Loaded up my Mark V preamp with Russian 2 12AX7s

[screamingdaisy]

Yesterday I loaded up the Mark V with all the old Mesa Russian 2s (EHX 12AX7EH) I had (5).

V1-4: Mesa Russian 2 (EHX)
V5-6: Tung Sol
V7: Mesa Russian 2 (EHX)

The first thing that I noticed was that the bottom end was deeper and that there was more of it. Palm mutes sounded fuller and stretched out longer (more boom).

Next up was the clarity. There is substantially more clarity in the overall sound, but it's particularily noticeable in the low mids. Despite the increase in bottom end response the bottom end is clearer and more defined.

Next up was the mids. I don't think the EHX tubes produce more lower mids but they definitely produce less upper mids, which makes my overall sound have a more low mid emphasis.

Next up was the articulation. The EHX have far less compression than the JJs. Each note has more detail and separation.

Last was the top end. JJs are generally known for being dull sounding tubes and EXH known for being bright, so I was surprised when the top end opened up with the EHX. Gone was the ice pick highs. I've been able to get more aggressive with the treble, top two sliders, presence and bright switch.

Cleans (Fat): EHX are more open and "jangly". JJs are thick and kind of congested.

Crunch: EHX are more open and dynamic. Bigger, deeper palm mutes with more note separation and a chainsaw grind. JJs are smoother and more compressed, which when combined with the improved upper mids makes for a more singing sound.

Lead (IIC+): similar to crunch.

Moral of the story: I like EHX for rhythm and JJs for lead.

EHX reminded me a lot of how my old Recto sounded before Mesa made the switch to JJ. Chainsaw grind, low mid voice, great palm mutes, terrible lead tone.

On the other hand, JJs wooly, congested and compressed sound makes lead guitar sound smoother and more singing with more pop in the upper mids. Additionally, that ice pick high on rhythm makes notes scream on lead.

IMO, neither is better or worse... but one may be better for your needs than the other.

And on a side note, I'm now realizing why my Roadster has never had the clarity or dynamics that I remember my old Recto having, yet unlike my old Recto my Roadster is actually pretty decent for leads.

 

[screamingdaisy]

Well... it's been a couple of days and my opinion has changed. I like the clarity and articulation of the EHX but they're pretty boring, especially for lead. Eventually the lack of compression and flat upper midrange got to me so I decided to play around with tube types.

Tube Tasks (GS= Gain Stage)

Channel 1
V1a (input), V1b (2nd GS), V3a (3rd GS), V3b (4th GS), V7 (phase inverter)

Channel 2
V1a (input), V2a (2nd GS), V1b (3rd GS), V3a (4th GS), V7 (phase inverter)

Channel 3
V1a (input), V1b (2nd GS), V3a (3rd GS), V6a (4th GS), V5a (1st drive stage), V4b (2nd drive stage), V7 (phase inverter)

Since my lead tone was what was bugging me most I started with channel 3. If you look at the task chart, V6, 5 and 4 are only used by channel 3 so I decided to start there and popped a JJ in V6. Immediately there was more upper mids and compression. Adding a JJ to V5 and V4 further enhanced the effect. In the end I decided that I preferred the sound with a JJ in these three positions.

After that I decided to mess around with channel 2. Looking at the chart V2 is only used by channel 2 and swapping a JJ into that position brought up the upper mids and compression without totally killing the low end and articulation. Basically, it made things a bit less metal and a bit more rock. Putting an EHX in V2 and a JJ in V3 resulted in slightly more scoop and a bit less compression and might be preferable for some, but the drawback is that while V2 only affects channel 2 V3 affects all three channels, including a particularly negative impact the clean channel (IMO).

Channel 1 was pretty simple... so long as I ensured there was no JJs in the signal path it sounded great. As soon as a JJ was introduced it gained a thicker, cloudier midrange with more of a "thud" and less sparkle (think blanket over the cab effect).

Next, I swapped the JJ, EHX and Tung Sol through the V1 position. The JJ sounded terrible on all three channels while the EHX sounded great for all three channels. The Tung Sol was kind of neutral... it wasn't as clear or detailed as the EHX, but it wasn't as cloudy and congested as the JJ. In the end I went with EHX.

Lastly, I swapped the JJ, EHX and Tung Sol through the phase inverter. This position was the only one where I had to spend some time switching back and forth. The other positions were easy and I knew right away which I preferred, just swapping 2-3 times to confirm I was hearing what I thought I was. The phase inverter I probably went back and forth at least a dozen times and I'm still not sure.

Basically, the Tung Sol ( I tried two of them) sounded terrible and was eliminated right away. The EHX was smoother with a bit more scoop and a solid top end. The JJ was crunchier in the midrange with a bit more brightness and a ratty top end. I've left the EHX in there for now but between it and the JJ I'm still not sure which I prefer (smooth vs crunchy).

End results:

V1: EHX
V2: JJ
V3: EHX
V4: JJ
V5: JJ
V6: JJ
V7: EHX

(FWIW - YMMV)

 

[Bullen]

This thread gave me some ideas. I've had the (then stock) Russian 2 tubes in my Roadster since I bought it back in 08 and I had some older spares taken from my other boogies. And I thought why not try them in my Mark V. So I replaced all the preamp tubes in my V with the russians.

I've always liked my V, especially for clean and lead sounds. But, I have prefered my Mark III or IV for chunky rythms. The V always seemed to lack some girth and low end punch and it sounded a bit nasally and a bit too congested, almost "narrow" sounding to me.

Now with the russian 2's it sounds a lot more like it's older siblings to me. The Mark IV setting does sound a LOT more like my IV (also loaded with russian 2's) now. The chunk is back and the amp is definetly more open and less congested and compressed. I've always liked the clean sounds in the V, but now it's really open and musical. I really like it so far.

I agree with screamingdaisy that the smooth, fluid lead sound that the V excels at does suffer a bit so I might play around a bit more with the preamp tubes, but this change has cured most of the (very slight) problems I've had with the V. Very cool.

And as a bonus, my Roadster sounds really good with the JJ's.

Thank you screamingdaisy for the idea.

 

[screamingdaisy]

No problem.

Oddly enough, I've spent the better part of the last two weeks trying to dial in my Roadster with the leftover JJs in it and failing. The top end (presence) was really exaggerated and the mids super congested. I couldn't get the amp to chug properly and palm mutes sounded muffled and weak.

I wound up with the weirdest EQ settings... Presence off, treble way up, mids down around 8:00, bass slightly past 12:00. Still, everything sounded and felt off.

I started thinking that maybe I'm a Mark V guy now and the Recto just isn't my "thing" anymore.

Then a couple days ago I clued in, loaded the preamp with Russian 2s, turned everything to 12:00 and "bam"!, everything sounds right again.

All that said, when the Roadster was all JJ it's probably the best lead tone it's ever had... I just can't stand them for rhythm.

 

[Bullen]

Yeah, it seems that the JJ's work better for lead sounds and lack something when it comes to rhythm. And since rhythm is what I do for about 80% of the time in my band, that is the priority for me. I will try out the JJ's in the Roadster for a while, to see if they work for me. Otherwise I might get some EHX tubes for it and I still have some old Russian 2 tubes left.