Mark V or VII

[Sinner's Swing!]

Nice Bumblebee, I have one of those!

 

[DECEMBER]

Just curious why this is a flaw in your book since historically speaking that's where the GEQ is "supposed to go" on a Mark? I'm not entirely certain what practical difference it would make outside of maybe hyper specific use cases?

I have a V and IV and used to have a III, wherever the GEQ is has never made a difference that I've thought about or noticed. Except one time I ran the preamp of my IV into the power amp of my IV and was all confused when it sounded like a honky turd. That's when I found out about the different GEQ locations and realized I had managed to bypass both

I thought I had replied to this, but it's not here now..... Here it is again:
I explained it in my previous post: "And the GEQ AFTER the FX return?! What a ridiculous place for it. I hear that the V is the ONLY Mark that has the EQ in the right place... strange. I run 3 amps in stereo wet/dry/wet, with the V as the preamp, FX send, splits to return dry (post-EQ) to the V power amp, and thru a stereo FX chain that returns to the 2 other power amps. 1 preamp, 3 power amps. So I need the EQ before the send so I have the same preamp sound in all amps, one dry, two with stereo FX. If the EQ was post-return, I'd have to buy another GEQ to put 1st in the loop, so it would affect all amps, and I'd have to keep the GEQ on the amp off, because it would double up on the Mark amp" with another added in the loop.
Basically, EQ is part of the finished preamp tone. That finished tone should be what comes out of the FX send, so it can be used with other power amps, or a cab sim/modeler device. The only things that should be post-return are reverb and the power amp.

 

[spawnofthesith2]

I thought I had replied to this, but it's not here now..... Here it is again:
I explained it in my previous post: "And the GEQ AFTER the FX return?! What a ridiculous place for it. I hear that the V is the ONLY Mark that has the EQ in the right place... strange. I run 3 amps in stereo wet/dry/wet, with the V as the preamp, FX send, splits to return dry (post-EQ) to the V power amp, and thru a stereo FX chain that returns to the 2 other power amps. 1 preamp, 3 power amps. So I need the EQ before the send so I have the same preamp sound in all amps, one dry, two with stereo FX. If the EQ was post-return, I'd have to buy another GEQ to put 1st in the loop, so it would affect all amps, and I'd have to keep the GEQ on the amp off, because it would double up on the Mark amp" with another added in the loop.
Basically, EQ is part of the finished preamp tone. That finished tone should be what comes out of the FX send, so it can be used with other power amps, or a cab sim/modeler device. The only things that should be post-return are reverb and the power amp.

Ah I gotcha, that’s definitely pretty important then for your setup!

 

[bandit2013]

I thought I had replied to this, but it's not here now..... Here it is again:
I explained it in my previous post: "And the GEQ AFTER the FX return?! What a ridiculous place for it. I hear that the V is the ONLY Mark that has the EQ in the right place... strange. I run 3 amps in stereo wet/dry/wet, with the V as the preamp, FX send, splits to return dry (post-EQ) to the V power amp, and thru a stereo FX chain that returns to the 2 other power amps. 1 preamp, 3 power amps. So I need the EQ before the send so I have the same preamp sound in all amps, one dry, two with stereo FX. If the EQ was post-return, I'd have to buy another GEQ to put 1st in the loop, so it would affect all amps, and I'd have to keep the GEQ on the amp off, because it would double up on the Mark amp" with another added in the loop.
Basically, EQ is part of the finished preamp tone. That finished tone should be what comes out of the FX send, so it can be used with other power amps, or a cab sim/modeler device. The only things that should be post-return are reverb and the power amp.

I though you did too.

If you are splitting the signal from the FX loop, having the GEQ up front is a benefit. Say you did have a Mark VII, you would need a GEQ pedal after the signal split that runs to separate power amps. More cost and such. As if the Mark VII was not expensive enough. If you are just using the slave out jack, that is post OT on the speaker side. Same with the cab clone stuff. Perhaps if you just had the Triple Crown, you could add a GEQ as the first effect and split after that. What about the presence controls? Those follow the FX loop and only affect the phase inverter. Extreme would not have the same effect when feeding out from the FX loop with a splitter. Mesa had a solution for those who want to run stereo amps, or wet/dry/wet (which would have required two of them). Odd that it is 90W as this was out when the Mark III was near its end of production. Perhaps it was meant for the Mark IV? It has its own presence control and GEQ with some pulls for tone shaping. I wanted one but never bought one.

 

[DECEMBER]

I though you did too.

Yeah, my reply was there for a minute, huh? I know I posted it, but it was gone a few days later.
Is that just a power amp with EQ? I wish I could get one of those stereo tube power amps, 2:90 or something... But I'm gonna be paying for this Mk V for a while. FX send -> parametric EQ -> Sonic Stomp Pro -> splits to a stereo chorus -> returns on the Mk V and Carvin V3 -> a 12" speaker on each. These are the stereo "dry" channels. The other side of the split goes thru phaser/flanger -> another stereo chorus -> delay/reverb/Slicer -> returns to the stereo FX return/power amps of an old Line 6 Flextone III XL 2x12. Solid-state power amps, digital modeling preamp.
Then 4 reactive load boxes, for each power amp -> homemade IRs of the 4 speakers, 2 different mics on each, 8 IRs, 4 per channel.
Presence being post-return, it is tricky to get the two tube amps to be balanced in stereo. The V3 actually has 'Bright', 'Deep', and 'Mid-Cut' on the power amp. But without a resonance control on the Mk V, it often has a bit more bass than the V3 with 'Deep' at max. The Mk V seems to have everything else, I wonder why they didn't put a resonance control on it.
And the difference in volume between Extreme and Mk IV/II modes, and between channels... The Mk V and V3 have solo boosts, so I can set those up to make the volume between channels/modes equal, but I have to remember which ones get which boost(s) on/off. It's all for recording only, so I make it work. Definitely wouldn't be practical for playing live.

 

[bandit2013]

Yes, that is a tube powered speaker cab. I believe the Mark IV models were intended to use it as it had a stereo output jack. It would work with any amp if you add a splitter to the FX loop.

As for resonance? not sure why Mesa did not do such thing, I have no answer for that one.

Several other amp builders have that including the Fender Made EVH 5150 IIIs EL34 100W head. It is just an added cap and potentiometer to prevent low frequencies in the NFB circuit.

 

[rarebitusa]

The Mk V seems to have everything else, I wonder why they didn't put a resonance control on it.

From my understanding the presence circuit is not a simple one on the V. Each chan has it's own circuit variation of presence.

FWIW the Resonance/Depth mod I added to the Stiletto made a world of difference. That amp needed more bottom end and that upgrade was pretty cool. It was a simple mod to the existing presence circuit. I also don't understand why Mesa didn't include it on more of their models.

 

[danielpasco]

Playing a VII at a store is what made me want one, but finances led me to get a used V for half as much.
I do wish I had the new Mk VII mode instead of the Mark I mode (which is essentially useless because it's so dark and bass-heavy). But the more I find out about the VII, the more I'm glad I got a V...

In my experience Channel 2 really needs EL34s to sound great. Otherwise Edge and Mark I mode sound terrible to me.

With 34s, Mark I mode is brutal, one of my favorite sample tracks is here .

I've basically just been using it and the clean channel on my V:90 for months now.

 

[El Rey]