VHT 2/90/2, VHT 2/50/2, or Randall RT2/50???

[Dimebag11]

My biggest Pros for the Randall are A) Price, B) might add a bit of sag I like, C) I can run 4 tubes at once for recording purposes Mono

My biggest Pros for the VHT are A) Widely known as the best of the poweramps B) Voicing Option (could run just one preamp into both sides and run one with the Voicing Engaged for a nice stereo sound out of one preamp)

Cons for the Randall are A) Quality?? B) Probably not the clearest poweramp

Cons for the VHT are A) maybe too tight??? B) Price

I'll be running it with a Mako Mak4 Preamp (which is on it's own EXTREMELY tight) sometimes I find it too tight even using the Soldano Avenger's Power Section.

 

[fek]

Tough call. I have always wanted a VHT poweramp based on reviews, sound clips, and the overall status that they have acheived. I love the Randall's user friendly tube swap options and the ability to run two different types of tubes. These also have great reviews. I have not heard any complaints about reliability though. I do love the MTS series amps that I have had, still have a RM100, and have had great success using just the power section with other preamp units.

If money were no object, I would buy a VHT on past reputation alone. I would still want the Randall though.

 

[Dimebag11]

I gotta say I'm leaning towards the Randall because I could load one side with EL34's or EL34L's and the other side with 6550's Plus, I love the fact I can merge them mono to utlize all 4 tubes while I'm tracking

People say they're heavy but, that's usually a GOOD thing with a poweramp...usually means it has a nice big OT's!

Every post I've seen with comparisons between the VHT 2/90/2 and the Randall say they are pretty much on par with one another....it's a whole hell of a lot cheaper....obviously the if I could afford or find a VHT 2150 (in purple) I'd probably hop on that but, unless that happens I'm stuck between these poweramps.

Also, I'm thinking of snagging an M4 Preamp early next year, like January lol. I'll have so many god damn stereo tone options between that and the Mako Mak4 I'd be set for life.

 

[Mattfig]

As a proud RT2/50 owner, I can say it's a GREAT amp...It does everything it's supposed to and does it all well...I actually use the combo of tubes you would as well...WInged C SED EL34s on one side and Tung SOl 6550s on the other...Amazing results...Plus, setting the bias couldn't be easier...It's not cheaply made too....Very solid...Can't go wrong here...

 

[Devilinside]

With a preamp that tight already, id go with the VHT 2/50/2 for sure

 

[tcrash]

I had both the Randall and tha 2/90/2 at the same time and was able to compare them with my Egnater M4 preamp. I wanted to like the VHT better, because of the name recognition, and the reputation. In the end, it was NOT the better sounding pwr. amp.

 

[bubbastain]

Maybe a Randall RT2/50 owner can correct me if I'm wrong, But I think if you want to run all 4 tubes that you would need either a stereo cab or two cabs. You can't just bridge the two sides and plug into one input of one cab. So if you have let's say El34s on one side and 6550s on the other, each side would have to go to it's own speaker input. On a stereo cab, the two left speakers would have the sound of the el34s and the two right speakers would have the sound of the 6550s. If it could be bridged, then you could get the sound of el34s and 6550s blended together and use just one input on a cab(if you only had 1 mono cab for instance). I would definitely like to have the bridge option. Another question I have about the Randall is; I'm pretty sure it has the ability to switch between sides, Would I still need two input sources for this? So again on the stereo cab I could have the PAs left 50 go to one side of the cab or switch it to the right 50 going to the other side. Would be great if this could be done on a single input mono cab. Right side 50 through all 4 speakers and be able to switch to the left side 50(with diff. tubes/sound) through the same 4 speakers. Or even if I planned on using one side only, would I still need to have the other side hooked up?

 

[jlbaxe]

Maybe a Randall RT2/50 owner can correct me if I'm wrong, But I think if you want to run all 4 tubes or that you would need either a stereo cab or two cabs. You can't just bridge the two sides and plug into one input of one cab. So if you have let's say El34s on one side and 6550s on the other, each side would have to go to it's own speaker input. On a stereo cab, the two left speakers would have the sound of the el34s and the two right speakers would have the sound of the 6550s. If it could be bridged, then you could get the sound of el34s and 6550s blended together and use just one input on a cab(if you only had 1 mono cab for instance). I would definitely like to have the bridge option. Another question I have about the Randall is; I'm pretty sure it has the ability to switch between sides, Would I still need two input sources for this? So again on the stereo cab I could have the PAs left 50 go to one side of the cab or switch it to the right 50 going to the other side. Would be great if this could be done on a single input mono cab. Right side 50 through all 4 speakers and be able to switch to the left side 50(with diff. tubes/sound) through the same 4 speakers. Or even if I planned on using one side only, would I still need to have the other side hooked up?

Correct Sir

 

[Ventura]

FWIW, I've researched the snot out of the varied poweramps out there... Ya ya, worried about tight and dry, I've got the same Mak 4 on deck just like you. I ordered a Fryette 2/90/2 for a number of reasons - quality, headroom, potency, and now...a recent little bit of info that was gleaned...the depth control of the 2/90/2 acts like a slop/sag/excursion control. Which means, if ya don't like it tight, the Fryette's got the potential to change that. Further to this, as per Andrew's (Mako) recommendation, go with a higher headroom poweramp - the preamp sounds the way it sounds as it sounds, and doesn't rely on a power section to warm it up. He said the greater the headroom, the better the Mak 4, and hence, go for the 2/90/2.

I thought about the 2/50/2, the Mesa's, the Randall, the Marshall, the Peavey, the Carvin, you name it... Did a LOT of checking around. Also spoke to some of my buds in the production/recording world and everyone agreed - 2/90/2 by Fryette. Andrew said the same thing. So ya, it's expensive, but there's a reason for this, AND it's got the depth and presence controls needed to contour the sound a bit.

Go big, or go home
V.

 

[threadkiller]

you can't go wrong with any of these.

 

[Dimebag11]

Maybe I'll hold out for a VHT 2150 in Purple as long as it has the Voicing Switch

 

[Ventura]

Maybe I'll hold out for a VHT 2150 in Purple as long as it has the Voicing Switch

Just hang in there, the 2/90/2's will be better priced in 2011

V.

 

[RedB4Black]

I had the 2/90/2 and 2/50/2 when I had the Mak 4. I preferred the 2/90 with the Dorado and the 2/50 with the Makoplex. Overall, I'd say the 2/90.

 

[muudrock]

I had both the Randall and tha 2/90/2 at the same time and was able to compare them with my Egnater M4 preamp. I wanted to like the VHT better, because of the name recognition, and the reputation. In the end, it was NOT the better sounding pwr. amp.

For the M4, I would agree. I had both the 2/90/2 and the RT2/50 at the same time and I liked the Randall's sound and features better. I also think the Fryette is a killer power amp too though. Just for my rig, wasn't the better sounding amp.

Either way you go, I think you'll be happy.

 

[Dimebag11]

I had the 2/90/2 and 2/50/2 when I had the Mak 4. I preferred the 2/90 with the Dorado and the 2/50 with the Makoplex. Overall, I'd say the 2/90.

hmmm, ok

FWIW I like both channels A LOT but, the makoplex could use a tad bit of tightening but, the Dorado doesn't need any...however, I'm sure I can jack the gain up a bit to get it to compress a bit more.

 

[RedB4Black]

I had the 2/90/2 and 2/50/2 when I had the Mak 4. I preferred the 2/90 with the Dorado and the 2/50 with the Makoplex. Overall, I'd say the 2/90.

hmmm, ok

FWIW I like both channels A LOT but, the makoplex could use a tad bit of tightening but, the Dorado doesn't need any...however, I'm sure I can jack the gain up a bit to get it to compress a bit more.

Yeah. I didn't really even play the other channels much at all. I wasn't satisfied with the low end of the Mak4, which is why I sold it. The 2/90 gave it a little more balls and girth.

 

[Dimebag11]

I had the 2/90/2 and 2/50/2 when I had the Mak 4. I preferred the 2/90 with the Dorado and the 2/50 with the Makoplex. Overall, I'd say the 2/90.

hmmm, ok

FWIW I like both channels A LOT but, the makoplex could use a tad bit of tightening but, the Dorado doesn't need any...however, I'm sure I can jack the gain up a bit to get it to compress a bit more.

Yeah. I didn't really even play the other channels much at all. I wasn't satisfied with the low end of the Mak4, which is why I sold it. The 2/90 gave it a little more balls and girth.

Wow, I feel it has plenty of lows and I have the knobs around noon on the bass

The gain settings have a huge effect on the low's also.....another thing, the boosted Crunch channel is the most massive amazing tone in the whole preamp

 

[RedB4Black]

I had the 2/90/2 and 2/50/2 when I had the Mak 4. I preferred the 2/90 with the Dorado and the 2/50 with the Makoplex. Overall, I'd say the 2/90.

hmmm, ok

FWIW I like both channels A LOT but, the makoplex could use a tad bit of tightening but, the Dorado doesn't need any...however, I'm sure I can jack the gain up a bit to get it to compress a bit more.

Yeah. I didn't really even play the other channels much at all. I wasn't satisfied with the low end of the Mak4, which is why I sold it. The 2/90 gave it a little more balls and girth.

Wow, I feel it has plenty of lows and I have the knobs around noon on the bass

The gain settings have a huge effect on the low's also.....another thing, the boosted Crunch channel is the most massive amazing tone in the whole preamp

I can't remember, but it sounded best with the gain and bass set low. I didn't like the bass response when I turned it up.

 

[Ventura]

I had the 2/90/2 and 2/50/2 when I had the Mak 4. I preferred the 2/90 with the Dorado and the 2/50 with the Makoplex. Overall, I'd say the 2/90.

hmmm, ok

FWIW I like both channels A LOT but, the makoplex could use a tad bit of tightening but, the Dorado doesn't need any...however, I'm sure I can jack the gain up a bit to get it to compress a bit more.

Yeah. I didn't really even play the other channels much at all. I wasn't satisfied with the low end of the Mak4, which is why I sold it. The 2/90 gave it a little more balls and girth.

Wow, I feel it has plenty of lows and I have the knobs around noon on the bass

The gain settings have a huge effect on the low's also.....another thing, the boosted Crunch channel is the most massive amazing tone in the whole preamp

I can't remember, but it sounded best with the gain and bass set low. I didn't like the bass response when I turned it up.

Hence the beauty of KT88 bottles and a DEPTH control...

Thunder

V.

 

[Dimebag11]

Update:

I purchased a Fryette 2/50/2, used, from Musiciansfriend. It was a little more than I was intending to pay but, it's in great condition and I have a 45 day return policy to go with it

Every you tube video I see with the 2/50/2 and 2/90/2 I've preferred the 2/50/2 100% of the time...even when they are running the same preamp etc....I also prefer the CL series VHT's to the UL so, I went with the "CL" Poweramp.

Also, I find myself playing on the Makoplex and Crunch channels moreso than the Dorado channel....so, I'm more concerned with getting those to sound their best Hence, EL34's.