Mark VII?

[mace]

It looks like the effects loop in the VII is after the preamp and right before the 5 Band EQ.

Is the Mark V wired this way or is the effects loop after the 5 Band EQ?

From the manual of the VII "The Effects Loop is basically a circuit bridge from the end of the preamp to just before the Driver stage, with the SEND interrupting the signal at the preamp’s end and the RETURN feeding the signal back into the power section just before the EQ and the Driver tube."

Well, I found the answer here. Seems to be confirmed that the Mark V EQ is before the FX loop.

https://boogieforum.com/threads/mark-v-where-is-located-the-graphic-eq.72465/#post-491016
Is there any technical reason why this would make a difference in tone? The Mark VII and reportedly the original IIc+ have the graphic EQ after the FC loop. Does it matter?

 

[Henz]

Well, I found the answer here. Seems to be confirmed that the Mark V EQ is before the FX loop.

https://boogieforum.com/threads/mark-v-where-is-located-the-graphic-eq.72465/#post-491016
Is there any technical reason why this would make a difference in tone? The Mark VII and reportedly the original IIc+ have the graphic EQ after the FC loop. Does it matter?

I m not gonna think of any technicalities as to why but I would think it would affect the effects in your loop. I would love to see an accurate schematic of a V. I also would like to know where the verb is placed.

Well, I found the answer here. Seems to be confirmed that the Mark V EQ is before the FX loop.

https://boogieforum.com/threads/mark-v-where-is-located-the-graphic-eq.72465/#post-491016
Is there any technical reason why this would make a difference in tone? The Mark VII and reportedly the original IIc+ have the graphic EQ after the FC loop. Does it matter?

I need a schematic. An accurate one. EQ prior to the loop may affect the effects in loop. I also would like to know where the verb is placed.

 

[woodbutcher65]

Well, obviously, if the graphic EQ is AFTER the FX loop return, then adjustments to the EQ will still affect the effected tone. If the EQ is BEFORE the loop, it can cause some serious level related issues with the signal going into the effects. This might cause clipping at boosted frequencies in the effects chain. If the loop gets a non-EQ'ed signal to process, it is more likely to have a flatter average frequency response, and avoid those same issues with overdriving the effects.

Either way the result might be the same if you're not using much EQ, but if you're adding a lot of boost at some frequencies and feeding that into the FX loop, then you may overlood the efffects.

 

[sean106ESP]

@Admin Hi there, would be great to set up a dedicated Mark VII forum section. Just got mine and would love to share my thoughts in a dedicated Mark VII section,

 

[Nandrewjackson]

Here's how to find out what is pre/post FX loop.

Disconnect everything except the speaker. I.e. no guitar input, nothing in FX loop.

Find an audio source you can plug into the FX return on the amp.

Another preamp, a line level D.I., your phone with 1/4" out put adapter, etc.

Play audio into the FX return jack, try adjusting the graphic EQ. Make sure loop and GEQ are set to be active for whatever channel the amp is set to. (If your amp has assignable FX loop and GEQ)

If your amp has assignable loop and GEQ, and they are on for that channel, even though that channel isn't technically being used, if the GEq is after the loop, it will affect the audio being played.

I say if, because I don't know the differences between the various mkV models and I don't know which model the poster of the question is using.

 

[bandit2013]

Mark III, Mark IVa, Mark IVb, JP2C, IIC+ all have the GEQ following the FX loop. The odd ball was the Mark V90. Not sure about the V:25 or V:35 regarding how the FX loop is handled. The Mark V:90 uses the last half of the GEQ circuit to create the send level for the FX loop send. Makes me wonder if the Mark VII is the same as the tube task chart does not identify any preamp tube triode as an FX send. It could be similar to the JP2C or IIC+ such that it is driven by the last gain stage. V2A is the FX return triode and V2B is the last gain stage for all channels. It looks like the VII has this arrangement so the FX loop may sit in between the two triodes. If this is the case, I am in. If it is derived by the GEQ like the Mark V:90, not interested as this lends itself to improper impedance issues.

It may also matter where the channel masters sit in the signal path. If it is like the Badlander, they are after the FX loop. It is obvious when using the FX loop on a Mark V90 the solo boost and global master are after the FX loop.

You can plug the guitar directly into the return jack. Note that you need to have the FX loop turned on and may also require a dummy plug (patch cable with nothing at the other end) plugged into the send jack (some amps have the circuit switch in the send jack and some have it in the return). The return is tube buffered so you will get more of an acoustical sound that way.

One of these days, I will have to try one out.

 

[tbonesullivan]

Nah, Traynor had a Mark III and that didn't stop them. You can't copyright something as generic as "mark", it's like trying to copyright "Version 6", it means the exact same thing. They said that Randall was working on it so long that it basically skipped an iteration by the time it was released. And they liked the name better than Mark VI.

Sometimes you can. Depends on who reviews the application at the trademark office. I have seen the Peavey Mark VI heads, and they have "Mark VI" with TM next to it, indicating it is a trademark. The Mark III bass heads are specifically marked "MARK III SERIES" with TM to the right. The Mark IV has "MARK IV SERIES" with TM to the right. The Mark VIII is a bit different, with Mark VIII (TM) Series. It's all about specific phrases.

Also note that there is no Mark VII peavey bass amp. It might be interesting to look back to see if the trademark applications could be found. I did a cursory search, and I can't even find most of the Peavey "trademarks".

 

[Arf]

Looks like a Swiss army knife of the Mark series amps. Or, Mark series history in a box. And.....STILL NO 16 OHM OUTPUT. Oh well. Simulclass with assignable settings??? And the combo has the simply unbeatable 90 watt Celestion Black Shadow. I'm a Marshall guy, not into channel switching, but I love the old Mark series and this seems like an incredible amp. I'm sold.

 

[GJgo]

Mark III, Mark IVa, Mark IVb, JP2C, IIC+ all have the GEQ following the FX loop. The odd ball was the Mark V90. Not sure about the V:25 or V:35 regarding how the FX loop is handled. The Mark V:90 uses the last half of the GEQ circuit to create the send level for the FX loop send. Makes me wonder if the Mark VII is the same as the tube task chart does not identify any preamp tube triode as an FX send. It could be similar to the JP2C or IIC+ such that it is driven by the last gain stage. V2A is the FX return triode and V2B is the last gain stage for all channels. It looks like the VII has this arrangement so the FX loop may sit in between the two triodes. If this is the case, I am in. If it is derived by the GEQ like the Mark V:90, not interested as this lends itself to improper impedance issues.

It may also matter where the channel masters sit in the signal path. If it is like the Badlander, they are after the FX loop. It is obvious when using the FX loop on a Mark V90 the solo boost and global master are after the FX loop.

You can plug the guitar directly into the return jack. Note that you need to have the FX loop turned on and may also require a dummy plug (patch cable with nothing at the other end) plugged into the send jack (some amps have the circuit switch in the send jack and some have it in the return). The return is tube buffered so you will get more of an acoustical sound that way.

One of these days, I will have to try one out.

I can confirm that the baby Mark Fives also have the GEQ BEOFERE the FX Loop

 

[bandit2013]

Still I wonder if the VII is more in line with the JP2C and older versions of the Mark amps. Since it lacks the solo boost and global volume controls linked to the FX loop, I would assume the FX send is derived off of the last gain stage and not created by the GEQ circuitry as is with the Mark V.

I watched one video on the VII where the person doing the review mentioned post GEQ, so I assume it follows the loop. If it does, that would be the end of the impedance issue of the send/return as it is with the Mark V90, and actually work with most fx pedals or rack units. JP-2C, Roadster, MWDR, Badlander, Royal Atlantic, Triple Crown and the California tweed all behave properly without any tone suck or other related issues with improper send impedance. I only have a few fx units that will compensate for the MKV90 (mostly Strymon stuff and one or two Boss units). Actually, most of the other FX stuff that did not work with the V90 I gave away or threw out (depending on the age of the unit and if I had it more than 20 years).

 

[PBGas]

I picked up my rackmount VII last week. All I can say is that this amp is absolutely amazing sounding! Love the VII mode. The trick with that mode is the bump up the treble to half, lower the bass to about 10% and put the mids at 3/4. I've had a JP-2C and I like VII much more. So many great amp tones on this head.

Onboard cab clone IR is great for using live. That fact that you can use your own IRs is a bonus! I disconnected the reverb tank as it is something that I really don't need have a use for. All fits nicely into a 4U SKB short rack and is super easy to take to gigs and rehearsals.

It's a keeper! My other amp is a 50W Badlander Ractifier and it is also amazing!

 

[GJgo]

I just ordered a VII, and my plan is to do a comparo shootout against my OG Mark IIB, IIC+ and IV.

 

[mace]

I really wanna see an in depth shootout of the V against the VII. I many just have to get a VII to compare it directly myself…if it weren’t so dang much dinero!

As far as the FX loop, as posted earlier in this thread, Mesa’s manual states in the VII EQ is after the FX return. The question was about the V 5-Band EQ and it sounds like the is consensus it is pre FX Loop send (V:90 V:35 and V:25). Thanks for the info!

 

[woodbutcher65]

I see the VII as being a slightly simplified V 90 with a different set of voicing options. Some voicings are the same as on a V, one is entirely new, the others are ones that we've seen before on one Mark or another.

I haven't even fully decided which voicings that the Mark V's lead channel has to offer are my favorites yet. IIC+, IV, Extreme...they're all great. I switch back and forth between all of them.

Since the Mark VII voicing doesn't seem to hold any great attraction for me, I'm not inclined to sell/trade any amp I have to get a VII. My V 90 and my blue stripe Mark III and my Blue Angel cover nearly all bases. And my JMP era Marshalls cover that tone range...

 

[mace]

I see the VII as being a slightly simplified V 90 with a different set of voicing options. Some voicings are the same as on a V, one is entirely new, the others are ones that we've seen before on one Mark or another.

I haven't even fully decided which voicings that the Mark V's lead channel has to offer are my favorites yet. IIC+, IV, Extreme...they're all great. I switch back and forth between all of them.

Since the Mark VII voicing doesn't seem to hold any great attraction for me, I'm not inclined to sell/trade any amp I have to get a VII. My V 90 and my blue stripe Mark III and my Blue Angel cover nearly all bases. And my JMP era Marshalls cover that tone range...

Yeah, as a Mark V owner I’m on the fence. Hoping to try a Mark VII out in the store in a day a two. The circuit simplicity might be a ‘very good thing’. While losing SOLO, MUTE, overall OUTPUT sucks, the benefits to tone might be worth it. I do think the V sounds a bit better with hard bypass engaged. But you gotta have the FX LOOP of course, and bypass kills that. I love the SOLO and OUTPUT for gigging ease also. Plus TWEED is great for blues and Mark I for thick leads. I would miss those.

On the flip side, I have found the Mark V channel 3 a bit grating at times and chased tone with the 12AT7 in tube positions V4 and V6 etc. If the Mark VII is smoother in the distortion for me that would be a big plus. The built in Cab Clone IR is a bit bonus also.

On the V I’m the same as far as flipping between IIc+, IV and Extreme mode. LOL they all sound good to me.

 

[woodbutcher65]

I'm sure that I will eventually own an example of every Mark at the same time. I'm OK with having a big amp collection.

 

[droptrd]

Since I had the MKV, I wish I kept the IV. I know if I get the new one, I'll have had I wished kept the V......
(Unless it has the Line6, Insane red mode), then it's a keeper!

I kick myself over every piece of cool gear I've let go. These days I acquire. no more recycling gear lol

 

[imotep06]

I just ordered a VII, and my plan is to do a comparo shootout against my OG Mark IIB, IIC+ and IV.

Don't have the JP2C anymore? Would be nice to see them against each other too!

 

[GJgo]

Don't have the JP2C anymore? Would be nice to see them against each other too!

No, I've had two JP and neither stuck around very long. They don't do what I need a Mark to do.

Plenty of other guys are posting videos of the VII vs. the JP. I'm going to focus on comparos of the VII vs the OGs that it's trying to emulate.

 

[mace]

Found this video which compares the IIc+ mode of the Mark V and VII. I’ve heard comparisons of the V to the JPC and found them to be pretty similar. In this V to VII comparison they seemed quite different…at least on the iPad speakers.