A major breahtrough with opening up my MKIV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mule#1]

I've seen a lot of threads on here complaining about the MKIV being to tight or compressed. I have had the same problem since I got my MKIV B. I used to have an A model and didn't remember having that problem (of coarse I liked a different tone 16 years ago). Well I have this gorgeous MKIV B with curly maple and wicker grill and it's too nice to just sit there so I've been trying to figure this thing out once and for all. The first breakthrough was buying a quad of STR420's! Then I pulled the Presence on the lead and R2. I set the lead on 2 and R2 on 4-5. The big discovery was I pushed in the gain on the lead channel! Holy smoking arse holes! This thing is **** near the IIC sound. I am completely stoked! And the R2 sound has never been more usable. I had the treble on 3 bass on 2 and mid on 8. I was in simul-class, triode and harmonics mode. The cabinet was a Boogie vertical 2x12 halfback with EV's.

 

[dodger916]

I've seen a lot of threads on here complaining about the MKIV being to tight or compressed. I have had the same problem since I got my MKIV B. I used to have an A model and didn't remember having that problem (of coarse I liked a different tone 16 years ago). Well I have this gorgeous MKIV B with curly maple and wicker grill and it's too nice to just sit there so I've been trying to figure this thing out once and for all. The first breakthrough was buying a quad of STR420's! Then I pulled the Presence on the lead and R2. I set the lead on 2 and R2 on 4-5. The big discovery was I pushed in the gain on the lead channel! Holy smoking arse holes! This thing is **** near the IIC sound. I am completely stoked! And the R2 sound has never been more usable. I had the treble on 3 bass on 2 and mid on 8. I was in simul-class, triode and harmonics mode. The cabinet was a Boogie vertical 2x12 halfback with EV's.

STR 420s did it for me too. Here are two other changes that I found useful. I now have a pair of 5881s in the outer sockets. It seems to add to the sweetnes of the tone. And, if you haven't experimented with vintage preamp tubes, I'd recommend giving them a try. Vintage Tung-Sols really helped my Mark IV sound less modern and more in line with a Mark II. Try one in V1.

 

[stokes]

Almost every Mesa amp that I've seen that someone complained about "too tight" or"too harsh,bright" was remedied with different power tubes,or more specific,differnt bias.I would bet the tubes you had before the STR 420's were just biased colder than the 420's,your other amp was most likely just biased closer to the tubes "sweet spot" also.I have even been able to improve the tone on some Boogies just re-biasing the crap Sovteks the client had in it.Wanna see an even bigger improvement in your amps tone?Get some good NOS GE,RCA or almost any of the "golden era" brands,have it biased and be prepared to be blown away.

 

[mule#1]

Almost every Mesa amp that I've seen that someone complained about "too tight" or"too harsh,bright" was remedied with different power tubes,or more specific,differnt bias.I would bet the tubes you had before the STR 420's were just biased colder than the 420's,your other amp was most likely just biased closer to the tubes "sweet spot" also.I have even been able to improve the tone on some Boogies just re-biasing the crap Sovteks the client had in it.Wanna see an even bigger improvement in your amps tone?Get some good NOS GE,RCA or almost any of the "golden era" brands,have it biased and be prepared to be blown away.

OK you got my attention! The tubes I got had the numbers 17 over 2.3. From what I gathered on another thread the 17 is the bias? And they wee talking about tubes at 27. So I'm thinking 17 is cold? Are the 17's good for my MKIV?
Where can I buy NOS GE or RCA tubes?
Are those tubes good for a Classic Rock tone?

 

[Boogiebabies]

I've seen a lot of threads on here complaining about the MKIV being to tight or compressed. I have had the same problem since I got my MKIV B. I used to have an A model and didn't remember having that problem (of coarse I liked a different tone 16 years ago). Well I have this gorgeous MKIV B with curly maple and wicker grill and it's too nice to just sit there so I've been trying to figure this thing out once and for all. The first breakthrough was buying a quad of STR420's! Then I pulled the Presence on the lead and R2. I set the lead on 2 and R2 on 4-5. The big discovery was I pushed in the gain on the lead channel! Holy smoking arse holes! This thing is **** near the IIC sound. I am completely stoked! And the R2 sound has never been more usable. I had the treble on 3 bass on 2 and mid on 8. I was in simul-class, triode and harmonics mode. The cabinet was a Boogie vertical 2x12 halfback with EV's.

I agree with the R2 presence being pulled. It's much tighter. To my ears, the C+ type tone is with the presence not pulled and
the lead bright pulled. There is some additional filtering in the MK IV presence circuit that trims some of the presence brightness
as well. It could be the exact C+ presence circuit by removing one cap, C22. With C22 at 500pf and 1000pf on the pulled presence
the signal is so squashed it shifts the tone to smooth highs and a narrower bottom. The MK V uses even more filtering !!!
It's a useful tool for getting different tones, but it's not a faithful representation of what a C+ sounds like.
I don't know why Mesa used the pulled presence to reference the tone when writing the User Guide. It makes no sense.
The issue that bothers me the most is the massive volume drop when pulled.

 

[mule#1]

I've seen a lot of threads on here complaining about the MKIV being to tight or compressed. I have had the same problem since I got my MKIV B. I used to have an A model and didn't remember having that problem (of coarse I liked a different tone 16 years ago). Well I have this gorgeous MKIV B with curly maple and wicker grill and it's too nice to just sit there so I've been trying to figure this thing out once and for all. The first breakthrough was buying a quad of STR420's! Then I pulled the Presence on the lead and R2. I set the lead on 2 and R2 on 4-5. The big discovery was I pushed in the gain on the lead channel! Holy smoking arse holes! This thing is **** near the IIC sound. I am completely stoked! And the R2 sound has never been more usable. I had the treble on 3 bass on 2 and mid on 8. I was in simul-class, triode and harmonics mode. The cabinet was a Boogie vertical 2x12 halfback with EV's.

I agree with the R2 presence being pulled. It's much tighter. To my ears, the C+ type tone is with the presence not pulled and
the lead bright pulled. There is some additional filtering in the MK IV presence circuit that trims some of the presence brightness
as well. It could be the exact C+ presence circuit by removing one cap, C22. With C22 at 500pf and 1000pf on the pulled presence
the signal is so squashed it shifts the tone to smooth highs and a narrower bottom. The MK V uses even more filtering !!!
It's a useful tool for getting different tones, but it's not a faithful representation of what a C+ sounds like.
I don't know why Mesa used the pulled presence to reference the tone when writing the User Guide. It makes no sense.
The issue that bothers me the most is the massive volume drop when pulled.

Has anybody tried that mod on the presence circuit? I'll have to check out the presence pushed vs. pulled thing a little deeper. It really seemed as though it was closer to the C+ sound pulled to me, but only when the lead Fat was pushed in????? It just seemed a lot brighter to me. The cool thing with the MK IV is the possibilities are endless! Of coarse sometimes it's a curse depending on the day (lol). I see so many guys on the thread frustrated and want to sell them but if you are patient there is killer tone waiting in there.

 

[Boogiebabies]

I don't think the removal of that cap is going to make it a C+. I'm sure it's there to voice the MK IV and
surely adds to the smoother, darker character of the amp. If you were to try the mod, it would make the presence more
responsive, maybe a touch less compressed in the lead channel. Put the C+ lead mode side by side with MK IV's Lead Mode
with the presence pulled and it will sound nothing alike. I don't think you could ever get a C+ that narrow unless you compress
the life out of it with an outboard unit. The Pull Fat on the lead channel is the same circuit as the Pull Shift on the C+.
It adds 750pf to the standard 250pf treble cap. When engaged with 1000pf, it shifts the midrange and treble down. What your hearing
with it in is the circuits normal treble and midrange. It has the same function for the R2 pull fat. On the MK V, both the pull shift on and
pull bright are hardwired into the circuit. The pull bright is one thing I would like to add to the MK IV. On the C+'s I always have it on
because it adds a nice halo to the overdrive notes and a little more spank in the cleans.

 

[mule#1]

I don't think the removal of that cap is going to make it a C+. I'm sure it's there to voice the MK IV and
surely adds to the smoother, darker character of the amp. If you were to try the mod, it would make the presence more
responsive, maybe a touch less compressed in the lead channel. Put the C+ lead mode side by side with MK IV's Lead Mode
with the presence pulled and it will sound nothing alike. I don't think you could ever get a C+ that narrow unless you compress
the life out of it with an outboard unit. The Pull Fat on the lead channel is the same circuit as the Pull Shift on the C+.
It adds 750pf to the standard 250pf treble cap. When engaged with 1000pf, it shifts the midrange and treble down. What your hearing
with it in is the circuits normal treble and midrange. It has the same function for the R2 pull fat. On the MK V, both the pull shift on and
pull bright are hardwired into the circuit. The pull bright is one thing I would like to add to the MK IV. On the C+'s I always have it on
because it adds a nice halo to the overdrive notes and a little more spank in the cleans.

Thanks for the info. I realize the IV will never be a C+. I do like the IV for what it is but I am trying to steer that voice in a certain direction.

In your opinion how does the V hold up to the IIC+ sound? And what do you think of a C+ wiith no EQ or Simul-Class?

 

[stokes]

I have had a 60 watt C+ with no EQ and no simul for 20+ years and in my opinion it is better than the version with EQ and simul.But I have no use for these features.I have even taken steps to reduce and smooth out the lead channel.I have 5751's in key positions to accomplish that.I am sure if I had an EQ I would find a way to use it,but I dont miss it at all.The simul thing,IMO, is a lot of hype,but thats just me.I think if you are looking for the metal type tones they are needed,but I obviously dont miss them.

 

[Boogiebabies]

I don't think the removal of that cap is going to make it a C+. I'm sure it's there to voice the MK IV and
surely adds to the smoother, darker character of the amp. If you were to try the mod, it would make the presence more
responsive, maybe a touch less compressed in the lead channel. Put the C+ lead mode side by side with MK IV's Lead Mode
with the presence pulled and it will sound nothing alike. I don't think you could ever get a C+ that narrow unless you compress
the life out of it with an outboard unit. The Pull Fat on the lead channel is the same circuit as the Pull Shift on the C+.
It adds 750pf to the standard 250pf treble cap. When engaged with 1000pf, it shifts the midrange and treble down. What your hearing
with it in is the circuits normal treble and midrange. It has the same function for the R2 pull fat. On the MK V, both the pull shift on and
pull bright are hardwired into the circuit. The pull bright is one thing I would like to add to the MK IV. On the C+'s I always have it on
because it adds a nice halo to the overdrive notes and a little more spank in the cleans.

Thanks for the info. I realize the IV will never be a C+. I do like the IV for what it is but I am trying to steer that voice in a certain direction.

In your opinion how does the V hold up to the IIC+ sound? And what do you think of a C+ wiith no EQ or Simul-Class?

From the clips I have heard, the V is not that close. The one I tried to play was dead already in the store.
I think the 60W with reverb is a wonderful amp without the EQ. Very organic and smooth, but I'm a Simul-EQ-Reverb addict.

If this is the tone you are looking for:

There is no substitute.....

 

[mule#1]

From the clips I have heard, the V is not that close. The one I tried to play was dead already in the store.
I think the 60W with reverb is a wonderful amp without the EQ. Very organic and smooth, but I'm a Simul-EQ-Reverb addict.

If this is the tone you are looking for:

There is no substitute.....[/quote]

Now that is pretty funny that you would pick up on the Warren Haynes tone I love so much! However I have been die hard Boogie since I bought my first (studio preamp) in 1990. I actually love my 50+ and that is pretty close to the tone I've sought for so long. I really like my MK IV as well. I'm just trying to decide if I should pick up a C+.

I do like your SLO though! Do you have the Warren Haynes mod?

 

[Boogiebabies]

What, that old thing. It's a 93 i've had since 2000. Fargin unreal !!!
The Warren Haynes mod is the removal of one cap across the lead gain pot. I've tried it
and it is like butter. When you get the gain above 6 and Master volume over 4 it does not matter that much.

 

[chipaudette]

OK, BB, if you had to give up your boogie(s) or your Soldano...which would go and which would stay?

Chip

 

[mule#1]

OK, BB, if you had to give up your boogie(s) or your Soldano...which would go and which would stay?

Chip

I'd like to hear that answer as well! I know I could not part with mine. I'd take an SLO 100 though.

 

[mule#1]

What, that old thing. It's a 93 i've had since 2000. Fargin unreal !!!
The Warren Haynes mod is the removal of one cap across the lead gain pot. I've tried it
and it is like butter. When you get the gain above 6 and Master volume over 4 it does not matter that much.

That's a nice looking amp. If you ever decide to sell it send me a PM

 

[Boogiebabies]

OK, BB, if you had to give up your boogie(s) or your Soldano...which would go and which would stay?

Chip

They would all stay. I would send GTS the SLO, Dodger916 a C+ and Av8or3 a C+ with instructions to hold them
until they received a notarized statement from my attorney stating I was solvent enough to get them back. :mrgreen:

 

[Boogiebabies]

What, that old thing. It's a 93 i've had since 2000. Fargin unreal !!!
The Warren Haynes mod is the removal of one cap across the lead gain pot. I've tried it
and it is like butter. When you get the gain above 6 and Master volume over 4 it does not matter that much.

That's a nice looking amp. If you ever decide to sell it send me a PM

You would never believe the history or significance to Soldano of this amp.
It's not a serialized production amp.

In ten years I have never once thought of selling it.

 

[dodger916]

OK, BB, if you had to give up your boogie(s) or your Soldano...which would go and which would stay?

Chip

They would all stay. I would send GTS the SLO, Dodger916 a C+ and Av8or3 a C+ with instructions to hold them
until they received a notarized statement from my attorney stating I was solvent enough to get them back. :mrgreen:

You can count on me, Ed. I don't know about those other rascals though! :lol:

 

[mule#1]

I think I gotta have a C+ just to add to my collection. Should I wait to score one with an EQ?

 

[Boogiebabies]

I think I gotta have a C+ just to add to my collection. Should I wait to score one with an EQ?

Since you gig, yes. It's much easier to tune the amp to a room with the GEQ even if it's just minor adjustments.
On the occasion your drummer's being too heavy handed and your bass player won't turn down you can up the 750 slider
and kill them both by drowning.