|
Post by telejas on Nov 12, 2006 11:54:16 GMT -7
Is there much difference? I know what the site says, but has anyone played both and can put your finger on a difference?
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by frank4001 on Nov 12, 2006 16:57:56 GMT -7
I think Buddy Whittington said that the extra sregnth has more gain vs. the old and that he couldn't imagine needing more. Some guys think the extra strengh picks about where the old left off with the expand switch on..I play the low input with the od switch on...usually. I've never played the old one but there are folks here that love them to death...So its like moma's lazagna vs. gramma's ...How could you too far wrong??
|
|
|
Post by dock66 on Nov 13, 2006 13:41:53 GMT -7
There are a few members on this forum that have both models,hopefully they can chime in and give us their thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Curt on Nov 13, 2006 14:42:55 GMT -7
I have an 'in between' RXES, original face plate, expand and bright toggles, I do not know for sure, but I feel it lies between the two models in function. I too prefer Lo imput, expand on with a Tele or Strat. It is an amazingly musical amp that sounds awesome even when at low volume.
JGleaton owns both RX and RXES along with a 'ray and MAZ Sr and can give a very informed opinion of them both.
Curt
|
|
|
Post by dock66 on Nov 13, 2006 15:09:47 GMT -7
I have an 'in between' RXES, original face plate, expand and bright toggles, I do not know for sure, but I feel it lies between the two models in function. I too prefer Lo imput, expand on with a Tele or Strat. It is an amazingly musical amp that sounds awesome even when at low volume. JGleaton owns both RX and RXES along with a 'ray and MAZ Sr and can give a very informed opinion of them both. Curt You can PM Jason and he'll be happy to help.
|
|
|
Post by JASON (aka jgleaton) on Nov 13, 2006 23:51:29 GMT -7
OK, this has been asked a few times so here goes… and Maybe Myles or Doc himself will chime in too... If you don't mind, I'd be glad to chime in on this one, since I have sold quite a few of the old Prescriptions and currently use the new one (ES) myself. These amps are VERY different. The old Rx, was (IMO) a gainy, grainy, aggressive, Billy Gibbons/British style amp. With low output pickups, the old Rx could be a nice clean amp, but it always seemed like the old RX was just always waiting in the wings to be cranked up. I loved the old Rx for the aggressive old school British vibe it seemed to give. The new RX ES, IMO, is completely different and to my ears, has the best clean tone I've ever heard and felt. It has an expanded frequency response (tons more low end and top end than most "vintage" style tube amps) that in some guys hands, the top end can be a little too "glassy", although I love it! The Paisley clips do sound dark, probably due to a combination of the way the tone stack is set and the way it is mic'd up. In my experience, the Rx ES is definitely NOT a dark amp, although its got low end for days!!! Personally, I am not too fond of most MP3 clips. Most people mic up with an SM57 and while this works, it tends to homogenize the sound clips, making everything kind of sound the same. The Paisley clips, IMO, are cool, especially to hear Brad just rip iff some stellar licks, but to my ears, they don't do justice to the clarity of the Prescription ES amp. I'm hearing more the sound of the mic than the amp, to my ears. Chris Sieggen, Mass Street Music Telejas, I couldn’t have said it ANY better than Chris did in his post above from an earlier thread…that’s a great description and I agree 100% with what he said… I do feel there are also some similarities in them after comparing and a/b-ing the two amps... I'll explain further down in the Novel... and sorry it took me so long to respond, I did see this thread and wanted to but really haven’t had the time until just now… BW It's interesting you said this... " I've read a lot of interesting stuff about the RX ES but I can't imagine needing more 'overdose' than my original has turned WAY up" I have both and to tell you the truth if I had to keep one or the other I think I'd keep the original... I really like the ES.... I think it is a little more articulate than the original when it starts to break up and in the low end.... but I set my ES to get the sound I get (and love) out of the original ( difference is don't really have to turn the ES up as much to get there and theres a WHOLE lot more gain left I don't use....
AND I don't use the overdose, cause the ES in the LOW INPUT without the overdose on is like the old one with the EXPAND and BRIGHT BOTH ON in the HIGH INPUT....
kinda like the ES just takes up where the original left off.... duh, maybe thats why doc called it the extra strength??? ) BUT, all in all....I just LOVE the OLD one and I guess I don't need all the extra drive... just that sound both the old and new RX’s have and the percussiveness THEY HAVE.... Just curious BW, on "dead city" how LOUD was it/ or was the volume set on when you recorded it, if you happen to remember??? my OLD RX just seems to get the magic around 7 (2:00).... ;D Jason OK, I don’t know if I could get rid of either really, except that I have 2 Stingrays now which I mainly use along with my MAZ Sr and I don't use the RX'S nearly as much... They ARE very different amps but are very similar at the same time… still similar tonally, percussive and BIG sounding… To me BASICALLY the difference in a nutshell is this:RX= RAWPercussive, aggressive, RAW, beautiful clean sparkle and articulate sounds with A LOT of hair available and LOUD, BIG and BOLD…. Not as Compressed like the RX ES ( or Maz SR) at all…as a matter of fact is very open sounding and not compressed at all… RX ES= SMOOTHPercussive, MORE ARTICULATE and stunning and VERY close to the Stingray beautiful cleans ( but with a different "seat" for lack of a better word, in the tonal/ EQ spectrum) and STARTS with HAIR and goes through the roof with DRIVE, while STILL remaining articulate and SMOOTH, slightly less aggressive/ and not raw like the RX, but still has hair and an edge, The RX ES is just in a word SMOOTH… slightly compressed- to even more compressed depending on how you run it/ dial it in, HUGE sounding, BIG and BOLD just like the Original RX… The RX ES really does sort of start where the RX left off, ( you can get a little of what the Original does out of the ES.... and also you can; when cranked get, some of what the ES kinda does out of the Original, some of the drive but not nearly as much and it is a different drive sound) So they do overlap a little of course, this is JMHO and a very general observation, different tubes and speakers can alter things a bit … YMMV
|
|
|
Post by JASON (aka jgleaton) on Nov 14, 2006 12:00:33 GMT -7
Both are INCREDIBLE AMPS and I would have a hard time choosing between them… they are different but they still seem to have a similar overall percussive big tone/ sound… that RX sound somehow. These are loud amps… but the RX ( especially the RX ES, because I would need the airbreak with the original strength, not necessarily needed with the ES version at lower volumes) ES has a very usable sound at low volumes… NOTE* The RX ES and the STINGRAY are both particularly usable this way…I CANNOT explain it but I guess they are just running flat out in cathode bias, so even if your running them at lower volumes they still sound dynamic, and have sustain and sound big… they don’t loose their man parts so to speak… Hope this helps more than hurts… you cannot go wrong with ANY of these amps and ANY of these Maz SR… Original RX… RX ES… or the STINGRAY could be my one and only main gigging amp… ;D Jason PS... Don't smote me but after I pulled it out again and played both... I also think that the ORIGINAL RX is the closest DR-Z EL-84 amp to a full on 50 watt Marshall plexi/or DR-Z SRZ EL-34 type sound.. but still retain that DR-Z EL-84 vibe... JMHO.
|
|
|
Post by zone47 on Nov 17, 2006 10:35:20 GMT -7
Thanks guys for all the good info. This was a big question of mine too. I bought an original Prescription and love it. The Extra Strength sounds great, but rather than rush out and buy an ES, would a good boost pedal get you in the same territory as the ES, or not ?
|
|
|
Post by JASON (aka jgleaton) on Nov 18, 2006 12:58:43 GMT -7
Thanks guys for all the good info. This was a big question of mine too. I bought an original Prescription and love it. The Extra Strength sounds great, but rather than rush out and buy an ES, would a good boost pedal get you in the same territory as the ES, or not ? ummm... I think a real THICK, creamy boost would get you pretty close... but it'll still be a little bit of a different sounding drive from the ES.... I would think something like a Klon, Landgraff, Jauernig DGTM or maybe even the BB I played would be pretty thick, and with enough drive... and smoothness to get you close to sounding like it was a part of the amp the way the RX ES is. there are probably some others out there also... but it would need to be a high quality pedal, I would think ( not necessarily high cost, but high quality so as to sound as if it was a part of the amp and not a pedal driving and amp) and you might need to use an airbreak with it cause you really need to drive it good and then hit it with a pedal... the Airbreak works GREAT with the Original RX for this. Also, a tube swap would probably help get you even closer to matching the ES's smooth drive/ sound... maybe Myles or Doc would have a few suggestions with pre-amp tubes to get you a little closer to the ES sound... hope this helps... don't really think you need to get both as they are still kinda close, but if you were to get both to see which one you like better, then you'd have the same dilemma I have and not wanna get rid of either.... Jason
|
|
|
Post by zone47 on Nov 18, 2006 13:14:48 GMT -7
Thanks guys for all the good info. This was a big question of mine too. I bought an original Prescription and love it. The Extra Strength sounds great, but rather than rush out and buy an ES, would a good boost pedal get you in the same territory as the ES, or not ? ummm... I think a real THICK, creamy boost would get you pretty close... but it'll still be a little bit of a different sounding drive from the ES.... I would think something like a Klon, Landgraff, Jauernig DGTM or maybe even the BB I played would be pretty thick, and with enough drive... and smoothness to get you close to sounding like it was a part of the amp the way the RX ES is. there are probably some others out there also... but it would need to be a high quality pedal, I would think ( not necessarily high cost, but high quality so as to sound as if it was a part of the amp and not a pedal driving and amp) and you might need to use an airbreak with it cause you really need to drive it good and then hit it with a pedal... the Airbreak works GREAT with the Original RX for this. Also, a tube swap would probably help get you even closer to matching the ES's smooth drive/ sound... maybe Myles or Doc would have a few suggestions with pre-amp tubes to get you a little closer to the ES sound... hope this helps... don't really think you need to get both as they are still kinda close, but if you were to get both to see which one you like better, then you'd have the same dilemma I have and not wanna get rid of either.... Jason Thanks, I was playing mine this morning with a P90 Gibson SG and really mine doesn't have a whole heck of a lot of headroom when it comes right down to it. It will crunch pretty good at the 9 oclock position and go crazy from there the more I turn up the volume. Of course, I was on the high input. I am running 3 Tungsol 12AX7s and 4 JJ EL34s. There are alot to things to play with on this amp and I may find that it is enough to keep me happy without rushing out to buy a ES. Still I am curious. I may look for a local dealer to see if I can try one out. I am 40 miles south of Cleveland, so I could probably stop in and see the Doc for a minute or two also !
|
|
|
Post by dock66 on Nov 18, 2006 21:34:53 GMT -7
It may be a worthwhile trip to see Doc. ;D
|
|