What Features would you like to see in a future Express?

[Furvel]

Clean and crunch on two different channels would make this my perfect amp.

That's how most every other amp in the world is set up, and I didn't want that, that's why I bought this amp. I love that it has the crunch and blues on two different channels.... guess I'm one of the few.

The features I'd like to see:

A tuner out jack.
Improved connections on the footswitch & cable.
And of course 4 mode footswitchable.

Hey Guys,

Here are mine.

1. A boost that works with Channel 1 and Channel 2, with a separate Volume control.
This would give you a third channel.

2. all channels to be foot-switchable. Midi would be nice.

3. A fully adjustable wattage output knob.

Lets face it 5watts is pretty useless, but if you could dial in 10watts, 15watts. You could really crank that sucker and get some awesome tones. This would simply replace the switch on the Back.

That's it for me.

So Mr Smith when will my prototype be ready. lol.

Gezza.

The 5 watt feature was a big selling point for me. It's plenty loud for my band's rehearsal, and I think it will be loud enough for a couple of the smallest bars we play.... I'll know for sure after tomorrow night. I can also use the 5W setting when I use the amp to blow harp through when sitting in with other bands. And I hope to use the 5W setting for future studio work.

Of course my band is very stage (and practice) volume friendly... I don't have to compete with any other guitarists, just bass and keys. For the average player in the average band, the 5W option may not have much use outside the home or studio.

 

[microwerx]

Well, most of the features ironically that I was looking for are actually on the Mark 5 which pretty much can do anything the Express can do. I got mine in on thursday and AB'd them this morning....=D The clean mode on the Express is basically the same as the FAT clean sound, the blues mode is very similar to the Tweed mode (the Mark 5 sounds slightly different and has more gain), the Crunch mode is basically the same as the Mark 5 Crunch mode on channel 2, and the Burn mode is basically the same as the Mark IV mode on channel 3.

So the Express preamp is like having a Micro Mark 5. =D

I hence limit my personal wish list to Channel Cloning, Presence Control, and Footswitchable Effects Loop. And since I AB'd the Tweed and Blues modes, there is actually no need to re-voice that channel. I would really like to see a short head version of the Express 5:50 though and possibly a Solo feature.

 

[Newysurfer]

Hey Guys,

Here are mine.

1. A boost that works with Channel 1 and Channel 2, with a separate Volume control.
This would give you a third channel.

2. all channels to be foot-switchable. Midi would be nice.

3. A fully adjustable wattage output knob.

Lets face it 5watts is pretty useless, but if you could dial in 10watts, 15watts. You could really crank that sucker and get some awesome tones. This would simply replace the switch on the Back.

That's it for me.

So Mr Smith when will my prototype be ready. lol.

Gezza.

G'day Gezza :mrgreen:
hey - the 5w mode on the 5:50 is totally perfect for me at home, for recording and small gig situations.
Then if you want big you flip the switch to 50w and you got massive Mesa

 

[THE TUBENATOR]

I am very happy with my 5:50 but since we are sharing thoughts on things we would like to see on an Express amp I would have to say that I would like to replace the solid-state rectifier circuit with a 5U4G tube rectifier circuit.

 

[giorikas81]

A more aggresive sounding lead channel. But retain the other sonic character the express exhibits.

A 5-band graphic eq. Come on dc's had it why not express etc. (Cost that is why). Retaining the contour knob please. I like it very much, even the mark V has both contour and graphic eq...

A switchable tonestack (marshall type not fender. Or even bandaxxal type) in the end of the preamp. This way you can get a marshally crunch eq filter for at least some british sounds in the same amp. Plus disengaging the fender one which is where actually in the signal chain?

A power amp solo boost combined with a slight preamp boost. Going from crunch to searing lead with a tap. NOT A BOOSTER IN THE INPUT, it changes the gain but not the db so much. Try do that with a pounding second guitarist.
Separate input volume and gain controls in the lead channel. Like the way studio preamp marks work. Raising the lead gain is another thing to raising the input volume. The solo boost in the recto works great but I'd like to have a more fluid gain on the transition sometimes.

Of course pressence control. Ok these amps work fine, but are kinda a little preset. What are they thinking?
Ressonance control. Even valvekings have it. It is the "depth" mod of the SLO and like a pressence control for the bass in the power amp section. From tight thumping to modern nu recto loose through a pot!

More heavy duty transformers grid resistors or whatever in order to accomodate EL34's and KT88's. Even with a switch a-la recto fixed bias. If a good output costs 100-200, I'd gladly pay the difference to an already expensive amp. You don't want to know how much they cost in europe.

Push pull switchable loop from serial to parallel. Not a big deal but sometimes I prefer the one to the other. Footswitchable loops would be very pro.
The whatever trick the dc-f-series had with the volume control in the loop plus phase/bleed and made the amp 100x times greater in low volumes. No need for an attenuator for my f.

Asking about three channels maybe too much if a solo boost is implemented correctly...
A switch in the loop to accomodate non-buffered studio grade eq's etc.

Two DI outs. One for a smoother polished recording signal, one for a hotter obtrusive raw but cutting in a live gig signal eq'ed.

Perhaps a rack 1u slot in the face of the amp. With a plate to cover it if not used.

A small loop to rerout the input signal of the guitar to an external unit which then leads to power amp in. Independent from the main loop. Foot switchable. Imagine playing with express clean, then crunch and then footswitch to a tottaly different preamp (ADA? Studio or triaxis or recto recording? Or even digital) for lead or whatever comes to mind!!! Already connected to power amp in jack...Would the transition be somewhat noiseless though?

Of course the smoothest taper for the lead master volume pot.

I think that is all!

 

[Uncle Rocker]

My top three recomendations.

A power amp solo boost combined with a slight preamp boost.
More heavy duty transformers grid resistors or whatever in order to accomodate EL34's and KT88's.
DI outs.

 

[Don]

I would love for Crunch and Clean to be on different channels. They're my favorite modes.

 

[Newysurfer]

A more aggresive sounding lead channel. But retain the other sonic character the express exhibits.

A 5-band graphic eq. Come on dc's had it why not express etc. (Cost that is why). Retaining the contour knob please. I like it very much, even the mark V has both contour and graphic eq...

A switchable tonestack (marshall type not fender. Or even bandaxxal type) in the end of the preamp. This way you can get a marshally crunch eq filter for at least some british sounds in the same amp. Plus disengaging the fender one which is where actually in the signal chain?

A power amp solo boost combined with a slight preamp boost. Going from crunch to searing lead with a tap. NOT A BOOSTER IN THE INPUT, it changes the gain but not the db so much. Try do that with a pounding second guitarist.
Separate input volume and gain controls in the lead channel. Like the way studio preamp marks work. Raising the lead gain is another thing to raising the input volume. The solo boost in the recto works great but I'd like to have a more fluid gain on the transition sometimes.

Of course pressence control. Ok these amps work fine, but are kinda a little preset. What are they thinking?
Ressonance control. Even valvekings have it. It is the "depth" mod of the SLO and like a pressence control for the bass in the power amp section. From tight thumping to modern nu recto loose through a pot!

More heavy duty transformers grid resistors or whatever in order to accomodate EL34's and KT88's. Even with a switch a-la recto fixed bias. If a good output costs 100-200, I'd gladly pay the difference to an already expensive amp. You don't want to know how much they cost in europe.

Push pull switchable loop from serial to parallel. Not a big deal but sometimes I prefer the one to the other. Footswitchable loops would be very pro.
The whatever trick the dc-f-series had with the volume control in the loop plus phase/bleed and made the amp 100x times greater in low volumes. No need for an attenuator for my f.

Asking about three channels maybe too much if a solo boost is implemented correctly...
A switch in the loop to accomodate non-buffered studio grade eq's etc.

Two DI outs. One for a smoother polished recording signal, one for a hotter obtrusive raw but cutting in a live gig signal eq'ed.

Perhaps a rack 1u slot in the face of the amp. With a plate to cover it if not used.

A small loop to rerout the input signal of the guitar to an external unit which then leads to power amp in. Independent from the main loop. Foot switchable. Imagine playing with express clean, then crunch and then footswitch to a tottaly different preamp (ADA? Studio or triaxis or recto recording? Or even digital) for lead or whatever comes to mind!!! Already connected to power amp in jack...Would the transition be somewhat noiseless though?

Of course the smoothest taper for the lead master volume pot.

I think that is all!

You've basically described a Mark V.
Mesa make other amps that do all that stuff and you pay 2 times more for em.
In Australia the Mark V already costs $5200 and the 5:50 is $3300 RRP

 

[ifailedshapes]

A more aggresive sounding lead channel. But retain the other sonic character the express exhibits.

A 5-band graphic eq. Come on dc's had it why not express etc. (Cost that is why). Retaining the contour knob please. I like it very much, even the mark V has both contour and graphic eq...

A switchable tonestack (marshall type not fender. Or even bandaxxal type) in the end of the preamp. This way you can get a marshally crunch eq filter for at least some british sounds in the same amp. Plus disengaging the fender one which is where actually in the signal chain?

A power amp solo boost combined with a slight preamp boost. Going from crunch to searing lead with a tap. NOT A BOOSTER IN THE INPUT, it changes the gain but not the db so much. Try do that with a pounding second guitarist.
Separate input volume and gain controls in the lead channel. Like the way studio preamp marks work. Raising the lead gain is another thing to raising the input volume. The solo boost in the recto works great but I'd like to have a more fluid gain on the transition sometimes.

Of course pressence control. Ok these amps work fine, but are kinda a little preset. What are they thinking?
Ressonance control. Even valvekings have it. It is the "depth" mod of the SLO and like a pressence control for the bass in the power amp section. From tight thumping to modern nu recto loose through a pot!

More heavy duty transformers grid resistors or whatever in order to accomodate EL34's and KT88's. Even with a switch a-la recto fixed bias. If a good output costs 100-200, I'd gladly pay the difference to an already expensive amp. You don't want to know how much they cost in europe.

Push pull switchable loop from serial to parallel. Not a big deal but sometimes I prefer the one to the other. Footswitchable loops would be very pro.
The whatever trick the dc-f-series had with the volume control in the loop plus phase/bleed and made the amp 100x times greater in low volumes. No need for an attenuator for my f.

Asking about three channels maybe too much if a solo boost is implemented correctly...
A switch in the loop to accomodate non-buffered studio grade eq's etc.

Two DI outs. One for a smoother polished recording signal, one for a hotter obtrusive raw but cutting in a live gig signal eq'ed.

Perhaps a rack 1u slot in the face of the amp. With a plate to cover it if not used.

A small loop to rerout the input signal of the guitar to an external unit which then leads to power amp in. Independent from the main loop. Foot switchable. Imagine playing with express clean, then crunch and then footswitch to a tottaly different preamp (ADA? Studio or triaxis or recto recording? Or even digital) for lead or whatever comes to mind!!! Already connected to power amp in jack...Would the transition be somewhat noiseless though?

Of course the smoothest taper for the lead master volume pot.

I think that is all!

You've basically described a Mark V.
Mesa make other amps that do all that stuff and you pay 2 times more for em.
In Australia the Mark V already costs $5200 and the 5:50 is $3300 RRP

I was thinking the same thing...

Personally, I think a lot of the stuff in these lists people are posting is just ridiculous. Maybe that's just me. I like my Express for what it is. Yeah, I wish it had a master volume and a couple other things, but then it would cost more!

 

[giorikas81]

Ridiculous? I am gonna prove you wrong.

Just think of somebody that wants to gig an express. He needs three sounds and if there is a second guitarist he needs the third solo sound to be able to lift at least 6-7 db's...not overdriving a channel for more gain. Not a volume boost through the loop with an eq, a ts in the front and a delay? Not three to four taps to play a solo.

All I am saying is, that in past years, mesa's analogous amps implemented more features, features that are useful for certain reasons. DC's had post eq, solo boosts etc without coming to cost as a mark. The difference in price was as wide as it is today. I never proposed features that cost and arm an a leg and elevate the cost to flagship levels.

I am not saying mesa cheapened the express or the f or whatever, because they sound great. But even if it is not in the sake of cost cutting, mesa boogie is now stripping down its perhaps best selling amps (?). Maybe they do want to leave a void between the mark and the recto but in essence it cripples this line of amps for serious use. Of course the 5:25 is not going to fill any stadiums but I am gigging my f-30 in almost all occasions, because I like it. The way mesa set it up it is crippled for three sounds, I need three sounds. I am doing by what intermediate solutions.

I remember my first marshall valvestate having a contour knob that did the same thing AND a mid boostcounterclockwise, much more effectively than mesa. How's that for innovation.

I am not describing a mark V. I would not buy a mark V just because the express or the transatlantic "doesn't have a third channel and a solo boost or assignable loops". The thread asks what features you would like to see on an express and that is what I am answering.

If there was a thread about what things you would like for the mark V to have (I think there is) I would still post some of these things and I would add a fourth channel, it has the mark II/IV modes in the same non footswitchable channel for instance...and would still not sound exactly like an express! And the express doesn't so

And do not mess with the power tubes being a mark V thing. When you pay for an amp as much as an express (may be the most affordable mesa but not, an affordable amp) I would still like to be able to switch tubes etc, even if their were all mesa. Rectos switch EL34/6L6 is not an innovation or simulclass and I did not ask for that. KT88 are years in the run. Why not a switch for those too even if only mesa labeled ones? This also is not a mark V feature.

Some people say I am liking my amp for what it is. It may be great sounding but it could be a great amp overall. And mesa's policy does not let them.

As a result the way express are now as f before them, are useless for many applications. Of course they are great for everybody who needs less but not all times less is more.

 

[ifailedshapes]

Ridiculous? I am gonna prove you wrong.

Whoa there, cowboy. No need to get defensive and "prove people wrong." We are all on here stating our opinions. I did not single you out. I do personally think that many of the features you described are in the Mark V. I also personally believe that some of the things people are wishing for in a budget amp line are pure pipe dreams.

Also, like you said, there are other amps out there with the features you are describing. So, if those features are that important, why not just buy the amp that has all of your necessities?

 

[giorikas81]

express is not a budget amp in general...it is not either mesa's budget amp. It is mesa's cheaper amp in the catalogue and that is it. But lack of features that amps of 300$ have, make it less useable and in my oppinion does not make people go to a "higher better more expensive model" in mesa's catalogue.

Some friends chose their f or dc over marks or rectos. So what, no solo boost or tubes for them? Buying a mark is not a solution.

So yeah I would like for a future express (which will go by another name probably) to have BACK some simple features its predecessors had and some more. I think cost has nothing to do with this...

I mean what is left on a future express is to have mesa tell you, here it is, there is no gain knob etc but a rotary clean, blues, very mean knob and it sounds greats so buy it for 1500$!!! Transatlantic already lost the loop and reverb and costs 900 without a cab...

 

[Newysurfer]

Ridiculous? I am gonna prove you wrong.

Just think of somebody that wants to gig an express. He needs three sounds and if there is a second guitarist he needs the third solo sound to be able to lift at least 6-7 db's...not overdriving a channel for more gain. Not a volume boost through the loop with an eq, a ts in the front and a delay? Not three to four taps to play a solo.

All I am saying is, that in past years, mesa's analogous amps implemented more features, features that are useful for certain reasons. DC's had post eq, solo boosts etc without coming to cost as a mark. The difference in price was as wide as it is today. I never proposed features that cost and arm an a leg and elevate the cost to flagship levels.

I am not saying mesa cheapened the express or the f or whatever, because they sound great. But even if it is not in the sake of cost cutting, mesa boogie is now stripping down its perhaps best selling amps (?). Maybe they do want to leave a void between the mark and the recto but in essence it cripples this line of amps for serious use. Of course the 5:25 is not going to fill any stadiums but I am gigging my f-30 in almost all occasions, because I like it. The way mesa set it up it is crippled for three sounds, I need three sounds. I am doing by what intermediate solutions.

I remember my first marshall valvestate having a contour knob that did the same thing AND a mid boostcounterclockwise, much more effectively than mesa. How's that for innovation.

I am not describing a mark V. I would not buy a mark V just because the express or the transatlantic "doesn't have a third channel and a solo boost or assignable loops". The thread asks what features you would like to see on an express and that is what I am answering.

If there was a thread about what things you would like for the mark V to have (I think there is) I would still post some of these things and I would add a fourth channel, it has the mark II/IV modes in the same non footswitchable channel for instance...and would still not sound exactly like an express! And the express doesn't so

And do not mess with the power tubes being a mark V thing. When you pay for an amp as much as an express (may be the most affordable mesa but not, an affordable amp) I would still like to be able to switch tubes etc, even if their were all mesa. Rectos switch EL34/6L6 is not an innovation or simulclass and I did not ask for that. KT88 are years in the run. Why not a switch for those too even if only mesa labeled ones? This also is not a mark V feature.

Some people say I am liking my amp for what it is. It may be great sounding but it could be a great amp overall. And mesa's policy does not let them.

As a result the way express are now as f before them, are useless for many applications. Of course they are great for everybody who needs less but not all times less is more.

I hear ya Gorikas but just can't agree with most of what you say.
The reason I bought the 5:50 is it's super versatile as is. It's far more versatile than the F series amps, or DC's, or most other Mesa's. It has 5w & 50w modes that have different voices. 4 voices with 2 that are switchable, tone ranges from super clean to high gain, the contour knob adds more voices and critically - a Series loop. There's only a couple of other amps ever made that have all those features. I've got 3 very usable tones footswitchable on the 5:50 without touching the amp.

But if I want up to 18dB clean boost or a different tone I'll just step on my MXR EQ pedal. They cost $100 and I'd prefer to have that on a pedal board than pay $100's more for something not as good squeezed into the amp.

 

[giorikas81]

I agree for the versatility in sound in the studio but I don't agree in the versatility in gigging with it. Don't get me wrong. For one guitarist in a band the solo boost is perhaps unnecessesary. For two guitarists in a heavy context it is necessesary. Certainly to me. The eq in the loop is one part of the equation. Don't imagine that the mark V does something more dramatic for instance as if you take off the loop or something you take off the solo boost as well. I guess it is because it works in a similar way.

But I am all for simplicity and ergonomicality. These amps don't have it. They look simple, they don't function in that way. The modes are not footswitchable. One down. When I want lead tone I want hot fluid. I cannot do this by eq in the loop. It needs preamp tampering. Two down...

If I set let's say, the tone controls in the blues/burn channel with zero bass and low mids and treble high you have a treble boosted sound. It can work great for riffing but if I want a solo sound which is mid boosted, the express cannot do it.
The tonestack is unable to mid boost anyway (fender type), but even cutting down bass and treble to compensate is something you cannot do on the fly in the middle of the song. So no three sounds from the amp are available to gig with. You have to work by it there are ways, they do not satisfy me. Let's just say that if only, they had a third channel like nomads did, end of discussion. You set it up for lead with mids crancked or whatever. A mid boost with a pedal upfront to fix the tone and a clean boost in the loop is one thing but if you add delay, sorry I am not going to step on fifty pedals for a simple thing. A multieffects unit with the four cable method can work that way though with one tap. That is extra cost and perhaps sonic compromise (perhaps not).

Versatility is one thing but still, I want the aggresiveness of dc's and f-series (not similar I know) without boost. It is not there. Remember the theme was a "future" express line. I want that in future mesa's.

Serial loop is great but the parallel loop is also an advantage in some cases, why not both? Cost? Big deal. Either way, serial means you pass all your signal through an unknown device, and the same thing with a parallel loop will probably happen there (example: time effects with mix control). So maybe I'd like to have the mix function integrated in the amp to prevent tonal problems through non good quality or not suitable spec-wise effects (perhaps uncompatible with the ohms, buffers etc. Can happen). That is a parallel loop!

Of course serial is great for when you pass the whole signal for processing (parallel also works but whatever) which points to post eq or maximizers etc. So both is a great feature for me. Diezel do it and custom builders here do it also. Brunetti has a selector for both.

Take a marshall jvm and see what I mean, midi control for all 4 channels/modes. Even mg's which are cheap have evolved in a similar fashion. Take bugera...Yep, those bugeras!!! 3 channel which doesn't really cost that much in regard to their 2 channel.

Oh and **** you mesa for the pressence control. Not every room or guitar is the same...Such a simple feature...No an eq in the loop is not exactly the same but I wonder how many eq settings in the loop can one use. Maybe they should give eq's for free!!!

 

[UKBoogieboy]

Before they mesa bout with more features, give me some usuable volume on the clean chean instead of bedroom level.

 

[bigdawg]

whats yours doing then?? mines still chimy clean way past 3o'clock on the volume...

 

[ifailedshapes]

giorikas81, if you're so unhappy with it, why don't you get something different? For what it's worth, I think you would be very pleased with a Mark V. I had a Mark IV, and there were only a few gripes I had with it. The Mark V solved all the issues I had with the IV. Personally, a Mark V is out of my price range, and that might be the case for you, too. However, I strongly recommend you drive to your local dealer and play through one.

 

[Newysurfer]

giorikas81, if you're so unhappy with it, why don't you get something different? For what it's worth, I think you would be very pleased with a Mark V. I had a Mark IV, and there were only a few gripes I had with it. The Mark V solved all the issues I had with the IV. Personally, a Mark V is out of my price range, and that might be the case for you, too. However, I strongly recommend you drive to your local dealer and play through one.

+1
hehehehe - the 5:50 and a few pedals will do everything I need as is but I'd prefer to have a Mark V for sure.
Just can't afford $5200 for a new amp. It does everything Giorikas wants.

And UKBoogie - what are you talkin about mate - the 5:50 has a ton of usable clean tones on 50w. :mrgreen:

 

[J.J]

Before they mesa bout with more features, give me some usuable volume on the clean chean instead of bedroom level.

Yours must be stuck in 5 watt mode :lol:

 

[giorikas81]

I would not buy a mark V "just because it does those things...". I like to buy an amp for the sound first. I actually am planning to buy a second f-series amp and probably the f-100 head with another 1x12. I am not SO fond of the mark series as I used to be. I am really facinated with how the f-series works internally and the voicing overall and the express's modes/clean channel. I still have the studio preamp and the triaxis though if I ever need a similar voicing. I read somewhere that somebody wanted another 5:50 for stereo instead of a mark V. I could relate to that in many ways.

Anyway the mark V is redundant for me because it has the mark IIc+/IV voicings non-footswitchable in the same channel. I understand why boogie did this and they did add the solo boost, they must be variations of the same circuit so they are in channel 3 together. Channel 2 might be different enough. But still the ideal mark V would have them, as seperate channels, 2 and 3. And the clean channel to be a mark I type and nothing more!!!

To be tottaly honest I don't like having to employ a pedal to get your sounds. I hate almost every pedal distortion. Hate is a strong word. Distaste is more appropriate. Overdriving an amp is not the same with pedal distortion, but still is not the same as getting a seperate channel...Both f and express make me use some pedals to get more sounds at the same song.

I like many models "...as is" and versatility is in the ear of the user but functionality is very specific for how I like to play an amp especially live.

So how I feel stands. Mesa is doing it great soundwise, tottaly wrong function wise and especially for some simple features like the pressence, the loops and the solo boost/lead mode. Plus the thread asks about features for a future amp and not if anybody is happy with the express as it is now.