Stilletto I vs. II Revisited

[ursinus]

Last night I searched the forum to try to understand the differences between the two and still seem to not understand the MAIN differences between the two. My reason for asking is that I can get an awesome deal on a I Stilletto and don't know if it's the right thing to do. I play mostly rock to jazz fusion and would use this alongside my MKIV. I would use a Recto vertical 2x12 cab if I get it. Ant comments would be greatly appreciated

 

[Charlie]

As far as I know the Stage II has a different transformer that is supposed to make the amp tighter and 5 out of 6 of the different channel voicings were updated. A few voicings have added gain.

From what I can tell they changed things to satisfy people who want to use it for metal. I haven't tried a stage II I'm sure somebody who has tried both will chime in. From what I've read one isn't better than the other it just comes down to individual taste.

I have a Stage I and after trying it out in the store I thought it sounded f%@k!#$ awesome so I got it without trying a Stage II. And you are right... the Stage I Stilettos can be had for a lot less $$.

 

[BMarchant]

check out my post on improving your Stage I Deuce or Trident tone.
http://forum.grailtone.com/viewtopic.php?t=12618

If your after the sounds I am (great sounding old Marshell), get the Stage I and replace the tubes with the ones I did. It will be the best sounding amp youve ever heard. The stage two was changed to make it sound more like a Rect. Boogie finally makes an amp that sounded different then the Rects, and people bitched that it didnt do what a Rect did. I dont get it. If you want the Rect, buy one. The Deuce and Trident win all these awards for sounding great ( ie.doesnt sound like there other amps) , and Boogie changes it. Go figure! Like I said at the top, check out my other post.

Laars....

 

[ursinus]

Thanks....

 

[Jak0lantern01]

I would still personally love to hear from someone who has a stage II, I'm thinking of picking up a new head and would love to hear from other posters here about their Stiletto II and what they're using it for.

 

[Platypus]

The comparisons to the rectifiers and the Stage II are completely unfounded FUD :roll: :roll:

As someone who has owned both Stage I and II, read what DOPEMAN said. 5 of the 6 mode were revoiced but not so drastically that can't get the same tones as the Stage I.. just more choices on the control pots. The Stage I is 'warmer' and more like an older marshall whereas the Stage II can also get some modern(er) Marshall tones on the second channel... it's all in how you dial it.

And they didn't change the amp because people complained it wasn't recto enough, they changed it because they obviously saw some things that could have been improved which the succeeded at brilliantly... compare the cleans and the fluid drive on a Stage I to a II and tell me you don't agree.

The rectifiers and the stilettos are not at all the same thing, in fact they were designed to tackle completely different sonic territory yet hold together well in the mix. You'd have to be tonedeaf to think that a completely mushy/midscooped rectifier sounds anything close to the midFOCUSED EL34 tight/sharp attack of a stiletto stage II.

 

[Barracuda]

+1 for Plat. and I'll add

Stage 1 Pros: GREAT Ch1 crunch! good tite gain

Cons: Boxy/Boomy Clean; big volume disparity between red and blue Crunch mode; didn't like Ch2 Crunch mode; fluid drive - that's another story; I also felt that the amp had no natural sustain.

I would buy a Stage 1 for 800 only for CH1 Crunch - one of the finest vintage Marshall tones out there - and if I could do that by eliminating sonically and cosmetically all other options and modes it would be a good one channel amp. But we are human - when I see options I want to use them and want them to work ....therein lies the conundrum that stage 1 presented and that is why I owned it but returned it ..However Stage 1 has worked very well for several folks. I moved on and I am a very happy owner of a custom Stage II Deuce paired with a 2x12 recto cab..Now we are talking serious tone.

The comparisons to the rectifiers and the Stage II are completely unfounded FUD :roll: :roll:

As someone who has owned both Stage I and II, read what DOPEMAN said. 5 of the 6 mode were revoiced but not so drastically that can't get the same tones as the Stage I.. just more choices on the control pots. The Stage I is 'warmer' and more like an older marshall whereas the Stage II can also get some modern(er) Marshall tones on the second channel... it's all in how you dial it.

And they didn't change the amp because people complained it wasn't recto enough, they changed it because they obviously saw some things that could have been improved which the succeeded at brilliantly... compare the cleans and the fluid drive on a Stage I to a II and tell me you don't agree.

The rectifiers and the stilettos are not at all the same thing, in fact they were designed to tackle completely different sonic territory yet hold together well in the mix. You'd have to be tonedeaf to think that a completely mushy/midscooped rectifier sounds anything close to the midFOCUSED EL34 tight/sharp attack of a stiletto stage II.

 

[Charlie]

Any way you can try both out and see which one you prefer?

 

[ursinus]

I have been trying them both out and definitely like the crunch of Channel one Stage 1 better. I don't ever think I'll use the fluid lead in either Stage 1 or 2 as the gain is over the top for me. So my intention is to use Channel 1 crunch, Channel 2 tight gain. No effects, just straight. and use my MKIV for Clean and lead tones. The tube advice makes a lot of sense though. BTW the deal I can get on the Stage one is 600.00 cheaper than the stage 2. Is the stage 2 worth the price difference? I don't think so. Let me know...

 

[Platypus]

I have been trying them both out and definitely like the crunch of Channel one Stage 1 better. I don't ever think I'll use the fluid lead in either Stage 1 or 2 as the gain is over the top for me. So my intention is to use Channel 1 crunch, Channel 2 tight gain. No effects, just straight. and use my MKIV for Clean and lead tones. The tube advice makes a lot of sense though. BTW the deal I can get on the Stage one is 600.00 cheaper than the stage 2. Is the stage 2 worth the price difference? I don't think so. Let me know...

I don't think it's worth the price difference if you're not using the only two modes that got drastically improved (clean/fluid drive)... tite gain stayed the same between the Series I and II anyway.

 

[Charlie]

+1

Sounds like you should go with the Stage I if you tried it and liked it and can get it for 600 bucks cheaper.

I'm interested in hearing a Stage II just to see what the differences are but I don't think I'll ever let my Stage I go.

It's tough to compare two different amps anyway. You have to take into account what cabinet, guitar, fx, pickups, cables and tubes are being used as well as playing styles.

Anyway there seems to be plenty of people who are more than happy with their Stage I.

 

[NuSkoolTone]

Interesting, as I've always had interest in the ACE< but ever placed a series I, it sounds like the crunch on channel 1 is the only real thing that could make a series I more desirable for some folks.

Could someone compare the crunch on channel 1 between series I and series II?

 

[Platypus]

Slightly better on Stage I but I owned them a few months apart so I couldn't do a direct A/B... I think it's noticeable but it's 98% there... the rest of the updates to channel 1 on the Stage II MORE than make up for it.

 

[Barracuda]

Interesting, as I've always had interest in the ACE< but ever placed a series I, it sounds like the crunch on channel 1 is the only real thing that could make a series I more desirable for some folks.

Could someone compare the crunch on channel 1 between series I and series II?

I owned them together and A/B'ed them. Stage 1 Crunch is warmer by a very very tiny bit... almost undetectable.
But then, Stage 2 crunch 1 and 2 are almost identicle so by comparison stage 2 is twice the amp even if the remaining 4 modes were not counted.

 

[Charlie]

I'm really interested in hearing a Stage II now.

After all of the amazing reviews the Stage I has received I don't see how they could make any huge improvements on the amp.

Every Stage I review I've read got a 10.... did they make the Stage II go to 11 or what?

 

[Platypus]

I'm really interested in hearing a Stage II now.

After all of the amazing reviews the Stage I has received I don't see how they could make any huge improvements on the amp.

Every Stage I review I've read got a 10.... did they make the Stage II go to 11 or what?

It does go to 11

You really have to play it to get the full picture but I posted a bunch of Ace clips awhile back

 

[Charlie]

I checked the clips out and didn't hear any difference. I'll have to check out a Stage II for myself sometime.

 

[Barracuda]

I checked the clips out and didn't hear any difference. I'll have to check out a Stage II for myself sometime.

I don't think the difference will be evident in any posted clips. It's a lot more to do with feel, and your personal setup/situation. For example, I think I'm the only one who found Stage 1 to have a boominess in both the clean modes. No one else has mentioned this. So, it was most likely my particular amp and my 2x12 recto in my basement. But then I'm hardly likely to move it around my house to find a spot where it will sound good! No G-Spot hunt for me thank you. :lol: Then, I thought there were some intangibles with Stage 1 that are difficult to explain - there was evidence of ear fatigue, ice pickiness etc. and difficulty in dialing the stuff out. By comparison, I find that my stage 2 is a good plug and play device that responds well (tonally) to changes. What I'm saying is that I find a huge spectrum of tones across the board that are useful - compared to stage 1 where if I was lucky enough to find a sound i was happy with, any changes had an adverse effect. That was not cool, because just a guitar change screwed everything up.

The question is - why did I buy a stage 1? I think it had a lot to do with the fact that on low volumes, in a store, connected to a 4x12 it sounded good!! And the burden of the marketing material that earned it all the stripes was hard to ignore, right? C'mon, who was I to refute what Guitarist, Guitar Player and Aussie Guitarist were saying :shock: Those guys know - right? BUT those guys also sell...

Anyway, ultimately it came down to the comparison between 1 and 2 and 2 just is that much better - at least in my basement!! :lol:

However, if you're happy with Stage 1 then I would not bother unless you paid 1600 and the value dropped by 50%. I think at 800 or so that amp is a frickin steal - I may just buy one for fun :lol:

 

[stash49]

I have a stage I and II but if I had to keep only one it would be close, but I'd choose the stage I. That having been said my stage I has the fabled Hollywood Mod that Mesa SHOULD have made part of the original stage I, but didn't. You really, really should consider this, because I found the modded stage I to be better then both the unmodded stage I and II. It is pretty subtle, but I can't even imagine going with either the I or II now that I have the modded I-I would miss it terribly.

 

[jackieTHEjokeman]

From what I remember, I used to have a "sticky" thread about this. :lol: