference a specific number (I’ve done it too). People get hung up on this over nothing.

The 561136 is sonically the same as the 561140, while the 561140 is actually a better choice for all 2 channel Rectos (including Rev C-F). Some Rev F even came with a 561140 stock. The only reason they all didn’t is because Mesa finished using the leftover 561136s they had laying around.
Click to expand...
The image I attached from rectifier guide refers to them as mark iii- and earlier rev fs definitely are known to sound better
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2543.jpeg
    IMG_2543.jpeg
    292.3 KB · Views: 9
Yehuda said:
The image I attached from rectifier guide refers to them as mark iii- and earlier rev fs definitely are known to sound better
Click to expand...
That article can call them whatever it wants, but it doesn’t make it true. They’re not “Mark III” transformers. That implies they were made for and/or used exclusively for the Mark III, and neither is true. It’s just a stock transformer that Mesa used during the era, and the Mark III itself used numerous transformer combinations. That was far from the first.

Since some folks think there’s magical months and combos of parts that make some “better,” perhaps y’all should make a large matrix table of Rev F combinations to consult so you know whether you have a “good” one:

Made in Jan ‘93, 561136 PT - awesome, you’ve got a good one! It’s 1000x better than later ones.

Made in Nov ‘93, 561140 PT - no, that’s a bad one. Others are 1000x better than yours.

Made in July ‘93 with a “proper” 562100 instead of a 562105, BUT…has 561140 instead of a 561136. Damn bro, that’s too bad, but it’s still 75% good and the others are only 250x better than yours instead of 1000x better.

;)
 
NewWorldMan said:
That article can call them whatever it wants, but it doesn’t make it true. They’re not “Mark III” transformers. That implies they were made for and/or used exclusively for the Mark III, and neither is true. It’s just a stock transformer that Mesa used during the era, and the Mark III itself used numerous transformer combinations. That was far from the first.

Since some folks think there’s magical months and combos of parts that make some “better,” perhaps y’all should make a large matrix table of Rev F combinations to consult so you know whether you have a “good” one:

Made in Jan ‘93, 561136 PT - awesome, you’ve got a good one! It’s 1000x better than later ones.

Made in Nov ‘93, 561140 PT - no, that’s a bad one. Others are 1000x better than yours.

Made in July ‘93 with a “proper” 562100 instead of a 562105, BUT…has 561140 instead of a 561136. Damn bro, that’s too bad, but it’s still 75% good and the others are only 250x better than yours instead of 1000x better.

;)
Click to expand...
I think it has nothing to do with the mk3 amp, and rather the third revision of recto transformers? I could be wrong though
 
Yehuda said:
I think it has nothing to do with the mk3 amp, and rather the third revision of recto transformers? I could be wrong though
Click to expand...
It all started back in the day because folks didn’t want to remember or type out transformer codes, so it was easier to say “Mk III transformers” because that specific transformer happened to be used at one point on late Mk IIIs. I’m as guilty (more guilty?) of saying it over time too, because I’m nothing if not lazy while typing 😄

It got murky over time because the internet theorized - as it does - that those specific transformers were sonically superior and a reason why older Rectos sounded different than Gs (it’s not).

The 561140 is a better and safer transformer to use in 2 channel Rectos, specifically on spongy and with rectifier tubes. That’s why Mesa transitioned to them. Same with the Mk IV that had a tweed power option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top