Mark V 90 watt tube rolling

[bandit2013]

I want to add another Mark Series back into my stable, but I know for certain it will not be the MKV90 for me. Regardless of what I tried, tubes, speakers, boosts, etc, it’s just not my amp.

I’m stuck between the JP2C & the MKVII, but that’s for another thread.

Dom

Get Both.
Hint, if you opt for the JP2C, ditch the STR443 power tubes those are not all that great.

 

[rarebitusa]

Curse or benefit being a Finnish

Your lingua franca is built completely different than our tribal communication

Gotta luv Euge... not only are they enjoyable vids to watch but filled with excellent content and playing.

I am definitely in the V:90 camp, must have gotten a good one. It does lend itself to endless knob twisting, but for me in an enjoyable, but often unproductive way. There are many tones in there and find myself, even to this day, noodling too much exploring them. The pairing of the V with a vertical 2x12 v30/EVM cab seems to put it in a unique spot for my tastes. Plus the power section is amazing, running my IIC+ preamp with the 90W SimulClass is alot of fun.

 

[user 83127]

If you seek the mark IV, you have two options. Look for a Mark IVA version (it is the short head version) or get the Mark VII. The Mark IVB (wide body) is just as boxy as the Mark V.

View attachment 2187
The Mark VII does come with sticker shock, So does the Mark VIA on the used market. Mark VII is the same size as the JP2C. the JP2C has far more tone density but it could be the STR415 tubes I have in it. Mark VII does some justice to the IIC+ and IV modes. The Mark V cannot touch it. Then there is the crunch and VII modes. almost similar to the V (using Extreme instead of the VII mode) it gets sort of close. What is a better match to the crunch and VII would be the Badlander crunch and crush. Almost a dead match but totally different preamp circuits.

View attachment 2188

Yeah, it IS your brain I want to pick.....I am looking for that MArk IV nirvana...although I AM REALLY interested in the R2 channel and the in between sounds of Lead...if you know what I mean...I have been listening (or attempting to compare) them and for me it seems that IVB has the better R2 channel (and I CAN hear there is a MARKED difference in the Lead channels also with the IVA sounding more scooped and the IVB sounding like they updated it to be fuller sonically (might be the over the top boxy you are referring to...the thing I dont like about the V...it is WAYYYY to saturated to be articulate (****** word I know, but the clarity of single notes over chords of the earlier Marks is one of the things missing from the V)...YOUR THOUGHTS on R2's and how they compare and am I just better off With the IVA period..because I DO LOVE and prefer the 2C+ tone when it comes down to it)

 

[woodbutcher65]

I had a Mark IVB and traded it for a Mark V 90 which is much more to my liking. Nothing really wrong with the IVB, except that its output level was always too high for bedroom practice and I wanted its tones at that low level because that's really where I do most of my playing.
I also did not like the control layout very much. And the fact that it still shares some controls between channels. It's those shared controls that have always meant I would never use the R2 channel on any amp.

My Mark V 90 is pretty much the perfect 3 channel amp for me. All channels are useful without compromise. I don't consider it to be boxy sounding and have never bothered to do any tube rolling. I'm totally happy with what's in it now.

However, for sheer raw aggression, my blue stripe Mark III is my ultimate amp. The Mark V gets about 90 percent of that aggression, and that's great, but when I plug into the Mark III the difference is clear.

If I were a gigging musician the Mark V would be my workhorse.

For the right price I would cheerfully buy another Mark V 90 and build a mind-blowing stereo rig.

 

[bandit2013]

The Mark IVB I had was a combo. I still had the Mark III blue stripe at that time. It was a no brainer for using the IVB over the III since I did not have to reconfigure the dials to get clean then then reconfigure the controls again to have a good lead. There was no way to have both worlds. Not that I used clean much due to it being an nuisance to change settings. Sure, tried the suggested settings and they were not what I wanted. Mark IVB however, came with a hitch, ***** tone. It was ok with the MC90 speaker that was in the combo. It was not until after I got a more recent Standard 412 cab (2015) that the Mark IVB actually made sense. R2 was actually usable. Before, in the combo format, it was terrible. I would not recommend the combo form for any amp unless you are into that sort of thing and like to be limited. I cannot say the Mark IVB was all that bad. It was a good amp and it did not get under my skin like the Mark V90 does.

Yeah, I would agree it was as temperamental as the Mark III. Just a micro inch of dial movement and you are at full volume. There was no in-between. At least with the JP2C it is not full tilt or full blast at a 9am to 10am setting. Heck I can dial it up to noon or higher and still have more room for loudness control. Mark VII is a bit more like the Badlander, at 9am it is loud. At noon it is practically at full volume but still has more SPL it can deliver beyond that. The Mark IVb, once you get the dial past 4 (not sure what that would be on the clock face, been a few years now) it would just get more compressed. It would not get any louder. Perhaps with a 412 or two 412s there would be some difference to where it begins to stay at a loudness and just compress more.

 

[user 83127]

The Mark IVB I had was a combo. I still had the Mark III blue stripe at that time. It was a no brainer for using the IVB over the III since I did not have to reconfigure the dials to get clean then then reconfigure the controls again to have a good lead. There was no way to have both worlds. Not that I used clean much due to it being an nuisance to change settings. Sure, tried the suggested settings and they were not what I wanted. Mark IVB however, came with a hitch, ***** tone. It was ok with the MC90 speaker that was in the combo. It was not until after I got a more recent Standard 412 cab (2015) that the Mark IVB actually made sense. R2 was actually usable. Before, in the combo format, it was terrible. I would not recommend the combo form for any amp unless you are into that sort of thing and like to be limited. I cannot say the Mark IVB was all that bad. It was a good amp and it did not get under my skin like the Mark V90 does.

Yeah, I would agree it was as temperamental as the Mark III. Just a micro inch of dial movement and you are at full volume. There was no in-between. At least with the JP2C it is not full tilt or full blast at a 9am to 10am setting. Heck I can dial it up to noon or higher and still have more room for loudness control. Mark VII is a bit more like the Badlander, at 9am it is loud. At noon it is practically at full volume but still has more SPL it can deliver beyond that. The Mark IVb, once you get the dial past 4 (not sure what that would be on the clock face, been a few years now) it would just get more compressed. It would not get any louder. Perhaps with a 412 or two 412s there would be some difference to where it begins to stay at a loudness and just compress more.

All the info is great....I like the sound of the ivb because the R2 is banging...but boxy is not my thing...neither is compressed...I prefer a much more open tone...and it is sounding like the iva is it...do you think you can drive the iva to have the same type sound as the ivb on r2? or is it a gain structure type thing and not going to do it unless you rewire the amp?

 

[user 83127]

I had a Mark IVB and traded it for a Mark V 90 which is much more to my liking. Nothing really wrong with the IVB, except that its output level was always too high for bedroom practice and I wanted its tones at that low level because that's really where I do most of my playing.
I also did not like the control layout very much. And the fact that it still shares some controls between channels. It's those shared controls that have always meant I would never use the R2 channel on any amp.

My Mark V 90 is pretty much the perfect 3 channel amp for me. All channels are useful without compromise. I don't consider it to be boxy sounding and have never bothered to do any tube rolling. I'm totally happy with what's in it now.

However, for sheer raw aggression, my blue stripe Mark III is my ultimate amp. The Mark V gets about 90 percent of that aggression, and that's great, but when I plug into the Mark III the difference is clear.

If I were a gigging musician the Mark V would be my workhorse.

For the right price I would cheerfully buy another Mark V 90 and build a mind-blowing stereo rig.

For those that are looking for that over the top everything on boogie tone the V is wonderful...I am not that player...I want to push and pull my way to a leaner sound (the over the top is good...ONCE IN A WHILE>>>I DONT WANT TO LIVE THERE...I WANT to reduce input gain and get a raspier type tone...i want to dial it up and smooth things out...I want to take the pull out of lead and ride a nice rhythm tone and I want a USEABLE R2...that 70's rock tone (hard rock) IS WHERE I LIVE!!!!I WANT r2!!!!!! JOking buy I am attempting to make sense of the IVa IVb thing.,...not compare the V to the VII...they are meaningless as I am rocking the V (not happy )and Triaxis and REALLY need the IV in my life...just WHICH ONE is for ME 70's hard rock tone is REALLY important (leads I PREFER the mark IIC+ and am told the IVA is that, but REALLY the ivB seems to have the R2 which is more what I am looking for (I could live with a compromise on lead if it meant I had the push pulls to thin that tone out as long as the R2 works for me...remember you CAN change the lead with harmonics /mid gain...maybe this can help you help ME

 

[woodbutcher65]

Stick a 1/3 octave (31 band) graphic EQ in the loop, I recommend an Alesis DEQ 230 or 830D, and start tweaking sliders. I don't care what your tone is, it can be improved with a little EQ adjustment. I live and die by the EQ and once you find out how even just a few small tweaks can turn a good tone into a godly one, you'll never turn the amp on without an EQ in the loop again.

You can either stack it on top of the amp's built in graphic EQ and just use the outboard EQ for fine tuning, or you can bypass the amp's EQ and use the outboard graphic for all equalization. Your choice, both approaches have their merits.

If you get the DEQ 830D which is midi controllable, you can set it up to switch presets when you switch amp channels via MIDI, thus allowing you to have an optimized EQ curve for each channel or preset.

 

[user 83127]

Stick a 1/3 octave (31 band) graphic EQ in the loop, I recommend an Alesis DEQ 230 or 830D, and start tweaking sliders. I don't care what your tone is, it can be improved with a little EQ adjustment. I live and die by the EQ and once you find out how even just a few small tweaks can turn a good tone into a godly one, you'll never turn the amp on without an EQ in the loop again.

You can either stack it on top of the amp's built in graphic EQ and just use the outboard EQ for fine tuning, or you can bypass the amp's EQ and use the outboard graphic for all equalization. Your choice, both approaches have their merits.

If you get the DEQ 830D which is midi controllable, you can set it up to switch presets when you switch amp channels via MIDI, thus allowing you to have an optimized EQ curve for each channel or preset.

Not sure but I thought we covered that earlier in this thread (maybe thinking of another)...I use an Ashly 31 band stereo eq in my loop...(I use it one of three ways...stacked for dual serial in the loop....one in front and on one in the loop and just one in the loop (I use one in the loop for tweaking the GEQ and one in front for signal correction)....HATE the MXR 10 band (none of the frequencies line up properly for me),,,the new boss EQ200 and the new source audio eq2 for me seem to be the ticket if you cant go the 31 band route (also Empress makes a Para EQ that looks good)..I LOVE the programmable features of the newer ones and the recall functions...also the EQ2 seems to be user defined frequency midpoint and q width..THAT really interests me (the boss has recall and octave shift but the frequencies are fixed so the edge goes to the source audio...or frankly the 31q band has ALL the frequencies you need but is hard to work with when you have to recall settings...plusses and minuses!!!) if I were buying today it would be Source Audio EQ2 all the way...but good post...this IS a worthwhile suggestion (for those that dont already know!!!!)

 

[user 83127]

The Mark IVB I had was a combo. I still had the Mark III blue stripe at that time. It was a no brainer for using the IVB over the III since I did not have to reconfigure the dials to get clean then then reconfigure the controls again to have a good lead. There was no way to have both worlds. Not that I used clean much due to it being an nuisance to change settings. Sure, tried the suggested settings and they were not what I wanted. Mark IVB however, came with a hitch, ***** tone. It was ok with the MC90 speaker that was in the combo. It was not until after I got a more recent Standard 412 cab (2015) that the Mark IVB actually made sense. R2 was actually usable. Before, in the combo format, it was terrible. I would not recommend the combo form for any amp unless you are into that sort of thing and like to be limited. I cannot say the Mark IVB was all that bad. It was a good amp and it did not get under my skin like the Mark V90 does.

Yeah, I would agree it was as temperamental as the Mark III. Just a micro inch of dial movement and you are at full volume. There was no in-between. At least with the JP2C it is not full tilt or full blast at a 9am to 10am setting. Heck I can dial it up to noon or higher and still have more room for loudness control. Mark VII is a bit more like the Badlander, at 9am it is loud. At noon it is practically at full volume but still has more SPL it can deliver beyond that. The Mark IVb, once you get the dial past 4 (not sure what that would be on the clock face, been a few years now) it would just get more compressed. It would not get any louder. Perhaps with a 412 or two 412s there would be some difference to where it begins to stay at a loudness and just compress more.

What are your thoughts Bandit...the IVB or A...that 70's hard rock tone from R2 that I hear from one of these amps is what I am looking for, and you play em...I havent demo'd any and there are NO dealers here (upstate New York, where if you can find a dealer all they will have is the latest and best selling)...I DO prefer the 2c+ tone of the IVA lead circuit but would TOATLLY give that up in favor of the tone I want from R2...so will both do that Hard rock tone or what?.(.or is it the B revision only that does that R2 tone)

 

[bandit2013]

I never owned or played through the IVA. I have heard them in recordings and thought they sounded better. I had a Mark IVB for 12 years. It was ok, hated R2 on all counts, except when I ran the amp through a 412 cab. Mine was a combo I could not stand. The MC90 speaker is not one I can admire.

When I bought my Mark IV, I had no clue it was a second revision. Just that it was much wider than the Mark III and easier to use. The Mark IVB has a 250pf cap coupling the grid to cathode on the last gain stage of the lead drive circuit. Made it boxy. The Mark IVA does not have this cap. Mark V90 has a 120pF cap coupling the grid to cathode on V4B (last gain stage of the lead drive circuit). Makes it boxy sounding. I had sold off the Mark IVB before I started experimenting with the Mark V90 circuits. Trying to figure out why it sounds like (ice pick tones, could not dial in any treble or gain on CH3). Tweed and Edge sucked too. Now the amp sounds better than it did and can actually run the tweed or edge without the need of earplugs. Oh, wait, I ditched the Mesa branded JJ ECC83s tubes and used some older Mesa tubes from 1990.

As for what is better, IVA or IVB, it is up to user preference. What you want and like should be up to you to decide. If the Mark IVB is ideal to you, go for it. It is a great amp but can sound boxy if you get a combo. that is my only complaint about that amp. R2 sounded great through a decent 412, but through the MC90 it sounded crappy.

 

[steve Rhenius01]

Get Both.
Hint, if you opt for the JP2C, ditch the STR443 power tubes those are not all that great.

My Mk5 90 v2 has a 5U4 - can I substitute a GZ34 or is the heater draw too much for the mains transformer?

 

[bandit2013]

Well that is a good question, not sure what the answer is. The heater current is not supplied by auxiliary circuits like the power tubes or preamp tubes. It has its own transformer winding from the power transformer. That question is best answered by Mesa Customer Service. They would know what the current limit is on the winding and what effect a smaller rectifier tube will have on the amp.
The 5U4GB has a higher heater current than the GZ34. The only time the amp uses the tube rectifier is always. It remains active in all power modes. It is the silicon diodes that get switched on or off due to their quick response. Sure, you can remove when using 90W or 45W power modes as long as you do not select the tube rectifier tracking on CH1 and CH2. There will be a slight change in plate voltage without the tube rectifier. Not recommended for long term use. The two diodes in series will effectively handle all if not most of the current in 90W power mode but to think the Rectifier does not contribute is a mistake most people make.

Not sure what effect the GZ34 will have on the running plate voltages. The 5U4GB can support a total of 1000mA max whereas the GZ34 is only 750mA. It is unclear what if any change will occur on the plate voltages when using the 10W mode as the Mark V90 disconnects the bias voltage on the control grids of the two tubes in use and reconfigures them as a cathode biased class A. (there are two large aluminum heat sink resistors in the amp that are used as the cathode bias resistors for 10W mode.

You say you have a Mark V90 V2? What does that mean? Version 2. I would assume it is after 2010 when they changed the tone stack and added the parts to the PCB? or were there other changes done to the amp after that time period?

 

[user 83127]

I never owned or played through the IVA. I have heard them in recordings and thought they sounded better. I had a Mark IVB for 12 years. It was ok, hated R2 on all counts, except when I ran the amp through a 412 cab. Mine was a combo I could not stand. The MC90 speaker is not one I can admire.

When I bought my Mark IV, I had no clue it was a second revision. Just that it was much wider than the Mark III and easier to use. The Mark IVB has a 250pf cap coupling the grid to cathode on the last gain stage of the lead drive circuit. Made it boxy. The Mark IVA does not have this cap. Mark V90 has a 120pF cap coupling the grid to cathode on V4B (last gain stage of the lead drive circuit). Makes it boxy sounding. I had sold off the Mark IVB before I started experimenting with the Mark V90 circuits. Trying to figure out why it sounds like (ice pick tones, could not dial in any treble or gain on CH3). Tweed and Edge sucked too. Now the amp sounds better than it did and can actually run the tweed or edge without the need of earplugs. Oh, wait, I ditched the Mesa branded JJ ECC83s tubes and used some older Mesa tubes from 1990.

As for what is better, IVA or IVB, it is up to user preference. What you want and like should be up to you to decide. If the Mark IVB is ideal to you, go for it. It is a great amp but can sound boxy if you get a combo. that is my only complaint about that amp. R2 sounded great through a decent 412, but through the MC90 it sounded crappy.

No offense...but VERY unhelpful and really went out of your way to NOT answer MY question in any way.

 

[user 83127]

I never owned or played through the IVA. I have heard them in recordings and thought they sounded better. I had a Mark IVB for 12 years. It was ok, hated R2 on all counts, except when I ran the amp through a 412 cab. Mine was a combo I could not stand. The MC90 speaker is not one I can admire.

When I bought my Mark IV, I had no clue it was a second revision. Just that it was much wider than the Mark III and easier to use. The Mark IVB has a 250pf cap coupling the grid to cathode on the last gain stage of the lead drive circuit. Made it boxy. The Mark IVA does not have this cap. Mark V90 has a 120pF cap coupling the grid to cathode on V4B (last gain stage of the lead drive circuit). Makes it boxy sounding. I had sold off the Mark IVB before I started experimenting with the Mark V90 circuits. Trying to figure out why it sounds like (ice pick tones, could not dial in any treble or gain on CH3). Tweed and Edge sucked too. Now the amp sounds better than it did and can actually run the tweed or edge without the need of earplugs. Oh, wait, I ditched the Mesa branded JJ ECC83s tubes and used some older Mesa tubes from 1990.

As for what is better, IVA or IVB, it is up to user preference. What you want and like should be up to you to decide. If the Mark IVB is ideal to you, go for it. It is a great amp but can sound boxy if you get a combo. that is my only complaint about that amp. R2 sounded great through a decent 412, but through the MC90 it sounded crappy.

I have attempted to be clear over and over again and every time I ask a simple question...what I get back in response is inevitably "I hate R2" or some ******* variation of same. What I have been attempting to articulate over and over again is...I have heard a version of the Mark IV...A or B...I dont know,,,,which does a MEAN 70's hard rock tone on R2(High gain reminds me of Triumpph tones or hard heavy Marshall...TIGHT)....Which version is this and is it achievable on both versions or is it a differeing gain structure and no amount of distortion pedals will get them even (I prefer the tone of the IVA..LEAD..I know that much...but the R2...NO one ever does demo's of that thoroughly enough to answer my question...WILL the A version get as heavy as what I am thinking is the tone of the B on R2 (or is it the A that has the slamming R2...because all REVIEWS say the R2 on the A ia low gain and kinda ****).

 

[domct203]

I have attempted to be clear over and over again and every time I ask a simple question...what I get back in response is inevitably "I hate R2" or some ******* variation of same. What I have been attempting to articulate over and over again is...I have heard a version of the Mark IV...A or B...I dont know,,,,which does a MEAN 70's hard rock tone on R2(High gain reminds me of Triumpph tones or hard heavy Marshall...TIGHT)....Which version is this and is it achievable on both versions or is it a differeing gain structure and no amount of distortion pedals will get them even (I prefer the tone of the IVA..LEAD..I know that much...but the R2...NO one ever does demo's of that thoroughly enough to answer my question...WILL the A version get as heavy as what I am thinking is the tone of the B on R2 (or is it the A that has the slamming R2...because all REVIEWS say the R2 on the A ia low gain and kinda ****).

You would probably get a better answer if you posted this question in the MKIV section of the forum.

https://boogieforum.com/forums/mark-series.27/
Dom

 

[user 83127]

You would probably get a better answer if you posted this question in the MKIV section of the forum.

https://boogieforum.com/forums/mark-series.27/
Dom

I was attempting to ask someone specific whose opinion I respected....the rest chimed in and i chose to pursue the topic where it was..you have some problem with that? (that specific someone is proving remarkably recalcitrant in the matter though)

 

[domct203]

I was attempting to ask someone specific whose opinion I respected....the rest chimed in and i chose to pursue the topic where it was..you have some problem with that? (that specific someone is proving remarkably recalcitrant in the matter though)

Wow, who pissed in your cornflakes?

I was trying to be helpful, and you ask me if I’m the one with a problem…..

Good luck.

 

[bandit2013]

Not sure I can answer your question. I barely ever used the RHY2 channel on the Mark IVb as mine was a combo and it was too bass driven. I mostly used RHY1 on a few occasions and mostly ran the lead channel. Having to share midrange and bass between RHY1 and RHY2 was a pain in the ***. Reminded me of the Mark III, RHY2 never made any sonic sense in the combo and was not a good match for the MC90 speaker. Muddy or too much bottom end. I did have a day to mess with a new 412 cab and the Mark IVB. That was the only time the RHY2 actually sounded good. I sold the Mark IVB so there was no point in backing out of the deal. I had more interest in the Royal Atlantic and the Roadster at that time.

I would personally inquire about the Mark IVA vs Mark IVB. Look for Brandon Breeze. He has both. He has a huge inventory of videos on youtube he has done over the years. He recently joined the forums.
At lease he can describe the differences in the RHY2 channels between the A and B version.
https://boogieforum.com/threads/mesa-mark-series-comparisons-c-3s-4s-vs-more.87330/#post-535553

 

[user 83127]

Wow, who pissed in your cornflakes?

I was trying to be helpful, and you ask me if I’m the one with a problem…..

Good luck.

yeah..telling me to go to another part of the forum answers my question and is helpful...no...
This reminds me of calling Mesa Boogie...I ordered a 30 foot unshielded cable...for a footswitch..and got a 20 foot shielded (I actually ordered 2..I got one thirty foot unshielded .and one 20 foot shielded_)...I informed them I needed ONE 30 foot cable unshielded..they told me they only had 20 foot shielded..I said i didnt need that I needed 30 foot unshielded...they said they only had 30 foot unshielded..I said..EUREKA>>>THEY HAVE IT>>>SEND THAT>>>>>and I got a 20 foot shielded....after three tries i finally said screw it and used two of the shielded cables for my footswitch (they were shorter and shielded, but they were free, because Mesa kept getting it wrong)(I NEVER DID get the thirty foot unshielded)...kinda like asking for an answer to my question here!!!!