more thoughts after more time with the 100: - crunch channel is superb - crush channel likes a boost (or super high output pickups, eg Fluence Modern V1) but sounds great with pretty much any boost that I've tried (with minor differences depending on the boost EQ) - EQ knobs have wider usable ranges than on the TC-100, which seemed to like being near noon - too busy playing it to try 6L6s, whoops is it a 1:1 replacement for a Dual Rec? no, there's clearly shared lineage, but Badlander is its own thing. is it a minorly tweaked Triple Crown? no, it does not sound that similar to the Triple Crown to my ears, and I've got them sitting next to each other. would I take the Badlander over a Dual Rec? well, I did that, but I've never had a great Dual Rec experience either. for the sounds I like, yeah, I think the Badlander is probably the better choice for me. what I don't like about the Badlander: the control setup. I like the TC's per-channel EQ and power approach better than the Badlander's two user-configurable channels. for recording, Badlander's fine and maybe better than the TC because I can A/B settings, leave one channel where I like it and tweak the other, but sometimes I miss switching between clean + crunch + crush via footswitch alone. I feel like Badlander would be a pain to use live if you wanted all three sounds. then again, maybe this is a reflection of where things are going (or have gone): use amps in the studio, use modelers live.