# Mesa Dual Rectifier vs. Roadster



## guitarman517 (Feb 13, 2011)

I'm having a hell of a time trying to decide on whether to go with a new MESA Dual Rectifier or to go with a MESA Roadster. Just wondering if anyone who has actually compared these two amps had any personal preference or suggestions.


----------



## djpharoah (Feb 13, 2011)




----------



## Mettle209 (Feb 18, 2011)

I recently had a Mesa Raodster 2x12 Combo and still have a Mesa Duel Recitifer Series 2 Head. IMHO, the Roadster is a much more versatile amp, better cleans on channel 1 & 2, reverb is good but does not get too wet, and it is always good to have more channels. However, I find the EQ on the Roadster somewhat limited on the 3rd and 4th channel. Plus, the modern mode on channel 4 produces a not so smooth distortion. 
On the other hand, although the Duel rectifier is not as versatile, it still has a descent clean on channel 1, a great vintage crunch on channel 2, and a brutal modern distortion on channel 3. Like I have mentioned earlier, I "had" a Roadster before but sold it and kept my Duel Rectifier. 
My recommendation is to go with a Mesa Duel Rectifier Head (eaither series 1 or 2) and buy a cabinet with drivers you prefer.


----------



## Rook (Feb 18, 2011)

I own a roadster an know the multiwatt recto very well.

The roadster is more versatile owing to have two clean channels and te extra modes that come with them. Channels 1 and 2 work in the same way as the stiletto and lonestar series. Whereas the recto channel 1 works the same as 2 and 3.

The recto is fizzier in the highs, deeper in the lows and doesnt quite reach the same smooth saturation as the roadster. The recto is a slightly more specific amp.

The roadster can do pretty much what the recto does and more and it has reverb, if price is no object the roadster is the obvious choice.

This is insanely brief, If you want a really in depth comparison PM me, I've answered this question quite a few times lol.


----------



## Kstring (Feb 18, 2011)

Either amp kicks major ass so u can't lose. 

P.S. Djpharoah, nice picture haha


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Feb 18, 2011)

I liked the roadster I tried more than my rec, it felt tighter and more saturated.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Feb 18, 2011)

another one chiming in for the Roadster. The one I had rocked, even with old tubes.


----------



## Rook (Feb 19, 2011)

JPhoenix19 said:


> another one chiming in for the Roadster. The one I had rocked, even with old tubes.



+1 my stock tubes are three years old, sounds better than ever.


----------



## 155 (Feb 19, 2011)

get the roadster if you have the dough


----------



## atticmike (Feb 19, 2011)

get to play both of them and make your choice, simple as that


----------



## gutspill713 (Feb 20, 2011)

Roadster! Its so good!
I just played it at a shop a couple days ago. and im obsessed now.
It sounds great at low volumes as well.


----------



## MesaENGR412 (Feb 20, 2011)

Try a new Multi-Watt Recto before buying the Roadster, especially if you feel that you won't use the extra modes and fourth channel. I love my new Multi-Watts, and I tested a multi-watt, Roadster and Mark V. It just basically comes down to preference and what you want out of the amp. The new Recto is more flexible than the old, since the clean channel is WAY better, and it has recto tracking and mult-watt settings. But, if you want four channels and ultimate flexibility, then the Roadster would probably be the best option. 

-AJH


----------



## asmegin_slayer (Feb 22, 2011)

Roadster with 6550 power tubes on EL34 mode.


----------



## budda (Feb 23, 2011)

Roadster or Triple - skip the dual. If you think you will only use 3 channels, triple it up.


----------



## guitarman517 (Feb 27, 2011)

Thanks to everyone for helping me to decide between the dual and the roadster. Sounds like the Roadster may be the way to go. Four channels, more options, better cleans, and reverb. I'm just a little concerned on whether or not the Roadster can get as brutal as the Dual. Great cleans and crunch tones are important to me, but a great brutal tone is mainly what I am after. I'll have to find somewhere I can go and compare these amps side by side before I make my final decision.


----------



## asmegin_slayer (Feb 27, 2011)

guitarman517 said:


> Thanks to everyone for helping me to decide between the dual and the roadster. Sounds like the Roadster may be the way to go. Four channels, more options, better cleans, and reverb. I'm just a little concerned on whether or not the Roadster can get as brutal as the Dual. Great cleans and crunch tones are important to me, but a great brutal tone is mainly what I am after. I'll have to find somewhere I can go and compare these amps side by side before I make my final decision.



Check my videos two post above.


----------



## budda (Feb 28, 2011)

guitarman517 said:


> Thanks to everyone for helping me to decide between the dual and the roadster. Sounds like the Roadster may be the way to go. Four channels, more options, better cleans, and reverb. I'm just a little concerned on whether or not the Roadster can get as brutal as the Dual. Great cleans and crunch tones are important to me, but a great brutal tone is mainly what I am after. I'll have to find somewhere I can go and compare these amps side by side before I make my final decision.



You are aware that channels 3 and 4 are the same as channels 2 and 3 on a regular dual


----------



## guitarman517 (Feb 28, 2011)

budda said:


> You are aware that channels 3 and 4 are the same as channels 2 and 3 on a regular dual


 
Is channel 3 and 4 of the Roadster the same as the 2009 Dual Rectifier channels 2 and 3 OR the same as the newly revoiced 2010 Dual Rectifier channels 2 and 3?


----------



## MesaENGR412 (Mar 1, 2011)

I believe it is the same as or closer to the older 2009's. Not 100% sure on that, but side by side the Roadster does not sound the same to my ears as the new 2010 Rectifier. As for the Dual vs. Triple, I have owned both, and the Dual Recs (at least the new ones) have plenty of headroom, and with the added feature of multi-watt power on each channel, you can set the clean to have max headroom at 100W or some breakup at 50W (the new cleans are awesome btw). Plus, you don't have to spend an extra $60-80 on another matched pair and an extra rectifier tube. I played my 6L6 Multi-watt in stereo with my 2005 Triple Rec, and there was not that big of a difference in feel or proposed "headroom" at all to me. I normally had to engage the solo feature on the clean channel even with 150 watts, to make it loud enough to cut through. Either way, you aren't going to be turning it up passed about 11 o'clock on ch 2 and 3 and about 11 on the master (in Vintage mode) and even less if you use Modern mode, unless you are playing a stadium without a PA system..... 

Demo of my Multi-watts

-AJH


----------



## Rook (Mar 1, 2011)

budda said:


> You are aware that channels 3 and 4 are the same as channels 2 and 3 on a regular dual



No they definitely aren't haha.

They 'equivalent' but definitely not the same.

They're less fizzy, potentially tighter and generally darker.

Channel 4 vintage is an absolute jewel of a mode and not available on any other amp except the Road King. The closest comparison is on the Lonestar.

The Mids on channel 3 are much more powerful, and there's less of the Recto fizz and sag, it's more focussed and a little more discreet.

I really don't think they sound the same.

EDIT: It's even less like the previous 3CH, I had one of them too haha.


----------



## budda (Mar 1, 2011)

and there you have it - choose


----------

