laxu
Rock Star
- Messages
- 5,242
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.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.
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.