Mesa's Lone Star: An Under-Appreciated, Still Solid, Amp

[László]

damn. i never j


yeah for sure- both of us had played mesas previously and we weren't getting anything that worked- but im gonna say its likely we just needed to dial in like a mark with the bass, and at this point, it was long enough ago that cant remember what we did. i do remember that we grappled with volume levels, and im sure that didnt help either.

Very possible. Then, too, you know how singers can be great in certain styles and not others, and there are keys that they have just the right range for, others not?

It's kinda trial and error sometimes to pick which amp options to go with for a given style or piece.

 

[mk5]

Tried and tried to gel with the LS. The cleans are amazing but I could not make the dirt work.

Really liked the Maverick before it. Less cleans, but the lead channel was a bit more my style

 

[László]

Tried and tried to gel with the LS. The cleans are amazing but I could not make the dirt work.

I had a problem with the dirt, too.

I solved my conundrum by rethinking what the amp could be. Instead of going for a clean channel and a gain channel, I set the lead channel up like the clean channel, but with a little more saturation and breakup. Turning the guitar volume up or down gives me the feel and control I want, and I use it much as I would two versions of a single channel amp.

For that, it shines.

I also installed NOS Siemens EL34s to achieve a bit tighter bottom end on both channels, and especially to change the texture of the overdriven sound. The change is subtle, but the amp has been far more satisfying, and it's been here 9 years, which in my studio is a lifetime. I like that little edge that EL34s exhibit.

The NOS tubes work well. They aren't harsh, they don't ring like bells as new tubes do, and they make an amp a more satisfying long-term experience. I don't get antsy.

With the Mark VII, I could get by without the Lone Star, but for now my thinking is just set 'em both up to do different things, which they're very capable of. So I'm enjoying them both.

Really liked the Maverick before it. Less cleans, but the lead channel was a bit more my style

I liked the Maverick, too. Kind of reminded me of my Tremoverb, only with EL84s instead of 6L6s or EL34s. I had one for several years, and cut some very good tracks with it. Recorded very well.

 

[HotRats]

Never played an actual Lonestar but the Helix model is among my favorite helix amps.

 

[László]

Never played an actual Lonestar but the Helix model is among my favorite helix amps.

Of all the modelers, I like the personality of the Helix. I don't have one, with the amps in the studio I'm covered. But if I played out, I'm a bit too ancient to drag around amps - that's the one I'd probably be most comfortable using.

 

[metropolis_4]

Anyone saying "brand X only made good amps in Y decade" is usually full of shit and ignoring things like increasing complexity of amps and production methods intended to make them cheaper to manufacture so people don't have to spend as much money. If they had their way we would all be spending $6K on handwired single channel amps, and 99% of us would never repair those ourselves anyway.

I’m not following you. Why does increased complexity and cheaper manufacturing mean an amp is still good? It seems to me it’s exactly because of those reasons that people say “Brand X stopped making good amps after Y decade”.

And that’s a lot of hyperbole to say a single channel hardwired amp has to cost $6K. Most of them cost a fraction of that. It’s hard to even find ones that are in that price range. There aren’t many.

 

[laxu]

I’m not following you. Why does increased complexity and cheaper manufacturing mean an amp is still good? It seems to me it’s exactly because of those reasons that people say “Brand X stopped making good amps after Y decade”.

And that’s a lot of hyperbole to say a single channel hardwired amp has to cost $6K. Most of them cost a fraction of that. It’s hard to even find ones that are in that price range. There aren’t many.

It's usually a "It's not handwired, therefore it's crap" mentality, often from people who own e.g vintage Fenders and Marshalls, or other relatively simple amps from a specific era. The claim is often not rooted in reality and newer amps are not necessarily better or worse, just different.

 

[metropolis_4]

It's usually a "It's not handwired, therefore it's crap" mentality, often from people who own e.g vintage Fenders and Marshalls, or other relatively simple amps from a specific era. The claim is often not rooted in reality and newer amps are not necessarily better or worse, just different.

I think that view is overly reductionist. There are tons of valid reasons that have to do with real experiences that have nothing to do with “It's not handwired, therefore it's crap”. Also, I think a lot of people who said that said it because they knew something wasn’t as good as it used to be, but they didn’t know exactly why so they decided it must be the hand wiring.

The problem is, anytime there is an introduction of something new it takes a while to perfect the new technology. Early iterations aren’t as good, and therefore early adopters turn on it as “not as good” and hold that view forever.

Early Solid State amps weren’t very good so people adopted the belief that SS sucks and still hold onto it even though new SS amps can be great.

Early PCB amps weren’t as reliable because they were made to cut costs and the quality of the boards tended to be cheap. So people adopted the belief that PCB isn’t as good and still hold onto it even though newer PCB amps can be every bit as good and reliable.

I believe the same thing happened with highly complex amps. I remember playing Mesa amps from the late ‘90s and thinking they sounded terrible. It seemed to me like the more complicated they made them the worse they seemed to sound. They were dull, muffled, uninspiring sounding amps to me. And I assumed it was because of the complexity of the circuit.

I still think there is something to be said for a simple circuit, but the first time I played a Mark V it made me realize I was wrong about complex amps. That amp sounded fantastic, 1,000x better than anything I’d heard from a Mesa in the last 20 years.

The fact is, sometimes newer amps are worse. But also sometimes they are better. Being new or old has very little to do with it.

I’ve never seen a situation where cost cutting measures from a company result in a better sounding more dependable product though. Typically it’s the opposite

 

[laxu]

The problem is, anytime there is an introduction of something new it takes a while to perfect the new technology. Early iterations aren’t as good, and therefore early adopters turn on it as “not as good” and hold that view forever.

Early Solid State amps weren’t very good so people adopted the belief that SS sucks and still hold onto it even though new SS amps can be great.

Early PCB amps weren’t as reliable because they were made to cut costs and the quality of the boards tended to be cheap. So people adopted the belief that PCB isn’t as good and still hold onto it even though newer PCB amps can be every bit as good and reliable.

I believe the same thing happened with highly complex amps. I remember playing Mesa amps from the late ‘90s and thinking they sounded terrible. It seemed to me like the more complicated they made them the worse they seemed to sound. They were dull, muffled, uninspiring sounding amps to me. And I assumed it was because of the complexity of the circuit.

These are very good examples and pretty much what I was trying to explain. Drawing the wrong conclusion based on something unrelated to the technology itself.

You could add the "I tried a Line6 Flextone in the 1990s, therefore digital sucks" to that.

I still think there is something to be said for a simple circuit, but the first time I played a Mark V it made me realize I was wrong about complex amps. That amp sounded fantastic, 1,000x better than anything I’d heard from a Mesa in the last 20 years.

What many don't understand is that when it comes to what is actually in the signal path at any given time, the amp with 3-4 channels is not necessarily much more complicated than the single channel amp. It just all seems way more complex because you have e.g several separate preamps, and of course that means a lot more knobs and switches.

The fact is, sometimes newer amps are worse. But also sometimes they are better. Being new or old has very little to do with it.

I’ve never seen a situation where cost cutting measures from a company result in a better sounding more dependable product though. Typically it’s the opposite

I can agree with that - but that was not really what I meant. Making a complex PCB amp is going to be simply more practical, and cheaper. Sometimes even the only way if you want it to be compact too.

 

[László]

I didn't mean to create a controversy over old vs new, or hand wired vs circuit board amps; just mentioned it because the Lone Star flew under the radar compared to, say, the Mark amps or the Dual and Triple Rectos.

It's simply a very fine amp that works well in contexts that are not at all alike, such as my son's and my own. It's versatile, sounds good, and lasts a long time without giving the owner problems.

In terms of hand-wired amps, my hand wired newer amps, and old black panel Bassman, etc., often do/did a certain thing more to my taste and playing style.

But none of them do everything I need an amp to do (nor do the Mesas). Each does its own set of things well.

However, the Mesas are very versatile, and with a careful selection of tubes and speakers, sound nearly as good and do more things that are truly useful.

I love amps. They're my favorite part of the signal chain. I run five amps in the studio now, and only three electric guitars - and I'd buy yet another amp if the right one turned up at the right time (though I'm pretty conservative, since that happens only once in about 5 years) instead of another guitar!