GEQ on Mark V and contour controls

[t0aj15]

:roll: I don't find it at all confusing. IMO it's very concise and well thought out.

 

[chapelizod]

why don't they just have 5 pots EQ per channel (bass, low mids, mids, hi mids, treble) and get rid of the GEQ and contour pots??? it would be so much less confusing. well, i guess having a footswitchable GEQ adds another "channel" to each channel...

GEQ and Contour controls are POST pre-amp/distortion. the channel eq controls influence the tone coming into the preamp. they effect the sound in different ways, which is why they are there

the marks have 4 EQ's, not 3 per channel: bass, mid, treble, presence.

the mark v looks pretty easy to use, IMO. there are lots of ways to combine the different features, but each one taken on it's own looks extremely simple and user friendly.

 

[jdurso]

why don't they just have 5 pots EQ per channel (bass, low mids, mids, hi mids, treble) and get rid of the GEQ and contour pots??? it would be so much less confusing. well, i guess having a footswitchable GEQ adds another "channel" to each channel...

i've never seen an amp with 5 pots per channel (it's always 2 or 3). would that make the chassis too big or not technically feasible???

i think the mark V user interface is still potentially very confusing, even with the re-design (simplification?) from the mark IV.

good luck to the guinea pigs...

Having the geq isnt so much about the the frequencies your adjusting, its more about where it is in the chain. The pots of each channel have a very complex chemistry and work together to adjust the overall tone and character of the preamp. The geq sits right before the power amp in the signal and is more there to pull in or out certain frequencies... think of it as the scalpal for dialing in very specific tones.

When i bought my Mark IV a few years back it was the first amp i ever had with a geq and i'll admit i had not clue what i was doing with it. Now that i udnerstand how the chain works it makes sense in the design, especially if you're very particular about tones. It also helps the amp achieve a lot more than 3 tones, making the amp extremely versitile. For that reason if they had gotten rid of it i would think it devistating... i wish the rectos had a geq in the design so that half of us could get rid of our eq pedals we put in the loop.

Maybe a design like that isnt for everyone but i think its worth it for people to understand what the certain design aspects are there for. I say that because its just awesome to understand what you like and dont like and why.... lots of contols may turn a lot of people but for others (like me) things like geq when built into the amp make things sound that more organic (as opposed to a eq in the loop).

 

[cisspcism]

why don't they just have 5 pots EQ per channel (bass, low mids, mids, hi mids, treble) and get rid of the GEQ and contour pots??? it would be so much less confusing. well, i guess having a footswitchable GEQ adds another "channel" to each channel...

i've never seen an amp with 5 pots per channel (it's always 2 or 3). would that make the chassis too big or not technically feasible???

i think the mark V user interface is still potentially very confusing, even with the re-design (simplification?) from the mark IV.

good luck to the guinea pigs...

Having the geq isnt so much about the the frequencies your adjusting, its more about where it is in the chain. The pots of each channel have a very complex chemistry and work together to adjust the overall tone and character of the preamp. The geq sits right before the power amp in the signal and is more there to pull in or out certain frequencies... think of it as the scalpal for dialing in very specific tones.

When i bought my Mark IV a few years back it was the first amp i ever had with a geq and i'll admit i had not clue what i was doing with it. Now that i udnerstand how the chain works it makes sense in the design, especially if you're very particular about tones. It also helps the amp achieve a lot more than 3 tones, making the amp extremely versitile. For that reason if they had gotten rid of it i would think it devistating... i wish the rectos had a geq in the design so that half of us could get rid of our eq pedals we put in the loop.

Maybe a design like that isnt for everyone but i think its worth it for people to understand what the certain design aspects are there for. I say that because its just awesome to understand what you like and dont like and why.... lots of contols may turn a lot of people but for others (like me) things like geq when built into the amp make things sound that more organic (as opposed to a eq in the loop).

The rectos wouldnt need a graphic EQ since there tone controls are post gain

Mark amps/Dumble type amps tone stack work before the drive
Most other amps and rectifiers have tone stacks after drive

 

[MusicManJP6]

The GEQ is very cool because it provides you with 'at a glance' tone settings. It's placement in the chain is key as well. The GEQ on my DC-3 really makes the amp for me. Without the EQ engaged it is not really the tone I am after. It is useable but much more vintage than I prefer. Engage the GEQ in the classic 'V' shape and 'BOOM' - there's my ideal tone.

Plain and simple - the GEQ adds versatility to an amp...

 

[JAZZGEAR]

why don't they just have 5 pots EQ per channel (bass, low mids, mids, hi mids, treble) and get rid of the GEQ and contour pots??? it would be so much less confusing. well, i guess having a footswitchable GEQ adds another "channel" to each channel...

i've never seen an amp with 5 pots per channel (it's always 2 or 3). would that make the chassis too big or not technically feasible???

i think the mark V user interface is still potentially very confusing, even with the re-design (simplification?) from the mark IV.

good luck to the guinea pigs...

Mesa amps require a minimum IQ of 80 to operate :mrgreen:

 

[kiff]

i think the mark V user interface is still potentially very confusing, even with the re-design (simplification?) from the mark IV.

the biggest problem I have on the m4 is when I need to tweak the gain or tone knobs for r1 or r2. I always need to look at the markings. I don't see that happening on the m5, it's obvious where they all are on each channel.

 

[Vigo1999]

why don't they just have 5 pots EQ per channel (bass, low mids, mids, hi mids, treble) and get rid of the GEQ and contour pots??? it would be so much less confusing. well, i guess having a footswitchable GEQ adds another "channel" to each channel...

i've never seen an amp with 5 pots per channel (it's always 2 or 3). would that make the chassis too big or not technically feasible???

i think the mark V user interface is still potentially very confusing, even with the re-design (simplification?) from the mark IV.

good luck to the guinea pigs...

Mesa amps require a minimum IQ of 80 to operate :mrgreen:

:mrgreen:


Hey Rabies, but you know that we still love you! :wink: