Форум гитаристов

Franticus,  приятно, что обзоры помогают кому-то определиться с выбором. я вот тоже как-то сразу отложил планы с покупкой ректы 

Turok, ай черт ) я после 2й страницы ржаки уже не помнил кто топик-стартер

Franticus, ну там в двух словах описывалать разница между KK и ZW. в КК больше фич, а ZW ближе к оригиналу по звуку. мне больше всего понравился кранч 2203, это то, что я искал, поэтому дополнительный запас гейна в КК мне не нужен.
пардон за оффтоп

Подскажите кто знает, есть ли отличия по качеству в двухканальных дуал ректах в периоды 92-93 год и 99-00 годы??

Turok, ай черт ) я после 2й страницы ржаки уже не помнил кто топик-стартер

удивительно, что тема еще не во флэйме 

... и добавил:

кто хочет, то найдет... мне вот ваша тема про Маршалл 2203, так цепанула... что сам в поисках и вечных метаниях теперь =) - что лучше: Marshall 2203KK vs Marshall 2203ZW? или во обще Marshall 2555SL искать...
не однозначно все... =)

от бюджета зависит. А так, бери Silver Jubilee

Подскажите кто знает, есть ли отличия по качеству в двухканальных дуал ректах в периоды 92-93 год и 99-00 годы??

Хорошее примечание.. Правда любителей посвистеть о том, о чем понятия не имеют, это не останавливает, но все же..

У рект было множество ревизий. На эту тему можно отдельную статью написать.. (кстати?  )

От RF-1A до RF-1G. При чем многие из них были выставлены на рынок в самые первые годы выпуска, т.к. свои прототипы они естественно на людях обкатывали. Известно, что первые усилители, так называемые pre-500 (из-за секвентальных серийников) укомплектовывались трансформаторами Шумахер, которые тогда ставили в серии Mark. Поэтому у них поинтереснее звучание (хотя это вероятность, ибо никто не занимался заменой трансов, для влияния их оценки на звук - таких больных, слава Богу, нет). В целом же, ректа - она и в африке ректа. Различия в звуке между всеми ревизиями есть, но они минимальны. Т.е. для того, чтобы определяться, какие тебе больше нравятся, нужно сравнивать их лоб в лоб.

Turok, кстати, отличная мысль написать о ревизиях. я вот единственное, что нагуглил, но еще не все прочитал:

Here's the gist....

Rev A and B - Preproduction, never released

Rev C - First production version. Went to around 280 units. Brighter, tighter and more aggressive than later versions. Clean mode sucked.

Rev D - A bit darker, although tonally not much different than a C. The assumption is that Boogie wanted to improve the rhythm tone. Went from around 280 to 513 or so and ceased production in Aug 92.

Rev E - Not much is known about it as there were only somewhere around 110 to 150 released. Presumably it sits somewhere between D and F in terms of tone. This was a transition version with a lot of mods done to an earlier PCB, so there may have been changes made from amp to amp at some points. Presumably Rev F superceeded it as soon as the new PCBs arrived.

Ref F - A bit darker, but still bright by Rev G standards. Also voiced looser than previous revisions. Much better clean channel. Went from around 650 to 2820 and ceased production in late 1993. These are the last of the Rectifiers using the Mark III transformer.

Ref G - Darker yet. Rev G is the final 2 channel revision and is built around a different transformer than the previous revisions. It went from around serial number 2822 in late 1993 until it ceased production somewhere around 16,000 units in 2000. It is darker, looser, and has more bottom end than previous versions. Also has the best clean channel, a parallel effects loop and is the first to have the solo volume boost feature. The head covering switched from leather to tolex on this version. Although many will argue pre-500 this and rev whatever that sound better, THIS revision is the classic 90s Dual Rectifier tone.

I believe the Tremoverb is based off the Rev G.

I don't think it's any secret that the Recto was based off the SLO-100. The earlier revisions (C through F) are brighter and more agressive. Some would say "More Marshall like". Later revisions (D through G) progressed towards sounding bigger and heavier, culmonating in the Revision G, which was the final revision of the original 2 channel Dual.

Arguably, the earlier revisions are better for lead players while the later versions are better for rhythm. I've read that a boosted Rev F gets into Rev C territory on aggression and tightness. I don't know if this holds true for Rev Gs as they're based around a different transformer, but I do know that using an OD does still tighten them up and add more cut.

Although originally designed as a hair metal lead amp, some people will argue that the 2 channel's voicing was darkened to make it more suitable for grunge. My personal opinion is that this argument doesn't hold a lot of water as the revision G was already out prior to Soundgarden releasing Superunknown and it was that album (plus Korn's self titled released later that year) that kick started the sales of that amp. I believe the gradual darkening of the amp was simply Boogie's attempt to make the amp more versitile (ie, better cleans, better high gain rhythm).

The above is a mix of my own opinion and stuff I've read off the internet over the years. I own an F, have played Gs (never back to back with the F however) and used to own a Recto Pre/2:100 rack setup. I've never played a 3 channel, so don't ask my opinion on it. I will state that when the 3-channel was relatively new there were plenty of people who liked it better than the 2-channel due to it's extra brightness/cut (and the third channel). Now conventional internet wisdom teaches people to hate it due to it being too bright/fizzy... so as always, your mileage may vary. The Roadster is very highly rated. I've talked to a few people online who've replaced their early 2 channels with the Roadster. Some claim it sounds just as good or better, and others claim that although it isn't quite as good as their 2 channel, the increased functionality of having 4 channels outweighs the small decrease in tonal performance when it comes to live applications.

I believe that Boogie's original intent was for the amp to be used as a crunch/lead amp with the guitarist using the guitar's volume knob for cleans, hence clean mode being a bit of an afterthought that originally worked like shit. It actually does work pretty good this way.

I will say however that using it as a clean/crunch amp does tend to work better if you don't want to fiddle with your knobs. Problem is that now you need an OD pedal for leads. I think this is why Boogie added the 'solo boost' feature on the Rev G.... increased compression through hitting the power tubes harder, plus a nice step out in volume to assist in cut/presence. However, the solo boost does have it's limits since you have a shared EQ between rhythm and lead tones, so if you want a slightly scooped feeling rhythm tone your leads are going to have trouble cutting, or conversely if you want a compressed and mid heavy lead tone your rhythm tone will be messy as shit... which is probably why they eventually added dedicated clean channel to free up the original two channels so they can be dialled in for optimum rhythm/lead use.

And to add to that... sometimes you want cleaner cleans, and sometimes you want overdriven cleans. Enter the 4th channel.

In short... consider the tone of the amp, but also consider your application. I love my Rev F, however I'd love a pure volume solo boost since I hate adding gain as it kills the touch, and there's times where those extra 2 channels would definetly come in handy. The only thing holding me back from getting a Roadster is that i already own a Dual Recto, won't sell the one I have and can't justfy owning two. Plus I want a Mark V more than I want a second Recto.