Mesa 2 Ch. Dual Rec vs. Roadster comparison! (AKA I NEED ROADSTERZ)

[noarin]

this is mine through the Soldano, I think it's quite close to the original because I think they used a Soldano SLO-100 for the Holy Diver cover and that circuitry is pretty close to my HR-50..
http://stud.hro.nl/0762457/soldano-holydiver.mp3 (without drums)
http://stud.hro.nl/0762457/holydiver-soldano-drums.mp3 (with drums)

as for the 2 ch. dual rec vs roadster, I´ve heard the Racktifier (so the Dual rec in a rack) is one of the best dual recs you can get so you may want to try to get your hands on that I liked the Roadster better on this shootout.

Also I can really recommend the Soldano's. They kicked ass in the high gain shootout Ermz posted as well IMO and I am extremely happy with the one I have available here!

 

[MT01]

Thanks for the shootout Metaltastic. Both amps sounds good but different to me.

Here's my crack at nailing the first Dual Recto tone that you posted.

Click me. Go on. You know you want to

 

[MarkG]

Neither Mesa really blew me away... :S

I do believe its time for an ENGL user to post his take on it? I would...but I suck too much

 

[GarethSE]

if only ola had a re-amp box..

 

[MarkG]

if only ola had a re-amp box..

Hell if I had a reamp box I could do it with my blackmore. Not exactly Ola's savage...but still ENGL.

 

[Mikko Vainiala]

Thanks for the comparisons. Liked dual rec a bit better, kinda nastier with more bite. But in real world it could be otherwise too. Wish you had changed same pre-tubes also. ::XeS:: take was cool too, softer yet still brighter. Soldano had its character but sounded hard compressed, wish I could've heared Brunetti clip too. Krank sounded amazing close to DR, but not so beefy.

In my take I tried first to keep the scooped feeling (clip a) but then returned to kinda...percussive, wooden, honky-tonk clang (clip b) which I would use in a mix.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/fractal.wonderland/a.mp3
http://www.kolumbus.fi/fractal.wonderland/b.mp3

 

[Metaltastic]

You know that honky super-middy (and slightly muffled) tone would actually probably be substantially worse for the mix even if it may sound less fizzy by itself, because all those mids will get real fatiguing when they're fighting with the upper end of the bass, the punch of the snare, and of course the vocals. That's why a slightly scooped (in comparison) tone sits much better in the mix I've learned (and am still learning, I did a bunch of re-amping recently that I later discovered still had just a bit too much mids for the end product, so I've gotta do it again tomorrow)

Still, they both have that slightly muffled, static, lifeless quality of impulses

 

[Mikko Vainiala]

You know that honky super-middy (and slightly muffled) tone would actually probably be substantially worse for the mix even if it may sound less fizzy by itself, because all those mids will get real fatiguing when they're fighting with the upper end of the bass, the punch of the snare, and of course the vocals.

Super, eh...even the second clip sounds too scooped for some, depends what we are targeting at the mix (or is it rock or metal-cover) but I don't think they used all those middy Marshalls and Soldanos only to spoil the mixes as you described. Don't remember what kinda tone was in that DIO's original record though, but I could *easily* nail it as close as any other 80's stuff I have already done and posted. This is not on my top100 todo list though. This is not so serious...anyways, I'm interested what you'll post next and I still have good feel and faith for impulses too.

 

[Metaltastic]

Well I was targeting the Holy Diver cover by Killswitch Engage actually, not the original, and that was an SLO100 but I think sounds god-like in the mix, and far less middy than what you posted. But hey, if you like it, then by all means stick with it, I'm just saying it's not my thing! (and I don't think really any modern metal has tones like that, except like old-school Swedish death throwbacks)

 

[Mikko Vainiala]

Well I was targeting the Holy Diver cover by Killswitch Engage actually, not the original, and that was an SLO100 but I think sounds god-like in the mix, and far less middy than what you posted. But hey, if you like it, then by all means stick with it, I'm just saying it's not my thing! (and I don't think really any modern metal has tones like that, except like old-school Swedish death throwbacks)

For me its always easier to "nail" earlier tones than trying to create new ones like I'm trying to do now. In this new clip I tried to get close enough to your original tone (but not to a degree I have done before with evh, accept, pantera etc.) as to show that impulses start to work really nicely for me. I think most people don't care if its impulse or real thing as long as it delivers the tone they like.

So its now new & old same time (pretty wicked) but at least we're now eq-wise more on the same track :

http://www.kolumbus.fi/fractal.wonderland/marcus_test.mp3

EDIT: I'd like to stay and really nail (with my old technique) that original DIO and KSE too, but I don't have any raw reference tones from those recordings plus I must first learn to play them too...so I'm looking ahead to Erkan's thread - there are quite interesting tones to study.

 

[JMarz]

I saw a 2ch dual rec on CL for 900$ the other day.

 

[iekobrid]

we used ... the Presence at 9:00 on channel 4 (as the manual states it's super aggressive like on the red channel on the 3 ch. models); however, we also recorded a clip of Channel 3 of the Roadster, which is identical to 4 except for a weaker presence knob, so we used the same settings but with the presence at around 1:30, and the results were so similar I didn't bother posting the clip.

I spent four hours at Guitar Center yesterday playing a Mesa Stiletto Deuce and a Vox NightTrain through a Stiletto 4x12 and a Mesa Roadster and a Kustom Double Cross through a beat up Soldano 4x12. With ch3 and ch4 dialed exactly the same on the Roadster, 4 was way darker than 3. I had to turn the Presence on 4 up (or the Presence on 3 off) to get them to sound close to one another.

I also noticed that setting the gain knob on ch3 anywhere above 12 noon resulted in pretty nasty fizz, in all three modes. I'm not saying it was the same frequency fizz that sticks out to your ear, but it was definitely the one that sticks out to mine. Only turning Gain down below 12 and/or backing the Treble and Presence off all together got rid of the fizz... on channel 3. On channel 4 there was no fizz whatsoever, even when I turned the Presence up to make it sound as bright as ch3. Darnedest thing.

 

[Ermz]

If I might interject and share some of my own opinion, even though it's probably the polar opposite of what you're after:

Comparing between the roadster and both dual rec clips I tend to find that the character is so remarkably similar that they might all easily be mistaken for the same amp. I can understand that in the room the Roadster might sound better because of a slight bit less of that shrill brightness, but I would be inclined to just get a 31 band graphic and tweak up the tone on that. Most amps don't leave you with enough fine control, and I think to jump from one to another that sounds almost entirely identical, simply because the core tone is somewhere borderline closer to where you want might be a needlessly energy consuming affair at the end of the day. I understand GAS as much as the next person, but the very first thing one has to ask is 'is this purchase rational?'.

Comparing between your best Dual Rec clip and the Roadster, the Dual Rec borderline, yet very disctintly sounds better to me. I understand that there wasn't enough time to tweak the Roadster, but given the remarkable similarities between the tones I would personally not bother. The fine control of adding an outboard EQ would be a far more significant investment, IMO, than trading two near identical sounding amps. If you're interested in recording tones, adding another mic to the set-up would be a much more significant investment also. Ditching the 57 in favor of a more honest mic would be the same. Have you heard the Rec through a Rode R-122? Much closer in tonality to what you hear in the room.

Anyway, just some thoughts. If you go through with the purchase, I do hope it's what you are after in the end. To me they sound interchangeable, and I would opt to make a more significant investment in another area.

 

[iekobrid]

Even if the high gain tones are interchangeable, the Roadster has the added (and, to me, significant) benefit of really nice low- & mid-gain tones from the Tweed and Brit modes. Plus it allows for separate power section (50 or 100w), rectifier, and reverb settings for each individual channel. So upgrading from a Dual to a Roadster wouldn't be a simple matter of apples-to-apples. If the cash difference isn't too dear, I'm considering doing it myself now.

 

[Metaltastic]

If I might interject and share some of my own opinion, even though it's probably the polar opposite of what you're after:

Comparing between the roadster and both dual rec clips I tend to find that the character is so remarkably similar that they might all easily be mistaken for the same amp. I can understand that in the room the Roadster might sound better because of a slight bit less of that shrill brightness, but I would be inclined to just get a 31 band graphic and tweak up the tone on that. Most amps don't leave you with enough fine control, and I think to jump from one to another that sounds almost entirely identical, simply because the core tone is somewhere borderline closer to where you want might be a needlessly energy consuming affair at the end of the day. I understand GAS as much as the next person, but the very first thing one has to ask is 'is this purchase rational?'.

Comparing between your best Dual Rec clip and the Roadster, the Dual Rec borderline, yet very disctintly sounds better to me. I understand that there wasn't enough time to tweak the Roadster, but given the remarkable similarities between the tones I would personally not bother. The fine control of adding an outboard EQ would be a far more significant investment, IMO, than trading two near identical sounding amps. If you're interested in recording tones, adding another mic to the set-up would be a much more significant investment also. Ditching the 57 in favor of a more honest mic would be the same. Have you heard the Rec through a Rode R-122? Much closer in tonality to what you hear in the room.

Anyway, just some thoughts. If you go through with the purchase, I do hope it's what you are after in the end. To me they sound interchangeable, and I would opt to make a more significant investment in another area.

Ermz, dude, I get it - you've made your point many times, and seem to not be able to understand that prices are different here, and even if I were to sell my 2 ch, buy a Roadster, and then sell it and buy a 2 ch. again, at the end of everything I'd be out maybe $50 total (and this would be over a few months), so that's plenty worth it to me to give it a TRY to be sure.

EDIT: And if I end up keeping the Roadster, I'd be out probably around $300, but that's worth it to me, and I'm the one spending the money, not you!

 

[Metaltastic]

Even if the high gain tones are interchangeable, the Roadster has the added (and, to me, significant) benefit of really nice low- & mid-gain tones from the Tweed and Brit modes. Plus it allows for separate power section (50 or 100w), rectifier, and reverb settings for each individual channel. So upgrading from a Dual to a Roadster wouldn't be a simple matter of apples-to-apples. If the cash difference isn't too dear, I'm considering doing it myself now.

Meh, as I don't see myself playing live anytime in the near future, the only one of those features that holds any sort of interest to me is the switchable power section. The amount I don't care about low- and mid-gain tones can't be overstated!

 

[iekobrid]

Hey, I'm on your side on this one.

 

[PhilTheBeard]

Me and my partner charlie jammed on a roadster last night and god damn that amp is fucking sweet

 

[blackcom]

So.....

what happens if you compare the Roadster and Recto with same settings exept the precense controll set a little lower on the Recto?

To me, it's the modern'n voicing (negative feedback) in the power-amp section screwing up the low-mids that makes me dislike the modern channel....precense can allways be set lower. The wierd receeding low mids makes the precense sound fizzy.

Personally I prefer the Vintage mode with precense set high enough cause it has fatter low-mids. If I go modern I allway make shure the precense is not set too high.

 

[Metaltastic]

The presence isn't the issue dude, it's at a different frequency (~4k) than the frequency that bugs me (~6k). And actually, the modern mode doesn't have negative feedback, vintage does And the Roadster and Recto are still voiced slightly differently, and I find the vintage mode to sound like there's a blanket over the speakers regardless of settings. But if you like your sound that's what counts - got clips?