NAD: Mesa Rev C/D/F

  • Thread starter Thread starter itsgoodnow
  • Start date Start date
Also because fuck yeah rectifiers

IMG_6691.jpeg
 
Racerxrated said:
The Rev C mods are listed in the Boogie forum; I did them (most anyway) to a Rev F triple. You bypass 1 LDR, bypass 4 resistors/caps and change out the gain pots to 1 Meg, and presence pots to 250. There’s a few more but they involved removing and replacing some resistors and that was too difficult for me as everything is so cramped on that board. Definitely makes the amp tighter/brighter with much more gain. This can be done to any G or earlier Recto
Click to expand...
I had Mike B C mod a G Triple, made the amp tighter, brighter, more aggressive, with much more usable lows. Big improvement, made an already great amp a total killing machine. Blake now owns it and loves it. I only sold it for a Rev C Dual.
 
I will say one thing about the Rev C is that mine REALLY loved traditional Marshall speakers. GBs, 65, 75s, Redbacks. It's like a C+ or a SLO where it made every speaker sound fantastic.

Here's a live bar gig set with the Rev C and a T75 cab. Performance is meh but we're here for the tone. :)

 
GJgo said:
I will say one thing about the Rev C is that mine REALLY loved traditional Marshall speakers. GBs, 65, 75s, Redbacks. It's like a C+ or a SLO where it made every speaker sound fantastic.

Here's a live bar gig set with the Rev C and a T75 cab. Performance is meh but we're here for the tone. :)

Click to expand...

@GJgo was that straight into the amp w/ 5881’s or were you hitting the front of it with a boost?

Btw sounds direct with no flub. Those G12-75’s are very tempting. Was that a 16 ohm cab?
 
Bossman415 said:
@GJgo was that straight into the amp w/ 5881’s or were you hitting the front of it with a boost?

Btw sounds direct with no flub. Those G12-75’s are very tempting. Was that a 16 ohm cab?
Click to expand...
That was with 6L6 and OD1X (I think) boosted. As "tight" as the Rev C was compared to other Rectos, it was still too loose for my taste in the band mix.

The speakers were 16 ohm 1999 G12T-75 out of a Marshall 1960 cab, however they were loaded in a Mesa trad straight.

Cab wasn't mic'd that night so we had to fill the room!

Believe it or not, that Rev C had a liquid lead tone more on par with a C+ or a SLO. And a hell of a growl. Epic amp, in my top 3 of all time with the C+ and the SLO as the amps with THE best feels, clarity & tone.
 
GJgo said:
I will say one thing about the Rev C is that mine REALLY loved traditional Marshall speakers. GBs, 65, 75s, Redbacks. It's like a C+ or a SLO where it made every speaker sound fantastic.

Here's a live bar gig set with the Rev C and a T75 cab. Performance is meh but we're here for the tone. :)

Click to expand...

That sounds insane. What tubes are you using?
 
Since we're on the subject..

Rev C vs IIC+ DRG


Rev C with V30s, GBs, RBs and T75s
 
braintheory said:
Agreed! I’ve become a big fan of 5881’s in general over many 6L6’s. I particularly like the GE 5881’s (Canadian and US versions) and also really like my RCA, Sylvania, US Tung-Sol and JAN Philips 5881’s. I’m surprised how much cheaper vintage 5881’s are vs their 6L6GC’s counterparts, but good for us lol
Click to expand...
Even the super affordable Sovtek wafer bottom 5881s are killer and in my old (yours now lol) C+ Coli they darn near matched the Mesa 415s in 3D/clarity. Pretty amazing for a 20$ tube.
 
GJgo said:
Another thought, I did hypothesize a couple years ago that the Badlander is more like the Rev C than a normal Recto.

https://www.rig-talk.com/forum/threads/i-finally-get-the-badlander-its-voiced-like-the-rev-c.240331/
Click to expand...
Just sold my Badlander 100. Definitely a cool amp, but it lacked a resonance/depth knob, which may have helped loosen the bottom-end.

I found myself always running a 5-band or PEQ in the loop to compensate for this.

The clips you posted of the C sound like that bottom end is there, but not as drastic as the later vintage 2 channel rectifiers.

It’d be cool if Mesa did a Mark Series type theme with the next iteration of the Rectifier. A way to switch between Rev C & F voicings per channel would be sweet, or perhaps throw a Shred Mode on it.

Oh well enough day dreaming and sidetracking the thread.
 
Racerxrated said:
Even the super affordable Sovtek wafer bottom 5881s are killer and in my old (yours now lol) C+ Coli they darn near matched the Mesa 415s in 3D/clarity. Pretty amazing for a 20$ tube.
Click to expand...
Yeah those ones sound kinda like something in between a 6L6GC and 5881 to me. There’s one particular quad of old ones I’ve got that excel in being tight and crisp. I don’t find though Sylvania’s forte to be 3D or complexity vs other US vintage tubes. IME they excel in being also tight and crisp, somewhat glassy, so I do see that comparison vs those vintage wafers. These vintage US 5881’s I find to be the kings in the 6L6 family of a more complex/3D tone (especially the GE’s). I bought many of them for a similar price as the wafers, a couple even little less here and there, but not recently lol. For some styles of metal though I do find I gotta go 6L6GC or wafer for the extra tightness and more extended low end
 
Having had the Badlander 100 I used to own side by side with my C, I didn’t actually find them to sound or feel that much alike as I was expecting them too. I think the Badlander sounded sorta like maybe some hybrid of a Rev C and JCM800, but with a modern flavor that neither of those 2 amps have. It sounded a lot lot thinner/less full than the C with a lot more uppermid and mid presence
 
Just to clarify about the Rev C and Rev E in that video.
That Rev C in particular is very tight and aggressive, even for a Rev C. Was serviced by Mesa Hollywood and put to 100% stock, and runs Mesa STR 440 as for power (6L6) and Mesa Preamp tubes, might be either Chinese or Soviet ones. The exact same tubes were in that Rev E, also serviced at Mesa Hollywood at the same time as the Rev C.
The main differences between them, while in the room, is that the C does have a more extended low end, going lower on frequencies than the E. Plus, it had a little flatter mid and bumped upper mid, and a hair more gain. So, you'd have the impression of more saturation than the Rev E.
Rev E tho, not as extended on lower frequencies, but with more pronounced lower mid and a bit scooped midrange, gives you an instant impression of a bit cleaner, but fatter, bigger, on every note, at the same time.
So, the Rev E is a bit more polite than the C, and even knowing the E is a bit fatter all the time, when chugging with the C, All the extended lows pop up and rumbles the whole place.
That Rev E in the video is my second favorite Rectifier. I also went on the same rabbit hole and bought over 15 of them already(not all at the same time! lol), and decided to only keep the C I have to this day. And while I regret letting the Rev E go, that is something I would never let happen with the Rev C. Most pissed off Mesa amp I've ever heard.
 
itsgoodnow said:
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.

View attachment 236357
Click to expand...
Your a schlong holding Recto Ho fo sho now.
 
Spot on man, I went through like 6 Rev F’s the past two years and they all sounded different! It’s crazy!
 
SBlue said:
Just to clarify about the Rev C and Rev E in that video.
That Rev C in particular is very tight and aggressive, even for a Rev C. Was serviced by Mesa Hollywood and put to 100% stock, and runs Mesa STR 440 as for power (6L6) and Mesa Preamp tubes, might be either Chinese or Soviet ones. The exact same tubes were in that Rev E, also serviced at Mesa Hollywood at the same time as the Rev C.
The main differences between them, while in the room, is that the C does have a more extended low end, going lower on frequencies than the E. Plus, it had a little flatter mid and bumped upper mid, and a hair more gain. So, you'd have the impression of more saturation than the Rev E.
Rev E tho, not as extended on lower frequencies, but with more pronounced lower mid and a bit scooped midrange, gives you an instant impression of a bit cleaner, but fatter, bigger, on every note, at the same time.
So, the Rev E is a bit more polite than the C, and even knowing the E is a bit fatter all the time, when chugging with the C, All the extended lows pop up and rumbles the whole place.
That Rev E in the video is my second favorite Rectifier. I also went on the same rabbit hole and bought over 15 of them already(not all at the same time! lol), and decided to only keep the C I have to this day. And while I regret letting the Rev E go, that is something I would never let happen with the Rev C. Most pissed off Mesa amp I've ever heard.
Click to expand...
Yep; the C is my fav Mesa....and by a wide margin. Still love the C+ but the C recto is the king for me. And, I never imagined that to be possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top