The eagle has landed

[AFKAEjay]

I did end up using the dry line out to send to the FM9.

Poweramps are so 2022 ;-)

looper —> preamp A —> Poweramp A —> CabinetA
I—> poweramp B l
I bet ya the difference is very small when played within their headroom.

 

[la szum]

The GEQ isn't really a "crutch" of the Mark amp so much as it is simply "the tonestack" just like every other amp has. Turning it off is the equivalent of setting the knobs on most any other amp at noon or, more accurately, because Marks are naturally "megaphone-through-an-AM-radio" mid heavy, turning off the GEQ is mostly like setting any other amp at bass 3, mids 10, treble 3.

Using the GEQ and cranking the bass slider as high as it will go and slamming the mid slider down is just about the same thing as setting bass 10, mids 0, treb 10 on a Marshall style amp, except not quite as bad on a Mark because again, Mark amps are such massively mid heavy amps that you're only mostly scooping them out when you do the classic V thing, and they can still sound relatively balanced as long as you don't overdo it.

But even then, Mark amp GEQ's have strange curves where they really don't do anything until most of the way through their travel. The vast majority of their effect happens in a very small area towards the extremes of the slider sweep, so it's very hard to tell just how much the EQ is shaping the tone of the amp by just looking at it.

Bottom line is that you should dial with your ears. Starting a Mark out with a slight V, not too extreme, is about the same as starting out with any other amp with the knobs at noon. Feel free to tweak from there. That's what the controls are for.

Not to quibble. But to quibble. I don't think that is wholly accurate Intel. GEQ and Tonestack is an apples
and oranges conversation. I'd never equate the two.


GEQ is post distortion/preamp.... so it acts differently than any kind of active or passive "tonestack"
on other tube amps.

And I do think that the GEQ can become a crutch. Lots of players leave it on by default and forget that
there is also a GREAT Mark-series amp with a lot of tonal options available BEFORE you get to post-distortion
by using the amp's tonestack in the preamp.

That was my only point. You don't have to assume it needs to be "On" and used in the standard V config.
There are many ways to use the GEQ---often as you would in post-production, or by micing an amp and
then using channel strips, EQs, and Mic Pres to further sculpt the sound. It can be dramatic. It can also be
subtle. 90% of Mark users, I would contend, forget about the subtle aspects... or leaving it "OFF,"... and
fail to discover all the other great tones in those amps that are right at their fingertips, too.

 

[GreatGreen]

Not to quibble. But to quibble. I don't think that is wholly accurate Intel. GEQ and Tonestack is an apples
and oranges conversation. I'd never equate the two.


GEQ is post distortion/preamp.... so it acts differently than any kind of active or passive "tonestack"
on other tube amps.

And I do think that the GEQ can become a crutch. Lots of players leave it on by default and forget that
there is also a GREAT Mark-series amp with a lot of tonal options available BEFORE you get to post-distortion
by using the amp's tonestack in the preamp.

That was my only point. You don't have to assume it needs to be "On" and used in the standard V config.
There are many ways to use the GEQ---often as you would in post-production, or by micing an amp and
then using channel strips, EQs, and Mic Pres to further sculpt the sound. It can be dramatic. It can also be
subtle. 90% of Mark users, I would contend, forget about the subtle aspects... or leaving it "OFF,"... and
fail to discover all the other great tones in those amps that are right at their fingertips, too.

All good friend.

I guess my response would be: where do you think the tonestack is located in *most* amps, and how is the Mark's GEQ different, really?

I suppose we might be getting bogged down by semantics here. I don't think of the Mark series' TMB controls as the amp's "tonestack" because they do an entirely different job than most other high gain tonestacks. The TMB controls in a Mark operate more like how most players use a GEQ before an amp's input, and the Mark's GEQ operates more like how most players use the tonestack in most other high gain amps, so that's how I think of it and talk about it.

To me it seems like the biggest problem is the labeling. If instead of "Treble, Mid, and Bass," the Mark series named the controls "Bright, Grind, and Fat" or something, then these conversations would be easier and people also probably wouldn't complain so much that Mark amps are hard to dial in because they wouldn't be confused by Mesa's strange decision to take the design language of the classic TMB 3-knob configuration that is almost universally understood to do the same specific job in every single other amp ever made, and place it in an entirely different part of the circuit in a Mark than in those other amps, but still uses the same naming convention and look as in all those other amps.

What I'm saying is that the GEQ in a Mark series amp is placed in the same relative place in the circuit (post preamp distortion) and serves exactly the same purpose as the Treble/Mid/Bass controls on most other high gain amps, so to me, that's the tonestack. The only real difference is that it's active instead of passive, and has 5 bands instead of three. Otherwise it does the exact same job as the TMB controls in a Recto, JCM 800, 5150, Ecstasy, Uberschall, etc. So, the Mark's GEQ is effectively its tonestack, while its three TMB knobs per channel are just simple pre-gain narrow band EQ level controls that determine the character of the distortion.

I do agree though that with most amps, even if you keep the post-EQ neutral, there's still a whole world of tones you can get just by manipulating the gain and EQ curve of the guitar as it goes into the amp's distortion stages, whether by pre-EQ pedal or by a Mark's TMB controls.

 

[laxu]

All good friend.

I guess my response would be: where do you think the tonestack is located in *most* amps, and how is the Mark's GEQ different, really?

I suppose we might be getting bogged down by semantics here. I don't think of the Mark series' TMB controls as the amp's "tonestack" because they do an entirely different job than most other high gain tonestacks. The TMB controls in a Mark operate more like how most players use a GEQ before an amp's input, and the Mark's GEQ operates more like how most players use the tonestack in most other high gain amps, so that's how I think of it and talk about it.

To me it seems like the biggest problem is the labeling. If instead of "Treble, Mid, and Bass," the Mark series named the controls "Bright, Grind, and Fat" or something, then these conversations would be easier and people also probably wouldn't complain so much that Mark amps are hard to dial in because they wouldn't be confused by Mesa's strange decision to take the classic TMB 3-knob design that is understood to do the same specific job in every single other amp ever made, and place it in an entirely different part of the circuit in a Mark than it's in with every other high gain amp ever made, but still uses the same naming convention and design language as those other amps.

What I'm saying is that the GEQ in a Mark series amp is placed in the same relative place in the circuit (post preamp distortion) and serves exactly the same purpose as the Treble/Mid/Bass controls on most other high gain amps, so to me, that's the tonestack. The only real difference is that it's active instead of passive, and has 5 bands instead of three. Otherwise it does the exact same job as the TMB controls in a Recto, JCM 800, 5150, Ecstasy, Uberschall, etc. So, the Mark's GEQ is effectively its tonestack, while its three TMB knobs per channel are just simple pre-gain narrow band EQ level controls.

I do agree though that with most amps, even if you keep the post-EQ neutral, there's still a whole world of tones you can get just by manipulating the gain and EQ curve of the guitar as it goes into the amp's distortion stages, whether by pre-EQ pedal or by a Mark's TMB controls.

I'd add that the TMB controls are afaik more similar to how they are in a Fender circuit. Marshall type amps put them later on to where the GEQ is so it's basically having both in one amp. As you know the TMB is more effective at shaping the character and drive of the sound.

The Mark series is perhaps a victim of its history too. If you say "Mark IIC" in the same phrase as "Mark VII" there is an expectation that if you dial in e.g Metallica's IIC settings on the TMB and GEQ you get (roughly) the same sound. So instead of figuring out something that could give you more flexibility on each channel, it's the TMB per channel into the same single GEQ which is limiting. IMO the JP2C dual GEQ would have been a great feature on on the Mark VII to differentiate it from the V.

It's funny how majority of guitar amps have never evolved beyond the basic TMB despite plenty of attempts in the 1980s/1990s. Every new amp coming to market is just treble, mid, bass, maybe presence and depth. Nobody bothers to implement for example separate low/high mid controls despite those being very useful for finetuning the midrange so it doesn't get thin, tubby, honky or too aggressive. Meanwhile it's standard to have e.g parametric mids on bass amps because apparently bassists have a few more braincells than us guitarists.

Not to mention even within that TMB framework, my BluGuitar Amp 1's treble/bass shelf filter + mid filter is infinitely more effective than the "does almost nothing" EQ of a typical Marshall.

 

[Stratzrus]

Nobody bothers to implement for example separate low/high mid controls despite those being very useful for finetuning the midrange so it doesn't get thin, tubby, honky or too aggressive. Meanwhile it's standard to have e.g parametric mids on bass amps because apparently bassists have a few more braincells than us guitarists.

I've been saying this for years.

I noticed how helpful having low and high mid controls was on my Markbass bass amp and suggested it to a few guitar amp builders.

Crickets.

 

[ejecta]

I've been saying this for years.

I noticed how helpful having low and high mid controls was on my Markbass bass amp and suggested it to a few guitar amp builders.

Crickets.

Yes! I have a Markbass head for my bass rig and noticed that and thought the same. I’d take the mids controls being split it upper and lower on guitar amps.

 

[spawnofthesith]

I've been saying this for years.

I noticed how helpful having low and high mid controls was on my Markbass bass amp and suggested it to a few guitar amp builders.

Crickets.

The ENGL Steve Morse has separate high and low mid knobs. Such a great feature, miss that amp. More amps should definitely have this

 

[GuitarBilly]

Yeah the ENGL E530 preamp has hi/lo mids controls too. Really useful.

 

[GreatGreen]

I'd add that the TMB controls are afaik more similar to how they are in a Fender circuit. Marshall type amps put them later on to where the GEQ is so it's basically having both in one amp. As you know the TMB is more effective at shaping the character and drive of the sound.

The Mark series is perhaps a victim of its history too. If you say "Mark IIC" in the same phrase as "Mark VII" there is an expectation that if you dial in e.g Metallica's IIC settings on the TMB and GEQ you get (roughly) the same sound. So instead of figuring out something that could give you more flexibility on each channel, it's the TMB per channel into the same single GEQ which is limiting. IMO the JP2C dual GEQ would have been a great feature on on the Mark VII to differentiate it from the V.

It's funny how majority of guitar amps have never evolved beyond the basic TMB despite plenty of attempts in the 1980s/1990s. Every new amp coming to market is just treble, mid, bass, maybe presence and depth. Nobody bothers to implement for example separate low/high mid controls despite those being very useful for finetuning the midrange so it doesn't get thin, tubby, honky or too aggressive. Meanwhile it's standard to have e.g parametric mids on bass amps because apparently bassists have a few more braincells than us guitarists.

Not to mention even within that TMB framework, my BluGuitar Amp 1's treble/bass shelf filter + mid filter is infinitely more effective than the "does almost nothing" EQ of a typical Marshall.

I agree on all points.

I think the way the Mark series names its modes, basically by calling out previous Mark amps, can kind of short circuit the creativity of the player for dialing tones. Who doesn't see "Mark IIC+" mode and immediately think old Metallica, Dream Theater, or whatever other shortlist of 80's bands that used them, and start dialing that way? Same with Mark IV mode and all those 90's and 2000's metal and punk bands. However I'd also imagine it's kind of a double edged sword, as switching an amp over to "Mark IIC+" mode could certainly be argued to be more inspirational than whatever else they'd likely name that mode, so who knows, hah.

To your second point about how amps have evolved so little in the last 40 years... yeah it's kind of a shame. A couple years back Fractal Audio did something you'd think was subtle, they added a "High Treble" EQ knob to the tonestack of all the Fractal amp models in the advanced section of each model's controls, effectively giving all of the models a 4-band tonestack, and it's exactly what it sounds like, another Treble control that mostly covers the higher "Presency" frequencies of the preamp. And just that simple, tiny addition opened up a whole world of options for every amp. It effectively gives you direct control of each amp's "sizzle" for lack of a better term. When you have direct control of those frequencies, suddenly you can dial in every other control without worrying about how "fizzy" the amp will get, so suddenly you've got a lot more usable range in the standard Treble knob, the Gain knob, even the Master Volume, etc.

So yeah it's bonkers to me that like 95% of amp builders, even modern high gain amp builders, have stuck so religiously to only offering 3-band post EQ's and absolutely zero pre-gain controls for so long. They'll give you all the bright switches and extra gain stage switches they can cram onto the front panel, but heaven forbid anybody adds so much as a pre-gain Low Cut control, much less additional Low Mid or High Treble EQ controls. Apparently a million switches are fine but any new, scary knobs would be entirely too much for today's guitar players.

 

[la szum]

Great posts in here.


You'd think some kind of sweepable Parametric Mids control would be standard.


Some of the rackmount preamps have had that feature. Never seen anything like that
on a tube amp, though.

 

[mbenigni]

throw that helix GEQ in the loop with a classic V shape when you run it through that 4x12 and share your results

If anyone is still curious about my Express 5:25 exploits, I did run it into a closed-back 4x12 with HX Stomp in 4cm to experiment with various overdrive, EQ, and attenuation options. Outcome was very positive! Cutting the overall level at the FX loop definitely made the Master volume easier to wrangle, and post-EQ made the amp a lot more versatile overall (which really should have occurred to me sooner.) I'm not doing anything as extreme as the classic MkII "V shape" - just moderate cuts in the middle, and subtle cuts up top to darken and smooth things out a bit.

Once I got a feel for what was possible, I plugged the 10" speaker (in the combo itself) back in and redialed everything, and I got that little box sounding pretty ferocious! Now the only challenge is I want to add a MIDI channel switcher - which means another cable. I can get HX preamps direct to the Express' FX return sounding very, very good, but not quite as good as the Mesa's own preamp.

I'm thinking about pulling the spring tank out to make room to semi-permanently mount the HX Stomp in the cabinet. (I'd control it with MIDI.) But I don't know if I have to take any other measures (e.g. removing a tube) to safely run the amp without the tank in place.

 

[la szum]

So where you at with the Mesas on the gigging front, JT? Any new thoughts on moving forward?

 

[JT]

So where you at with the Mesas on the gigging front, JT? Any new thoughts on moving forward?

I posted in the "Adding boosts..." thread. I picked up a slightly bigger board. GR55 and HX Stomp will fit on there as well as my pedal power, wah, curated drive for front of amp use and mayyyyyyybe the Badlander single switch. The Stomp can switch channels on the VII. I can use this board with either amp as I so choose. Next gig is on Cinco de Mayo so we will be giving the VII with a Grid Slammer a go I gave up on the whole no boosts thing (unsurprisingly )