Mesa Quad vs IV

[LightsOfSorrow86]

The Mesa Quad is the Mark II and Mark III preamps in one housing. Very cool setup. When I owned mine, I treated it as a three channel preamp, as I could never get all four sections to sound good at the same time.

The clean channel proabably is the one that suffer the most.

 

[ChurchHill]

The clean channel proabably is the one that suffer the most.

I usually dial in one side for cleans and one for leads. I've never been able to get the same channel to do both really well, although they are certainly workable. Same for the Studio and either of my Mk IIIs. This has never been a problem for me, though. My Mk IV does good cleans and leads, but it's got separate tone stacks. I like the Quad better, though, but they're all great.

Sounds like your 395 might need new filter caps, they all do at some point. Mine has plenty of bass even without the deep, but I use the deep for leads. That wasn't the only Switch-Track they made, the Strategy 500 would probably be king of the hill, and the idea is in the 2:90, too, but the 395 is more versatile IME. I've got a 295, too, and a Triaxis+2:90 to compare with, but neither are as good as the 395.

That's so cool that yours are together again! Just the way they were meant to be!

 

[LightsOfSorrow86]

I usually dial in one side for cleans and one for leads. I've never been able to get the same channel to do both really well, although they are certainly workable. Same for the Studio and either of my Mk IIIs. This has never been a problem for me, though. My Mk IV does good cleans and leads, but it's got separate tone stacks. I like the Quad better, though, but they're all great.

Sounds like your 395 might need new filter caps, they all do at some point. Mine has plenty of bass even without the deep, but I use the deep for leads. That wasn't the only Switch-Track they made, the Strategy 500 would probably be king of the hill, and the idea is in the 2:90, too, but the 395 is more versatile IME. I've got a 295, too, and a Triaxis+2:90 to compare with, but neither are as good as the 395.

That's so cool that yours are together again! Just the way they were meant to be!

I decided to go.with the 395 for its versatility and because Mesa told me that the 295 is smoother, ot distorts earlier, warmer. The 395 it's tighter, punchier, more bass, huuuuuge headroom and stays clean at extreme volumes. Never tried a 295.

 

[Sick Michael]

I had this setup for years, Quad into a 395. Its amazing

Mk2C channel - I always setup the clean to be fender-like, and then for Lead 1 I used a boost pedal to compensate - it was fine and great tones.

The Mark 3 channel rhythm 1 is not useful on its own, but I had good results with a boosted OCD into it. The Lead channel is brutal so I would use that for out and out metal, and then switch off the EQ for leads.

You get about 4 -5 pretty amazing different sounds out of it.

I had to sell mine unfortunately, but I still have the 395 - its nice to be able to put EL34s in the outer slots, and then be able to switch between that and a mix of 2x6L6 and 2xEL34. The Deep switch is fun, but Im still not convinced whether I need it or not. It add an almighty thump which the Mark Series Amps wouldnt necessarily get. The channel switching for all this is a PITA - I had to get a midi switcher thing for it.

 

[LightsOfSorrow86]

I had this setup for years, Quad into a 395. Its amazing

Mk2C channel - I always setup the clean to be fender-like, and then for Lead 1 I used a boost pedal to compensate - it was fine and great tones.

The Mark 3 channel rhythm 1 is not useful on its own, but I had good results with a boosted OCD into it. The Lead channel is brutal so I would use that for out and out metal, and then switch off the EQ for leads.

You get about 4 -5 pretty amazing different sounds out of it.

I had to sell mine unfortunately, but I still have the 395 - its nice to be able to put EL34s in the outer slots, and then be able to switch between that and a mix of 2x6L6 and 2xEL34. The Deep switch is fun, but Im still not convinced whether I need it or not. It add an almighty thump which the Mark Series Amps wouldnt necessarily get. The channel switching for all this is a PITA - I had to get a midi switcher thing for it.

I was thinking about it, using one channel with a mix of 6L6s and EL34s and the other one all 6L6s. Do they fit into the chassis or you have to leave the poweramp without the top panel? I'm going to change all the filter caps ass soon as I can because yes, it sounds really good. I love rhythm 2, no a sound that I would use frequently but for some parts is good. Lead 1 for me is THE Sound, Lead 2 for me is lead, solos. I'm using an external eq for the clean only. But I have a question. When you switch between lead 1 and rhythm 1 do you have a sort of ramp or fade in? that's what I have.

 

[Sick Michael]

I was thinking about it, using one channel with a mix of 6L6s and EL34s and the other one all 6L6s. Do they fit into the chassis or you have to leave the poweramp without the top panel? I'm going to change all the filter caps ass soon as I can because yes, it sounds really good. I love rhythm 2, no a sound that I would use frequently but for some parts is good. Lead 1 for me is THE Sound, Lead 2 for me is lead, solos. I'm using an external eq for the clean only. But I have a question. When you switch between lead 1 and rhythm 1 do you have a sort of ramp or fade in? that's what I have.

I didnt remember any switching issues like that, for me it was pretty instantaneous....or at least, so small a delay that it wasnt significant in my mind. There may be a bit of difference between individual units.

You need to remove the chassis, yes, and thats what I did to fit the EL34s in there.

the Cleans, the blues tones and the Metal tones and lead tones were all seriously top class. I couldnt get a Marshall sound out of it (no shit...) but I could live with that, everything else was just so good.

 

[Uzi Nein Millimetah]

I had this setup for years, Quad into a 395. Its amazing

Mk2C channel - I always setup the clean to be fender-like, and then for Lead 1 I used a boost pedal to compensate - it was fine and great tones.

The Mark 3 channel rhythm 1 is not useful on its own, but I had good results with a boosted OCD into it. The Lead channel is brutal so I would use that for out and out metal, and then switch off the EQ for leads.

You get about 4 -5 pretty amazing different sounds out of it.

I had to sell mine unfortunately, but I still have the 395 - its nice to be able to put EL34s in the outer slots, and then be able to switch between that and a mix of 2x6L6 and 2xEL34. The Deep switch is fun, but Im still not convinced whether I need it or not. It add an almighty thump which the Mark Series Amps wouldnt necessarily get. The channel switching for all this is a PITA - I had to get a midi switcher thing for it.

I generally agree with this. Have you ever directly compared the 395 with a 2:90? The Deep switch makes a very noticeable difference and the Modern switch a more subtle but worthy one, I can't get enough of it! I don't need moar, but every now and then I see 295 or 395 stupid cheep and wonder......they are usually more than expensive enough for me to dismiss the idea. Of course, there is always the fear of the old components being near the end, and my 2:90 was recently refre$hed. Any other power amps I get will be in addition to the 2:90.

For the Quad, I like using Lead 1 with traditional Strats + clear boost such as a YJM 308. It's also fantastic for crunch with toasty HBs, but when I really want searing lead, it's Lead 2 (no boost). At similar master vol levels, Lead 2 does sound a bit smaller (girth wise) than Lead 1, but with a much more pronounced midrange, and of course you can always crank it more. It is simply amazing how fast Lead 1 starts sounding YUGE! Master Vol 2 is fine for recording.

The only area where the factory balance is off for me is R2 (III), which I don't really use except rarely in studio. So essentially I treat it as a 3 channel amp for live playing. There are no better toans anywhere for my needs, especially with the original Mark cabs....and it really doesn't matter if you are playing a cheap or expensive guitar, everything sounds fantastic through it......

 

[Uzi Nein Millimetah]

I didnt remember any switching issues like that, for me it was pretty instantaneous....or at least, so small a delay that it wasnt significant in my mind. There may be a bit of difference between individual units.

You need to remove the chassis, yes, and thats what I did to fit the EL34s in there.

the Cleans, the blues tones and the Metal tones and lead tones were all seriously top class. I couldnt get a Marshall sound out of it (no shit...) but I could live with that, everything else was just so good.

You can get a Marshally tone out of the II/III/Quad with some tweaking and lower gain, the owner's manuals even talk about it. I like to reduce gain on Lead 1 and boost somewhat with a Marshall Shredmaster clone at times for lean gnarly tones.

 

[Mike Oxhuge]

You can get a Marshally tone out of the II/III/Quad with some tweaking and lower gain, the owner's manuals even talk about it. I like to reduce gain on Lead 1 and boost somewhat with a Marshall Shredmaster clone at times for lean gnarly tones.

Angus and Malcolm used Studio preamps on live at Donnington so yes, the Quad should do Marshally tones quite well. That album has my favorite tones from them.

 

[Sick Michael]

I generally agree with this. Have you ever directly compared the 395 with a 2:90? The Deep switch makes a very noticeable difference and the Modern switch a more subtle but worthy one, I can't get enough of it! I don't need moar, but every now and then I see 295 or 395 stupid cheep and wonder......they are usually more than expensive enough for me to dismiss the idea. Of course, there is always the fear of the old components being near the end, and my 2:90 was recently refre$hed. Any other power amps I get will be in addition to the 2:90.

For the Quad, I like using Lead 1 with traditional Strats + clear boost such as a YJM 308. It's also fantastic for crunch with toasty HBs, but when I really want searing lead, it's Lead 2 (no boost). At similar master vol levels, Lead 2 does sound a bit smaller (girth wise) than Lead 1, but with a much more pronounced midrange, and of course you can always crank it more. It is simply amazing how fast Lead 1 starts sounding YUGE! Master Vol 2 is fine for recording.

The only area where the factory balance is off for me is R2 (III), which I don't really use except rarely in studio. So essentially I treat it as a 3 channel amp for live playing. There are no better toans anywhere for my needs, especially with the original Mark cabs....and it really doesn't matter if you are playing a cheap or expensive guitar, everything sounds fantastic through it......

Very similar experience to my own. If you boost Ry2 you can get a kind of old Santana kind of tone - not for me though. Yeah Ld2 is tighter and a tiny bit more abrasive. But Lead 1 with the Graphic EQ is instant 80s Metallica, and highly addictive.

Ive never compared the 395 with the 2:90. The Presence knob is probably the most significant control on the 395.

 

[Uzi Nein Millimetah]

Very similar experience to my own. If you boost Ry2 you can get a kind of old Santana kind of tone - not for me though. Yeah Ld2 is tighter and a tiny bit more abrasive. But Lead 1 with the Graphic EQ is instant 80s Metallica, and highly addictive.

Ive never compared the 395 with the 2:90. The Presence knob is probably the most significant control on the 395.

Mesa Presence controls are always powerful. And on the amps, the rotary Treble is key to balance for cleans.

 

[Sick Michael]

For the Marshall tones, I could never get it to sound anything like the Marshalls Ive had (30th Anniversary, 2204). Its several things, its the note attack and the sneer and the Boogie "goop" is always present.

I always found it elusive. Even with a Pedal (MI Crunch Box, OCD, Suhr riot...) I just couldnt get it. Not that those were bad tones with those pedals but, it just wasnt there. Maybe through a Greenback Cab I might have got closer.

 

[ChurchHill]

FWIW, I've compared the 295, 395, and 290. The 295 is more, for lack of a better word, more vintage. It's not as big sounding, but still a great PA. The 290 seems to be the evolution of the 395, but has some Rectifier in it, too. The Deep seems different, more boomy, less tight, more harsh. The 395 just seems to have everything just right. It's all a matter of degrees, though. They're not terribly different.

 

[Sick Michael]

When I think of the Deep switch on the 3:95, the reference tone is Dogman (Kings X). Its just this mega low thump, but it also adds a bit of gooey squish (wtf...)