I appreciate the insights on the Mark VII. I may have to try one out at some point...
NAD: Mesa Boogie Mark VII head. WOW
- Thread starter bandit2013
- Start date
Help Support The Boogie Board:
atomheart411
Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2018
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 2
I just want to say that I for one would very much prefer to have an over all master volume. Different size venues, indoors, outdoors,etc, and I will be needing to adjust volume. If I dial in each channel to what I want each channel to sound like I don't want to then have to go and adjust the volume on each individually. There have been plenty of times when at a gig I might bring up my over all volume a bit as the gig progresses. Bummer because I really would like to have a go at this amp but this is putting me off.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2019
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 20
I hear you. A single MV seems like a basic requirement. However, Randall Smith had this to say re the MK7: “I wanted to focus completely on unadulterated tonal impact, and, to that end, the output control and the Solo function [found on the Mark V], useful features as they are, did reduce that tonal impact somewhat because of the extra tube stage and the attenuation that occurs through the controls and all that. So if that feature is vitally important to someone, they can still get a Mark V and enjoy it, but I think the time was right to change it.” So, he makes a case.
Last edited:
Mr. Smith was onto something, in my opinion. If I get a VII I’ll miss the SOLO and the OUTPUT (to a lesser degree) that the V has. But ultimately tone is king and tone is comprimised a bit with these extra controllers. I haven’t ever read here that people liked the amp tone better with the EFX LOOP and OUTPUT engaged. It is unanimously agreed the amp sounds better with the schnick-schnack disengaged.
The OUTPUT balancing on the V is not linear and depends on where the channel MASTERS are set. In other words, balance all channel masters with OUTPUT at 8 o’clock and then raise the OUTPUT to 10 o’clock and the channels are no longer balanced. The OUTPUT keeps things level only if this dial is moved ‘a little bit’. So, it’s not like you can gig, then go home and just reduce the OUTPUT and all is well with channels being balanced. The MASTER controls still need tweaked when making large adjustments to the OUTPUT (at least on my V)
The OUTPUT balancing on the V is not linear and depends on where the channel MASTERS are set. In other words, balance all channel masters with OUTPUT at 8 o’clock and then raise the OUTPUT to 10 o’clock and the channels are no longer balanced. The OUTPUT keeps things level only if this dial is moved ‘a little bit’. So, it’s not like you can gig, then go home and just reduce the OUTPUT and all is well with channels being balanced. The MASTER controls still need tweaked when making large adjustments to the OUTPUT (at least on my V)
While I understand Randall Smith’s thinking here, the lack of an output control in my situation is a bit of a deal breaker for me. I’m not just a studio player. The channel masters are the send levels into my rack FX processor, and the output is a global return. After spending time getting all the channel levels balanced and the input signal to my FX to unity gain, the output control allows me to change the volume of my rig without messing with my FX send/input levels, keeping my FX mix consistent. Once I start tweaking with the channel masters I would need to re-adjust my FX input level to get back to unity gain. Using the FX unit output control is how I balance the volume between FX Loop in or loop bypassed levels, granted that 95% of the time I am using the loop, but it’s still a concern for me.
We play from small bars to large theaters, so I’m usually adjusting my overall volume to fit the room/stage. Sometimes (in small bars) I am not in the FOH so my stage volume become very important to the overall mix of the band. If I was playing large rooms all the time with a 30 min sound check like John Petrucci I guess that wouldn’t be an issue, but that’s not the case for me. I’m lucky if I get a sound check at all sometimes, and no sound man wants to deal with a ‘picky’ guitarist messing with their levels.
Honestly, for a weekend warrior like me, the tone difference between using the FX loop or bypassing it is easily overcome with a good EQ. Is there a difference? Sure there is. But nobody in the crowd will ever notice, and putting anything between the preamp and power amp (like fx) changes your tone anyway.
Dom
We play from small bars to large theaters, so I’m usually adjusting my overall volume to fit the room/stage. Sometimes (in small bars) I am not in the FOH so my stage volume become very important to the overall mix of the band. If I was playing large rooms all the time with a 30 min sound check like John Petrucci I guess that wouldn’t be an issue, but that’s not the case for me. I’m lucky if I get a sound check at all sometimes, and no sound man wants to deal with a ‘picky’ guitarist messing with their levels.
Honestly, for a weekend warrior like me, the tone difference between using the FX loop or bypassing it is easily overcome with a good EQ. Is there a difference? Sure there is. But nobody in the crowd will ever notice, and putting anything between the preamp and power amp (like fx) changes your tone anyway.
Dom
Yeah, I hear you. LOL My band is lucky to even get a sound man sometimes. Often it’s me going out into the crowd for a listen and then motioning to the drummer for what needs adjusting since he has the laptop mixing board. And yeah, smaller venues we don’t mic stuff so it is a challenge to get levels correct.
Yeah, at the end of the day, these small differences are insignificant when playing live in crappy little bars with the drummer clanging away on the cymbals and such.
Yeah, at the end of the day, these small differences are insignificant when playing live in crappy little bars with the drummer clanging away on the cymbals and such.
TazTurner777
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2020
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 7
Put you a volume control in the effects loop. Make sure it's a good quality pot. Take it out of the loop when you don't need it. When in small venues put it in and use it to turn down the overall out put. All channels will be affected equally.
atomheart411
Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2018
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 2
I thought about that. But what would you suggest? I’m thinking some sort of high quality EQ. I like the Empress ParaEQ but I think you’d have to have the boost engaged so that you would have some room to cut or boost, if you follow.
atomheart411
Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2018
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 2
These guys make good quality pedals and seem very responsive to custom requests. This with calibrated notches , maybe 2db increments up and down, would be ideal in my mind. It’d need to be active to boost.
https://saturnworkspedals.com/product/volume/
https://saturnworkspedals.com/product/volume/
Agreed, a good low Z volume pedal would work as well.
I was really just expressing my view of Mesa dropping the Output control. I understand that the circuit will effect the signal, but so does using anything in the loop. Seems like a lame reason. The old hard bypass switch does the same thing.
If Mesa went back to a true hard bypass it would make the amps much more versatile. That’s how my Roadster is, and when I recorded our last CD all my dry rhythms were with the FX Loop, Output and Solo hard bypassed.
Dom
TazTurner777
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2020
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 7
I used to have a dual rec rev f. Biggest mistake ever was getting rid of it to get a roadster. Then got a multiwatt but still didn't catch the rev f sound, tone, feel, or nasty but not fizzy gain as the rev f. Now the rev f didn't have a solo boost. So what I did with it was to wire a regular volume pot with 2 quarter inch jacks via really good short 4" guitar cable and plugged it into the in and out of the efx loop. I then turned on the effects loop with the foot switch and rolled back the volume a little. Switched back and forth till I got the right volume difference for solos. So the rhythm volume was efx loop on, and solo was efx off. Worked great for a good year. Then I went from pedals to a Tc g major and I used it to do a 3db drop on all rhythm presets and 0db drop for solo presets. Thats how I used it in every amp since the revf. As for overall volume you could just use a really good volume pedal and turn the efex loop on and keep it on top or behind the amp to get the desired overall volume to the room without adjusting and rematching you channel volumes. Or if you use the efx for your efx then just add the above method or maybe you already have an effect that can act as my tc does. My tc can also drop the overall volume by twisting the out put nob on the tc. I'm hoping this makes since. Its tough to explain when I'm not looking at what I'm trying to explain. As for an amp that has a solo boost but not a global volume control I'm not sure where the boost pot is in relation with the efx loop. But you should still be able to adjust the boost pot to get where you want. Better than adjusting all volumes back and forth. So if you do go try one out and you fall in love with it, there are ways to have a global volume control without having one in the actual amp. So don't let that be a deal breaker for you. And when I used these methods on my revf and my uber-censored- it never affected tone. Just use good efx or parts to make a volume box or whatever, to do it. Hope this helps. I drive 18 wheelers and have been up since midnight and I'm not even sure if any of this makes since to me as I try to proof read this.
GOD bless and be cool.
You all make great points on the Global volume control vs the individual channel masters. I only used the global master since I wanted to make use of the FX loop. Sort of being forced to use it. MWDR, Roadster had the same deal there. Triple Crown, you get the global Master and you cannot opt out of that as there is no hard bypass.
The only work around for this lack of a global volume control is the line out-dry on the back of the amp. I assume this is not IR sourced. It does have a volume control associated with it. Sort of defeats the purpose of compactness as this would require additional gear like another amp.
I have not fully dug into this amp in the depth I would like too. Not even sure if this amp is based on tradition or is it different. Meaning, where does the channel master sit, in front of the FX loop or after? That is an easy thing to find out.
As for the glitch or whatever it was, has not occurred since I mentioned it. I have the footswitch disconnected for the time being as I want to explore the amps different voices or modes. The first time I had come across the issue was when I first powered up the amp without the footswitch installed. If the issue crops up again, I will seek out Mesa Customer service. As for the other times I had it occur, probably more user error as I did not have the channel switch in the correct position.
The only work around for this lack of a global volume control is the line out-dry on the back of the amp. I assume this is not IR sourced. It does have a volume control associated with it. Sort of defeats the purpose of compactness as this would require additional gear like another amp.
I have not fully dug into this amp in the depth I would like too. Not even sure if this amp is based on tradition or is it different. Meaning, where does the channel master sit, in front of the FX loop or after? That is an easy thing to find out.
As for the glitch or whatever it was, has not occurred since I mentioned it. I have the footswitch disconnected for the time being as I want to explore the amps different voices or modes. The first time I had come across the issue was when I first powered up the amp without the footswitch installed. If the issue crops up again, I will seek out Mesa Customer service. As for the other times I had it occur, probably more user error as I did not have the channel switch in the correct position.
The squeel issue to me indicates some circuit confusion, which makes me think of midi. I used to use midi back when it was developed with keys and computers. I thought maybe a bent pin short in a connector. But then you said intermittent. So that is puzzling and makes me think of the circuit with a chip that handles the signal routing has a static problem causing it to malfunction, or possible micro ground leakage. It's the kind of thing that manufacturers will say is impossible, but believe me midi overloading can do weird things. I trust you completely cable everything before powering on, that is important. There are memory schemes involved, power on and off properly several times with your default settings switches, connectors and all. If you were to run it one way, power off, change something especially switches, and power on again, it could momentarily confuse the circuit routing. Just me I would best practice my most common settings, then change them after I was up and running. At least it will give yourself a base point for troubleshooting. Sounds like either a connection but the squeel makes me think data confusion which is chip related. Is have mesa replace the chip if possible.
I believe it is the mini toggle channel selector switch. First time it happened was when it did not fully engage to CH3 (was not using the footswitch at that time). Then when I switched back to CH2 and then to CH3 there was a delay of about 2 seconds before it changed channels. After the amp was off for a while, I started it up again and all was fine. I am back to not using the footswitch for the time being. I did not feel like using the 100ft cable it came with. Not sure how long it really is but it is a bulk of cable that is way too long for my particular use. May just look for a shorter cable. This issue has not shown up since then. Other than running the amp with the footswitch and channel select set to CH3 at startup, that may be an issue. Yeah, I am aware of the processor self configuring at power up, detects if a footswitch is connected, then looks at the other functions such as channel, FX loop, GEQ and stuff. JP2C has the same processor but different commands and the same with the two Triple Crowns. I have seen some funky things with the Triples when using the daisy chain setup. How you power up the amps and the one with the footswitch connected gets turned on first. I am good. I do not believe there is a hardware issue in terms of the midi controller. If it crops up again, I will have a better idea of what caused it before I shut down the amp. I may need to look at the store LED on the back to see what it is doing before I kill the amp power. So far nothing to report. I do allow for the amp to heat up more than 30 seconds before taking out of standby. That should be long enough for the processor to do its thing, unless there is a clocking issue and it locks up. Wonder if they have taken into consideration any transient protection other than the small switch mode power supply they use to power it up with. Any issue that crops up I will let Mesa handle it. Thanks for your input on the subject.
The squeel issue to me indicates some
I take it it's not a mechanical switch, it's tied to voltage and the values it's passing are off, or the reading side is getting spoofed. Lol the price of convenience says workaround all day. That's how I roll. You'll still get tone. Throw a vintage Telefunken in V1. I just did, and it sounded so much better I don't give a **** about this hiss. Later.
It is a mechanical switch in all respects. not sure of its action, on/off/on. Just your typical 3 way mini toggle switch. Not sure how many poles it has either. It may have a bad slider inside as it did not fully engage in the ch3 position. So, I would not doubt it is ground referenced on a pair of input ports on the chip. If there is a mechanical issue, that could result in ambiguous state that was unexpected. I just need to be more assertive when moving the toggle switch when not using the footswitch.
Interesting. Since I got the Mark VII I had more interest in the Mark V90. Odd this is but I was sure there was something in the V that I was missing. My hunch paid off big time with some patience and a little bit of tube rolling and now I can say the Mark V90 is much on par with the Mark VII.
What I have in the Mark V90 currently. Doubt I will change anything.
Power tube choice: STR441, bias color is green.
Preamp tubes:
V1=Svetlana 12AX7
V2=Tung Sol 12AX7
V3,V4,V5,V6 = NOS Mesa Chinese square foil getter tube from 1989 thru 1990. Aka Ruby Chinese Military Grade square foil getter 12AX7A. These were the means to remove the boxy tone from the Mark V and tighten up the low end.
V7= Mullard reissue 12AX7A long plate.
I did post this in more detail in a different thread so no point in overloading this one.
The IIC+ and IV modes of both amps are now dead on, the same, but I would not call them identical. It is hard to tell the two amps apart but there is some difference in the low end but not much. Note that the Mark VII is a match with the normal/bright switch of the V in the bright position. I sort of like the ability to change to normal to darken up the tone a bit with the Mark V. I never expected to be saying this but I think I sort of favor the Mark V90 a bit more. They both sound great. Before I did any tube rolling I had mostly Mesa 12AX7 tubes in the Mark V90. If that was the best I could get out of it, the Mark VII would win hands down. Yep, the Mark V90 is quite tunable with preamp tubes and the STR441 power tubes really helped out with taming some of the midrange.
To be clear, I do have two hard mods done to the Mark V90. One was replacing the C39 with a 47pF cap. I had removed it completely but decided to get it close to original. The other hard mod was a 10k coupling of relay points on the GEQ that changes when you select IIC+ mode or other modes. The 10k jumper resistor basically connects across two resistor leads that are associated with those relay connections. This improved the overall sound quality of the GEQ and fixed the weaker sounding IIC+ mode. Much of this was illustrated in the Saturation Mod thread. not sure if the pictures are still there. It may not be necessary to do any hard mods to the Mark V90. If it sounds great as is, leave it as is. just change out some preamp tubes to cure the boxy tones. Oddly enough the ice pick issue went away when I changed the preamp tubes and switched over to the STR441 power tubes.
What I have in the Mark V90 currently. Doubt I will change anything.
Power tube choice: STR441, bias color is green.
Preamp tubes:
V1=Svetlana 12AX7
V2=Tung Sol 12AX7
V3,V4,V5,V6 = NOS Mesa Chinese square foil getter tube from 1989 thru 1990. Aka Ruby Chinese Military Grade square foil getter 12AX7A. These were the means to remove the boxy tone from the Mark V and tighten up the low end.
V7= Mullard reissue 12AX7A long plate.
I did post this in more detail in a different thread so no point in overloading this one.
The IIC+ and IV modes of both amps are now dead on, the same, but I would not call them identical. It is hard to tell the two amps apart but there is some difference in the low end but not much. Note that the Mark VII is a match with the normal/bright switch of the V in the bright position. I sort of like the ability to change to normal to darken up the tone a bit with the Mark V. I never expected to be saying this but I think I sort of favor the Mark V90 a bit more. They both sound great. Before I did any tube rolling I had mostly Mesa 12AX7 tubes in the Mark V90. If that was the best I could get out of it, the Mark VII would win hands down. Yep, the Mark V90 is quite tunable with preamp tubes and the STR441 power tubes really helped out with taming some of the midrange.
To be clear, I do have two hard mods done to the Mark V90. One was replacing the C39 with a 47pF cap. I had removed it completely but decided to get it close to original. The other hard mod was a 10k coupling of relay points on the GEQ that changes when you select IIC+ mode or other modes. The 10k jumper resistor basically connects across two resistor leads that are associated with those relay connections. This improved the overall sound quality of the GEQ and fixed the weaker sounding IIC+ mode. Much of this was illustrated in the Saturation Mod thread. not sure if the pictures are still there. It may not be necessary to do any hard mods to the Mark V90. If it sounds great as is, leave it as is. just change out some preamp tubes to cure the boxy tones. Oddly enough the ice pick issue went away when I changed the preamp tubes and switched over to the STR441 power tubes.
This change in the Mark V90 is worthy of a video to compare to the Mark VII.
Note: to get there with your Mark V90 may require a few preamp tube swaps but that depends on your amp in question. Mine was your basic ice pick boxy toned amp that was difficult to bond with. Now I can actually enjoy playing through it. Still the same amp I started with back in 2012 but with many repairs to some failures.
Note: to get there with your Mark V90 may require a few preamp tube swaps but that depends on your amp in question. Mine was your basic ice pick boxy toned amp that was difficult to bond with. Now I can actually enjoy playing through it. Still the same amp I started with back in 2012 but with many repairs to some failures.
The Sylvania power tubes combined with the EVM-12L speakers are my thing. Tungsram and RFT 12AX7 pre's seem to help too. All the bitching about the EVM speakers can be dialed out with the tone stack/GEQ. It's not like you do not have the room to move with ANY GEQ Mark series Boogie.
I have only tried the STR415 in the Mark VII for a brief time. Did not make any changes to the preamp. I actually preferred the STR445 power tubes in the VII. STR415 in the JP2C is the only way to go but the STR448 are **** close in that amp. I do have a few RFT 12AX7 but I used them in the Royal Atlantic. Now that was epic move for that amp.
Both the JP2C, and Mark VII sound killer with the EVM12L speaker. Now that I have the Mark V90 going strong and up to par with the Mark VII, it too sounds killer with the EVM12L speaker. EV speakers have always been my benchmark. They are a bit different than the Black Shadow EVM12L that was a stock item in the Mark III combo. Just never adopted the MC90 for any amp. Not much bitching or GEQ settings will correct the issue I have with the MC90. open-back combo, I always seem to pop off the dust cap or burn out the voice coil. Just never had much luck with that speaker. It is not bad, but I have burned up too many of them. The Celestion Redback is not all that bad either but does have some high frequency roll off.
Depends. EL34 based amps seem to sound better with the V30, Badlander, Triple Crown, Royal Atlantic. Can't complain about the rest of the Mesa amps with the V30 that run with the 6L6GC power. It is all good.
Both the JP2C, and Mark VII sound killer with the EVM12L speaker. Now that I have the Mark V90 going strong and up to par with the Mark VII, it too sounds killer with the EVM12L speaker. EV speakers have always been my benchmark. They are a bit different than the Black Shadow EVM12L that was a stock item in the Mark III combo. Just never adopted the MC90 for any amp. Not much bitching or GEQ settings will correct the issue I have with the MC90. open-back combo, I always seem to pop off the dust cap or burn out the voice coil. Just never had much luck with that speaker. It is not bad, but I have burned up too many of them. The Celestion Redback is not all that bad either but does have some high frequency roll off.
Depends. EL34 based amps seem to sound better with the V30, Badlander, Triple Crown, Royal Atlantic. Can't complain about the rest of the Mesa amps with the V30 that run with the 6L6GC power. It is all good.
Similar threads
