I don't love my Mark V
- Thread starter ranchak
- Start date
Help Support The Boogie Board:
Update
I replaced the C90 speaker for a WGS ET65, this cured the boxyness that I was getting with the C90.
Replaced V4 and V7 with JAN Phillips 12AT7WC
I made some adjustments and now I’m pretty close to having this amp dialed in on all three channels!
16 ohm speaker running in the 4 ohm output.
Once I decide I most likely will get an 8 ohm WGS ET95 or maybe their version of the EVM12L. Not really sure and right now I can continue to use the ET 65 that I have, I don’t think I’m pushing enough power to blow it up.
Here is what I have my settings at:
Channel One
Fat
EQ off
90 watt
Bold
G 11:00
M 2:30
P 2:00
T 2:30
M 9:30
B off
Channel Two
Mark I
EQ on
45 watt
G 9:15
M 2:45
P 2:30
T 4:00
M 11:00
B 7:00
Channel Three
Extreme
EQ on
90 watt
Bright mode
G 1:30
M 1:00
P 2:30
T 3:15
M 10:00
B 7:30
Graphic EQ
80hz mid way between top line and middle line
240 hz top of knob below middle line
750 hz 1/8” below middle line
2200 hz on middle line
6600 hz bottom of knob above the middle line
Effects loop 12:00
Master Volume 8:30
Full power
This puts the amp in the 92 - 94 dB range. A little tweaking on the channel volumes and I probably could get to 90 dB.
I think the last thing I’m going to try is some more tubes, but I’m Not sure what to try next I read a bunch of posts about tubes, but the only thing that I took out of it was swapping V4 and V7. Maybe some gold pin 12AX7Ss, long plate 12AX7Ss? Different 6L6s maybe STR 445.
All in all I’m starting to like my Mark V. I can hear my tones starting to come out of the amp. It’s been frustrating and being new to MESA Boogie this amp doesn’t react like a Marshall. The tone knobs react differently and once you get the hang of it, it becomes tonal bliss!
I replaced the C90 speaker for a WGS ET65, this cured the boxyness that I was getting with the C90.
Replaced V4 and V7 with JAN Phillips 12AT7WC
I made some adjustments and now I’m pretty close to having this amp dialed in on all three channels!
16 ohm speaker running in the 4 ohm output.
Once I decide I most likely will get an 8 ohm WGS ET95 or maybe their version of the EVM12L. Not really sure and right now I can continue to use the ET 65 that I have, I don’t think I’m pushing enough power to blow it up.
Here is what I have my settings at:
Channel One
Fat
EQ off
90 watt
Bold
G 11:00
M 2:30
P 2:00
T 2:30
M 9:30
B off
Channel Two
Mark I
EQ on
45 watt
G 9:15
M 2:45
P 2:30
T 4:00
M 11:00
B 7:00
Channel Three
Extreme
EQ on
90 watt
Bright mode
G 1:30
M 1:00
P 2:30
T 3:15
M 10:00
B 7:30
Graphic EQ
80hz mid way between top line and middle line
240 hz top of knob below middle line
750 hz 1/8” below middle line
2200 hz on middle line
6600 hz bottom of knob above the middle line
Effects loop 12:00
Master Volume 8:30
Full power
This puts the amp in the 92 - 94 dB range. A little tweaking on the channel volumes and I probably could get to 90 dB.
I think the last thing I’m going to try is some more tubes, but I’m Not sure what to try next I read a bunch of posts about tubes, but the only thing that I took out of it was swapping V4 and V7. Maybe some gold pin 12AX7Ss, long plate 12AX7Ss? Different 6L6s maybe STR 445.
All in all I’m starting to like my Mark V. I can hear my tones starting to come out of the amp. It’s been frustrating and being new to MESA Boogie this amp doesn’t react like a Marshall. The tone knobs react differently and once you get the hang of it, it becomes tonal bliss!
iceman said:
This is so true! The Flashback gets "overloaded" without turning the SEND level down to about 10 or 11 o'clock, especially if channel master is up above 10:30 or so on channels 2 and 3. What will happen is the echoes from the flashback will max out and be relatively quiet with respect to the original signal. This is a weird thing and I'm not sure if the Mark V or the Flashback are at fault here. I wonder if the Flashback X4 version 2 has this issue?
Sorry for the off topic comment. As far as the OP, I think that backing off the masters to somewhere between 9 and 11 o'clock will help because you can turn up the output higher.
My experience has been this amp sounds much better opened up and live in a band setting. When I practice it just sounds great with a lot of punch and cut and fluidity in channel 3. Channel 2 Crunch gives a great old school rock tone at 12 o'clock gain with 3 o'clock mids. Now, when I get home and keep all settings the same and lower the volume for home practice, it sounds a bit ***** and nasily. At any rate, I'm glad that the amp sounds great in a live band setting at volume and not the other way around (great at home, crap in a band). But honestly, it sounds great at home, but I do have to tweak the settings somewhat.
I suppose the comment "if you want an amp to have a one great tone in 5 minutes, then this amp isn't it" would apply. This amp is full of great many great tones but does take some patience/learning.
mace said:
We are going to rehearse with a drummer this week so I will get a chance to see how my amp setting are going to work. I will try turning the master up and lowering the channel volumes. I’m sure this will help the amp have a more open feeling
iceman
Well-known member
Couldn't agree more. Clean on C90 is nice but does not do the Mark V justice. Completely different sound when I went to a 2x12 ported and added a ET65 to the mix. Shout out for port city cabs too BTW!
Speaker/cab is such a huge piece of the signal chain. The same cab/speaker combo I use for the Mark is way too bassy for my RA100 (for example).
iceman said:
Isn’t that funny how amps don’t like certain cabinets and pedals. My EVH 2x12 cab with G30 Anniversaries sounded great with my Revv D20 and my Marshall SC20, not so good with Mark V. I currently have an ET65 and a Reaper 50 in it and the Mark V is really bassy with that cab. If I mix the Widebody loaded with an ET65 it takes a bunch of the bass away.
I’m still learning and trying different things, tonight my settings didn’t sound all that good. Probably me, but they sounded a bit boxy, not open and airy. I’m going to keep trying different settings, might even try a 10 band GEQ in the effects loop.
This weekend I’m going to try some Mullard 12AX7s and see if there is any change. I remember reading something on hear that swapping one of the tubes out tightened up the low end and got rid of some of the boominess. I’m going to read through the Saturation Mod thread and see what I can learn.
On your amp, or anyone else who wants to jump in, are the Mark I and Mark IV settings overly bassy and muddy? I know if you get the Master volume up it helps, but I’m not sure if I can run my Master volume high enough to eliminate the excess bottom end. Also the tone controls don’t seem to have much effect on these two settings, is this just my amp?
mace said:
I forgot to try your setting for Channel two, I meant to try it and got side tracked. I’ve been trying to use the Mark I setting, but I seam to have a love/hate relationship for it. I guess I haven’t found the settings to fall in love with it yet.
iceman
Well-known member
ranchak said:
Yes Mark I and Mark IV modes have more bass. Mark I especially. It will also depend on the guitar I use on how those channels react, will often have set bass to 0 on Mark I and barely much more on Mark IV mode. Power settings will also play a role like pentode/triode etc.
iceman said:ranchak said:
Yes Mark I and Mark IV modes have more bass. Mark I especially. It will also depend on the guitar I use on how those channels react, will often have set bass to 0 on Mark I and barely much more on Mark IV mode. Power settings will also play a role like pentode/triode etc.
Wow, my amp would sound terrible with those settings. I have my treble and presence set way higher and the amp is still muddy sounding. I'll try to post a picture tonight of my settings (I haven't had any luck posting images on here). I am going to try your settings and see, you never know......
Iceman, I don't know what tone you are going for with your settings, I'm looking for a classic rock or a slightly heavier rock tones. I tried my original settings, your settings, everything I could try in the Mark I and Mark IV modes. I can not get rid of the excess bass and boxyness. I think the words I'm looking for are clarity and openness. I'm going through all of the threads in the Mark V sub forum and trying to read the ones that I think will help me with my tone. There was one that I can't find now, someone posted that they too couldn't use the Mark I and Mark IV modes, they where using Crunch and Extreme like me. I noticed even last night that until I turned the treble and presence up, especially on the Extreme setting that I couldn't get the amp to have definition. If I remember I have the treble and presence at 3:00, which I thought was a bit excessive. After playing I noticed my ears where fatigued, so I can assume that there is too much.
I tried a 10 band GEQ in the effects loop, it helped slightly. I think what I don't like is that the Mark modes are "Pull Deep" and this is what I think is causing the lack of clarity. Maybe the WGS ET65 isn't the best speaker if I'm going to use these two modes, maybe the Reaper 50 will help balance out the low end.
I tried a 10 band GEQ in the effects loop, it helped slightly. I think what I don't like is that the Mark modes are "Pull Deep" and this is what I think is causing the lack of clarity. Maybe the WGS ET65 isn't the best speaker if I'm going to use these two modes, maybe the Reaper 50 will help balance out the low end.
iceman
Well-known member
ranchak said:
This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO-1jVVCLMQ 8)
BTW I added ET65 to my cab to get additional bottom end. So it makes sense to pull the ET65 to reduce the bass. Also is it possible the power tubes are worn adding flub?
iceman said:
How ironic, I just watched that video before I went to bed last night.
I also was wondering about the ET65. I’m going to try it with my new cab (if it shows up on time) and see what results I get.
Brand new amp, I hope the power tubes aren’t bad.
Ok, here we go again..... I was reading one of the post about the effects loop and how it changes the amp. I switched the effects loop off and wow.... besides being extremely loud, there was better tone. I didn’t realize that the master volume is removed from the circuit. I lowered the channel volumes to a level that was acceptable. I then engaged the effects loop and adjusted the master volume until I couldn’t tell if the loop was engaged or not. This has removed a large amount of the low end from the Mark I and Mark IV settings. I guess the love affair is back..... for now
iceman
Well-known member
Yeah the effects loop has been something called out really early on within this forum for this amp. Should be multiple threads mentioning that. It’s why I mentioned to keep fx loop around noon and find that sweet spot for the master where the volume jumps and keep it as close to that point. It’s like the lowest volume where the amp comes alive. My fx loop is set to noon.
My roadster is the same way, i.e. there is a min volume before it can sound good (actually goes from meh to god like), and I tend to disable the fx loop all together on that amp. I have been struggling the most with my Mark IV. Ironically I couldn’t get the tone on lead channel until the volume is really pumping, much higher than the V and I never considered the volume was the reason. I should have figured that out much sooner but I can achieve a good tone on the V at lower volume.
Also I have 2 cabs, both port city OS 2x12s with different speakers mix. One of which seems quite a bit louder. The V runs through the quieter one (et65&vet30). I’ll have to open the louder one up to see what’s in that (I’ve forgotten, but I think a v30 plus some other wgs speaker). They are both wired in series to 16ohm. For quite a while one of them was wired in parallel to 4ohm (which I think I preferred). The V seemed to handle the mismatch fine and the V manual actually points this out as well. Even the “unsafe” mismatch of higher impedance on amp side to lower speaker impedance (which isn’t usually the case).
While we are speaking of volume I find my 60 watt Mark III has the better tone at lower volume compared to my other Marks. And recently I’ve picked up a Boss Waza Tube Expander more so for silent playing but the attenuator should let me get a better tone at lower volume through the cab as well. I haven’t had enough time with it to find the sweet spots yet.
My roadster is the same way, i.e. there is a min volume before it can sound good (actually goes from meh to god like), and I tend to disable the fx loop all together on that amp. I have been struggling the most with my Mark IV. Ironically I couldn’t get the tone on lead channel until the volume is really pumping, much higher than the V and I never considered the volume was the reason. I should have figured that out much sooner but I can achieve a good tone on the V at lower volume.
Also I have 2 cabs, both port city OS 2x12s with different speakers mix. One of which seems quite a bit louder. The V runs through the quieter one (et65&vet30). I’ll have to open the louder one up to see what’s in that (I’ve forgotten, but I think a v30 plus some other wgs speaker). They are both wired in series to 16ohm. For quite a while one of them was wired in parallel to 4ohm (which I think I preferred). The V seemed to handle the mismatch fine and the V manual actually points this out as well. Even the “unsafe” mismatch of higher impedance on amp side to lower speaker impedance (which isn’t usually the case).
While we are speaking of volume I find my 60 watt Mark III has the better tone at lower volume compared to my other Marks. And recently I’ve picked up a Boss Waza Tube Expander more so for silent playing but the attenuator should let me get a better tone at lower volume through the cab as well. I haven’t had enough time with it to find the sweet spots yet.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2018
- Messages
- 712
- Reaction score
- 385
iceman said:
+1 and another +1
for far too long I avoided the speaker/cab rathole... logistics, being a bit lazy, hoping for a one size fits all. Now with a small mix of open & closed back 1x12s, 2x12s and a 2x10 to choose from, mixing and matching really opens up the options. Also playing with the impedance matching can make a difference. Also at times I'll use an atten on one to blend the vols.
digital amp modelers have tons of cab choices... for a reason
My second 1x12 Widebody cabinet showed up a day early on Thursday. I set it on the floor and the ET65 loaded cab on top, figuring the ET65 is already bass heavy. So I try the new cab alone with the C90, it’s midrangy and *****. I then tried the ET65 cab alone, better definition, but too much bass. Both cabs together actually sound really good. Still a bit too much bass. I’m running the GEQ on channel two which I hate to do, but that’s the only way to get it to sound good. Today I tried a bunch of different settings and starting to narrow down a tone on channel two. I’m going to try running a 10 band eq in the loop on channel two. Then I can use the onboard eq for channel three. I can a/b between channels until I get what I’m looking for. I’m then going to compare the two GEQ settings and see if somehow I can compromise and use the onboard GEQ for both channels and just adjust the BMTP controls. Also if I get ambitious I may try the Reaper 50, probably swap out the ET65.
On my Mesa, what made the night and day difference was to start with my guitar volume and tone set to about 6, then set the amp from there using it's preamps and EQs. Now, I have a DC-5, which is different, but I the result was night and day. With my Marshalls, I always ran my guitar on 10. After switching to the "half volume and half tone" is normal on my guitar, the amp became a lot more flexible.
VTX said:
I am using my volume knob more, mainly to dial back the gain. Originally I was rolling my tone down to about 3 to kill the highs, putting in the 12AT7s really helped tame the high end. I’ll try messing with the tone knobs again is see what happens. I still need to try swapping in the Mullard 12AX7s that I got, curious to see if there is any difference.
Similar threads
