Sold My Mark V this is why (lengthy)

[Stumplegriltskin]

Mine sounds way better after I've been using it for a 1/2 hour or so

 

[dfrattaroli]

One thing I've learned the hard way is that Marks change as they get hotter. At this stage I believe Mesa knows this and it's intentional as every Mark and Mark inspired design have tubes down chassis in head form whereas their other amps go tubes up.

The way it worked for me is that I'd fire it up cold and it would sound harsh/thin/stiff/etc so I'd reach down and dial in a nice sound, then as it warmed up dial it started to round out and get muddy so I'd reach down and tweak it some more.... only I wouldn't go back to my original settings because in my head those are now bad so I'd try something new, and then I'd tweak and tweak and tweak until I finally wind up on or near my original settings.

Once I stopped dialing in my Mark cold the amp became less "touchy", I stopped chasing my own tail and most of my "it never sounds the same twice" issues went away.

Great point. This was also the case with my Mark IV's.

 

[anomaly]

I find with Mesa Mark's (On the Lead Channel) the regular parametric EQ changes the distortion's character and feel...bringing up the treble gives the amp more gain in the top spectrum but not really adding too much more treble, same with the bass knob, it added flub more than actual bass... The graphic is what really changes the frequencies coming out of the speakers, and the regular EQ is more a feel thing... If that makes sense? Both are very important to the tone, but the regular EQ on a Mesa Mark is like twisting knobs on a booster pedal before the amp, not as dramatic as the Graphic. And everything is interactive, so yes it can be very touchy. I remember my Mark III sounding different day to day... Pissed me off. It sounded amazing on those good days though. and that is just the lead channel. Everything changes when using the clean, cause the regular EQ acts more like a regular EQ on the clean channel...

 

[4406cuda]

I find with Mesa Mark's (On the Lead Channel) the regular parametric EQ changes the distortion's character and feel...bringing up the treble gives the amp more gain in the top spectrum but not really adding too much more treble, same with the bass knob, it added flub more than actual bass... The graphic is what really changes the frequencies coming out of the speakers, and the regular EQ is more a feel thing... If that makes sense? Both are very important to the tone, but the regular EQ on a Mesa Mark is like twisting knobs on a booster pedal before the amp, not as dramatic as the Graphic. And everything is interactive, so yes it can be very touchy. I remember my Mark III sounding different day to day... Pissed me off. It sounded amazing on those good days though. and that is just the lead channel. Everything changes when using the clean, cause the regular EQ acts more like a regular EQ on the clean channel...

Exactly, the treble knob add more gain on channel 2 and 3 on my Mark V. The graphic eq is where you want to do your tone shaping.

Many guitarist have a difficult time dialing in a Mark series amp. It is nothing like dialing in a Marshall.

 

[bgh]

I find with Mesa Mark's (On the Lead Channel) the regular parametric EQ changes the distortion's character and feel...bringing up the treble gives the amp more gain in the top spectrum but not really adding too much more treble, same with the bass knob, it added flub more than actual bass... The graphic is what really changes the frequencies coming out of the speakers, and the regular EQ is more a feel thing... If that makes sense? Both are very important to the tone, but the regular EQ on a Mesa Mark is like twisting knobs on a booster pedal before the amp, not as dramatic as the Graphic. And everything is interactive, so yes it can be very touchy. I remember my Mark III sounding different day to day... Pissed me off. It sounded amazing on those good days though. and that is just the lead channel. Everything changes when using the clean, cause the regular EQ acts more like a regular EQ on the clean channel...

Exactly, the treble knob add more gain on channel 2 and 3 on my Mark V. The graphic eq is where you want to do your tone shaping.

Many guitarist have a difficult time dialing in a Mark series amp. It is nothing like dialing in a Marshall.

I've learned that to dial in a Mesa (at least all the ones that I have owned) you have to use your ears and not your eyes. Sometimes, the setting that looks odd is the one that actually sounds best.

 

[borninwinter]

On a Mark v, If you run the treble knob at 8-9 (position, not oclock), presence at 4-6, mid at 4-5, bright switch on, and v on the geq, you will have a as much gain as anyone could ever need. Gain knob at 5-7, beyond that you get into evh levels (ie too much). The sound will not be overly bright, but clear and well balanced. Mark v has 5 gain stages on Ch 3. That should be plenty...

 

[hatrick00]

Nice, I just got a blackface 2 channel dual rec, and it's pretty beast!

 

[hatrick00]

My revision f is in the 1200s serial number. I say that it is in the rotation among my Nitro, JJ, archon, 5150III. I'm running it through the friedman cab which tightens it up pretty good, not even boosting it and sounds awesome. Not friedman or Splawn awesome but it is solid. Just my opinion. Def worth the money for a blackface..

 

[Guitarnobody]

The Mark V is a great amp, but not for everyone...

 

[blackba]

One thing I've learned the hard way is that Marks change as they get hotter. At this stage I believe Mesa knows this and it's intentional as every Mark and Mark inspired design have tubes down chassis in head form whereas their other amps go tubes up.

The way it worked for me is that I'd fire it up cold and it would sound harsh/thin/stiff/etc so I'd reach down and dial in a nice sound, then as it warmed up dial it started to round out and get muddy so I'd reach down and tweak it some more.... only I wouldn't go back to my original settings because in my head those are now bad so I'd try something new, and then I'd tweak and tweak and tweak until I finally wind up on or near my original settings.

Once I stopped dialing in my Mark cold the amp became less "touchy", I stopped chasing my own tail and most of my "it never sounds the same twice" issues went away.

I find all amps change as they get fully warmed up over the course of the night, but so do our ears. On my mark IV sometimes I find I don't need to tweak at all, other times I do.

As for the tubes pointing down, remember the mark I started out as a modified fender with the tubes pointing down. This is why I think Mesa retains that arrangement. I think having tubes pointing up is a better design in terms of handling heat and in terms of the tubes staying in the sockets. Marshall combos where the tubes hangs down are notorious for running very hot compared to the heads.

 

[BrentSSL]

I feel like thats the Marks biggest problem is they are so far off from those modified fenders. I feel like Mesa should go back to the drawing board because the 5150iii slays it IMHO

 

[Schaf]

I sold my Mark III cause it didn't quite have the rhythm punch i like. It's a good amp but they can be really mid dominant...

You aren't kidding either! All Mesa Mark III here...

That's a jcm800 dude.

"Angel Dust" was the album that was all Mark III, and the tone does kinda suck. Great album though.

My friend Kelly and I were doing trips with the bass player back in '89. He said that Jim used a Mesa Mark III amplifier on those recordings. I've owned three JCM's, and that doesn't sound like a Marshall to me. A cold biased Marshall with EQ maybe?

That album was recorded with a Marshall, i'm absolutely certain of it, Jim stated so in many interviews around that time. Jim did start using Marks on the Real Thing tour though, i believe? but "Angel Dust" was the first album with Mesa Mark's, just listen to Angel Dust... there's a very strong contrast when you compare it "The Real Thing". Big difference.

The tone sounds exactly like the Mark III that I had. So if it was recorded with a Marshall, it had a Mark III sound. And I have an 800 now, which I much prefer to the Boogie. Except the clean tone was awesome on the Mark.

 

[Sick Michael]

I think that FNM album is Marshall.

I have a mesa quad preamp which has the mark III preamp. I'd be pleasantly surprised if I could get the tone of The Real Thing....I'm convinced I can't. It sounds to me like Les Paul into jcm 800, with highs rolled back a little.

 

[anomaly]

I think that FNM album is Marshall.

I have a mesa quad preamp which has the mark III preamp. I'd be pleasantly surprised if I could get the tone of The Real Thing....I'm convinced I can't. It sounds to me like Les Paul into jcm 800, with highs rolled back a little.

I think it was a Gibson V into a Marshall 2203, I believe... Jim said the tubes were on their last legs when recording that album and you can kinda notice that on a few songs.

"Angel Dust" is very obviously a Mark III, as it's got that signature mid honk of a Mesa Mark sound going on... but The Real Thing is all Marshall. Just listen to the cover of "War Pigs"... there's that signature ca-chang of a cranked jcm-800. When you compare those two albums the differences are pretty significant.

After Angel Dust, I believe they hired Trey Spruance (Mr. Bungle) to record guitars for the "King For a Day" album. He used a Marshall jmp-1 pre-amp into a Marshall or Mesa poweramp... I always believed he had the best tone out of the FNM guitarists. Then there's Jon Hudson (current FNM guitarist) and he's another Marshall guy and uses JCM-800's, but he also layered some dual recto on "Album of the Year". I think he's got a really stock kinda tone... nothing unique, but it's good.