How does a Simulclass Mark III do as a power amp?

[Whoopysnorp]

I'm trying to think of a way I could change my rig so as to eliminate the Simul 395, the logic being that it makes no sense to carry around two separate output transformers when I only use one side of the power amp (I am also not really using all of the amp's capabilities to the fullest). My current idea is to get a Simulclass Mark III and rack it with my Studio Preamp, giving me the option to use either the Mark's own preamp or bring the Studio in via the effects return. That way I get the mono setup I'm after with the added benefit (?) of being able to use EL34s in the outer sockets, plus having a whole other preamp sound to play with. Does anybody have experience bringing external preamps in via the Mark III's effects return?

 

[CoG]

Me. I tried this with my Recto Pre. It didn't work very well for *me*, but that doesn't mean it won't for you. The problem I had was tonal, not technical. The Rec Pre's gorgeous cleans came out so hot that the El34s started breaking up, ruining the whole "clean" thing, Vintage mode on the Rec Pre basically just sounded like Lead on the MkIII with less sustain, and Modern just didn't get the bass it needs.

I also had some seriously good times ( :evil: ) playing "find the ground loop" in my fx and switching chain.

The good news is that the GEQ on the MkIII works *after* the FX return, so you get that, and the studio pre should be voiced to work just fine with a Mark power section. What I did is get a guy (SmolskiTech in Chicago) to build me a custom looper (basically like a loop switcher except there's no "bypass," just loop A or loop B) that runs the preamp sections in two a/b loops, the out of the looper runs to my fx, then into the loop return of the MkIII. The setup eventually worked great, it just wasn't worth the effort because the rec pre and the Mark power section were a bad match.

If you do this, I can hook you up with a nice custom dual loop pedal :lol:

 

[Whoopysnorp]

Hmm...I'm actually not wild to find out that the GEQ is post-return on the III, as I'd prefer not to have the Studio Pre run through a second EQ, but I suppose it can always be switched out. Didn't your Rec Pre have some kind of master output control like the Studios do? My roommate has a Rec Pre and I thought I remembered it having something like that.

The only way to know for sure is to try, I suppose...when I can get enough spare cash together I'll try to score a Mark III. Should be easy to flip if it doesn't work out for me.

 

[CoG]

Yeah, the Rec Pre has a Live Out control but the taper jumped from 'too quiet' to 'too loud' between about 2.5 and 2.75. if I had kept it I would probably have replaced the pot with something with a different taper. I tried a lower output tube in the associated spot and it didn't help.

Yeah, you can always switch the GEQ out-- think of it this way, now you have the choice of three EQ profiles on every tone...

 

[MrMarkIII]

Mesa used to sell the Simul-Satellite, which was just the power section of a Mark IV, that was designed for a stereo app with the MK IV.
So I guess they thought it was a viable power amp stand-alone.

 

[dmt]

I have a Simul-Satellite and i use it now with my Quad Preamp. I run the Quad into the FX return, bypassing the preamp. You can run into the guitar input, but I'm not sure how that would affect the tone and or volume or tube break up. Buying a Mark III for just the power-section is sorta silly to me, you'd still have a heavy *** powersection and a preamp to boot. The Studio isn't all too different from the Mark III preamp anyway. As far as i know the Studio is a moddified Mark IIC+ preamp that was made during the same time as late Mark III's and Early Mark IV's, so youre probably better off just buying a mark III to take to practice with if you dont want to haul around the whole deal. You could certainly slave it out, but it would be sort of a waste. I'd just buy a smaller poweramp if weight is an issue. Does Mesa make a non-stereo power amp?

 

[Whoopysnorp]

Well, if I did this, part of the reason would be to have the Mark III preamp available as well as the Studio. It'd be analogous to having a Quad (at least in my head). If the two are really that similar, why does the Quad exist?

I don't think Mesa has made a non-stereo poweramp for a long time, and the ones that they have made were big-*** 180 watt mono blocks. I don't like the idea of the 20/20 because I wouldn't want to be shackled to the EL84 sound. I could downgrade to the Fifty/Fifty, but I like having Simulclass available.

 

[MrMarkIII]

The Quad existed because at the time, late 80's to mid 90's, big-*** rack systems were all the rage. The Quad is more-or-less a dual Studio Pre-Amp with more bells and whistles. Niche marketing.
All of the Studio, Quad, and Mark pre-amps are more similar than not in design.

 

[Whoopysnorp]

Well, there should be an easy test to see if this is even worth thinking about: can somebody with a simulclass Mark III tell me how much the chassis (sans headbox/combo shell/speaker) weighs? I can at least see how it compares to the 395 that way.

 

[CoG]

ballpark 25 pounds? I'm gonna be pulling mine on the weekend if you can wait and I'll give you an exact answer.

 

[Whoopysnorp]

Sure, I can wait. Thanks CoG!