To EQ or not to EQ

[zodiac272]

hey,

I feel all mesa are awesome, EQ or not. I have not played a non EQ version, so I can't comment on the difference in tone. Of course I have read about the tone sucking EQ, but it seems players usually want the EQ.

My question is, if the EQ sucks tone like it's supposed to, why did mesa make it standard from pretty much the green stripe mk III on thru the mk V? Too many people buying non EQ amps asking Mike B. to add EQ? Streamline their product lines? Did they minimize the suckage in later amps? or was it minimal to begin with?

I can't imagine the amps I have sounding any better (unless someone else was playing it :lol: ) so those who have played both versions of the same amp weigh in.

Scott

 

[Freefall]

I think a lot of guys here use the phrase "tone sucking EQ" with a wink and a smile because although that assertion is out there, a lot of guys also think it's bogus.

I only spent about an hour with my non-EQ C+ before sending it to Mesa, but from that limited time I thought it sounded as good as my EQ-equipped C+, but not "way better", as if the lack of EQ added some magic. I mainly just missed the additional tone shaping capability, particularly if you're trying to use both the clean and dirty channels. FWIW, I asked Mike B to add EQ to it while it's at Mesa if he can find the parts, so clearly I'm not concerned about any "tone sucking". If he can't, I'll be using an EQ pedal in the loop, which I tried with good results. The onboard EQ is just more convenient and can be assigned to just the dirty channel, which is also a plus.

 

[Neptical]

I dunno, I think it's kind of bogus. I've never noticed any such thing as 'tone sucking' in a GEQ version. But your right--they all sound **** good, eq or not. I just think the difference is really just in the player. For me, having the GEQ gets me where I want to be alot faster versus non-EQ.

~Nep~

 

[JOEY B.]

wasn't the tone sucking EQ statement made in the MkV manual specifically about the C+? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The Mark V manual mentions the feel, urgency and attack of the non-GEQ, Simulclass Mark IIC+. It does NOT mention the 60/100 or the Coliseum models when speaking of urgency or attack. It also does NOT mention any "sucking" of tone by the GEQ. If a person needs more urgency and attack than a "105" PT 60/100 or a Coliseum C+(GEQ optioned amp), they might want to look into a solid-state power amp. :shock:

FWIW, 98% of the "tone sucking GEQ" claims are made by people trying to sell a non-GEQ optioned amp. That says enough in itself, doesn't it? :wink:

I have been guilty of using the phrase in a joking manner, from time to time. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[zodiac272]

[
FWIW, 98% of the "tone sucking GEQ" claims are made by people trying to sell a non-GEQ optioned amp. That says enough in itself, doesn't it? :wink: :

I kind of figured it was more a joke than anything else... tone and cheek if you will. And I had the same feeling about folks selling non-EQ amps, I didn't want to influence the thread responses by saying that from the beginning

Here is from Pg. 14 of the Mark V manual:

"Back when I was testing II C+’s every day in the burn-in room, I always thought the non-graphic amps had a certain attack and purity to the sound that the amps that had Graphic EQ on them just didn’t have. There was an urgency and bold punch to the sound...they seemed tighter and more cohesive. Now granted, we made far more amps with the on-board EQ than without...probably 70% had the EQ, but not many people had the opportunity to compare day-in and day-out as I did. The EQ model had the shaping advantage... no doubt about it, and certainly all the sounds that II C+ are famous for were created with the EQ being an integral part of that sound, but when it came to the straight sound – no EQ – the non-graph model always got to me with it’s speed and authority."

I figure the any loss is worth the flexibility of adding the GEQ since they made it standard


scott

 

[JOEY B.]

[
FWIW, 98% of the "tone sucking GEQ" claims are made by people trying to sell a non-GEQ optioned amp. That says enough in itself, doesn't it? :wink: :

I kind of figured it was more a joke than anything else... tone and cheek if you will.

Although, one of my favorite tones from my DRG C+ is: Goldtop LP> Lead channel, EQ OUT, 15 watts, Lead Drive 3-4, Sylvania 6CA7's, Master 1 at 5, Lead Master as far as you can take it. 8)

 

[mreeve25]

I have had several C+'s, (3) w/o EQ, and (3) with EQ.

(2) 60 watt reverbs w/o EQ, (1) 60/100 HRX w/o EQ, (1) Simulclass DRG, and (2) 60/100 HRG's w/ 105pt.

I ran an old MXR 10 band EQ in the loop of the 60/100 HRX, and it sounded AMAZING. VERY SMOOTH!!!!!!!

The 60 watters sound AMAZING!!! Definately in a class of their own. (ESPECIALLY W/ STR 415's)!

The Simulclass DRG, to me seemed like the ultimate low to medium gain amplifier!!!

My personal favorite is the 60/100 HRG w/ 105pt.

They are all amazing. Just different flavors.

 

[droptrd]

Who says they suck tone?

 

[kdorsey]

Technically, throwing a bunch of resistors in the signal path could be considered "sucking" the tone. And, typically, equalization is a subtractive process, so I can see where the comment started. But you have to step away from the esoteric hype and just try one to become a believer. If something is "sucking" to make my amp sound like this, then it damned well better keep it up!

 

[MrMarkIII]

Yup, it's just sales jive.
"Mesa tone-suck" is a major oxymoron, right up there with "military intelligence".

 

[>Photi G<]

Yup, it's just sales jive.
"Mesa tone-suck" is a major oxymoron, right up there with "military intelligence".

Yeah, just like Pink Lemonade, Government worker, and Border Control. :lol: The tone suck is just a laymen's term for the extra bass added by the EQ coupling cap. It's more of a feeling thing than a hearing thing, usually only apparent to the player.

 

[VoodooChild24]

EQ all the way for me.

 

[zodiac272]

I love the EQ too, BUT, I must say that when I got my KDG IIC+, I took it out of it's shell to inspect and take porno pics of it, I was playing it for a while thinking the EQ was on, but it was off. it was upside down so I could swap tubes and play and swap easily, so I didn't notice it was off, until I looked at it. Yeah It sounded great, but I like having the onboard EQ as an extra tool. I guess I usually A/B the EQ on/off with the lead channel, and it always sounds thin or nasal after disengage the EQ.

so either way is great, I just like the flexibility of having GEQ.


scott

 

[>Photi G<]

IMO the EQ is a necessity in a Mark II or Mark III series amp. They have that nasally midrange that you can't dial out with the tone controls. You gotta scoop the 750-2200Hz range a bit to make the amp sing, since it retains the fat low end, but none of the upper mid bite.

 

[Scary]

I'm certain that they do 'suck' a little tone, but the flexability of the EQ is the reason many are attracted to the Mark series in the first place. One pedal in line will most likely destroy the tone much more than a properly set EQ.

 

[dodger916]

I've tried it both ways and gravitate back to the eq.