
ZEEGLER
Well-known member
So i’m wondering…..if the older ones really sound better, why did Mesa keep revising them and making them sound worse?
The same question pretty much applies to any amp doesn't it.
So i’m wondering…..if the older ones really sound better, why did Mesa keep revising them and making them sound worse?
I think Mesa bois ride the hype train as hard or even harder than anyone else. I’ve owned a bunch of the hyped amps back in the day before they experienced this new wave of ridiculous asking prices and they aren’t necessarily better. A lot of hyperbole and mystique are created by average players with 20k in tube heads that rarely get played.So i’m wondering…..if the older ones really sound better, why did Mesa keep revising them and making them sound worse?
Why do newer Marshall’s sound anemic and flat compared to the vintage versions? Vintage parts and age? Hard to say. With Rectos, there are circuit changes that kept occurring that changed the tone in a big way…the darker smoother Rev G is it’s own thing; defines the 90s tone a bit. But for me, who loves Marshalls I find the earlier versions sound more open, raw and are much brighter to give a Mesa meets Marshall thing. And no, you can’t just turn up the highs to make a G sound like an F or earlier. I’ve tried. The G gets brighter but the F sounds way better in every way. Like a C+ vs a III…sure they both are Marks but the C+ just has a better tone. It’s not hype, there are real differences and they are undeniable to my ears anyway. Worth the price? Up to you. I’ve played vintage strats that are worth 20k+. But I still like my USA Charvels better and wouldn’t even consider dropping that coin on any guitar. But that’s just me. YMMV.So i’m wondering…..if the older ones really sound better, why did Mesa keep revising them and making them sound worse?
Like a C+ vs a III…sure they both are Marks but the C+ just has a better tone. It’s not hype, there are real differences and they are undeniable to my ears anyway.
wait!!!! ________you've just succinctly described this forumA lot of hyperbole and mystique are created by average players with 20k in tube heads that rarely get played.
I’ve never heard that; the III that sounds the closest to a C+ is the first version no/black stripe which started off using up the last remaining C+ power transformers, the 100 and 105. But my experience with them is limited to red and purple stripe DRGs…neither of which sounded anywhere near as good as a C+.Is it true that the first runs of IIIs were designed based on the wrong schematic?
And the subsequent revisions/stripes were to get it back closer to a IIC+?
We had a lengthy discussion about this with a few guys from Boogie at the Rockaway Sat. office. A lot of guys who owned the early DRs were complaining that the clean sucked, so after the 1st 500 they changed it to make the clean a little more user friendly. Problem was that the Orange channel really lacked after that, and lost a lot of what made the Orange channel sound so good.So i’m wondering…..if the older ones really sound better, why did Mesa keep revising them and making them sound worse?
So i’m wondering…..if the older ones really sound better, why did Mesa keep revising them and making them sound worse?
My Revision C (and D) is nowhere near as tight as my Coliseum or my other “normal” Mark IIIs.I have a Rev D and it is noticeably tighter and more attack-y than any of the later Revisions I've tried (I've tried every version Recto except for Rev C & E), but still not as tight as my iic+ or coli's. Curious how a Rev C would compare. The tightest "Recto" I've tried has been my Badlander (to me is tighter than the marks), but very different sound and feel (even more so) than other Rectifiers. I have an '89 SLO and I don't think my Rev D nor Triple Rev F/C sound much like it at all
Agreed, probably would be a trade off if it got too much tighter. I like that the Rev D is tighter than other Recto’s, but still has all that sag like the others that I think gives it all that character, depth like you said and that very complete growl. I think also it’s spongey and tube rectification modes are more useable than other revisions since it’s tighterMy Revision C (and D) is nowhere near as tight as my Coliseum or my other “normal” Mark IIIs.
But, with that being said, they play as tight as you can expect an amp to track while having tonal depth they have. It sounds and feels to me like the early Rectos straddle the line between the fast tracking, and depth of tone. If the Pre-500s tracked any quicker, it seems like they would lose the depth and mid focus they have.
Yes you can…the Boogie Board has some ‘pre 500’ mods you can do. I’ve done a few; jumped 3 resistors, bypassed 1 LDR, changed the red presence and both gain pots and it sounds amazing. Mostly the Red channel was affected; more touch sensitive, better focus and clarity with more upper mids. Closer to a C I’d imagine. The Orange still keeps the wall of sound thing while also improving the focus and clarity.You can get a G close to an F with a few tweaks on the board. I don’t get the insane prices but I guess it is, what it is. Glad I got my T-verb for a reasonable price to cover the occasional recto craving. Would never pay more than 1K for a 2 channel G but I wouldn’t really want one anyway…lol Had a chrome chassis, triple F in 2012 or so that I got for $1000 but was a complete impulse buy as I think the chromes are sexy as hell. Realized it didn’t sound as good as it looked (how I feel about all of them, not just this one) ,took it to a GC a month or so later and they gave me 1K for it so I considers it an easy come easy go. It’s just weird. G’s were 800-900 for the longest time.
There's a huge difference between my F Triple and the last G Triple I had. While the G is very good, the F is that much better IMO. Just way more organic, better clarity...like the difference between a generic newer Marshall and a 71 Superlead.
Still had the Recto thing but it is much better sounding to my ears. The earlier the revision the more 'Mesa meets Marshall' it sounds...
They will never be a super tight amp...like a Mark...but I'm not one who needs super tight metal tones. I have heard the Rev C can get almost Mark tight.
I have no idea what revision it was, nor do I know the difference between the various revisions, but I had a ‘94 2-channel Dual Rec that was modified for an adjustable bias by James Peters. That amp sounded a lot better than the 3 Channel ones. It had more high mids than the later Rectos, was more old school gain. Like a wide, darker, fatter JCM 800. I miss that amp. It would’ve paired perfectly with a good Super Lead. The Orange channel cloned to Modern would get pretty Marshally.
My fav also...although now after the few mods I did the Red is right there with the Orange, and more upper mids as well. If I were still playing out, the Orange cloned to modern would be my Rhythm, and Red my lead. More upper mids now, on the Red.I live on Orange modern almost exclusively with my rev F as well.
I totally agree! I love the voicing of these early Rectifiers, but I still keep my Rev Gs around because they sound so much different…so much more “Rectifier” like.Agreed, probably would be a trade off if it got too much tighter. I like that the Rev D is tighter than other Recto’s, but still has all that sag like the others that I think gives it all that character, depth like you said and that very complete growl. I think also it’s spongey and tube rectification modes are more useable than other revisions since it’s tighter
Would you feel comfortable sharing the mods you made? I’d love to hear about them!My fav also...although now after the few mods I did the Red is right there with the Orange, and more upper mids as well. If I were still playing out, the Orange cloned to modern would be my Rhythm, and Red my lead. More upper mids now, on the Red.