Recto Lovers - what would you buy now?

  • Thread starter Thread starter saxxamafone
  • Start date Start date
braintheory said:
Agreed on the first paragraph 100%. To be honest, I didn’t believe you either on the Rev C till I had one myself, so I was definitely in the camp of it’s because I hadn’t tried one yet haha, but I knew for myself it was for real with the first few powerchords. To be nitpicky though, I found its power section quite a bit more powerful than my SLO, but still not having the bigness or efficiency of my Triple, but very impressive still for a 4 powertube amp. With both boosted, my iic+ hrg also is imo still tighter & firmer/harder, but it’s close-ish. Either way it’s my favorite amp I’ve had for my taste. I’ve got other amps that are arguably as good or better, but I’m a sucker for throaty growl/roar on powerchords and very few amps can touch the orange ch of the C or other early Rec’s in that dept
Click to expand...
It's too bad your IIC+ KRG got upgraded from a IIB! :ROFLMAO:
 
Awesome info here! I'll have a good read through it all 👍
 
GJgo said:
It's too bad your IIC+ KRG got upgraded from a IIB! :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
IME those don’t have the throaty growl either on power chords of the early recto’s (it’s imo distinct to just the orange ch on recto’s), although I’ve admittedly only tried regular iib’s in person and only heard clips of the iib coli’s. I’m not talking about balls or bigness or punch to be clear, but the chords themselves being more growly/more grain/rough/less smooth/more complex. I’ve still found all the mark amps to sound smoother on chords vs these early recto’s even iib or I’s. The marks imo excel more in direct punch, clarity and tightness. This coli though does sound massive fwiw. Pretty similar to my Beta in that regard with better tone, just not the same floor rattling sublows or modern flavor of the beta. The palm mutes on my beta sometimes make me think I’ll fall to the 1st floor from my bedroom upstairs lol. For complete growl on powerchords, which is what impresses me most of all criteria, I literally have only maybe one or 2 other amps of all the stuff I’ve tried that I think rivals the early recto orange ch growl
 
I got my Rev G for $1,200 last year. I'll take that and $100 boost over $6k for a Rev C or $3k+ for an F.

Not saying it's better, just saying I don't think it's worth the extra $$ when a Rev G/ Multiwatt + Boost will give you "the Recto sound".
 
Candiria said:
I got my Rev G for $1,200 last year. I'll take that and $100 boost over $6k for a Rev C or $3k+ for an F.

Not saying it's better, just saying I don't think it's worth the extra $$ when a Rev G/ Multiwatt + Boost will give you "the Recto sound".
Click to expand...
We’re happy for ya. 👍
 
Candiria said:
I got my Rev G for $1,200 last year. I'll take that and $100 boost over $6k for a Rev C or $3k+ for an F.

Not saying it's better, just saying I don't think it's worth the extra $$ when a Rev G/ Multiwatt + Boost will give you "the Recto sound".
Click to expand...
While the F is really just like a tighter G, the C is not "the recto sound". It's like a Mark III, a Ref F and a Marshall had a baby. It's a really special amp.
 
Does Mike B do mods on standard rev-G models? I was thinking KSR does too.
My 95 dual might be a good candidate someday.

My 99 Tremoverb on the other hand will never be touched for modding. I love it's squishy yet thunky midrange character.

btw they were $750 and $900 respectively back in the early 2010's,,,,,the 95 is near showroom condition and the tremoverb is showroom/mint
Man times have changed since everyone wanted to ditch rectos lol!.
 
GJgo said:
While the F is really just like a tighter G, the C is not "the recto sound". It's like a Mark III, a Ref F and a Marshall had a baby. It's a really special amp.
Click to expand...
To me, the Rev C sounds like a Recto and Mark 3 had a kid, but the feel is similar to an SLO. Of course, we all perceive things differently.

The EQ behaved similarly to the SLO. The gain control on the Red channel fattens up the preamp a bit at the same spot the SLO’s does around 10 or 11 o’clock. It’s thinner below that point. It’s the closest version to the SLO schematically.

The plate voltage is lower on the Rev C. The one I had dished out only 445 vDC on the power tubes in Bold/Silicon Diodes (117 coming from my wall outlet). Also, the power transformer runs hot which is one of the reasons why they changed it later on.

The Rev C is a great amp for what it is, but none of them, to me, are worth the money people are asking for them these days.

My favorite one was a 1993 or 1994 Triple. Loved that amp!
 
I thought Mike B was done doing mods or did I totally imagine that?
 
GJgo said:
While the F is really just like a tighter G, the C is not "the recto sound". It's like a Mark III, a Ref F and a Marshall had a baby. It's a really special amp.
Click to expand...

Yea I get why the C is more money because of the rarity and the fact that it's different. $6k is a lot for an amp no matter what though.

And yea I agree on the Rev F. The one I played sounded basically the same as the early Rev G I owned, which sounded like the other Rev G's I've owned just tighter.

All I'm trying to say is that most people on here will recommend the most expensive or rare option to someone looking for an amp, but in the case of the Rectifiers you're going to get "the Recto sound" with a "normal" 2 channel or multiwatt. You don't need to spend $3k+ for that sound.
 
Candiria said:
Yea I get why the C is more money because of the rarity and the fact that it's different. $6k is a lot for an amp no matter what though.

And yea I agree on the Rev F. The one I played sounded basically the same as the early Rev G I owned, which sounded like the other Rev G's I've owned just tighter.

All I'm trying to say is that most people on here will recommend the most expensive or rare option to someone looking for an amp, but in the case of the Rectifiers you're going to get "the Recto sound" with a "normal" 2 channel or multiwatt. You don't need to spend $3k+ for that sound.
Click to expand...
If you don't want to spend big $$ on an OG, you can't go wrong with a MW. I believe time will flesh them out as a classic. Here's a comparo I did.

 
I liked that they made the multi watts a brighter amp as the OG 3 channel is a mud fest. But it’s not a top end that pleases my ears. It!s kind of harsh to me. I the fact that G’s are over 1K is almost funny. For the longest they were a $700-900 amp. I really think with an EQ out front and especially in the loop, you could even make an OG 3 channel, mud slinger into whatever you want in the recto family. I would say the best recto is the cheapest one you can find and then use outboard EQ’s to make it what you want. Also a treble booster into vintage orange high gain always sounds amazing.
 
Dale B said:
To me, the Rev C sounds like a Recto and Mark 3 had a kid, but the feel is similar to an SLO. Of course, we all perceive things differently.

The EQ behaved similarly to the SLO. The gain control on the Red channel fattens up the preamp a bit at the same spot the SLO’s does around 10 or 11 o’clock. It’s thinner below that point. It’s the closest version to the SLO schematically.

The plate voltage is lower on the Rev C. The one I had dished out only 445 vDC on the power tubes in Bold/Silicon Diodes (117 coming from my wall outlet). Also, the power transformer runs hot which is one of the reasons why they changed it later on.

The Rev C is a great amp for what it is, but none of them, to me, are worth the money people are asking for them these days.

My favorite one was a 1993 or 1994 Triple. Loved that amp!
Click to expand...
Not on mine. Serial in the 40s; pv of 470 on diode/bold. Puts out like an SLO or even a Wizard. Monster power section.
 
GJgo said:
While the F is really just like a tighter G, the C is not "the recto sound". It's like a Mark III, a Ref F and a Marshall had a baby. It's a really special amp.
Click to expand...
I’d slightly disagree on the F/G comparo. Noticeable difference to me in that the F just plain sounds better/more complex/organic/ whatever term you want to use…better clarity and far less low end bloat on the F, where a G sounds bloated even with a boost. Duals anyway. Triple Gs are a much better choice vs a dual imo.
 
Doesn't the F use a 1meg gain pot instead of the 250? That might be at least some of the difference between the F and G.
 
skoora said:
I liked that they made the multi watts a brighter amp as the OG 3 channel is a mud fest. But it’s not a top end that pleases my ears. It!s kind of harsh to me. I the fact that G’s are over 1K is almost funny. For the longest they were a $700-900 amp. I really think with an EQ out front and especially in the loop, you could even make an OG 3 channel, mud slinger into whatever you want in the recto family. I would say the best recto is the cheapest one you can find and then use outboard EQ’s to make it what you want. Also a treble booster into vintage orange high gain always sounds amazing.
Click to expand...
This all the way! Especially the bold highlight.

My friend has a Rev C, F and G and he led me onto the EQ thing. He got them sounding dead nuts to each other. I thought for sure it needed the mods done but it truly doesn’t. Since then, I always have EQs in my signal chain. It changes everything. You buy other amps for feel at that point when you realize this 👍🏻
 
Fordman65 said:
I've found out board eq's take away the "feel" that you're talking about, especially in a high gain setting where feel and dynamics are already being limited. They just sound artificial to me. I also think boosts do this, but to a lesser extent. YMMV though, which is reasonable
Click to expand...

It's definitely easy for that to occur, specifically with graphic EQs. I think most people boost or cut too much. Most EQs shouldn't look like the fader settings on a Mark, they should be more subtle. Parametric EQs seem more natural to me, but again you should be doing subtle changes.

Same thing for boosts if you're doing the internet settings of level on 10. If I boost high gain amps I'm usually right around unity level. You can definitely go higher on the boost if that's the sound you're going for, but I try to just add a little bump in a mids most of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top