RM100 vs RM50

[Corium_AZ]

Ok, well I know this has been discussed in the past, and I've seen many a passing comment, but want some specific feedback.

I have an RM100, only MTS rig I've had since day one. Love the amp, everything about it - except it's size/weight. Well, let's be clear here, I really don't mind carrying around heavy stuff - not gonna hear me whine about such things as many do. But, I'm building a recording studio of sorts, and space is limited, so a smaller/lighter head would be beneficial in this tight, cluttered room.

In any case, I've heard many times that RM50's apparently sound better than the RM100's. For those that have had both, do you agree with this sentiment? What are the apparent sonic differences?

I've heard that the power section of the RM100 is basically a copy of the power section of a Twin Reverb (or Super, cant remember). If that is the case, then what is the RM50 power section most similar to?

Thanks for any feedback here.

 

[Capt_Tippy]

I have them both, and also some RM4's.

I like the RM100 the best out of all of them as far as what it does for the tone.

RM50 is a much smaller amp, and.... it sounds like it!

For a studio I'd suggest you get an RM4.

People will disagree, but... I'm right! LoL

RM50's are great if you're 65 and playing at an old folks home dance hah

 

[withmittens]

I have an RM50 and while I do like it as a backup and something I can leave at a studio or as a secondary keyboard rig, I much refer the RM4/RT2/50 rig. It sounds so much better. AND, it can be bridged for your 100 watts if you require more

seriously, the RM50 will feel like a step down and it's still loud as hell

I know the rig I prefer is harder to find but it's more awesomer

 

[JayDA]

I've always liked the RM50 better than the RM100s I had, but I never put a Foglifter or did any mods to an RM100 like I did the RM50. The RM100s always felt "stiff" to me, for lack of a better descriptor.

I just sold everything to buy an RM4 and RT2/50 AGAIN, because I want the versatility (I don't play guitar "out" anymore).

I keep trying to leave MTS, but I can't do it!

 

[CrazyNutz]

I've heard that the power section of the RM100 is basically a copy of the power section of a Twin Reverb (or Super, cant remember). If that is the case, then what is the RM50 power section most similar to?

I can't comment about the RM50 since I've never experienced one. However I do own a RM100, and very familiar with the schematic, and modding it. The power section on the RM100 is traditional Superlead Marshall all the way.

 

[Spencer4hire]

I have or had stock and JFM RM50s and RM100s. The Rm100s over the RM50s every day of the week. The RM50s always sound like they are stuffy and choked up. Lack of clarity. I would love to try a RM4/RT250 setup one day.

 

[Capt_Tippy]

I've always liked the RM50 better than the RM100s I had, but I never put a Foglifter or did any mods to an RM100 like I did the RM50. The RM100s always felt "stiff" to me, for lack of a better descriptor.

I own 1 RM50 and 2 RM100's. The 50 and one of the 100's both have MDA boards in them. The other 100 was Modded by Rob w a Foglifter and his Neg. Feedback Control. RM100's BOTH Win over the RM50 by far. So maybe it's because JayDA had stock 100's is why he prefers the 50? I dunno. To me it's obvious. The only reason I keep the 50 is 'cause it's convenient to have something small to drag out to jam at a friends house. Otherwise I wouldn't own one.

I have not directly compared the Foglifter and the MDA boards, but the Neg Feedback Control is WoW!!! Massive bang for your buck on that Mod.

Also tube selection is gonna play in here too Bruce. Some guys that comment could be comparing RM100's w **** tubes to a 50 with awesome tubes (and the reverse could be true too). To me the 50 sounds like a practice amp compared to either of my 100's. ...and it doesn't matter what tubes I have in it or etc. It just lacks the power... and I can hear and feel that.

Edit: ..and yeah like Spencer said they sound a bit muffly too.

Still say for a studio you gotta go with the RM4 instead of either of those heads though.

 

[Corium_AZ]

I've heard that the power section of the RM100 is basically a copy of the power section of a Twin Reverb (or Super, cant remember). If that is the case, then what is the RM50 power section most similar to?

I can't comment about the RM50 since I've never experienced one. However I do own a RM100, and very familiar with the schematic, and modding it. The power section on the RM100 is traditional Superlead Marshall all the way.

I did a search and turned up this thread:

http://mtsforum.grailtone.com/viewtopic.php?t=20066&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Says the RM50 power section is literally 1/2 of the RT2/50 power section, which is a Super Reverb copy. I know I've seen a similar comparison with the RM100, and I think it was from Bruce himself saying the RM100 PS was basically a Super Reverb. Makes sense to me as Fender mods just sound perfect through my RM when loaded with 6L6's and/or 6V6's. Doesn't 'feel' at all like a marshall to me either. I hate how stiff and dry marshalls are. But, hell, I could be totally wrong here. Not sure it really matters, it is what it is...

 

[Corium_AZ]

And, wow, I'm surprised! I know I've seen folks say they prefer the 50's to the 100's many times on the forum. I mean, it doesn't surprise me much as I've still yet to find a single amp that beats my RM100 - better cleans, better OD tones, big strong bottom end (if you want it), clarity, harmonic complexity, etc, etc. It's just tops. It's slain Bogner's, Mesa's, Oranges, vintage and modern Fenders, vintage and modern Marshalls, etc. You get the idea. Only tone I can't cop are Vox-ish tones.

And, to be sure, my RM100 does better at very low volumes (when just running two 6V6's) than any amp I've had my hands on as well - except for maybe a nice modded Blues Jr and HW AC15 that I've had here. So, I'm not sure I buy anything by having an RM4 + power amp? Except being rack mountable that it (not what I'd want to do anyhow, given how my studio is put together). If only I could get the **** thing into a head the size of a Bogner Barcelona (another amp slayed by the RM...).

 

[withmittens]

maybe so, but it;s been said that although the schematics might be similar between the RM50 and RT, the trannies and circuitry is higher spec and sounds better in the RT.

but if you love your 100 maybe just get a load box and call it a day

 

[Corium_AZ]

Oh yeah, and I DO use good tubes. TAD Blackplate 6L6's, JAN 5881's, SED EL34's, some JJ 6V6's (really been digging the 2x6V6+2x6L6 combo lately), all NOS preamp tubes, NOS 5771 in the PI, etc. The glass in there is prolly worth more than the rest of the amp, lol.

 

[Corium_AZ]

maybe so, but it;s been said that although the schematics might be similar between the RM50 and RT, the trannies and circuitry is higher spec and sounds better in the RT.

but if you love your 100 maybe just get a load box and call it a day

Or maybe an RM20/22? I really dig EL84's as well... I just want a good all-round studio recording/reamp amp that doesn't take up too much space.

Anyone know if the RM20/22's suffer from the same issues that require foglifter/MDA mods to the bigger amps? I've no problem installing one in an amp, I just don't know if they make them for the small amps?

 

[CrazyNutz]

I've heard that the power section of the RM100 is basically a copy of the power section of a Twin Reverb (or Super, cant remember). If that is the case, then what is the RM50 power section most similar to?

I can't comment about the RM50 since I've never experienced one. However I do own a RM100, and very familiar with the schematic, and modding it. The power section on the RM100 is traditional Superlead Marshall all the way.

I did a search and turned up this thread:

http://mtsforum.grailtone.com/viewtopic.php?t=20066&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Says the RM50 power section is literally 1/2 of the RT2/50 power section, which is a Super Reverb copy. I know I've seen a similar comparison with the RM100, and I think it was from Bruce himself saying the RM100 PS was basically a Super Reverb. Makes sense to me as Fender mods just sound perfect through my RM when loaded with 6L6's and/or 6V6's. Doesn't 'feel' at all like a marshall to me either. I hate how stiff and dry marshalls are. But, hell, I could be totally wrong here. Not sure it really matters, it is what it is...

Not trying to get in a war about this, but the RM100 power section is not a copy of a Fender Super Reverb. I've build and modded amps for years. The coupling caps to the power tubes are .022uf (marshall super lead value) on a Fender this would be .1uf, and would be flubby. The grid stops are 4.7k (again marshall territory) finder would have 1.5k here. The Screen resistors are 1k (Marshall again), fender would have 470r. The Phase inverter also has all the marshall values in it.

RM100 has a Marshall power section, almost a spitting image of a Plexi super lead.

 

[Corium_AZ]

Not trying to get in a war about this, but the RM100 power section is not a copy of a Fender Super Reverb. I've build and modded amps for years. The coupling caps to the power tubes are .022uf (marshall super lead value) on a Fender this would be .1uf, and would be flubby. The grid stops are 4.7k (again marshall territory) finder would have 1.5k here. The Screen resistors are 1k (Marshall again), fender would have 470r. The Phase inverter also has all the marshall values in it.

It is a Marshall power section, almost a spitting image of a Plexi super lead.

It's all good man, I don't care all that much how things are configured in there, it's just what I remember seeing/reading. All that matters is it sounds really good to me. I suppose if it an SL back end it just goes to show how much more important the pre's are in shaping the tones.

 

[CrazyNutz]

It's all good man, I don't care all that much how things are configured in there, it's just what I remember seeing/reading. All that matters is it sounds really good to me. I suppose if it an SL back end it just goes to show how much more important the pre's are in shaping the tones.

Yes you are correct the tone shaping happens mostly in the preamp, and actually the first built-in chassis gain stage in conjunction with c3 on the modules gives the MTS system a huge flexibility. It's simple and clever.

 

[Mattfig]

I'm late to this game but my vote also goes to the 100....It is excellent with the MDA and the ability to use two different pairs of power tubes is awesome...

 

[JKD]

I'm late to this game but my vote also goes to the 100....It is excellent with the MDA and the ability to use two different pairs of power tubes is awesome...

I found most of the 100s too stiff and heavy/flubby on the low end, until I got the MDA!!! A new lease of life for the amp. \m/

 

[audiomidijace]

Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to power a tube is insignificant next to the power of the solid state Gorilla with the Tube Stack button engaged. 8)

 

[Capt_Tippy]

RM4 is a little quieter/cleaner and has more clarity than the RM100 Bruce. That's what you gain by getting an RM4 for the studio over the RM100

Edit: The RM4 is missing some *** though (no matter what power amp you connect it to) compared to the 100.

In the studio I'd still prefer the RM4 for those reasons above.

If I can have only one though... its the 100 hands down.

 

[Corium_AZ]

Well, all that seems pretty definitive. I won't bother searching for a 50. And, I'm sure the RM4 + power amp is a great pair, I think I'll pass on that project for now, lol. My wallet it thin enough as is. Y'all think guitars & amps are expensive? Try the world of recording/pro audio. It's murder on your wallet!

I think I may just stick with what I've got. Love my RM. And I've got a Valvetech Hayseed that's managed to survive awhile (hand wired, ptp, 63 AC30 clone), best sounding and most versatile amp I've found - except for my mts rig that is! Maybe I'll swipe up an RM20/22 (and pair with my Twox or another Vox mod) just to see if mts can slay that one too!