Adventures in Fractal's Dual Rectifiers

Admittedly I sold the Recto years ago, never have forgiven myself. I’m going from memory, but I played that amp for years.

The fractal recto2 and helix clip sound more like my memory of my recto than your real amp clip. Mine was a 3 channel triple. It’s possible that my memory is busted, but it could be that you have an unusually bright recto?

D
 
The fractal recto2 and helix clip sound more like my memory of my recto than your real amp clip. Mine was a 3 channel triple. It’s possible that my memory is busted, but it could be that you have an unusually bright recto?
I've compared this to several other Rectifiers in the room and also basically every emulation out there, and IMO any difference in top end between units is almost certainly related to the master volume. I tend to run my master quite low which allows more bass and top end to come through. If you turn the volume up, they're the first to lose headroom and the tone smooths out. The point really is that the Fractal models SHOULD be able to match the brightness of the real amp. I think if I turned the master up on the real amp and used a flatter load, it might be easier to match. Either way, the Helix can get a similar brightness to my amp (sometimes a bit more because of the artifacts).
High Cut Frequency, wiki says it's the snubber cap on the phase inverter.
Recto has PI snubbers on both plate resistors AND between the out-of-phase outputs.

So in theory, these should be left alone at their default values?
 
Just for kicks, heres the 5150. WAY closer and easier to match without having to dive into anything advanced (just left that stuff at default for the most part). The main difference I heard with the Fractal vs the amp was actually more in the lows this time, the amp had more WOOMPH on the palm mutes. I turned speaker compression down a bit and speaker thump up but its a bit hard to gauge where the most "correct" value is.





and Helix's often maligned Panama as a control again, this one actually needed funkier settings to get close:

 
I'd be using a Suhr RL and an IR. Wonder what would happen if I hooked up a cab and the Suhr RL (8ohm + 8ohm from the 4ohm outputs on the amp) at the same time? Yeah... not trying that but it would be interesting.

Cliff already blew me up once for not using a decent reactive load...

man be careful on the fractal forum,cliff and the fanboys always will say fractal sound better,they will neever admit that another unit sound better than fractal,fractal banned me because i said Kemper and Helix are great units
 
Last edited:
I also would like to do this "null testing" experiment. Love this guy BTW.



Wait a minute...the Tone X wave form looks radically less compressed than the the other tracks. Looking at it vs the source, that seems a little suspect that it would null test the cleanest. Granted I didn't watch the rest of the vid, only what you highlighted but the visual there doesn't align with what I'm hearing.
 
Wait a minute...the Tone X wave form looks radically less compressed than the the other tracks. Looking at it vs the source, that seems a little suspect that it would null test the cleanest. Granted I didn't watch the rest of the vid, only what you highlighted but the visual there doesn't align with what I'm hearing.

Tonex is still really good. Even if IK is shady...
 
Just for kicks, heres the 5150. WAY closer and easier to match without having to dive into anything advanced (just left that stuff at default for the most part). The main difference I heard with the Fractal vs the amp was actually more in the lows this time, the amp had more WOOMPH on the palm mutes. I turned speaker compression down a bit and speaker thump up but its a bit hard to gauge where the most "correct" value is.





and Helix's often maligned Panama as a control again, this one actually needed funkier settings to get close:


Helix palm mutes are massively off to me.
 
Tonex is still really good. Even if IK is shady...

I'm not doubting it's capabilities. I just don't understand what I'm seeing in that vid. 3 tracks look very compressed typically of a high gain amp with a compressor added post amp to even out any palm muting from peaking. But that Tone X signal looks very, very different, way less compressed. If it were a more perfect copy of the original I would expect the wav to have a similar highly compressed visual.

EDIT: NM, went back and watched the setup section. The wav is the direct signal, ToneX is running as a plug not rendered like the rest. That's legit very, very cool.
 
I'd be using a Suhr RL and an IR. Wonder what would happen if I hooked up a cab and the Suhr RL (8ohm + 8ohm from the 4ohm outputs on the amp) at the same time? Yeah... not trying that but it would be interesting.

Cliff already blew me up once for not using a decent reactive load...

It should be totally safe to run the reactive load and the cabinet at the same time like you described. Your amp will see the load box as though it is just another speaker cab. I think John Suhr mentioned doin exactly that in an interview saying that it is a way you can use the load box to attenuate the signal being sent to your speaker cab. I wish I could remember the source on that because I would point you towards it.

If you're in doubt, email Suhr customer support and they will give you the definitive answer.
 
Super cool that you have both the gear and the knowledge to do stuff like this, Ed. :beer
These comparisons sometimes feel like "what am I doing?" and then I land on something (often with the help of others) that helps me learn the gear better. Whats awesome is I end up learning just as much about the real gear as I do the digital stuff. and in turn I think by sharing it online it helps others get the most out of the gear. Endless stuff to learn!
 
Back
Top