TSL 60 vrs. Rectoverb

**Eddie's Little Monster** · 09.20.06, 03:44 PM

Hey all,

Just wondering if anyone had any expierence with either of these amps especially the Mesa Single Rectifier Rectoverb

I can't seem to find much on the the rectoverb although I have played both a little.

I'm currently looking for a New head and I think I've narrowed down to these 2.

But, Both are under 100 watts. any reason to be concerned?

Thanks, any info would be greatly apperciated

**FatStrat85** · 09.20.06, 10:48 PM

I have a Marshall TSL 122 and like it a lot. It is based on the TSL 100 head which is very similar to the TSL 60. I've also heard great things about the Mesa. Harmony Central has great reviews of both amps. Let us know more about what kinds of sounds you are looking for so we can be more helpful.

http://www.harmony-central.com/User_Reviews/

**homeunit** · 09.22.06, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Eddie's Little Monster

Hey all,

Just wondering if anyone had any expierence with either of these amps especially the Mesa Single Rectifier Rectoverb

I can't seem to find much on the the rectoverb although I have played both a little.

I'm currently looking for a New head and I think I've narrowed down to these 2.

But, Both are under 100 watts. any reason to be concerned?

Thanks, any info would be greatly apperciated

I'd go Mesa, but I'm partial to them. Try them both and see which one you like. I know with the Mesa it's a tweakers amp. I run a triple rec and it has so many tones in it and I love it. The EQ section of Mesa's are VERY sensitive and they work together. It's a bit tricky at first but the flip side gives you an amp that is very versatile. I don't know about the Marshall. I used to have an old JMP and a jcm 800, both great sounding amps, but basically a one trick pony.

50 watts is plenty of power bro. I think the thing to look at is what will be the tonal difference. When I was looking at buying my recto I tried the single/dual and triple. I when with the triple rec which is 150 watts and it's bone crushingly loud. We're talking so loud it can make you feel sick

But the reason I went for it over the 50/100 watt versions was all the clean headroom it gives you before it starts breaking up. This works for me because I don't use a lot of pre-amp gain, I just crank it to that volume sweet spot where the power section gets good and toasty and starts to break up naturally.

The cool thing about the recto series is that the FX loop is essentially a built in variac. I run nothing through my loop, and with it engaged the FX loop output knob (which is conveniently located on the front panel) becomes a master volume for the whole amp. This allows me to crank the individual channel masters up to 5-7, keep my gain down to around 3-4 and get the balls out of the power section without blowing eardrums. It still has to be pretty stinking loud but it's manageable.

**FatStrat85** · 09.22.06, 02:50 PM

Homeunit, what you said about the FX mix control being like a variac isn't quite true. If it somehow reduced the volume after the power amp section, it'd be like an attenuator, not a variac which just reduces voltage for a similar effect.

However, FX loops go between the preamp and power section, so by increasing the FX mix (of nothing) which lowers the volume, your just putting less into the power tubes. It's just like putting a volume pedal in your loop. In other words, you aren't getting any more tube saturation than if you just turned down the volume on the amp itself.

**homeunit** · 09.22.06, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by FatStrat85

Homeunit, what you said about the FX mix control being like a variac isn't quite true. If it somehow reduced the volume after the power amp section, it'd be like an attenuator, not a variac which just reduces voltage for a similar effect.

However, FX loops go between the preamp and power section, so by increasing the FX mix (of nothing) which lowers the volume, your just putting less into the power tubes. It's just like putting a volume pedal in your loop. In other words, you aren't getting any more tube saturation than if you just turned down the volume on the amp itself.

hmm. so what you're saying is that cranking my individual channel master(s) does nothing? I don't disagree with your post, I just don't know exactly what's going on signal wise. I had assumed that by cranking the channel masters I was hitting the power tubes with a lot of juice. If I'm understanding your post right I'd be better off bypassing the loop altogether then?

I'm playing tonight so I'll futz with it and see what happens. I seem to remember reading in the mesa manual about the loop being either in series or parallel. I don't know if that would make a difference, but I'll have to investigate it further.

**FatStrat85** · 09.22.06, 11:15 PM

Yea, my TSL has the same FX loop mix nob on the front. I thought the same thing as you when I first got it. But as I played around with it I realized it wasn't sounding any better when I used the FX loop as a master volume. So then I checked up and looked at how signal chains work.

Basically by pumping the channel volumes, your throwing more signal at the power tubes. HOWEVER, your loop catches that signal before it hits the power tubes. So by by mixing the signal with the silence of the loop your reducing that signal before it hits the power tubes.

Guitar -> Preamp Tubes -> FX Loop -> Power Tubes -> Speakers

Here's an easy way to picture it. Your power tubes are the absolutely last thing your signal goes through before the speakers. The only time you'll ever get power tube saturation is when the amp is really loud. The only exception is f you put an attenuator in between your power tubes and the speakers. It basically just turns some of the signal coming out of your power tubes into heat so less signal hits the speakers and your amp is softer, while still saturating all your tubes.

I hope that is a little clearer. Sorry to hijack the thread.

**homeunit** · 09.23.06, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by FatStrat85

Yea, my TSL has the same FX loop mix nob on the front. I thought the same thing as you when I first got it. But as I played around with it I realized it wasn't sounding any better when I used the FX loop as a master volume. So then I checked up and looked at how signal chains work.

Basically by pumping the channel volumes, your throwing more signal at the power tubes. HOWEVER, your loop catches that signal before it hits the power tubes. So by by mixing the signal with the silence of the loop your reducing that signal before it hits the power tubes.

Guitar -> Preamp Tubes -> FX Loop -> Power Tubes -> Speakers

Here's an easy way to picture it. Your power tubes are the absolutely last thing your signal goes through before the speakers. The only time you'll ever get power tube saturation is when the amp is really loud. The only exception is f you put an attenuator in between your power tubes and the speakers. It basically just turns some of the signal coming out of your power tubes into heat so less signal hits the speakers and your amp is softer, while still saturating all your tubes.

I hope that is a little clearer. Sorry to hijack the thread.

Thanks bro, that makes sense to me now. We played in a big room lastnight and I was able to run my masters and the output at around 12 oclock. That seems to give it a good balance. I run pretty low gain settings (3-4) in the vintage mode so I don't have a whole lot of the saturation/buzz that recto's are famous for.

I still say buy a Boogie