Mark V EQ crippled?

[t2mike2]

So i've realized after playing my buddys mark III, that the mark V EQ seems very neutered by comparison. It feels far less powerfull, than it and sounds muddy and imprecise. Whats so odd to me is that the preset to me sounds like the eq SHOULD sound.

Does anyone know if this was intentional and if so why? Cuz if so it may be the most retarded thing mesa has done. The preset its great, but for some reason they gave the preset something the eq doesnt have, it sounds much wider and more precise. It really makes no sense to me that i CANNOT achieve the same sound with my eq.

The other option is perhaps, this is actually some sort of production error that got missed. Perhaps the wrong value part were specified for the Mark V. It would be cool if someone with a mark IV or 3 could compare eq sections to see if they differ.

On the upside the presest does sound great in low doses, but its a shame that the eq as it is now is practically useless to me. I might as well put masking tape over it, but alas its a big reason why i bought the amp in the first place.

~mike`

 

[Silverwulf]

I hope the taper does have a wider range to it. The old EQ taper tended to severely EQ things with a slight nudge. I hope the EQ isn't as touch sensitive and allows you to dial in more specific frequencies without taking such a jump at once.

I'll compare when it gets here (should be any day). I have a Mark III at the practice spot.

 

[scott from _actual time_]

Whats so odd to me is that the preset to me sounds like the eq SHOULD sound. ... The preset its great, but for some reason they gave the preset something the eq doesnt have, it sounds much wider and more precise. It really makes no sense to me that i CANNOT achieve the same sound with my eq.

my Mark V (a head) feels the same way to me. the EQ preset sounds far more musical and "alive," whereas the graphic EQ sounds boomy and muddy and dull by comparison. i tried briefly to see if i could get the sliders to sound like the preset, but it was way off so i gave up.

it's not bugging me because i'm using the sliders to get a way different sound on the Mark I mode and the preset on Crunch and all of channnel 3. but it did seem kinda odd to me.

 

[t2mike2]

k atleast i know its not in my head.

I have feeling in a year were going to see a Mark V stage 2 with a Normal eq.
This sort of thing really captures the spirit of "if it aint broke dont fix it"
~mike~

 

[phyrexia]

I can get the GEQ to sound just like the Preset. It seems the Preset only boosts the signal, it doesn't cut any mids. Whereas most people cut the mids.

I think the sliders have a different taper. I haven't directly compared the IVA to the V in terms of the GEQ.

 

[t2mike2]

can you take a pic of how you have it set?

 

[lesterpaul]

I can get the GEQ to sound just like the Preset.

...yessir

 

[phyrexia]

Spent more time with it, as we all are...

I think that IIC+ just has waay less bass than IV mode. I think that's what's making the difference. If you are comparing a V and a III, you need to be using IV mode on the V. In IV mode, the there is tons of bass available with the use of the GEQ. In IIC+ mode, with the same GEQ settings, there is less bass. IIC+ is tighter, less gainy, less saturated, has less low mids and lows.

I bet that if there really is a "petrucci mod" it's just making IIC+ mode use the bigger coupling cap like the IV uses, or hooking it up to a switch or something.

 

[Mark Fore]

Owned a Mark IV since '89 and on my Mark V I use the preset knobs and not the sliders for this exact reason. The preset knobs sound better to me as well and I have my sliders all down at the bottom... unused. The sliders feel ridiculously cheap to me too. The previous Mark EQ sliders had a more sturdy feel to them. Nudging the sliders is tough because the sliders feel like they are very light and not heavy like the previous sliders.

 

[t2mike2]

Dude youre definitely right on that one. That was the very first thing i noticed, the eq sliders feel like they were made by behringer or something. Compared to my buds mark III, there is no comparison...
Its not just in the IIc+ mode the EQ sounds lame, its just lame sounding over all of em.

Thankgod the preset sounds good.
~Mike~

 

[lesterpaul]

lame all over all of them?hate to hear that...glad I'm not having the same problem
the slider "feel" is different, but I'm sure they felt different on my C+ back in the 80's..different taper, as a friend mentioned to me earlier today
-I was able to spend many hours with mine last week(I was a lucky dog..)-I am currently liking using presets for chan 1 and 3 so I can dial in chan 2 on the geq differently....no lameness here! I am using with 2 ev's/2 c90's in 4x12 btw
-upon further review, it seems like the geq isnt as radical as C+ overall/needs to do an eq comparison with some volume!

 

[MarkIVwidebody]

This is why my board has a 10 band e.q. No amp has enough by itself.

 

[t2mike2]

My old VHT did. More than enough. 6 perfectly interactive bands. Very precise but very musical, and VERY powerfull.
If the Mesa had this, id be in heaven.
~mike~

 

[t2mike2]

lame all over all of them?hate to hear that...glad I'm not having the same problem
the slider "feel" is different, but I'm sure they felt different on my C+ back in the 80's..different taper, as a friend mentioned to me earlier today
-I was able to spend many hours with mine last week(I was a lucky dog..), and I was able to figure out what some of the presets were by constantly going in and out of eq and presets, primarily on C+ mode and channel two-I am currently liking using presets for chan 1 and 3 so I can dial in chan 2 on the geq differently....no lameness here! I am using with 2 ev's/2 c90's in 4x12 btw

my main gripe is why cant they have the same power as the presets? Who made the descision to limit them a mess with the range. All of the previous mark series had great eq's, why mess with that?
~mike~