The Reissue Dual Rec is Modeled after a Rev G, NOT Rev F

  • Thread starter Thread starter PurityS.L.G
  • Start date Start date
Dinesh mentions between a revf and revg in this and they used both as examples to voice this one.
 
I ordered a dual Recto from a dealer in, I’m almost certain, 1997. Would that have been a G? Never boosted it yet I found it tight enough with an EMG 81 ( just barely though).
 
thegame said:
I ordered a dual Recto from a dealer in, I’m almost certain, 1997. Would that have been a G? Never boosted it yet I found it tight enough with an EMG 81 ( just barely though).
Click to expand...
G

The F and G sounded pretty much the same. The individual amps differed more than the revisions.

The couple C I played on sounded too bright to me. Turn up the presence on the G it starts to sound more like a C.

I tend to prefer the G. I like the bounce for leads and cleans. It also sounds better with a overdrive or boost. I don't always want it as tight as possible.

I played on at least 50 or 60. If you ask me it's more about the individual amp than anything. I feel the same about all amps built by anyone.
 
stephen sawall said:
G

The F and G sounded pretty much the same. The individual amps differed more than the revisions.

The couple C I played on sounded too bright to me. Turn up the presence on the G it starts to sound more like a C.

I tend to prefer the G. I like the bounce for leads and cleans. It also sounds better with a overdrive or boost. I don't always want it as tight as possible.

I played on at least 50 or 60. If you ask me it's more about the individual amp than anything. I feel the same about all amps built by anyone.
Click to expand...
💯 The C is ridiculously bright, especially after you turn it up. People complain about “fizz” but then want the fizziest one of them all (C). The F and G vary only slightly, and I agree - if you’re boosting, G is probably the best for you overall. Usable cleans, and the OD channel all comes out in the wash anyway with a pedal in front.
 
TheGreatGreen said:
When I listen to unboosted Rev F vs Rev G demos, I hear a very, very slight difference. The Rev F is like, 3% tighter and brighter. Also these demos are never done with the knobs at extreme settings so I always wonder if just turning up the Treble or Presence on the G would eliminate the differences further. However once the amps are boosted, the differences are even less pronounced.



Seriously, listen to these amps (MW, Rev F Triple with EL34's, Rev G Dual, Rev F Dual) and tell me with a straight face that the Dual F and Dual G are "significantly different." They're about as close as two amps can get without being identical. I swear I've heard other demos with two amps of the actual same make and model that sound more different than these amps in this video. Awesome video, btw.

People on the internet tend to exaggerate things. A lot.
Click to expand...

In the room, the 3 Dual Gs I had(early small logo serial# 4Ks) were a tubby mess without a boost; slightly better with a boost. Vs the Triple F I had to compare it to. Very different; and there's no dialing out the tubby in the Gs. The G Triples are much better, though.

The 2 clips here, sound far far different to me than my experiences with those early G Duals. The clips are F all the way, unless there's something that's not translating in the clip that I'd hear in person. I'd even say the clips are even tighter than the Fs I had, without a boost anyway.
 
As someone just getting familiar with Recto revisions it's weird how the changes aren't progressive and go from tighter to looser and more desirable to less desirable and then back to more desirable and so on. Weird and confusing.
 
Juggy kept telling me the best amp for me was the ultralead. This went on for years before I got one. He was right.
Then he told me the recto to get was the tremoverb. Again, years passed before I got one. Again, he was right.
headlessdeadguy said:
I’ve had them all at one point over the years. The Tremoverb smokes all of them.
Click to expand...
 
Is this news? I know atleast I for sure said almost a year ago it was going to be a rev G Model, and that’s all I’ve ever seen: never saw them
Say it was going to be anything but the G.
 
Racerxrated said:
In the room, the 3 Dual Gs I had(early small logo serial# 4Ks) were a tubby mess without a boost; slightly better with a boost. Vs the Triple F I had to compare it to. Very different; and there's no dialing out the tubby in the Gs. The G Triples are much better, though.

The 2 clips here, sound far far different to me than my experiences with those early G Duals. The clips are F all the way, unless there's something that's not translating in the clip that I'd hear in person. I'd even say the clips are even tighter than the Fs I had, without a boost anyway.
Click to expand...
My experiences as well. I never owned a Rev G dual (and I have owned and played a bunch) that I ever ran without a boost + eq setup. It did sound good like that for sure, but that is what it took for me to get what I needed out of it.

I have definitely played some good Rev G triples though: inherently a bit tighter and less congested.

The Rev F triples (have only played triples) are awesome and I agree, regardless what they used as reference, the unboosted vids I have seen of the reissue are much tighter than any Rev G I have tried or heard.
 
I don’t get these comments about Rev C’s being so bright. I had 3 different Rev C’s AB’ed with themselves, a Rev D, F and other amps of mine and sure they have more aggressive higher frequencies than later revisions, but AB them with other amps and you’d see in the bigger picture they’re still amps that fall very much in the dark, thick camp. AB vs any Marshall 2203/4, SLO, Naylor, Wizard and others and you’ll see it sounds way darker and fatter than those amps even with the presence and treble dimed. It’s just bright for a Recto. That’s it. The Badlander was also brighter than the Rev C’s I had as is the Lenz High Octane I have when AB’ed. It’s a dark, thick, low mid dominant amp overall with more teeth than other Recto’s. More ripping sound. I think some guys just don’t like upper frequencies to be too aggressive or sizzly. Maybe they’d prefer amps like Friedman’s

Part of what also really separates Rev C’s (to some extent Rev D too) is the response/feel is faster, much more liquid/connected and just plain better (more iic+-like) and the only Recto’s that actually were good for playing leads. The tone overall is just more interesting/complex despite also being more aggressive. IME these revisions just are what they are. You can’t dial in a Rev F or G to have the faster, better feel or lead tone of the C or D and even turning up its presence and treble more doesn’t yield the same texture the notes in that region. And likewise you can’t dial in the Rev C or D to sound or feel exactly like a Rev F or G. They just have their inherent differences. At best you can dial them in to sound roughly the same in a clip context, but not in person where the differences are obvious and much more exposed
 
braintheory said:
I don’t get these comments about Rev C’s being so bright. I had 3 different Rev C’s AB’ed with themselves, a Rev D, F and other amps of mine and sure they have more aggressive higher frequencies than later revisions, but AB them with other amps and you’d see in the bigger picture they’re still amps that fall very much in the dark, thick camp. AB vs any Marshall 2203/4, SLO, Naylor, Wizard and others and you’ll see it sounds way darker and fatter than those amps even with the presence and treble dimed. It’s just bright for a Recto. That’s it. The Badlander was also brighter than the Rev C’s I had as is the Lenz High Octane I have when AB’ed. It’s a dark, thick, low mid dominant amp overall with more teeth than other Recto’s. More ripping sound. I think some guys just don’t like upper frequencies to be too aggressive or sizzly. Maybe they’d prefer amps like Friedman’s

Part of what also really separates Rev C’s (to some extent Rev D too) is the response/feel is faster, much more liquid/connected and just plain better (more iic+-like) and the only Recto’s that actually were good for playing leads. The tone overall is just more interesting/complex despite also being more aggressive. IME these revisions just are what they are. You can’t dial in a Rev F or G to have the faster, better feel or lead tone of the C or D and even turning up its presence and treble more doesn’t yield the same texture the notes in that region. And likewise you can’t dial in the Rev C or D to sound or feel exactly like a Rev F or G. They just have their inherent differences. At best you can dial them in to sound roughly the same in a clip context, but not in person where the differences are obvious and much more exposed
Click to expand...
Yep, C Recto is a Recto like an F or any other revision. Some can be brighter than others; but still can't be considered a bright amp in any way. I agree the super fast response in #41 is something that really sets it apart as well as the overall richness of the tone.
 
thegame said:
I ordered a dual Recto from a dealer in, I’m almost certain, 1997. Would that have been a G? Never boosted it yet I found it tight enough with an EMG 81 ( just barely though).
Click to expand...

Same with mine. It was a 98, apparently worked on or built by Mike B. This amp breathed fire, didn't have to boost to get a great tone. The guy I sold it to owns a studio and uses it on almost everything he records now. Won't sell it back to me ☠️

RevG.jpg
 
stephen sawall said:
G

The F and G sounded pretty much the same. The individual amps differed more than the revisions.

The couple C I played on sounded too bright to me. Turn up the presence on the G it starts to sound more like a C.

I tend to prefer the G. I like the bounce for leads and cleans. It also sounds better with a overdrive or boost. I don't always want it as tight as possible.

I played on at least 50 or 60. If you ask me it's more about the individual amp than anything. I feel the same about all amps built by anyone.
Click to expand...
I found the Gs, both Dual and Triples to have no bounce whatsoever, terrible feel for lead work. The F was a revelation in that regard. Gs seemed to be rhythm only amps, at least the 5 (3 early G Duals, 2 Triples) that I had.
F Triples and the C I had were great lead amps, and had a much faster response.
Maybe those Gs needed new tubes? But, I've never noticed a change in feel with new tubes. It seemed to be a commonality between the revisions, since all 5 Gs had that same flat feel.
 
NewWorldMan said:
💯 The C is ridiculously bright, especially after you turn it up. People complain about “fizz” but then want the fizziest one of them all (C). The F and G vary only slightly, and I agree - if you’re boosting, G is probably the best for you overall. Usable cleans, and the OD channel all comes out in the wash anyway with a pedal in front.
Click to expand...
The C is the brightest and most aggressive of all Rectos, but it is in no way excessively bright or fizzy. Not even close.
 
stephen sawall said:
G

The F and G sounded pretty much the same. The individual amps differed more than the revisions.

The couple C I played on sounded too bright to me. Turn up the presence on the G it starts to sound more like a C.

I tend to prefer the G. I like the bounce for leads and cleans. It also sounds better with a overdrive or boost. I don't always want it as tight as possible.

I played on at least 50 or 60. If you ask me it's more about the individual amp than anything. I feel the same about all amps built by anyone.
Click to expand...
This is 100% true, individual amps differred more than the revisions. This goes for the Mark IV as well IMO.
Use the same guitar, same cab and you'll hear what I mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top