Fender Mustang II and III compared to Mesa 5:25 and 5:50?

[grayson73]

Has anyone compared the Fender Mustang II or III to the Mesa 5:25 or 5:50?

 

[David Garner]

Completely different animals. Not really comparable at all, IMHO.

If you want a well made, built in the USA tube amp that is versatile, get one of the Mesas. If you want a solid state modeler that is uber versatile, get one of the Mustangs.

If you want to gig, SERIOUSLY consider the Mesas over the Mustangs. If money is an object, consider a used Peavey Classic 30 or Fender Hot Rod Deluxe over the Mustangs. Otherwise, it's a matter of taste.

Having said that, the Mustangs sound seriously good for a bedroom amp, practice amp, even a home recording interface. They are really nice amps. They're just not made to do what the Mesas do.

 

[MrMarkIII]

As a lark, I played a gig last Sat. with the Mustang III. Only had the 2-button foot switch, but the interface is stoopid easy, even for a dyed-in-the-wool-I'll-never-use-anything-but-my-Mark III guy like myself.

I'm not one to use 12 different amp models in one night.
Ended up with a Twin Reverb into a 4 x 10 Bassman cab.
Now, I lean toward a (slightly cranked) Deluxe Reverb with the stock speaker, with my own overdrive pedal in front. Having owned the DRRI, the digital simulation is darn good. The reverb and tremolo are better IMO.

Yes, you can mix and match amps and cabs, and turn the cab sims off totally. The reverbs are very good, delays decent if you're not hung up on dotted-eighths, etc. I just used the '63 Fender reverb unit sim with some slap-back. Easy to tap in delay time on the amp.
And...you can fiddle with rectifier "sag" and adjust "bias" on all of the amp models. The foot switch is programmable for choices other than simple pre-set up/down.

There are not a bazillion parameters and menus, which for me is a plus. Unbelievably easy to edit on the fly if the amp is raised a bit, like on a chair.

It was a Blues/R&B gig, the amp sounded great, and my back wasn't killing me, as the weight is cut by a good 2/3. Noice!

I wouldn't sell a Mark III (I have three) to get a Mustang, but for grab-n-go, I'd prefer one (or two) over an Express.
YMMV.
Flame on.

 

[David Garner]

I won't flame. Weight is important. That's the only gripe I've got with my 5:50 -- it's a boat anchor.

But it's lighter than my Fender Concert, and not that much heavier than my Deluxe Reverb. I'd prefer to gig with the ZT Amps Lunchbox that I ought to get around to selling one day, but I just can't bring myself to try it. One day I'd like to get the combo version of the Retro Reck amp with a neo speaker in it to see if I can do the "light, non tube" thing.

 

[Newysurfer]

Has anyone compared the Fender Mustang II or III to the Mesa 5:25 or 5:50?

I won't flame people here I will have a laugh :lol:
Why are you seriously comparing cheap Fender solid state modelling amps to high quality Mesa tube amps.
Total no contest and virtually nothing in common tone, features or price wise :lol:

And yes I have played the Mustangs and yes they sounded like decent little practice amps for $180 to $250 :mrgreen:

 

[Mordacain]

Has anyone compared the Fender Mustang II or III to the Mesa 5:25 or 5:50?

Actually, yes. I have a Mustang III and was able to directly compare it to both a Nomad 45, F50 and Express 5:50.

Honestly, the Mustang sounds amazingly good clean. If you put a little effort into it, you can actually get better cleans than the Nomad or F and one that is pretty on-par with the Express.

Volume-wise, the Mustang can't remotely begin to keep up with any of them. The Mustang's best sounds are achieved running the preamp models at fairly low channel volumes (between 2 and 6 depending on the amp model) so you'll run out of headroom quickly when dialed in a such a fashion.

However, once you start to dirty things up, the comparison starts to fall off quickly. Unfortunately, the Mustang, like most cheap modellers, has fizzy gain sounds. that being said, if gain is used sparingly and you increase the master volume while running channel volumes low, the Mustang has some fantastic tones available for the price.

Realistically, the Mustang, while being very versatile and a wonderful starter amp, won't ever be able to match any Mesa amp. It does sound better than some cheap tube amps Ive played, which is an amazing feat of its own I think.

 

[Newysurfer]

Has anyone compared the Fender Mustang II or III to the Mesa 5:25 or 5:50?

Actually, yes. I have a Mustang III and was able to directly compare it to both a Nomad 45, F50 and Express 5:50.

Honestly, the Mustang sounds amazingly good clean. If you put a little effort into it, you can actually get better cleans than the Nomad or F and one that is pretty on-par with the Express.

Volume-wise, the Mustang can't remotely begin to keep up with any of them. The Mustang's best sounds are achieved running the preamp models at fairly low channel volumes (between 2 and 6 depending on the amp model) so you'll run out of headroom quickly when dialed in a such a fashion.

However, once you start to dirty things up, the comparison starts to fall off quickly. Unfortunately, the Mustang, like most cheap modellers, has fizzy gain sounds. that being said, if gain is used sparingly and you increase the master volume while running channel volumes low, the Mustang has some fantastic tones available for the price.

Realistically, the Mustang, while being very versatile and a wonderful starter amp, won't ever be able to match any Mesa amp. It does sound better than some cheap tube amps Ive played, which is an amazing feat of its own I think.

I agree with all this except the comments about the Mustang low vol clean tones being better than Nomad, F50 and equal to a 5:50.
I've never heard any solid state amp sounding better than any tube amp - at any vol level.

I agree Mustangs are a good little practice amp & great value for money.
But also think the cleans on the Roland Cube series amps are better than the Mustangs and build quality on those is much better imo :mrgreen:

 

[Mordacain]

I agree with all this except the comments about the Mustang low vol clean tones being better than Nomad, F50 and equal to a 5:50.
I've never heard any solid state amp sounding better than any tube amp - at any vol level.

I agree Mustangs are a good little practice amp & great value for money.
But also think the cleans on the Roland Cube series amps are better than the Mustangs and build quality on those is much better imo :mrgreen:

To each their own. Personally I am not a fan of the Roland JC clean tone, so I really didn't get on with my Cube 60 when I had it. I messed around with my Nomad for weeks and tried various preamp tubes and EQ combinations and I could not get a clean tone that really spoke to me. Other people thought it sounded great, but I didn't get on it. 5 minutes in I had a better clean tone using the Twin Reverb model on the Mustang III and even my tube bias friends agreed with me that it was the better of the two. The thing about amp modelling is that modelling a clean tone is nowhere near as compute-intensive as it trying to emulate a higain tone and the variety of clipping that occurs.

Please note I am talking about a nice, warm clean with 0 clipping. I am not talking about a clean that can be driven to clip with pick attack.

 

[Nooner69]

Had a Mustang III for practice and have a 5:50 and there is no comparison. It's fun to program but I don't think I would use one live. Sold it, got tired of the funky fizz noises and it did'nt like pedals.

 

[grayson73]

One problem that I have with the Mesa 5:25 at church is that it is WAY too loud for our small congregation (80 people), even at the 5w setting. When I use the master volume, it goes from super soft to super loud so it has been hard to adjust to the right level. I also don't think it sounds as good at low volume as it does when you're able to open it up.

How would the Mustang III compare in this situation and also without pedals? I've been using the Mesa 5:25 without pedals.

 

[mleffler]

I'm gonna go against the grain here. I have both a mustang III and a express 5:25 (12" speaker). The boogie is set up in my practice area and it is my main amp. I've spent a lot of time dialing in my sound and I'm very happy with it. But I have been having some serious back issues lately, and the boogie is heavier than the mustang. The last three gigs I did, I used the mustang. One was in a fairly large hall and two were outside.

Classic rock-type band. I set up a Vox AC-type and worked the volume control for solos. Very simple. It worked fine. I had the volume on about 4-5 on the mustang. It was fine for what we do, which is not high-volume stuff.

Was the tone even close to what I can get with the boogie? Not by a long shot. Would everyone on this site know the difference? Absolutely. Would anyone watching us play notice? I seriously doubt it.

Summary: when my back gets better it's the express all the way. But for now, I'm fine with the mustang. Also keep in mind I own both and have played each amp for full gigs. To the guy with the church gig - at least try the mustang out. It's a fraction of the cost and it will probably do the job. If you are going to be doing regular gigging, in clubs and at higher volumes, I would go with the express.

 

[assat012]

I have an Express 5:50 1x12 combo and a Mustang III and I think the Mustang compares very favourably to the Mesa. Yes of cause the Fender is cheaply made as you would expect for the price but it does sound very good when you spend some time dialling in the tones you need and it is easily gig-able.

In truth the price difference between the two is not reflected in the performance.