Mark V by end of this year

[coppa]

add a 10/50/100 power config

100W all 4 tubes
50W 2 tubes
10W 2 tubes in triode mode

:shock:

 

[LG]

jdurso, agreed! Wouldn't have it any other way. If Mesa ever did this I would hope that they would put a comprehensive MIDI control set in. When you figure a CFX4 goes for around 160 plus the Dual Rec (just an example) cable another 50, the GCX cost me 399 and the RJM16 is what 699? I really believe that Mesa could do this cheaper and still retain a quality system. We must remember that MIDI is not audio, it is data so therefore true audio signal never goes thru the MIDI path. As far as it affecting the actual sound I would think that the hardware put into the amp would cause more of a concern than the actual signal.
J, you use the RJM with your Roadster right? The Roadster has the external switching jacks like the Dual doesn't it? How'd you manage a single cable to control the amp MIDI? You'd still have to have a breakout at the end to insert into the jacks right? (chan's, loop, solo, etc). The CFX4 has a single cable also but if I read the specs correctly it still has to insert into each of the jacks with possible exception of chan 2 which is default. I'll know more about the CFX soon cause I plan on getting one to control the DR MIDI. This will free up all eight loops of my GCX, not to mention hopefully avoid the costly repairs that I am undergoing now.
The JVM is a very good amp absolutely brilliant cleans. The TSL that I owned also had great cleans (ala the Fenderish switch in that channel-I think it was "fat"?) Just like most others the JVM has a few weak points. MIDI control of it is pretty good. Chan's, reverb, modes,loop and master vol's all can be controlled via MIDI. I will agree that the price is steep but I got mine when it was still selling for 1749. My Mesa doesn't have those great cleans but the crunch and lead make up for that. More ballsy than the JVM. This is why in my previous posts I stated that they compliment one another nicely. I do hope that Mesa will at least take the MIDI thing into consideration when they design the new amps.
Vermillion, you have some pretty good ideas there. I didn't care much for the built in chorus, tremolo (IMO) but the channel blend and the Triaxis like interface had me a bit curious! :idea:

 

[MetalMatt]

If the Mark V has a more modern voicing I'm all over it. All those added goodies are icing on the cake. The Mark IV just never did it for me, I much prefer a Mark III at the end of the day. It always did a better "modern" sound to my ears... IMO.

I'm not for incorporated MIDI, although I'm not against it. I like the idea of an "outside" unit. So if my amp(s) ever changes I can keep my whole rig MIDI.

LG

... How'd you manage a single cable to control the amp MIDI?...

The guys at RJM make a cable for most amps to plug into their footswitch jack into Amp1/2 jacks on the back of the RG-16. Neat huh?

 

[jdurso]

If the Mark V has a more modern voicing I'm all over it. All those added goodies are icing on the cake. The Mark IV just never did it for me, I much prefer a Mark III at the end of the day. It always did a better "modern" sound to my ears... IMO.

I'm not for incorporated MIDI, although I'm not against it. I like the idea of an "outside" unit. So if my amp(s) ever changes I can keep my whole rig MIDI.

LG

... How'd you manage a single cable to control the amp MIDI?...

The guys at RJM make a cable for most amps to plug into their footswitch jack into Amp1/2 jacks on the back of the RG-16. Neat huh?

yeah its one cable from the rg16 to the footswitch jack of the roadster... no need to use the switching jacks... thats the beauty of the rjm stuff

 

[jdurso]

jdurso, agreed! Wouldn't have it any other way. If Mesa ever did this I would hope that they would put a comprehensive MIDI control set in. When you figure a CFX4 goes for around 160 plus the Dual Rec (just an example) cable another 50, the GCX cost me 399 and the RJM16 is what 699? I really believe that Mesa could do this cheaper and still retain a quality system. We must remember that MIDI is not audio, it is data so therefore true audio signal never goes thru the MIDI path. As far as it affecting the actual sound I would think that the hardware put into the amp would cause more of a concern than the actual signal.
J, you use the RJM with your Roadster right? The Roadster has the external switching jacks like the Dual doesn't it? How'd you manage a single cable to control the amp MIDI? You'd still have to have a breakout at the end to insert into the jacks right? (chan's, loop, solo, etc). The CFX4 has a single cable also but if I read the specs correctly it still has to insert into each of the jacks with possible exception of chan 2 which is default. I'll know more about the CFX soon cause I plan on getting one to control the DR MIDI. This will free up all eight loops of my GCX, not to mention hopefully avoid the costly repairs that I am undergoing now.
The JVM is a very good amp absolutely brilliant cleans. The TSL that I owned also had great cleans (ala the Fenderish switch in that channel-I think it was "fat"?) Just like most others the JVM has a few weak points. MIDI control of it is pretty good. Chan's, reverb, modes,loop and master vol's all can be controlled via MIDI. I will agree that the price is steep but I got mine when it was still selling for 1749. My Mesa doesn't have those great cleans but the crunch and lead make up for that. More ballsy than the JVM. This is why in my previous posts I stated that they compliment one another nicely. I do hope that Mesa will at least take the MIDI thing into consideration when they design the new amps.
Vermillion, you have some pretty good ideas there. I didn't care much for the built in chorus, tremolo (IMO) but the channel blend and the Triaxis like interface had me a bit curious! :idea:

the rg16 is 599 but you have to remember it has the 8 controls for your amp(s) plus 8 audio loops to route your fx. comparing its price to mesa building in midi to their amps is not 1 to 1 because it does so much more. the best comparison would be the amp gizmo, but at the end of the day your talking a few hundred still in cost for mesa. I dont think anyone thinks it will affect the tone, BUT consider the fact midi would be doing the switching, so if something goes down with the midi switching in the amp its a huge deal because not you cnat switch channels or functions. while its just sending 0s and 1s, its not a simple integration into the amp as one might think.... and to do it to the complexity of ENGL, thats a huge deal.

as far as the JVM, if you like it then great. but marshall clean in the same breath as fender? :? i'll agree older rectos have subpar cleans but the roadster and road king have amazing cleans... even better if you run a two amp setup is the express.

 

[dmcguitar]

It's kinda funny how everyone wants a different Mark V.
Personally I hope its still simul-class (cause its unique unto that series) with the el-34 option. can still run as just class A as well. i am guessing it will have a bold/spongy (or tweed) switch most of their amps do too. Hearing that it may be made simpler maybe the hamronic switch my go, and triode switch... i think i could do with out them, but they'd be nice.

but for me. if its simple i'd still like 3 channels but 2 would be fine. so long as its mark tightness and 2 high gain capable channels. such as cloning the mark IV lead for both channels as an option. This makes sense to me, since what ive heard with mark ii c+ and IV's was that if you dialed in the awesome rhythm tone the lead isnt good so you need a second one to get the awesome lead. Like petrucci's old setup. but if they do the "stilleto crunch" option where channel 1 (or 2) has that tight insane gain ability as its apex, and you can get that on another channel as well that'd be perfect for me..

(not to change the subject, I like the stilletto, but i find that I like the tite drive and fluid drive the best.. sadly the cunch in dupilicated. if tite was on the rhythm and i could use fluid on lead for solos that'd be awesome)

 

[LithiumZero]

Never see that happening, t hink about it, why would he make an amp that does both his flagship amp tones.

As much as he loves amps, he is a business man, if he puts the recto and the mark tones in one box then he would be losing business.

[/quote]

Actually that was how the DC series was marketed. Mark cleans and Recto crunch.

 

[chriz_batman]

Never see that happening, t hink about it, why would he make an amp that does both his flagship amp tones.

As much as he loves amps, he is a business man, if he puts the recto and the mark tones in one box then he would be losing business.

Actually that was how the DC series was marketed. Mark cleans and Recto crunch.[/quote]

mark cleans and Recto crunch= Road king and Roadster :twisted:

 

[Octavarius]

Never see that happening, t hink about it, why would he make an amp that does both his flagship amp tones.

As much as he loves amps, he is a business man, if he puts the recto and the mark tones in one box then he would be losing business.

Actually that was how the DC series was marketed. Mark cleans and Recto crunch.

mark cleans and Recto crunch= Road king and Roadster :twisted:[/quote]

Ok?

And how exactly do you relate the Roadking and Roadster to having the Mark series' cleans?

 

[angelo]

I'm just going to jump in again by saying the EQ on my Mark IV is a better lead boost than the solo knob on my LSS.

Keep the EQ!!!!!!!!

But, if I was betting, I'd say they won't because that knob is in fashion and faders aren't.

 

[kselbee]

Still no word... NAMM 09 perhaps?