MINI MARK V

[8d2studios]

I disagree with the circuit board hypothesis.

I believe that you could take any hand-wired amp (by dodger's definition) and recreate it perfectly with a PC Board. The 1965 Deluxe reverb reissue is a great example. I put my real 1965 up against a reissue and they were indistinguishable. The circuits are indistinguishable EXCEPT that they fixed the reverb switch by moving where it connects to the circuit.

NOTE: this was with a new speaker and late-model tubes in both. If you want to make the case that the magic is in the vintage components, fine, put NOS tubes and speakers into the new PCB amps and you should recreate the vintage tone just fine.

As for aging of components, it would be easy enough to measure all the components in a vintage amp (I believe Mesa has done this many times, and they write about it in the King Snake bio) and chose those values.

The circuits are very rudimentary and not difficult to reproduce. The components were generally chosen as the cheapest available and had wide tolerances (+/-20% or more in some cases) as did the tubes. Even NOS tubes have wide tolerances.

So if a true vintage amp has a different RP-11A factor than a reproduction, it is my opinion that this is due to a decision to make a more modern-sounding amp or to cure known warts in the vintage amp's tone rather than a failure to capture the vintage amp's mojo.

Unfortunately both arguments are equal to what happens in the guitar world, Nitro Lacquer vs Poly, every one either side firmly believe they are right so there will never ever be a conclusive definitely unquestionable right answer!.

 

[elvis]

Actually I don't think it matters either way. Could Mesa recreate a IIC+ tone in a modern amp? I think yes (but they will choose not to due to some tradeoff), some think no (simply impossible due to board/component/tube limitations).

Will they? Probably not.

Does it really matter exactly why not?

 

[kippiejr]

I like to look at Mesa Marks series amps with in there group as some are good and some are great. lets say I have a few of them and they all have similarities but they all sound different. I have my favorite IIC, III, IV etc..... When mentioning the hand wired issue lets not forget Tubes. Mesa has 6 color codes and each code Mesa allows a 5% variance in mA. If lets say one IIC ended up with light green 415's 29 mA's ish and another had Blue 415's 40 mA ish. These amps are going to sound slightly different at given volumes. Not sure how many color codes they had back then but with the current 6 and 5% with in each color group a Red 440 and a white 440 In any given Mesa amp will tone out differently. Some consider 5% the max to be considered matched.

 

[ryjan]

My friend,
Although a gallant effort by Mesa in both the big and mini Mark V and both have many usable tones found in the C+ mode. There is only one C+. Although they claim the circuits where copied exactly and that well may be. They are missing 30 years. The C+ modes sound great but have a "modern sound" while the other has that smooth vintage tone that when you hear it, just sounds right. Mark V mini and monster C+ modes are the closest thing to date at a fraction on the price. Remember all Mesa's are hand wired and just like some of the C+'s, they all will have their variants. I have many friend that i have tried to explain it to, once they have or played the real deal they say, Kipper, " I get it now." For example. My mini has more drive than the big V, My friends Mark V drive squashes mine. In a perfect world you could plug into as many as the store had and pick the one that gives you that smile.....

Thanks for your thoughts on this. Tone is very subjective so it's hard to describe an amps character over the interwebs but explaining the straight up differences/similarities between the three amps really helps us who don't have the opportunity to play them all side by side.

 

[kippiejr]

When all said and done this Mini has its own mojo and will not disappoint! It has its similarities to its counter parts. But it is its own beast. Well done Mesa, Just another degree of awesomeness. I hate to admit this but last night at practice using my C+ I wanted the mini for some passages..shhhh..Rhythm work only.. :lol:

 

[Iceman63]

kippie, how do you think the dirty channel sounds in either mode for gainy rhythm tones without the graphic eq engaged? I was thinking for using the g eq to kick in for solo work.

 

[kippiejr]

Love no eq for cleans.. but need it for anything else...

 

[dodger916]

I disagree with the circuit board hypothesis.

I believe that you could take any hand-wired amp (by dodger's definition) and recreate it perfectly with a PC Board. The 1965 Deluxe reverb reissue is a great example. I put my real 1965 up against a reissue and they were indistinguishable. The circuits are indistinguishable EXCEPT that they fixed the reverb switch by moving where it connects to the circuit.

NOTE: this was with a new speaker and late-model tubes in both. If you want to make the case that the magic is in the vintage components, fine, put NOS tubes and speakers into the new PCB amps and you should recreate the vintage tone just fine.

As for aging of components, it would be easy enough to measure all the components in a vintage amp (I believe Mesa has done this many times, and they write about it in the King Snake bio) and chose those values.

The circuits are very rudimentary and not difficult to reproduce. The components were generally chosen as the cheapest available and had wide tolerances (+/-20% or more in some cases) as did the tubes. Even NOS tubes have wide tolerances.

So if a true vintage amp has a different RP-11A factor than a reproduction, it is my opinion that this is due to a decision to make a more modern-sounding amp or to cure known warts in the vintage amp's tone rather than a failure to capture the vintage amp's mojo.

Re-read my post. I don't believe I offered a circuit board hypothesis. I did not say the circuit board was the issue, nor that age of the components made the difference. What I offered was "I think the components used today might sound different than those used 40 years ago, but I don't know that for sure.", similar to the differences in tubes made 40 years ago versus today. But again, I don't that for sure. And your reference to the Deluxe Reverb does not detract from my point, but rather supports it. What I said was "In my admittedly uneducated view, the more components added to the signal path, the more "congested" an amp sounds to me. I could be entirely wrong, but I do find myself relying more and more on the simpler clean channel of amps." The Deluxe Reverb reissue is the same circuit, same amplifier.

I did not offer a definition of "hand-wired", but rather "Hand wiring implies actual point-to-point wiring and soldering of all circuits, meaning no circuit boards". There are amp builders that build true "hand-wired" point-to-point amps, and charge quite a premium. Mesa uses a good amount of PC boards (for 40+ years), so calling them hand-wired is somewhat of a mis-nomer, "...at least not the way that term is used today." I could be wrong, but I don't ever recall seeing Mesa referring to their products as "hard-wired". To be clear, I'm not implying that IF Mesas were hand-wired they'd sound better.

I guess the whole point I was trying to make was questioning whether the increasing complexity of the Mesa circuitry is becoming counter-productive for the tones I seek. There is a continuum, with simplicity and "purity of tone" on one end and versatility on the other. To me, the Mark II strikes an excellent balance, where the signal path is less congested while maintaining some very usable switching options. But as always, tone is subjective so I could be wrong...

 

[elvis]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, dodger. I was essentially responding to a conglomeration of opinions in this arena. I didn't intend to misrepresent your points.

To address your clarification, I think that you are probably right in that a simpler circuit will not only have a more classic or straightforward response (in particular as concerns dynamics), but it's also easier to design with fewer "unintended consequences". However, as you noted, there will be tradeoffs with simplicity vs. features.

I don't particularly agree that the "sound" of newer components is a compelling issue. If amp designers built old designs using new components without refreshing them or listening to the results, sure, you might notice a trending change in tone. But that is also assuming that there is little variance in component values and parasitics. But amp manufacturers have always used relatively cheap components, so variances are quite high. Do film components sound different from ceramics? Yup. But as far as I know, the designers listen to the amps with whatever components are available at the time of design and alter the designs accordingly. I don't believe that there is any particular magic to components from a particular era. If anything, component manufacturing has improved significantly over the last few decades. Where power supplies used to be +/-20%, they are usually better than +/-5% now. Where 0.1% resistors were prohibitively expensive, they are now affordable.

I do see an issue with replacing components in older designs with new components as components become unavailable due to obsolescence or price, so anything is possible. Again, hopefully the designers are made aware and have a chance to listen. For sure a gross component type change is likely to require a PC board spin, so somebody probably knows it happened.

 

[dodger916]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, dodger. I was essentially responding to a conglomeration of opinions in this arena. I didn't intend to misrepresent your points.

No worries. That happens sometimes when people are passionate!

I don't particularly agree that the "sound" of newer components is a compelling issue. If amp designers built old designs using new components without refreshing them or listening to the results, sure, you might notice a trending change in tone. But that is also assuming that there is little variance in component values and parasitics. But amp manufacturers have always used relatively cheap components, so variances are quite high. Do film components sound different from ceramics? Yup. But as far as I know, the designers listen to the amps with whatever components are available at the time of design and alter the designs accordingly. I don't believe that there is any particular magic to components from a particular era. If anything, component manufacturing has improved significantly over the last few decades. Where power supplies used to be +/-20%, they are usually better than +/-5% now. Where 0.1% resistors were prohibitively expensive, they are now affordable.

Agreed, except maybe tubes, where in my experience vintage tubes (especially preamps) have a better tone and feel, but it too is subjective.

What do you mean by "parasitics"?

 

[elvis]

For tubes, I partially agree. Back in the day, they made everything from cheap tubes for cheap radios to military grade tubes for hard-core applications.

The mil-grade tubes would have been designed for the best reliability and long-life, and test-selected for tight specs. The "failed" tubes from the selection would have been rebranded for commercial or industrial and had long life and best reliability, but a bit more variance in specs.

The commercial tubes would have been lightbulbs. Some good, some bad, most in the middle (80/20 rule).

There would have been way more selection due to higher volumes of tubes produced.

Tone and feel would have been massively variable, but the vast availability and selection would have allowed for some choice in tone and feel, as well as a reasonable probability that you could find what you were looking for if you looked long enough.

So I agree that you could have gotten some great tubes, and can still probably get great NOS tubes. But they made lots of junk back then as well.

Today tubes are strictly commercial, and there is not much selection. Reliability is lousy. Tone? Variable. Though clearly there are noticeable trends.

 

[elvis]

What do you mean by "parasitics"?

Those would be the extra effects you get with a given component that affect the signal. For example, a resistor has a bit of capacitance between the leads and the board due to its shape and construction, as well as some inductance in series. A capacitor has some series resistance. These become filters in the circuit and affect tone and dynamics. They are generally small, but can have a big effect depending on the circuit they are used in.

A great example is ESR (effective series resistance) of capacitors. It is a parasitic resistance that varies quite a bit over frequency and can create anything from a tiny filter effect to making a circuit unstable enough to oscillate.

 

[dodger916]

What do you mean by "parasitics"?

Those would be the extra effects you get with a given component that affect the signal. For example, a resistor has a bit of capacitance between the leads and the board due to its shape and construction, as well as some inductance in series. A capacitor has some series resistance. These become filters in the circuit and affect tone and dynamics. They are generally small, but can have a big effect depending on the circuit they are used in.

A great example is ESR (effective series resistance) of capacitors. It is a parasitic resistance that varies quite a bit over frequency and can create anything from a tiny filter effect to making a circuit unstable enough to oscillate.

Thanks.

 

[Buster Leggs]

Kippiejr, Thank for all you feedback on the MV 25. I just saw this thread today, it was pointed out to me by another member. You provided enough "pros" for this little guy that I'll be looking for an opportunity to try one as soon as I have an opportunity. It's great to get opinion biased on actual hands on experience. I'll be watching to see what more you have to say about this amp as time goes on. THANKS AGAIN

 

[Agustín Collia]

Hi Kippiejr, thanks a lot for the really in depth review! It really is very helpful! Since you've tried the Mark V 25 in a band/rehearsal/live context, how does the clean channel hold up volume wise? You've stated that channel 2 can keep up with a band during rehearsal without being mic'd, but can the clean channel (either clean or fat mode) keep up with the volume while staying clean? Thanks a lot!
P.s. just for reference, what kind of music do you play? What bands do you cover?

 

[kippiejr]

Hi Kippiejr, thanks a lot for the really in depth review! It really is very helpful! Since you've tried the Mark V 25 in a band/rehearsal/live context, how does the clean channel hold up volume wise? You've stated that channel 2 can keep up with a band during rehearsal without being mic'd, but can the clean channel (either clean or fat mode) keep up with the volume while staying clean? Thanks a lot!
P.s. just for reference, what kind of music do you play? What bands do you cover?

Cleans hold up find and have their own volume i f you want them louder...
3 current projects
Lipari=Orginal band
Empyre= Queensryche Tribute
Just Like Priest=Priest

 

[Agustín Collia]

Thanks a lot for your reply! One of my main concerns was that the clean headroom would not be enough and that you wouldn't be able to get pristine cleans at a high enough volume to be heard in a band context. Fortunately this is not the case!
Really interesting projects you have going on!
Last question, earlier in this thread you said: "The mini gets almost there in Mark IV mode. The C+ mode in the mini because of the EL84's is not there. To thin and not enough drive when pushed as I set my real C+. The Mark IV and the EL84's is close enough..."
Having owned this amp for more or less a month now, do you still feel the same way? Is there anything new you've found in the IIC+ mode? Do you still prefer the IV mode to get as close as possible to the original IIC+?
Thanks a lot man!

 

[kippiejr]

Thanks a lot for your reply! One of my main concerns was that the clean headroom would not be enough and that you wouldn't be able to get pristine cleans at a high enough volume to be heard in a band context. Fortunately this is not the case!
Really interesting projects you have going on!
Last question, earlier in this thread you said: "The mini gets almost there in Mark IV mode. The C+ mode in the mini because of the EL84's is not there. To thin and not enough drive when pushed as I set my real C+. The Mark IV and the EL84's is close enough..."
Having owned this amp for more or less a month now, do you still feel the same way? Is there anything new you've found in the IIC+ mode? Do you still prefer the IV mode to get as close as possible to the original IIC+?
Thanks a lot man!

Funny you should ask! Last night at practice I though the Mark IV mode was getting washed out in the mix. Big on the bottom but did not have warmth and I was also backing down gain. Next song mid way through I clicked back to C+ mode pegged the gain and backed down the mids and warmth came back. The C+ preamp has a "right" sound to it to me. Finished the set in C+ mode.... Taming the EL84's characteristics is the challenge. My ears are used to 6L6's and EL34 simul-class.

 

[dbagchee]

Get to use my new Mark Five 25 at rehearsal tonight! Can't wait to let this beast loose!

 

[Iceman63]

Hey guys,
I've never owned a Mark series. Would the mini pull off classic rock ok? I may have to drive down to Raleigh to try one out...closest one.