Rivera R55-112 vs Rake Combo
zorro...@hotmail.com
Whats the difference between the Rivera R55-112 and the Rake combos, except
the size of the cabinet ? Both are 55 watts, use the same speaker, have two
EL34's in the output section, and appear to have the same contols. I played
both and they sound the same. So what's the difference to justify the higher
($200) price for the Rake?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
James Flint
The Rakes have a Vintage/Modern switch in the back that cuts the power and
"darkens" the tone. The Rakes are tuned slightly different than the R-55s
as well. If you cant hear the difference, go with the R-55. But be sure to
check out the Vintage/Modern switch. It will not only allow you to play at
bedroom levels, it's a sound that you cannot get with the R-55...
My 2 cents
Dino
Andrew P. Mullhaupt
James Flint wrote in message <6fnd98$km3$1...@comet.tomco.net>...
Can one easily compare these to the Rivera S120 series? I'm interested in
those since Paul Barerre and Fred Tackett play them.
Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Gary Watts
zorro...@hotmail.com wrote:
: Whats the difference between the Rivera R55-112 and the Rake combos, except
: the size of the cabinet ? Both are 55 watts, use the same speaker, have two
: EL34's in the output section, and appear to have the same contols. I played
: both and they sound the same. So what's the difference to justify the higher
: ($200) price for the Rake?
The clean channel is similiar but the gain channel is different. The neat
idea in the Rake is that the eq is positioned differently relative to the
gain stages. The *American* side (Fender) is gain after eq; the *British*
side (Marshall) is gain before eq. This is one of the important features that
other manufacturers have not done in the quest fora Fender/Marshall all-in-one
amp previously.
Gary
NOCTURNAL10
Is that the same as the Triode/Pentode switch thats on the M60?I thought
that was one of it's best features.
Jeanmichel gras
I thought this was true for all riveras ?????
keith cocking
the difference according to the manual are as follows:
1. the rake distortion channel is hotter.
2. there is a vintage/modern switch (at least on the jake studio
combo) that regulates the amount of electricity pumping through the
amp.
i own a jake studio combo and i love it. it's a wonderful amp. it's
esp. powerful when you hook it up to a rivera 2x12 cab.
stevi...@hotmail.com
In article <352367...@nortel.com>,
Jeanmichel gras <jmg...@nortel.com> wrote:
>
> Gary Watts wrote:
> >
> > zorro...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > : Whats the difference between the Rivera R55-112 and the Rake combos, except
> > : the size of the cabinet ? Both are 55 watts, use the same speaker, have two
> > : EL34's in the output section, and appear to have the same contols. I played
> > : both and they sound the same. So what's the difference to justify the higher
> > : ($200) price for the Rake?
> >
> > The clean channel is similiar but the gain channel is different. The neat
> > idea in the Rake is that the eq is positioned differently relative to the
> > gain stages. The *American* side (Fender) is gain after eq; the *British*
> > side (Marshall) is gain before eq. This is one of the important features that
> > other manufacturers have not done in the quest fora Fender/Marshall all-in-one
> > amp previously.
> >
> > Gary
>
> I thought this was true for all riveras ?????
I think it is. I have an R30-112 (the cheapest,er... least expensive) combo
Rivera makes and I'm pretty sure it's configured this way.
Stevie Rob
Gil Ayan
In article <6g0s32$h0h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, stevi...@hotmail.com stevi...@hotmail.com says:
>
>In article <352367...@nortel.com>,
> Jeanmichel gras <jmg...@nortel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Gary Watts wrote:
>> >
>> > zorro...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > : Whats the difference between the Rivera R55-112 and the Rake combos, except
>> > : the size of the cabinet ? Both are 55 watts, use the same speaker, have two
>> > : EL34's in the output section, and appear to have the same contols. I played
>> > : both and they sound the same. So what's the difference to justify the higher
>> > : ($200) price for the Rake?
>> >
>> > The clean channel is similiar but the gain channel is different. The neat
>> > idea in the Rake is that the eq is positioned differently relative to the
>> > gain stages. The *American* side (Fender) is gain after eq; the *British*
>> > side (Marshall) is gain before eq. This is one of the important features that
>> > other manufacturers have not done in the quest fora Fender/Marshall all-in-one
>> > amp previously.
>> >
>> > Gary
>>
>> I thought this was true for all riveras ?????
>
>I think it is. I have an R30-112 (the cheapest,er... least expensive) combo
>Rivera makes and I'm pretty sure it's configured this way.
>
>Stevie Rob
All Riveras have the left channel with a post distortion tone stack (i.e. Marshall style) and the
right channel with a pre distortion TS. The Jake/Rake has a little more gain in the lead channel
-- than previous Rivera models -- and does NOT use a cathode follower to feed its (lead
channel's) tone stack. Other Riveras do use the C.F., which results in a harsher breakup -- but
very much in a Marshall vein. Thus, the Jake/Rake sound sweeter than all other Riveras on the
lead channel.
Also, the Jake/Rakes have a twist on the triode/pentode switch, called vintage/modern in those
amps, which revoices the sound some in addition to changing the pentode/triode operation of the
tubes. The effect is much more pronounced than say in the M-series amps, where simply switching
pentode to triode would be noticeable mostly when pushing the power section only.
Gil
--
______ __ __ ______ __ __
/ __ / / /_/ / / __ / / \/ / Gil Ayan, Los Angeles, CA
/ /_/ / \__ / / /_/ / / / / / Email: ai...@lafn.org
/_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_/\__/ http://home.earthlink.net/~ayan
zorr...@msn.com
> > The clean channel is similiar but the gain channel is different. The neat
> > idea in the Rake is that the eq is positioned differently relative to the
> > gain stages. The *American* side (Fender) is gain after eq; the *British*
> > side (Marshall) is gain before eq. This is one of the important features that
> > other manufacturers have not done in the quest fora Fender/Marshall all-in-one
> > amp previously.
> >
> > Gary
>
> I thought this was true for all riveras ?????
Thanks to all for the info provided. It's interesting to note that my FENDER
Blues Junior schematic shows 2 tube stages prior to the EQ, and one after
which then feeds the splitter which, in turn, then drives the power stage. Is
this considered gain before, or gain after, eq ?
Steve
GO HERE for a basic, though not completely accurate, historical overview
of amp design evolution:
http://www.harmony-central.com/Guitar/guitar-amp-evolution.html
ALSO:
David "Thunder" Funk wrote some interesting articles for Vintage Guitar
Magazine
regarding preamp distortion circuits. I quote parts here for anyone
interested:
"TWO GAIN STAGES.
The normal preamp gain structure of a Fender, Marshall, or Vox amp is
two
stages. The difference between Fender and the English designs, is the
English
use a first gain stage feeding a volume control, which then drives a
second
tube. Following are the Tone Controls, with no additional gain into the
Inverter/
Driver. This design allows the player to turn the volume up to the point
where the second gain stage starts to distort. This is all but
impossible
with a fender, because the Tone Controls AND the Volume Control throw
away
so much gain before the second gain stage is met, it's nearly impossible
to
get the Fender into high gear.
THREE GAIN STAGES
But if you add another Gain Stage to a Fender after the Tone Recovery
amp,
plenty of drive can be provided into the Inverter/Driver tube. With
this
one Gain Stage added after the tone controls (Post-EQ), you have a
Boogie.
A total of three gain stages.
THREE GAIN STAGES WITH MASTER VOLUME
Add one gain stage in front of the Tone Controls (Pre-EQ) and you have
the Marshall Master Volume design. A total of three gain stages, all
three
in front of the EQ, and none behind...
I'm going to divide all designs into two major classes: Pre-EQ and
Post-EQ
design. To identify these different topographies, we'll use a notation
of a
3+0 for the Marshall above. Some different amps would then be:
Vox 1+0
Vox Top Boost 1+1
Fender 1+1
Nash, Clean 1+1
Trainwreck Rocket 1+1
Boogie 1+2
Trainwreck Express 1+2
Nash, Dirty 1+2
Marshall 2+0
Marshall MV Low Inptut 2+0
Marshall MV Lee Jackson 2+1
Marshall MV Hi Input 3+0
Marshall MV Frank Levi 3+0
Marshall MV Soldano 4+0
Thunderfunk 100ELS 4+1
Soldano 5+0
FOUR GAIN STAGES
Add to gain stages in front and you have a Thunderfunk, or
Soldano Marshall amp for a total fo four gain stages (Pre-EQ).
The more gain stages you add, the smoother, the more
compressed the tone. The four gain stage designs have an
instant Allman Brothers tone. The three gain stage designs
have a rougher more aggressive texture to them. I was
working for a guy named Eddie, and he thought the three
gain stage, Post EQ design had too much gain. He preferred
the Thunderfunk, which is actually, at four gain stages, the
higher gain design, but sounds smoother.
FIVE GAIN STAGES
The Soldano amp has Five Gain Stage Pre-EQ, but the
FX loop is part of it. If you remove the FX gain stage
you're back to four distortion stages.
(END DAVID FUNK ARTICLE)
***********************************************************************************
It also seems the type of master volume circuit employed
can have a crucial impact on the quality of preamp distortion.
I quote Ken Fischer here for anyone interested (I found it
interesting!):
"Most people have the idea I'm not in favor of master volume
controls because I don't use them in Trainwreck amplifiers. The
fact is there are many sounds that only a master volume will
provide, particularly for many hard rock, metal and grunge tones.
The Master Volumes in Marhalls and the Sovtek Midget are good
examples of this kind type of use. MESA BOOGIE and DUMBLE amplifiers
offer not only high crunch master sound, but also a very smooth master
volume tone which is useful for fusion, jazz rock, and other styles.
There are of course, many other brands of amps that have master volumes
that give them their special sound. To clear things up a bit, my
personal favorite sounds come from a non-master volume amplifier
cranked up. I do really like many master volume sounds and own master
volume amps
for my own use.
I know of about sixty different master volume circuits, some much
better than others. Master Volumes can be installed at any point
in an amp's circuit, which will influence many factors. Also, you
can have more than one master volume in an amp. The most common
master volume circuits are used in the preamp stage. There are
also post inverter and output stage M.V. circuits...
The first type...is simple and effective. Depending on the preamp
design, it gives a good range of popular master volume sounds. This
circuit uses a single potentiometer at the very end of the preamp,
but before the phase inverter. It's simple and useful in a multi-channel
amplifier as it does not cut back the power stages, making it easier
to switch to a clean sound from another channel. This is the type
used most by Marshall, Boogie, and Fender. In preamps that end in
a tone stage it will give lots of crunch and grunge. In a preamp that
ends in a gain stage it will have a smoother sound. A JCM800 vs a
MKIIB Boogie, for example....
Another type of MV is one that is used in the phase inverter
section. This one is most useful in a single channel amp because
as you turn it down the amp gets dirty and stays dirty. If you
need to switch between clean and dirty with the same amplifier
a simple phase inverter master is not the way to go.
The phase inverter master volume has its own advantages for certain
amplifiers. The first advantage is, with a lower gain amplifier,
you can get the additional gain of the phase inverter as part of your
total gain structure. Secondly, all the phase inverter master circuits
have their own unique sound. If you don't like the sound of preamp
masters, then maybe a phase inverter master will be more to your
liking...
Years ago, I invented the phase inverter master I'm about to discuss,
to address two nagging problems I had with other phase inverter masters
of the time. In fact, now I've come to appreciate the sounds of some
of those early designs, so I count my circuit as just one more useful
design.
The problem I had with the older circuits were: 1) when turned to 10,
these older circuits stole some signal, so the amplifier never had
a 100 percent non-master sound when fully turned up. 2) I was just
looking for a less compressed sound with more of an edge than say,
a dual 1-meg pot-type phase inverter master...
(Article continues...)
Steve
Jeanmichel gras
keith cocking wrote:
>
> the difference according to the manual are as follows:
>
> 1. the rake distortion channel is hotter.
>
> 2. there is a vintage/modern switch (at least on the jake studio
> combo) that regulates the amount of electricity pumping through the
> amp.
>
> i own a jake studio combo and i love it. it's a wonderful amp. it's
> esp. powerful when you hook it up to a rivera 2x12 cab.
Considering that here in Paris (france) the rake costs more than twice
the R55-112, it appears that the R55 is a really good deal ??!??
I'm very interested by a rivera mainly for the 2nd channel (the "fender"
one) and it seems that this channel is the same on a rake and a R55 ???
What about the reverb (the R55 reverb didn't impress me) ? It appears
that the R55 internal speaker is frontmounted. Does it means troubles
for changing it ?
Well at first sight, the R55 is affordable, very light, loud, versatile
and well constructed but I don't see much people talking about it. Is
there always something better for the same price ??
stevi...@hotmail.com
In article <3524B5...@nortel.com>,
Jeanmichel gras <jmg...@nortel.com> wrote:
>
> Considering that here in Paris (france) the rake costs more than twice
> the R55-112, it appears that the R55 is a really good deal ??!??
Well, the Rake is the newer model (more aggressive marketing). It admittedly
has some "refinements" over the R series equivalent. Personally, I don't
think the Rake is twice the amp.
> What about the reverb (the R55 reverb didn't impress me) ?
It's way too "over the top" for my tastes. I never turn the reverb on my R
amp past 2...
>It appears
> that the R55 internal speaker is frontmounted. Does it means troubles
> for changing it ?
Not sure. Shouldn't be insurmountable...
> Well at first sight, the R55 is affordable, very light, loud, versatile
> and well constructed but I don't see much people talking about it. Is
> there always something better for the same price ??
That's why you don't hear much about these amps. They're well made and
versatile. They don't have any major faults that spawn complaints. And,
altho' they cover a wide range of tones fairly well, they don't do any single
tone so well that people rave about these amps.
Just my opinion...
Stevie Rob
Greg C
I was up to the same decisions a few months ago and bought the R55/112. I
did like the Jake but didn't see really THAT much of a difference, not enough
to justify the extra asking $$$. You'll get all you need/want in the R series
from what I can se.
God luck,
Greg
>