[Sorted] Cannot get rid of flubby sound on Dual Rec with Suhr Reactive Load

Jonathanthomas83

Just bought a shed load of gear...a Dual Rec Roadster, a Suhr Reactive Load and the Two Notes CAB M. The Cab M is superb, by the way...but I cannot get rid of the flubby feel on the Rectifier. The bass is so unusable, it almost sounds like I'm hitting the notes twice when I try to palm mute.

Second issue is that when I try to dial this out, the strings start sounding very metallic and aren't soft or saturated enough to sound good when doing a palm muted arpeggio, for example.

So I add in the only boost I have available to me right now, which is an EP Boost - I'm currently waiting for a Fortin Grind and Zuul to arrive from the States but they're stuck in customs - the EP helps with saturation and thickens the tone as expected, but it doesn't lose the flubby bass...I'm hoping the Fortin pedals help with this, but right now, I'm not convinced they will.

Any advice?

Has anyone got the SRL to work well with a Dual Rec and been able to tighten it up and continued to use it regularly...as in, not sold the whole thing after a couple of months due to boredom!

I'm starting to think that I'll either stick with the Kemper, which does what I ask of it (as far as this sound is concerned) or maybe it's a Marshall sound that I'm really after, not the Recto sound.

All this started, as it always does, because I thought that I NEED an amp and couldn't possibly live with the Kemper for the rest of my life...and so GAS begins!

TTBZ

Tubescreamer mini or a 2nd hand Boss SD1 should help tighten things up for not much money!

ICBM

Are you using Modern mode? If so, try Vintage instead. Modern turns off the power stage negative feedback and is very undamped. In Vintage you may actually have to turn the bass up further to get the same sort of sound, but it will still be tighter.

If that’s not it or you’re already using Vintage, you may be going for more of a Marshall sound - in which case you might actually want a Stiletto instead of a Dual Rec, that’s a tighter-sounding amp.

(If so, I know someone selling one - PM me for details if you’re interested.)

Branshen

Try use a high pass filter to filter out the lows until you get rid of the flubby sound?

tekbow

Branshen said:

Try use a high pass filter to filter out the lows until you get rid of the flubby sound?

This.

Remember that when you start using IR's you've no longer got an "In the room" sound. You've got the sound of an amp and cab being recorded through a mic. And i've yet to come across circumstances where you wouldn't need some kind of highpass filter ,however subtle, unless you get pretty radical with the amp EQ.

Mind you, I've not been recording all that long, but it's certainly been my experience thus far.

I don't know exactly what a sound guy does at, say, a gig, but i'm presuming they do at least some EQ'ing of the low and high end.

I'm pretty sure the functionality of the Cab M is like Wall of sound software in a hardware box. There's hopefully a parametric EQ in there.

Fiftyshadesofjay

The Roadster is a super flubby amp. I found it incredibly loose even compared to other types of Dual Rec.

ICBM’s suggestion of using vintage is good. Do this on channel 3 as it’s optimised for it. Don’t know much about the pedals you have on the way but you really need a Tubescreamer with the usual gain down, volume up and tone to taste. The tubescreamer cuts the bass and delivers a mid hump which is perfect for Rectifiers. The EP booster if fairly flat I think so could be making the problem worse. 

Finally use V30 type speakers/IR’s.

WiresDreamDisasters

@Jonathanthomas83 ;
How are you dialling in the amp dude? Post a pic ?

Jonathanthomas83

Thanks all, really helpful. I'm out buying a Macon OD808 as we speak. Will report back with setting as soon as I'm home, Drew, thanks mate.

@fiftyshadesofjay gotta be honest mate, this thing is a hell of a lot tighter than I remember my old Multi-Watt a couple of years back.

Great suggestion on V30'S, that's my cab of choice at the moment and it's maki g a hell of a difference. 

And @Branshen, great advice, I will be a bit more liberal with the low and high pass.

guitarfishbay

So you don’t typically want to run the gain higher than 12:00 on Modern, if you need more gain get a level boost from a tubescreamer type. Also don’t be afraid of running the tone higher on a a TS type in to the amp.

The other thing is the EQ. The treble control voices the amp, run the treble high and it cuts low end, run the treble low and it boosts low end. So set the treble first then the other controls around that

Maynehead

Try setting the fx loop to hard bypass if you’re not using it, I found the tone is noticeably improved by doing so.

Also don’t run the channel masters past 12:00 or the tone starts to get muddy.

guitarfishbay

Maynehead said:

Try setting the fx loop to hard bypass if you’re not using it, I found the tone is noticeably improved by doing so.

Agreed. Makes me wonder what impact it’s having on other amps 

Jonathanthomas83

Thanks all, the Maxon OD808 worked wonders. Tightens things right up and it sounds great.

I think I'm going back to the Kemper though.

octatonic

Jonathanthomas83 said:

Thanks all, the Maxon OD808 worked wonders. Tightens things right up and it sounds great.

I think I'm going back to the Kemper though.

It is why everyone used them.
I had an ex-Muse Rev G Dual Rectifier Rack that I stupidly sold about 10 years ago.
Many I miss that amp- they are impossible to find now too.

Jonathanthomas83

Next best thing is my lovely Roadster - yours as a snip of a price in the classifieds! :-)

octatonic

Jonathanthomas83 said:

Next best thing is my lovely Roadster - yours as a snip of a price in the classifieds! :-)

Never played a Rev G Dual Rectifier Rack then, eh?

Fiftyshadesofjay

Been toying with the idea of going from Kemper to valve again, starting to think it’s not such a great idea 

Jonathanthomas83

@Fiftyshadesofjay I must admit, the amp sounded great, but there's a smoothness and a thump to the Kemper profiles that I have, that seem a lot more consistent. So on the amp I'd dial in a good tone for palm muting, but then it's too shrill for solo work. If I create a nice solo tone, then it's too dark for palm muted and rhythm work...the profiles don't do that, for some reason. So really, they're not representative of what I've found with the amp, is that a bad thing? Not for me it isn't.

So I'm torn!

Fiftyshadesofjay

I know what you mean! Last time I messed about with a real amp (which was a Roadster too) I remember being amazed by the sheer depth you get with the sound. Swiftly followed by being annoyed that it was a pain in the arse to set the levels, not being able to add effects on a whim, dealing with a loop, no real consistency, didn’t have the awesome Kemper noise gate etc etc.

That being said I’m still tempted by your one for sale! 

prlgmnr

Jonathanthomas83 said:

So on the amp I'd dial in a good tone for palm muting, but then it's too shrill for solo work. If I create a nice solo tone, then it's too dark for palm muted and rhythm work

That's why I tend towards amp gain for riffing and pedals for lead, though every now and then I manage to dial in something that works for both, usually if I dial it with lead in mind first. I found a great vid in which someone had crafted a Guthrie-like fusion tone on a Mark V and wrote down the settings but I can't remember who did the vid, what it was called, what song they played, where I found it, or where I put the piece of paper with the settings.

Jonathanthomas83

Does anyone know the difference in tone between the Roadster and a regular modern Dual Rec? @icbm or @guitarfishbay ?

octatonic

Roadster is 4 channels, has assignable reverb per channel.
Roadster has better cleans in my option but I liked the simplicity of the 2 channel DR.

There was are multiple versions of the Dual Rec- the 2 channel, 3 channel, the 150w triple rectifier.
Each had different switching options and you had more voicing switches on the Roadster.
Also each revision had slightly different voicing- Rev G is the last version of the 2 channel DR, then they went 3 channels and (internet lore told us that) there was a bit of aggression lost in comparison but you'd really have to have them side by side to tell and who knows if that isn't just down to other factors- component variation, tube age etc- I'm not sure many people have ever done an exhaustive comparison of the different revisions.

The Roadster was always positioned as a 'posher' version of the 'rawer' Dual Rec but there isn't a huge amount in it.