Question about Channel Volumes vs. Master Volume

What's your opinion and reason about running the Channel Volumes high and the Master Volume low ?
What do you think sounds better ? What do you think is more appropriate ?
I like my Channel Volumes high and the Master Volume low.
Is that driving the Channel preamp tubes more and Power tubes less, if so then I'm glad I like the Channel Volumes high and the Master Volume low.
I'd like to hear what you think, and if you can also say why you choose one over the other.
I want to honestly admit that I'm running Channel 1 at 45 watts and on Clean and the Channel Volume is on 10. The Other Channels are at 90 watts.
My rig sounds perfect to me the way it is now.
I'm running a Mark Five amp head and a Mesa Vertical V30 2X12. https://boogieforum.com/threads/post-your-mark-v-photos.86781/post-542309

Elliot Twist said:

My rig sounds perfect to me the way it is now.

Click to expand...

That's always good news to start there. The V:90 allows the player many options to explore.

Elliot Twist said:

What do you think sounds better ? What do you think is more appropriate ?

Click to expand...

IMHO it depends in large part on the overall volume and the balance between preamp/power section. Running the "Channel Volumes high and the Master Volume low" will deemphasize the power section contribution a bit.

Curious are you running tube or diode with the 45W Ch 1 setting? What are the chan master levels? the global master level?

With my Mark V, there's a limited usable range of the channel volumes. If they get any more than 2:00, it starts to sound overloaded. All the channel volumes are kept around noon (except clean ch1, which is used for clean, and the volume is much higher to match chs 2 & 3) and master sets the volume of the speaker.
That's the typical use-case: channel volumes are used to set equal levels between channels, for consistent levels when switching channels on the fly, and the master is for setting the output volume.
Gain determines how hard it's driving the preamp tubes. Ch volume probably affects the last preamp tube (driver/phase inverter).

You can select the hard bypass on the back which will bypass the global master and FX loop. Just note the amp will be much, much louder in doing that. Set the channel masters down before you hit the standby switch.

When using the FX loop in active mode, all it does is adds in the FX loop and global master/solo boost feature. Matters not how you dial in the channel masters as that signal level gets attenuated and the FX recovery stage brings it back up. Perhaps it allows for fine adjustments so you do not blow out your ear drums in the process. This too allows for better matching of the volume of the three channels. I much prefer to use the FX loop so there is no way to avoid the global master. I actually felt the Mark V90 sounded better in hard bypass mode though (at least the one I have anyway). That circuit was borrowed from the Dual Rectifier models. It is not bad but in some ways I feel it robs some of the amp's characteristics, but at the same time allows you to adjust volume to meet your needs.

Other Marks like the JP2C and Mark VII do not have that option. However, they do not bypass the FX loop either. So, instead of one global master you have three. the Mark VII is the exception as you actually have six (each channel runs a ganged dual pot for the channel volumes. That addresses the pre fx loop volume level and post fx loop volume at the same time. I think it would be better to have a separate control though as it limits the usable low volume settings. Wonder how a concentric dual pot would serve in that application? Not willing to try it but it could be an option down the road.

For me, it does not matter as I barely ever run at bedroom levels to start with. Once in a while I will though. Depends on how late at night or early morning I decide to make noise. When the drums and bass are thumping the room, need to have more volume to keep up.

Volume controls are often criticized by purists. However they’re not necessarily a bad thing, if well implemented.

I never tried running the output master volume at max and setting the channel volumes low in my Mark V, so I can’t speak from direct experience. However, not only you would lose the purpose of having an output master control (i.e. allowing for balancing the three channels volumes and forget about it), but you would also feed the effects loop with a weaker signal and relying on the recovery stage too much, probably adding noise. So running the channel volumes higher and the output master volume lower is generally the way to go.

A different question is: is it better to run the volume channels “a little bit” lower to allow “a little higher”output master volume setting? Or viceversa?

In this case, I would say running whatever volume pot extremely low means using it at the lowest extreme of its range, probably ruining your tone, as you have almost all the pot resistance in series with your signal and very little resistance (a few Kohms) to ground. So generally the most important thing to avoid is putting a volume pot at nearly 0 just to be able to say you’re running the other volume high*.

On the other hand, volume controls often have consequences when run high or at max: they saturate the following stage. In some circuits the master volume set high can help giving you more gain as it saturates the following tube stage. In the Mark V, the volume channels feed the solid state graphic eq, which is never fully bypassed even when not engaged. Again, I still haven’t made the experiment myself, but someone already reported things get overly saturated with the volume channels dimed.

The output master control instead feeds the phase inverter tube. Mesa Mark amps are not known to take advantage of power stage saturation to achieve gain, as their preamps are deigned to do that. So I assume that diming the output master is not necessary, and that using a healthier channel volume setting is preferable.

The most scientific answer to the question, however, would be recording a track with two different volume settings per volume control, once by dialing the channel volume, the other time by dialing the output master, normalizing all the audio to the same level and hearing the results back. The most linearly acting (i.e. no difference in tone between the low and high settings) volume control would be the one we can get along with setting it very low to achieve the desired listening level. The most “coloring” control (i.e. tone changes between the low and high setting) would be the one we should be careful with, carefully avoiding a very low or a very high setting.


Giulio


*nothing in the electric guitar world is fully forbidden, so this sentence doesn’t mean you really shouldn’t do it: you might get a good result nevertheless, with or without some other tweaking in the equation controls, etc.

rarebitusa said:

Curious are you running tube or diode with the 45W Ch 1 setting? What are the chan master levels? the global master level?

Click to expand...

Tube 45W Ch 1, chan master on 10 gain 2 o'clock (if I switch to diode I can bring it down to noon).
Presence 4 o'clock, Bass 2 o'clock, Mid on 10, Treble 1 o'clock.
Ch 2 90W chan master 10 o'clock gain on 10.
Presence 3 o'clock, Bass 1 o'clock, Mid 3, Treble 1 o'clock.
Ch 3 90W chan master 9 o'clock gain 2 o'clock.
Presence 3 o'clock, Bass 9 o'clock, Mid 5 o'clock, Treble 1 o'clock.

LoL "*nothing in the electric guitar world is fully forbidden, so this sentence doesn’t mean you really shouldn’t do it: you might get a good result nevertheless, with or without some other tweaking in the equation controls, etc". Giulio

I'm only using the EQ sliders on Ch 1 and that's what drives everyone here completely nuts, haha and I though saying "I'm a Marshall Guy" would do it.
80 at ¾, 240 at 50%, 750 at ¾, 2200 almost to the top, 6600 at 50%
Sorry if that causes anyone to run out in front of a bus.

This rig is fire and sounds great. I made the adjustment with it up against a Marshall DSL40CR and a Marshall 1966A 2X12 cab. That's what it had to beat, and the Mesa is in the rehearsal room now while the Marshall is in the vacation closet.






LikeGiftReply
Report

Here's an update on a new set of settings I'm trying.
I got these from a YouTube Channel by Euge Valovirta, then changed them a tiny bit to my own liking.
Also on Channel one he used Silicone Diode and I used Tube. I'll be trying the Silicone Diode later this week on Channel one.
It's sounds good, and now the graphic EQ is being used on all 3 channels.

Elliot Twist said:

I got these from a YouTube Channel by Euge Valovirta

Click to expand...

BTW No one says "Mesa Boooogie" better then Euge

TBH, I never understood how a multi-channel amp would work in a rehearsal/live situation without a master volume.
Say you have carefully level matched the 3 channels and now you need an overall notch down or up in volume.
What do you do? You touch them all a bit and hope they still match?
Nah. You need the master volume.

The purists can always bypass it, right?
But they're missing the fx loop too (or, as purists, they hate fx loop too ?)

Being able to bypass the master volume while leaving the fx loop on, that would kill.
That's what I would have liked to see on VII and not removing the master volume altogether.

Maybe that's just me, don't know

philosopher said:

TBH, I never understood how a multi-channel amp would work in a rehearsal/live situation without a master volume.
Say you have carefully level matched the 3 channels and now you need an overall notch down or up in volume.
What do you do? You touch them all a bit and hope they still match?
Nah. You need the master volume.

The purists can always bypass it, right?
But they're missing the fx loop too (or, as purists, they hate fx loop too ?)

Being able to bypass the master volume while leaving the fx loop on, that would kill.
That's what I would have liked to see on VII and not removing the master volume altogether.

Maybe that's just me, don't know

Click to expand...

Well..

Tweak to master may still have different effect to different channels and tones and result is you have to still tweak channel vols

Eevil said:

Well..

Tweak to master may still have different effect to different channels and tones and result is you have to still tweak channel vols

Click to expand...

True
For major changes it won't work as expected I guess, but have found it to work well for smaller changes.

(Not a touring monster here, so only basically depositing home experience here)

philosopher said:

True
For major changes it won't work as expected I guess, but have found it to work well for smaller changes.

(Not a touring monster here, so only basically depositing home experience here)

Click to expand...

Had a Roadster and it was painful with master tweajs.. some times it worked and sometimes not

Playing live with vintage channel and nudging a master a bit -> ok loudness -> modern channel -> explosion

Eevil said:

some times it worked and sometimes not

Click to expand...

oh man that would drive me nuts

rarebitusa said:

oh man that would drive me nuts

Click to expand...

Well.. not much to drive further anymore

Still kind of soft spot for a recto BUT the tone and feel are not for me

Eevil said:

Still kind of soft spot for a recto BUT the tone and feel are not for me

Click to expand...

Often wondered if I'd get on with one long term. Could be fun to have around, but space is limited. The Badlander doesn't seem to do the same kinda of woofy bottom end thing.

Elliot Twist said:

Here's an update on a new set of settings I'm trying.
I got these from a YouTube Channel by Euge Valovirta, then changed them a tiny bit to my own liking.
Also on Channel one he used Silicone Diode and I used Tube. I'll be trying the Silicone Diode later this week on Channel one.
It's sounds good, and now the graphic EQ is being used on all 3 channels.

Click to expand...

Euge is the man!