Can The Badlander Sound Like a MK5 35, Or...

Or can that just not happen due to the Mk5 35 using EL84 power tubes and the Badlander using EL34?
I saw a band last night where one guitarist was using the Mk5 35 and it sounded freaking great! I want that tone, now.

The Mark V:35 is a different vibe then the Badlander. the tubes make some difference but really the way the preamps are voiced and what speakers they were running is more of a factor IMHO. The Badlander is much more of a hot rodded Marshall tone then the V which has that Mesa midrange thing going on. I have both and each is an amazing amp... FWIW the one I dig best, is the one I'm plugged into at that moment

Badlander is a different amp, even if there are some common circuits such as the lead drive circuit in the preamp. Totally different amplifier in how it is structured. Tone stack sits in the wrong place to have the full Mark sound, also it uses a dc coupled cathode follower tone stack driver so that will be much different than a Mark circuit having the tone stack on the front end between the first and second gain stage.

I can say this, there are some similarities between the Badlander and the Mark VII. Clean channel is almost similar but I can dial in more grind on the clean with the BAD than with either of the two clean modes on the Mark VII (clean and fat).

Crunch on the BAD also covers a wider range of character. It is very similar to the Mark VII crunch but I can push the gain up on the BAD and get into some slight Recto characteristic. It is more noticeable when using the variac power mode. Not quite a spongy mode of the MWDR but it gets into that tone spectrum, just does not have the sub harmonic low end.

Crush on the BAD is on par with the JP2C, Mark VII (VII, IIC, IV) modes. It shares a bit more note definition of the JP2C but yet more aggressive. Depending on how you dial in the gain, it has more grind than the Mark VII IV mode. Let alone the detail you hear is not compressed as much as the Mark VII Simul-Class power section.

Yeah, the BAD is different in many ways, but yet falls into a unique category. I have not explored using a 5B GEQ pedal in the FX loop. I have one of the Mesa units. I should try it. I have two of the 100W versions of the Badlander. Don't let the John Petrucci signature plate fool you, it was one I bought for the JP2C but installed it on the Mark VII so I could match the speaker cabinet with the amp.



I have been using the two Badlanders and the two Mark VII together in a quasi-stereo setup. Once you hear them side by side, is when you realize there is some similarities, and how they differ at gig level is quite interesting. I have more control over the Badlander in delivering the sound I want from bedroom levels to gig level keeping the amp at 100W more so than with the Mark VII at 45W. 90W is a bit over the top at times. Lately I have been just using the two Mark VII at 25W as that is sufficient for me at the moment. I like both amps equally.



How much different a Mark V:35 will sound compared to the Badlander, Mark VII or even the Mark V90 is not something I have experience with. From what I have heard in video content on the Mark V:35, it is different than the Mark V90 as it did not seem to have the boxy overtones that dominate that amp. At least the one I have anyway. I was comparing the V90 with the JP2C (with its original face plate installed) to the Mark VII shortly after I got it. The one on the right is the same one with the JP signature plate in the cream/black jute. I did buy the Mark VII in the desired jute face theme to go with the cabs.



Considering I have the Roadster and MWDR, there was that drive or need to compare them to the Badlander. I can say the BAD is more Mark than Dual Rectifier. It is a hybrid of the two. Based on the crunch and VII modes of the Mark VII in how the gain stages are channeled. the only different is the tone stack driver, it is based on that of the dual Rectifier design. Just does not have a cold clipper gain stage to create the sub-harmonic content. Instead it runs the lead drive circuit of the Mark design, just sandwiched into the preamp differently that gives it a different character than the plate driven tone stack like the JP2C, Mark V90, or Mark VII. I would assume the Mark V:35 will fall into that as well as it is an abbreviated form of the Mark V90 preamp. Not sure what else to say. If you have the Bad, go to a shop that carries Mesa and sit down and compare the two amps side by side if you can.

bandit2013 said:

I can say this, there are some similarities between the Badlander and the Mark VII. Clean channel is almost similar but I can dial in more grind on the clean with the BAD than with either of the two clean modes on the Mark VII (clean and fat).

Crunch on the BAD also covers a wider range of character. It is very similar to the Mark VII crunch but I can push the gain up on the BAD and get into some slight Recto characteristic. It is more noticeable when using the variac power mode. Not quite a spongy mode of the MWDR but it gets into that tone spectrum, just does not have the sub harmonic low end.

Crush on the BAD is on par with the JP2C, Mark VII (VII, IIC, IV) modes. It shares a bit more note definition of the JP2C but yet more aggressive. Depending on how you dial in the gain, it has more grind than the Mark VII IV mode. Let alone the detail you hear is not compressed as much as the Mark VII Simul-Class power section.

Yeah, the BAD is different in many ways, but yet falls into a unique category. I have not explored using a 5B GEQ pedal in the FX loop. I have one of the Mesa units. I should try it. I have two of the 100W versions of the Badlander. Don't let the John Petrucci signature plate fool you, it was one I bought for the JP2C but installed it on the Mark VII so I could match the speaker cabinet with the amp.

View attachment 4794

I have been using the two Badlanders and the two Mark VII together in a quasi-stereo setup. Once you hear them side by side, is when you realize there is some similarities, and how they differ at gig level is quite interesting. I have more control over the Badlander in delivering the sound I want from bedroom levels to gig level keeping the amp at 100W more so than with the Mark VII at 45W. 90W is a bit over the top at times. Lately I have been just using the two Mark VII at 25W as that is sufficient for me at the moment. I like both amps equally.

View attachment 4795

How much different a Mark V:35 will sound compared to the Badlander, Mark VII or even the Mark V90 is not something I have experience with. From what I have heard in video content on the Mark V:35, it is different than the Mark V90 as it did not seem to have the boxy overtones that dominate that amp. At least the one I have anyway. I was comparing the V90 with the JP2C (with its original face plate installed) to the Mark VII shortly after I got it. The one on the right is the same one with the JP signature plate in the cream/black jute. I did buy the Mark VII in the desired jute face theme to go with the cabs.

View attachment 4796

Considering I have the Roadster and MWDR, there was that drive or need to compare them to the Badlander. I can say the BAD is more Mark than Dual Rectifier. It is a hybrid of the two. Based on the crunch and VII modes of the Mark VII in how the gain stages are channeled. the only different is the tone stack driver, it is based on that of the dual Rectifier design. Just does not have a cold clipper gain stage to create the sub-harmonic content. Instead it runs the lead drive circuit of the Mark design, just sandwiched into the preamp differently that gives it a different character than the plate driven tone stack like the JP2C, Mark V90, or Mark VII. I would assume the Mark V:35 will fall into that as well as it is an abbreviated form of the Mark V90 preamp. Not sure what else to say. If you have the Bad, go to a shop that carries Mesa and sit down and compare the two amps side by side if you can.

View attachment 4797

Click to expand...

I have nothing to add to the topic but just want to say your collection is incredible!!!

I have far more than what I have shown you. Just look at the bottom of my post. I have too much but yet not enough.

I assume you have a Badlander based on your original post?

It is very much on par with the Mark VII. Not far off from the Mark V90. The difference is how the lead drive circuit is used and where it is located. Then comes the tone stack driver circuit which changes everything. Typically, the Mark amps place the tone stack in front of the lead drive circuit so you can predefine the boost or cut of frequencies feeding the overdrive circuit. The final filter being the GEQ.

The BAD can mimic the Mark V without the need for the GEQ, however its compression effect is quite different as it uses a tone stack driver borrowed from the Rectifier preamp (dc coupled cathode follower). the FX send also uses a cathode follower circuit (much like the Triple Crown, RA100 which use a 12AT7 for this purpose, Rectifier amps run a 12AX7 for this section).

Since the tone stack follows the overdrive or mark lead drive circuit, you loose that ability to get that true IIC voice by boosting the gain and treble and dropping the bass and midrange. That trick did not work with my Mark V90 (it has issues). However, it works great with the JP2C and the Mark VII when using the IIC and IV modes. I would assume the Mark V:35 can make use of that trick too.

After poking around the Badlander, I found the gain stages were very much that of the Mark amp. It just has a different signal path and how the gain stages are mapped out. This chart was made by using the tube task charts, prior knowledge of how the lead drive circuit is designed and so on.



This is the Mark series based on the VII as the template. This is all for the gain channels or modes.



Mark V:35
CH1 crunch: V1A-> TS->V1B -> V2A-> V3A -> GEQ -> FX -> V5A -> phase inverter (V6AB)
CH2 (IIC, IV, Ext): V1A -> TS -> V1B -> V2A -> V2B -> V3A -> V5B -> GEQ -> FX -> V5A -> phase inverter (V6AB)

Note that the V2A is the overdrive stage, V2B is the boosting stage. Based on the chart above, the overdrive stage is V3B and the boost stage is V4A. The buffer stage V3A is also used with the Mark V90, it sort of takes place of V2B above as this signal gets attenuated and then pushed into the last gain stage that defines the voice of the IIC, IV, and Extreme modes V5B. I tried to color code the text as I do not have the program at home that I used to create the chart. V3A is just a buffer or bridge circuit, interesting that it is the same triode ID as that used on the Mark V90.

The Mark VII is more akin to the Badlander when using the crunch and VII modes. They still sound different though which may be due to the method on how the tone stack is driven.

Now for reality check, was the performer making use of the onboard cab clone? The Mark V:35 does have the basic cab clone feature that is not present on the Mark V90. It is not the IR type though but does work good when making use of it as supporting sound to the main mixer. Was the amp boosted or pushed with any pedals or effects? That changes everything on what you are hearing.

The only recommendation is to try one out and hear it for yourself. If the Mark V:35 (guitar + amp + speaker) does the job, then go for it. I personally have not made use of the cab clone IR on the Badlander. I did try it out through a powered PA speaker. Blending that with a close mic on the speaker cab would make a world of difference. Once you get that into the mix with drums and bass everything sounds different. Every time we jam at my home, if the bass player has to leave early that sort of leaves in a gap in tone. Sure the Badlander sounds great but having the bass line in the mix helps more than one realizes.

Most of the jam sessions, the guitar player preferred the Badlander, probably because it is easier for him to dial in. I play drums when I have company over. The last two jam sessions, he wanted to try out the Mark VII as I was playing through it while I was waiting for the them to arrive.



It gets cramped when they are over, not much room in the room as the drum set takes up more floor space than anything else.



Before I started playing the acoustic drums, there was more room for more amps. The Badlander and the Mark VII were the latest amps I bought. Before that and the California tweed, I had an E-Drums kit, then went to a beginner grade acoustic drum set before jumping into the higher grade drum set.



I held onto amps after having regret selling two of them. (Mark III and Mark IVB). Sometimes I will get something out. Usually the RA100 pair comes to mind. For now I am hooked on the Badlander and Mark VII. If I were to try to set up all of the gear in one room (just the guitar amps in general) it would not fit the largest room in the home. This was hard enough to fit. Yeah, I still have these too.