C+/Mk V shootout, pt. 1

[bpm91]

Hey Les, thanks you guys for the effort & sharing the results!

As I,ve mentioned before, I,ve never owned/played any other Marks, so it,s nice to know that I have a good (80-90%?) representation...way cool!

If you have one handy, when you do the preamp tube swaps, could you try a tung sol in the v1? I,ve been too busy tweaking the outside to fiddle around with the inside yet! :lol: (by the way, what pre,s are in there now?)

I have the "stock" tubes that came with amp-a GT 12ax7 M sounds sweeet in v1,however..good luck in finding one
will keep you updated!

I think I will pull my Amperex from my III and put it in the V.

 

[JOEY B.]

My wish list for the Mark VB would include a mini-toggle switch on channel 3 that would change to the larger coupling capacitor for the C+ mode, and simulate the "Pull Deep" for all of channel 3. :twisted:

 

[Monsta-Tone]

You could always send it to me and get it done! :lol:

 

[kiff]

You could always send it to me and get it done! :lol:

oh hell yea! (el paso -> silver city = 150miles ; )

 

[Monsta-Tone]

I didn't know you were that close!

I have a job in El Paso, I'll let you know next time I'm there.

 

[JOEY B.]

A. clean channel-Joey's flame C+ hs the best clean tone, so we wanted to dial in the V..results-tweed setting/90 watt mode/bold got the V close to the C+..difference?"sub low"

B. chan 2(V)-we just dialed in a bruuuutal Mk I setting(thanks to Jay and Joey B.)...chan. 2 was fun!!Mk I...not too dark!secret??I'm not tellin'!!

Mike, when are you going to post the channel 1 and 2 (Mark I) settings? I know that you wrote them down. :twisted:

 

[lesterpaul]

here we go..!output vol. around 12 o clock high or so...
chan 1-tweed 90 watts bold no eq
gain-9 o'clock
channel vol. 5
pres. 10:30
treble11
mid-1-2 o clock
bass-3:30

the monster Mk 1-
90 watts mk 1 mode/thick
gain -2 o' clock
chan vol 11
pres. 2:30
treble-dimed
mid 9:30
bass 0

eq sliders- 80 was damn near bottomed out...(+5 is top line...-5 bottom line..for those who cannot read my mind..its a lefty thing..we have fuc*ed up ways...)
240 -2.5
750 0
2200 +1
6500 +3

 

[Nermel]

eq sliders- 80 was damn near bottomed out...
240 -2.5
750 0
2200 +1
6500 +3

Explain the positions of the eq sliders differently, if you don't mind...where is -2.5 :?:

 

[Boogiebabies]

Maybe like the pic in the first post ? Or just move them until you hear what you like.

 

[JOEY B.]

Explain the positions of the eq sliders differently, if you don't mind...where is -2.5 :?:

Yeah I did not quite understand the -2.5 etc...

But the main goal is to turn the bass knob completely counter-clockwise, and turn the treble to the maximum. Give it a good amount of presence and volume. Lower the 80 Hz to near the bottom of its range (minimum) and the 240 Hz needs to be between the bottom line and the one above it. This gets rid of the "mud" that some people are complaining about. This will make a very nice "lead" channel if you were to use the contour control and not the sliders for channel 3. 8)

 

[lesterpaul]

recently edited for your maximum viewing pleasure

 

[JOEY B.]

Part 2 is scheduled for 7-28-09. This will not be about the C+, but every other mode as well as EL-34's and preamp tube swaps. Stay tuned. 8)

 

[Vigo1999]

interesting is that to have the same amount of bass you really have to push the 80hz and 240hz faders on the V's eq.

Yeah, we all noticed that, as well. This may have been a result of my use of the "Pull Deep" on the C+. The comparison settings in the MkV manual sounded very similar (with the EQ off on both amps), but we wanted to see what it would look like with the EQ active on both amps. There were more low mids present on the original C+ than on the MkV (in the C+ mode). Most likely they were due to the coupling capacitor mentioned in the MkV manual. We found the low mids by switching the MkV into the MkIV mode, but then the higher frequencies darkened somewhat. So there you go, all of us heard the same thing.

The MkV clean channel needed to be on the "tweed" setting with the gain at 9 o'clock and the channel master raised fairly high to reproduce the "spank" that came from the STR-415 loaded C+. Again there were some low mids present in the C+ that could not be 100% dialed into the MkV. The low mids add a sort of thickness to the clean tone. Some people may like it, and some may not.

All in all, the MkV is a great buy for the money. It would be very hard to hear these subtle differences, if you were not A/B-ing the amps side by side.

but actually arent those mid-lows that caught us in the mid 80's??

THAT growl is really what we talk about in the IIC and is great to know that Mesa could nail it almost 100% with the V.

 

[Vigo1999]

but well, c'mon! you guys put the candy on our mouths and than take it?? where are the clips????

...clips?did you see those pics??brother, we are BROKE! :lol:

:lol: :lol:

next time i will show up with my cheesy 4-track tascam recorder then :wink:

 

[DaveP]

I bought and sold the Mark V. Great amp no doubt about it. I just picked up a used Mark IIC+ and I can tell you having the original
and comparing it to the Mark V there is a difference. The picking attack, response and overall feel of the Mark IIc+ clearly is in a league of it's own. I actually picked my IIc+ for less then the cost of a Mark V. If want the real thing it is within reach.
I should mention the clean on the Mark IIc+ are also top notch. Fantastic amp.

 

[lesterpaul]

I bought and sold the Mark V. Great amp no doubt about it. I just picked up a used Mark IIC+ and I can tell you having the original
and comparing it to the Mark V there is a difference. The picking attack, response and overall feel of the Mark IIc+ clearly is in a league of it's own. I actually picked my IIc+ for less then the cost of a Mark V. If want the real thing it is within reach.
I should mention the clean on the Mark IIc+ are also top notch. Fantastic amp.

...I was the "unlucky" cat who got to demo the amps all day...the "feel,response,etc.." is all connected to the low mid(sub low) deal /C+ no geq vs geq/thats the diff. to me...its closer on IV mode..again , very close-I have my V set up with my usual effects now and its really hard to tell a diff. with stereo delay,etc...a good gigger/leave the C at home deal

 

[lesterpaul]

Part 2 will most likely involve some preamp tube changes in the MkV.
8)

...Reasons to be cheerful Part 2...
Only 7 days away!!

yessir!!oh, what fun we have...!

 

[bpm91]

*clamours for part 2*

 

[fretout]

Thanks for the reviews and comparisons! I look forward to the next installment. In the future would you guys mind having a shootout between the Mark V and the Mark IV? I am interested to see the differences between the IV and the V.

Thanks for taking the time to test out these great amps, and keeping us Boogie Brothers informed!

 

[lesterpaul]

no problem!!we have a lot of fun..
don't currently have a MK IV...had a IV b, which I sold to fund my B+ 8) ..any comparisons would be from memory, and that is a waste of space ...