I
itsgoodnow
Well-known member
Hey All,
I have really never been into rectifiers. But...GAS, so of course I bought a bunch of rectifiers. When I was first starting to play guitar the rev g and 3 channel rectifiers were everywhere. They sounded great on recordings...but when I got one I really didn't care for it at all. Fast forward and I learn about the different revisions of the rectifiers and think "well, this is interesting. Let's see what it is all about." Luckily I was able to track down a revision C, D, and F.
I read a lot about these amps and had a lot of expectations about how they would sound/behave relative to each other and I was dead wrong on basically all fronts. To get this out of the way this is not an apples to apples comparison as the D/F have EL 34 and the C has 6L6. I'm not sure how big of a role that plays in what I heard. All amps were checked out by Mesa within the last 2 years also.
The C has a reputation for being the tightest of the 3 amps. I also expected the D to sound basically identical to the C but maybe slightly more loose and darker. Not the case. At least with these 2 examples. The C is tight, but not as tight as the D. The C also is more saturated, has more hair, and more apparent gain. As a consequence, the C actually feels more forgiving and easier to play than the D. The C is the brightest and also has the least low end. It also feels the most raw to me and really does remind me of my SLO in more ways than I expected. When I hit it with a TC integrated preamp, it reminded me of my original 5150 with a super high output boost on it. The saturation level, harmonic data, even the feel to an extent. It just sounds like a better version of that for what I like. If you bring the gain down it sounds drier, less saturated, etc etc, but it still does not feel nearly as tight as the D.
The D sounds very mix ready. The structure is a lot more uniform and the dynamics seem more streamlined. The amp is fairly dry and tight relative to the C which has a lot of hair. The comparison I would use is if the C is a Marshall, the D is a wizard. I mean that in terms of feel between the 2 amps and the C having a more raw quality and the D feelings like it has a more
The F is fantastic. Has a great feel, still has great dynamics, and the voicing is distinctly different as the mid emphasis has changed to push the low-mids. It is amusing the F is so heavily associated with metal (which is fair given it has been on some great albums), but it feels the least metal to me. The sag in it really makes me want to play the 90s alternative tracks more than say Trivium. When I am on the C or the D it is hard not to just default into the heavier stuff since the amps are so tight and aggressive. The F can do that but the feel makes you play differently.
Anyway I like them all. I also will say I know that the amps can all have a large variance between each other even amongst revisions. If you play 2 rev F there is a good chance they will sound and feel different (even with a health check etc etc). So take my opinions with a grain of salt.
I have really never been into rectifiers. But...GAS, so of course I bought a bunch of rectifiers. When I was first starting to play guitar the rev g and 3 channel rectifiers were everywhere. They sounded great on recordings...but when I got one I really didn't care for it at all. Fast forward and I learn about the different revisions of the rectifiers and think "well, this is interesting. Let's see what it is all about." Luckily I was able to track down a revision C, D, and F.
I read a lot about these amps and had a lot of expectations about how they would sound/behave relative to each other and I was dead wrong on basically all fronts. To get this out of the way this is not an apples to apples comparison as the D/F have EL 34 and the C has 6L6. I'm not sure how big of a role that plays in what I heard. All amps were checked out by Mesa within the last 2 years also.
The C has a reputation for being the tightest of the 3 amps. I also expected the D to sound basically identical to the C but maybe slightly more loose and darker. Not the case. At least with these 2 examples. The C is tight, but not as tight as the D. The C also is more saturated, has more hair, and more apparent gain. As a consequence, the C actually feels more forgiving and easier to play than the D. The C is the brightest and also has the least low end. It also feels the most raw to me and really does remind me of my SLO in more ways than I expected. When I hit it with a TC integrated preamp, it reminded me of my original 5150 with a super high output boost on it. The saturation level, harmonic data, even the feel to an extent. It just sounds like a better version of that for what I like. If you bring the gain down it sounds drier, less saturated, etc etc, but it still does not feel nearly as tight as the D.
The D sounds very mix ready. The structure is a lot more uniform and the dynamics seem more streamlined. The amp is fairly dry and tight relative to the C which has a lot of hair. The comparison I would use is if the C is a Marshall, the D is a wizard. I mean that in terms of feel between the 2 amps and the C having a more raw quality and the D feelings like it has a more
The F is fantastic. Has a great feel, still has great dynamics, and the voicing is distinctly different as the mid emphasis has changed to push the low-mids. It is amusing the F is so heavily associated with metal (which is fair given it has been on some great albums), but it feels the least metal to me. The sag in it really makes me want to play the 90s alternative tracks more than say Trivium. When I am on the C or the D it is hard not to just default into the heavier stuff since the amps are so tight and aggressive. The F can do that but the feel makes you play differently.
Anyway I like them all. I also will say I know that the amps can all have a large variance between each other even amongst revisions. If you play 2 rev F there is a good chance they will sound and feel different (even with a health check etc etc). So take my opinions with a grain of salt.
