I tried both and a Tremoverb and ended up sticking with the Tremoverb. One can't tell by listening to these youtube videos, you need to play the real thing and decide for yourself. The Tremoverb has great cleans and blues channel and with a tubescreamer up front on orange channel cloned to modern, I had the best feel and sound of agression for my personal taste. As usual, thanks Lasse for these great videos helping us musicians!
I remember years ago walking into a Guitar Center and trying a Rev G DR, a single rectifier & a first gen. 3 channel DR (all heads) back-to-back at the same time. That was back when GC was actually accommodating and nice about their business. Anyway, the most noticeable takeaway between the rev G and the three channel was less about tone and more about "feel". The rev G, for whatever reason, seemed more touch-sensitive, organic and "liquid" if that makes any sense. The 3 channel was no slouch but seemed inhibited in some way and a little harder and less expressive to play. Tone for tone, only slightly there's a difference but you should notice the attack is less pronounced on the 3 ch. As far as the Single Rectifier, I could be wrong, but my impression is that it's a completely different amp. The attack was stiff and the tone was compressed and "nasally," I personally didn't care for it, but someone else might. Also, I'm primarily talking about the dirt channels and not so much about the cleans between all of them. Hope this helps but make sure you try before you buy because everybody's preferences are usually different.
Guitar Center nowadays are so fucking stingy about people playing their tube amps. I swear, some of the workers there don’t even understand how an amp works.
Other than the 3 channel sounding marginally louder (volume or more treble content ?), they sound nearly identical. My guess is that you could pick any two Rectifiers and get the same difference, due to tube and component tolerance variation. But what a sound. Great demo :)
Never had the opportunity to own a 2-channel but I've had a 3 since 2005, good to see there's not a massive difference(heard over and over the 2 channel is way better)
Great video bro. The three channel sounds very slightly better to me. Sharper. But he 2 channel is a little darker. But they sound almost identical. So clearly they are both quality. Thanks.
So you're Lasse Lammert :) I heard some very good words about you here in Norway and your amazing production skills and now stumbled upon your profile by accident while looking at different rectifier revisions. The triple rectifier is 150W and the dual is 100W. The difference is I guess just a matter of taste in the end.
Not a huge difference, but it is REALLY important to use the same types of preamp & power amp tubes to do a side by side comparison. Even better if you use the same brand of tubes if you want to really get a "true" side by side.
Sounds practically identical to me, if I was blind tested I likely wouldnt be able to figure out which was which, and if there was even another amp at points lol. After some hyper focused analyzing though, only thing I noticed that seemed worth noting was that the 3 Channel sounds a little more compressed and it’s the high end was just a hair more present (at some times). I think that can be easily attributed to the subtle differences between tubes & part tolerances within the amps themselves. So as I said before, practically identical to me.
In the 3rd riff with the open thrash palm mutes when he hits the power chords you can hear the fizz and lack of definition in the 3 channel. 3 channel sounds a bit "squishy" in those metalica thrash opens as well in comparison to the 2 channel
3ch is more aggressive edit: But maybe because the 3ch is a triple rectifier, I noticed that afterward in the comments, that fight is not fair. I bought a 3ch dual rectifier solo head after having watched this video and I can tell this amp lacks of treble, my other 2ch dual rectifier tremoverb has a slightly lower distortion but has way more treble and so the distortion is more cutting, sharp, aggressive, the perfect amp could be a mix of the 2. Maybe the new multiwatt ? Dunno but the path to find THE amp is harder than expected. edit 2: by increasing the master volume & output volume and by using fx loop return send knobs to lower the global volume for bedroom level, treble of the 3ch are back
The Rev. E sounds like it doesn't have as much sizz going in the high end as the three channel, but I don't that justifies the prices collectors ask for the older ones. Still, there's gotta be something in person with these. Maybe I'm just wanting a good difference when it's so marginal it's probably not worth the discussion.
If you want to cut the fizz use a 10 band EQ in the loop on a 3 channel. That will cut the fizz and give you MUCH more flexibility and many more benefits.
I believe the channel 3 is Dual Rec rev F, and channel 2 is triple rec. The channel 3 has more warm sounds, smooth and not as rough as the channel 2, so yeah rev F is in the channel 3, am I right?
All the dude's with a 2 channel are going to swear it's better. No matter what. Personally, I love having a separate lead channel to dial in just perfect. Modern for rhythm and vintage for leads. 2 channel owners can't do that, and they're just salty, lol.
Damn man.. So close.. The 2 channel has something in the low mids though, which make it seem just a tad less fizzy. But like you said, they have different tubes here... The only way to fairly compare is with the same tubes, although at the same time, maybe you put the tubes in each that made each individual amp sound the best to you. Asking you to do every possible permutation is unfair I guess, since you share so much already!
Might just need to turn the mids up on the 3 channel. Get more pick attack and mid grit punch. On my 3 channel i do also enjoy channel two alot. Much more mid focused.
Hard to compare a 100 watt dual recto with a 150 watt triple recto. They sound different. Tubes matter. Overall I prefer the 3 channel. The multi watts have a better clean channel IMHO
I've had Rev. G back in 2000 and more recently a Rev. D #R00149 and to be honest I couldn't really tell much difference between the two. I realize this is about 2 vs. 3 but I think the same idea is relevent. Some actually bok at a Rev. G when if you listen to the guys who built and engineered these amps the Rev. G was the perfected tone Mesa was after. At the time of this comment (Nov. 2022) I see 2 channels like my old Rev. D (especially the "holy grails" pre 500's) going for $4k up to $6K (even saw #R00021 for $10k) and the 3 channels are way down at $1399 - $1700. I think there's just a hype about the 2 channels and to be honest I'd look forward to looking on Reverb or Ebay even craigslist for the hidden gem 2 channel because lets be honest....They ain't making any more....so it ends up being a little bit of a mind F and you notice reviewers here promantly showing their 2 channels with their custom ordered blue or green power light or painting the diamond plate black for the black on black look (guilty of that). I would say any difference I could notice is the mids and brights a tiny bit different hesitate to say better but really it's up to the player.........I still look farly regularly for the 2 channels just to see what's out there. Right now.......They are high.
So Lasse, between these two heads and the JCM 800- ALL BONE STOCK, which would you choose if you couldn't have the others, but you can use any pickups, guitar, cab, boost pedals etc.
You're comparing a dual with a triple. A triple will always have more growl in it because it has more valves. But if you were to compare 2 dual rectifiers, the 2 channel is superior to a 3 channel. Had them both and sold the 3 channel Dual Rectifier. Same goes for 2 channel Triple Rectifiers. They kill the newer 3 channel triples.
Do the two heads have the same OT? The amp with the bigger OT could still easily end up punchier/less compressed even running less tubes to reduce its wattage.
cynicanal111 well, the main argument why the 2ch are supposed to be better is because they have Schumacher trannys. They don’t have the same transformers just like a lot of other components aren’t exactly the same between the 2ch and 3ch. You’re kinda focusing on the smallest one of the differences with the 100w vs 150->100w conversion now though. Does it make a difference? Yes, probably. Is that gonna be the main difference attributing to the difference you’re hearing in sound? Extremely unlikely
I knew about the Schumacher, I was referring more to whether the TRs of any given generation had the same OTs as the DR. Some manufacturers use the same OT in bigger and smaller versions of the same amp (Laney comes to mind in their 50/60 watt amps vs. the 100/120 watt versions of the same amps, and Bogner uses the same OT in both the 100 watt "regular" Uberschall and the 150 watt TJ), and some manufacturers use different OTs for 50 vs. 100 watt versions of the same amp (Soldano, for instance), and I wasn't sure which way Mesa went on the Rectos (and Google turns up people claiming both ways). In my very limited experience with the "pull two power tubes" thing, it's never seemed to change the sound noticeably, which lead me to believe the OT was the bigger difference in high-watt vs. low-watt versions of the same amp, but that could be just a matter of the amp I've done it on.
cynicanal111 i actually don’t know if Mesa uses the same transformers for 100w and 150w models of the same year, would be interesting to find out though
Hey Lasse, Got a question. So I have a Triple Recto(multi-watt). I want to use my amp with my headphones and get the chainsaw like brutal tone u got here. Do I need like, a Torpedo Live or sth? Many Thanks!(if u reply i can explain furthermore the situation)
The two channel sounds like it gets deeper. There is also a difference between the very small logo two channel vs the later bigger logo two channel dual rec. So when people are saying that the two channel is better they could be referring to the early version dual rectifiers. I own two of the small logo ones and they are killer..
2/down is way better; the EQ voicing is similar, but the attack and texture of 2/down blows 3/up out of the water. Not sure which is which since it was never said in the vid.
There's something going on @ lo mids in the 2 channel that make it stand out. The tight and harsh 3 channel sounds more flat and unidimensional. But it's very close indeed.
Two Channel has more fizz and less bottom end. But you 'are' comparing a Triple with a Dual so even if both amps were of the same year they would sound little different. The differences aren't worth the consideration because they aren't that far apart.
I tried both and a Tremoverb and ended up sticking with the Tremoverb. One can't tell by listening to these youtube videos, you need to play the real thing and decide for yourself. The Tremoverb has great cleans and blues channel and with a tubescreamer up front on orange channel cloned to modern, I had the best feel and sound of agression for my personal taste. As usual, thanks Lasse for these great videos helping us musicians!
I actually kinda liked the 3 channel here. Less stuffy mids and bolder, deeper low-end.
I remember years ago walking into a Guitar Center and trying a Rev G DR, a single rectifier & a first gen. 3 channel DR (all heads) back-to-back at the same time. That was back when GC was actually accommodating and nice about their business. Anyway, the most noticeable takeaway between the rev G and the three channel was less about tone and more about "feel". The rev G, for whatever reason, seemed more touch-sensitive, organic and "liquid" if that makes any sense. The 3 channel was no slouch but seemed inhibited in some way and a little harder and less expressive to play. Tone for tone, only slightly there's a difference but you should notice the attack is less pronounced on the 3 ch. As far as the Single Rectifier, I could be wrong, but my impression is that it's a completely different amp. The attack was stiff and the tone was compressed and "nasally," I personally didn't care for it, but someone else might. Also, I'm primarily talking about the dirt channels and not so much about the cleans between all of them. Hope this helps but make sure you try before you buy because everybody's preferences are usually different.
Guitar Center nowadays are so fucking stingy about people playing their tube amps. I swear, some of the workers there don’t even understand how an amp works.
Other than the 3 channel sounding marginally louder (volume or more treble content ?), they sound nearly identical.
My guess is that you could pick any two Rectifiers and get the same difference, due to tube and component tolerance variation.
But what a sound. Great demo :)
Never had the opportunity to own a 2-channel but I've had a 3 since 2005, good to see there's not a massive difference(heard over and over the 2 channel is way better)
Yeah; the difference is there but nowhere near as big as opinions on forums are claiming.
Exactly, forums make it seem like they're light years apart.
Great video bro. The three channel sounds very slightly better to me. Sharper. But he 2 channel is a little darker. But they sound almost identical. So clearly they are both quality. Thanks.
Thanks for the kind feedback!
So you're Lasse Lammert :) I heard some very good words about you here in Norway and your amazing production skills and now stumbled upon your profile by accident while looking at different rectifier revisions. The triple rectifier is 150W and the dual is 100W. The difference is I guess just a matter of taste in the end.
Yea man an ir pack would be dope, your tones are awesome, especially the 800 tones!
Not a huge difference, but it is REALLY important to use the same types of preamp & power amp tubes to do a side by side comparison. Even better if you use the same brand of tubes if you want to really get a "true" side by side.
That 3 channel sounds pretty good to my ears but they both do really.
i think the 3 channel sounds thicker otherwise the same
3 channel seems to have more native presence, adjusting that control I assume you could get either to sound almost exactly like the other
Goddamn, this is why I love Mesa, you get such a brutal tone right out of the box, and it only gets better when you add od pedals.
Nice video. I like the 2 channel head.
Sounds practically identical to me, if I was blind tested I likely wouldnt be able to figure out which was which, and if there was even another amp at points lol.
After some hyper focused analyzing though, only thing I noticed that seemed worth noting was that the 3 Channel sounds a little more compressed and it’s the high end was just a hair more present (at some times). I think that can be easily attributed to the subtle differences between tubes & part tolerances within the amps themselves.
So as I said before, practically identical to me.
In the 3rd riff with the open thrash palm mutes when he hits the power chords you can hear the fizz and lack of definition in the 3 channel. 3 channel sounds a bit "squishy" in those metalica thrash opens as well in comparison to the 2 channel
3ch is more aggressive
edit: But maybe because the 3ch is a triple rectifier, I noticed that afterward in the comments, that fight is not fair. I bought a 3ch dual rectifier solo head after having watched this video and I can tell this amp lacks of treble, my other 2ch dual rectifier tremoverb has a slightly lower distortion but has way more treble and so the distortion is more cutting, sharp, aggressive, the perfect amp could be a mix of the 2. Maybe the new multiwatt ? Dunno but the path to find THE amp is harder than expected.
edit 2: by increasing the master volume & output volume and by using fx loop return send knobs to lower the global volume for bedroom level, treble of the 3ch are back
So close it's not worth mentioning a difference. The hype is real. They're the same
I'm sure in the room it's much different. UA-cam compresses audio so vids make it hard to tell
If they both sound the same to you get a 3 channel and enjoy the versatility a 3rd channel gives you.
They're way different, dude
I actually preferred the 3 channel in this clip. Sounds more cutting
I like the 3 chan more too. At least in this clip. Not by much though. Both sound great!
The Rev. E sounds like it doesn't have as much sizz going in the high end as the three channel, but I don't that justifies the prices collectors ask for the older ones.
Still, there's gotta be something in person with these. Maybe I'm just wanting a good difference when it's so marginal it's probably not worth the discussion.
If you want to cut the fizz use a 10 band EQ in the loop on a 3 channel. That will cut the fizz and give you MUCH more flexibility and many more benefits.
Nice comparison. Can you tell the brand of the tubes in each of the amps?
Triple seems a bit tighter and I prefer the mid texture it seems to have over the 2ch..
I believe the channel 3 is Dual Rec rev F, and channel 2 is triple rec. The channel 3 has more warm sounds, smooth and not as rough as the channel 2, so yeah rev F is in the channel 3, am I right?
And people have been giving *Ola* shit about making amps sound the same... Lookie here! :P Great comparison, Lasse!
All the dude's with a 2 channel are going to swear it's better. No matter what. Personally, I love having a separate lead channel to dial in just perfect. Modern for rhythm and vintage for leads. 2 channel owners can't do that, and they're just salty, lol.
I'll take both, please! Thanks :D
Damn man.. So close.. The 2 channel has something in the low mids though, which make it seem just a tad less fizzy. But like you said, they have different tubes here... The only way to fairly compare is with the same tubes, although at the same time, maybe you put the tubes in each that made each individual amp sound the best to you.
Asking you to do every possible permutation is unfair I guess, since you share so much already!
Your tones are always the best. Any IR pack soon?
Thanks mate.
Not sure, I’ve been thinking about doing a capture masters thing, but I’m too lazy 😂
I think the 3 channel actually sounds better.
Might just need to turn the mids up on the 3 channel. Get more pick attack and mid grit punch. On my 3 channel i do also enjoy channel two alot. Much more mid focused.
I think an EQ pedal in front of the 3 channel attenuating 100 Hz and 1.6 kHz and a tiny dip at 10 kHz and it will Rev F.
Hard to compare a 100 watt dual recto with a 150 watt triple recto. They sound different. Tubes matter. Overall I prefer the 3 channel. The multi watts have a better clean channel IMHO
Also not a volume difference. Found triples have a fuller sound than the duals
I converted this to dual for this test
When I need to pay this much attention to the difference in tone, they're basically the same amp.
are you playing them with an overdrive at the front? it sounds like there is some sort of OD there?
I don't know which one is 'considered' better, but I preferred 3. 2 sounds a bit rougher and uglier around the edges, 3 more refined and heavier.
2:41, 2:53, 3:05, 3:18, 3:31, 3:43, 3:56, 4:07
I've had Rev. G back in 2000 and more recently a Rev. D #R00149 and to be honest I couldn't really tell much difference between the two. I realize this is about 2 vs. 3 but I think the
same idea is relevent. Some actually bok at a Rev. G when if you listen to the guys who built and engineered these amps the Rev. G was the perfected tone Mesa was after. At the time
of this comment (Nov. 2022) I see 2 channels like my old Rev. D (especially the "holy grails" pre 500's) going for $4k up to $6K (even saw #R00021 for $10k) and the 3 channels are
way down at $1399 - $1700. I think there's just a hype about the 2 channels and to be honest I'd look forward to looking on Reverb or Ebay even craigslist for the hidden gem 2 channel because lets be honest....They ain't making any more....so it ends up being a little bit of a mind F and you notice reviewers here promantly showing their 2 channels with their custom ordered blue or green power light or painting the diamond plate black for the black on black look (guilty of that). I would say any difference I could notice is the mids and brights a tiny bit different hesitate to say better but really it's up to the player.........I still look farly regularly for the 2 channels just to see what's out there. Right now.......They are high.
Can you bother to install the same tubes and redo the comparison?
So Lasse, between these two heads and the JCM 800- ALL BONE STOCK, which would you choose if you couldn't have the others, but you can use any pickups, guitar, cab, boost pedals etc.
3ch recto is really versatile.
So in a studio situation with just one amp, that’d be hard to beat.
Thank fuck I don’t have to use just one amp :)
Still prefer the Mark V to either of these.
Same here. Much tighter for palm muting and speed picking.
What are your settings on the 2 channel recto? I'm having trouble dialing mine in
You're comparing a dual with a triple. A triple will always have more growl in it because it has more valves. But if you were to compare 2 dual rectifiers, the 2 channel is superior to a 3 channel. Had them both and sold the 3 channel Dual Rectifier. Same goes for 2 channel Triple Rectifiers. They kill the newer 3 channel triples.
I pulled a pair of tubes to turn this into a 100W head
Do the two heads have the same OT? The amp with the bigger OT could still easily end up punchier/less compressed even running less tubes to reduce its wattage.
cynicanal111 well, the main argument why the 2ch are supposed to be better is because they have Schumacher trannys.
They don’t have the same transformers just like a lot of other components aren’t exactly the same between the 2ch and 3ch.
You’re kinda focusing on the smallest one of the differences with the 100w vs 150->100w conversion now though.
Does it make a difference? Yes, probably.
Is that gonna be the main difference attributing to the difference you’re hearing in sound? Extremely unlikely
I knew about the Schumacher, I was referring more to whether the TRs of any given generation had the same OTs as the DR. Some manufacturers use the same OT in bigger and smaller versions of the same amp (Laney comes to mind in their 50/60 watt amps vs. the 100/120 watt versions of the same amps, and Bogner uses the same OT in both the 100 watt "regular" Uberschall and the 150 watt TJ), and some manufacturers use different OTs for 50 vs. 100 watt versions of the same amp (Soldano, for instance), and I wasn't sure which way Mesa went on the Rectos (and Google turns up people claiming both ways).
In my very limited experience with the "pull two power tubes" thing, it's never seemed to change the sound noticeably, which lead me to believe the OT was the bigger difference in high-watt vs. low-watt versions of the same amp, but that could be just a matter of the amp I've done it on.
cynicanal111 i actually don’t know if Mesa uses the same transformers for 100w and 150w models of the same year, would be interesting to find out though
2ch ALWAYS BETTER!
i like dual channel more !
Me too! That's why I own one!
They both sound great to me. The 3 channel is a tad more edgy and brutal.
Hey Lasse, Got a question.
So I have a Triple Recto(multi-watt). I want to use my amp with my headphones and get the chainsaw like brutal tone u got here. Do I need like, a Torpedo Live or sth? Many Thanks!(if u reply i can explain furthermore the situation)
Its based on a recto cab with v30s
Wheres your studio at ?
The two channel sounds like it gets deeper. There is also a difference between the very small logo two channel vs the later bigger logo two channel dual rec. So when people are saying that the two channel is better they could be referring to the early version dual rectifiers. I own two of the small logo ones and they are killer..
In your video they don’t sound as different as they do in my personal experience.
There's a tad more going with the 3 chan
Hey man can you do a VS video with the Mark III and Mark IV?
Don’t have a mk4 anymore, sorry
i have a 3 channel dual. mesa is confusing
The differences are so minuet that it's not even worth comparing IMO. In a mix you won't be able to tell one amp from another.
I prefer 3 channel.
2/down is way better; the EQ voicing is similar, but the attack and texture of 2/down blows 3/up out of the water. Not sure which is which since it was never said in the vid.
But it’s actually said in the vid :)
lol, you didnt even watch it, right?
There's something going on @ lo mids in the 2 channel that make it stand out. The tight and harsh 3 channel sounds more flat and unidimensional. But it's very close indeed.
Two Channel has more fizz and less bottom end. But you 'are' comparing a Triple with a Dual so even if both amps were of the same year they would sound little different. The differences aren't worth the consideration because they aren't that far apart.
2 channel is better. Way better. It's tighter and more organic and full
Dual for me.
the web tells always the 2 ch wins ... not really ... typical guitar player ... old is always better ... 3 channel wins clearly
Get rid of that New York Yankees hat, son!
Nope :)
@@LasseLammert😂