Back to the big daddy Mark V

[Nicklotsaguitars]

I'm actually very thrilled with 6L6s. Which is also amazing and a complete turn around from my previous Mark V experiences.

It feels like, some how, I stumbled on something that showcases this amp as it was actually intended, and it's a complete badass.

I'm just not a fan of kinkless tetrode valves. I've kept my 6L6's because you're right. There is something magical about them. The mid scoop of the 6L6's overcomes some of the aggressive mids of the amp. I don't like them, but I don't like them enough to be without them. If you know what I mean.
I was the same with my 2203KK. I had to get rid of the KT88's. I wouldn't mind trying them in the MarkV. As the amp has tone controls that work.

I wonder why you're noticing such a stark difference between this amp and your old one? From watching the Mesa vid where they show all the old prototype chassis'. Randal Smith says that they use circuit boards so their amps can be uniform.
Do you think you had a dud before or that they've revised the circuit?
My amp was made in August 2014. I came to that amp from being a strictly plug in and play guitarist. Les Paul junior or Mosrite straight into a 2203. The Mark V is the polar opposite of that. It matters where you put the dials. Yet I've taken to it like a duck to water. All the complaints about the amp seem to be from years ago.
I'd be interested to see if my circuitboard has a revision number on it.

 

[Bullen]

In the interests of science I tried some quick A/Bing.

If I'm just plugged into the combo with the fx loop engaged and using the regular output control to monitor volume, I'm pretty much back to the anemic, dead sounding Mark V that I gave up last year.

Floor coupling

Right now I've got my Mark V combo sitting on top of a 2x12 rectifier cabinet. The cabinet is not on wheels.

Plugging into the 2x12 recto and the combo makes a HUGE difference in tone. I believe this is due to floor coupling and not JUST the fact that I've got a bass-heavy closed back speaker added into the mix because I noticed the same qualities just using the combo amp when it was on the floor downstairs.

So I'm never, ever going to use this amp on wheels or off of the floor without plugging into a cabinet that is on floor already.

fx loop
Disabling the fx loop or using the solo function to dial in the desired playing volume both work very well. I can't tell for sure if they sound identical or not, but using the regular volume

Either way, there's definite additional umph that comes into play either way. Mark IIC+ sounds like the real deal to me. Can't stop playing Metallica once I've got the amp set up this way. Mark IV with pentode sounds like a thunderclap. Totally amazing.

So, if you are suffering from sh!t Mark V tone, try a) putting the speaker on the floor and b) disabling the fx loop or using the solo knob to dial in your regular guitar volume.

This amp is now at the top of the heap for me, hands down. I love it.

I had a Mark V since 09 and sold it a few months ago. I always used my Mark V with a 2x12 or 4x12 on the floor and I never used the loop unless I used something in it and I always felt that the V was missing something in the lead channels.

It was a bit too thin and bland sounding to me compared to the earlier Marks. Not enough chunk and beef to the tone. Don't get me wrong I liked the V a lot. It's a great amp. Crunch mode is great, clean modes are great. Lead modes are very good but not as organic and chunky as the III or IV to me. I don't know if Mesa has done any tweaking with the newer ones (I had a very early V) or if mine was a bit of a dud. I tried different tubes and to me me it sounded the best with Mesa Russian 2 (ehx) in the preamp, but I could never quite get out of it what I can with my other Marks. The JP 2C is a lot more up my alley. I'm really starting to love that amp.

Just my opinion. It's great that we have different amps for different tastes and if you love your amp that's great! I will probably try the V again someday and perhaps it will be more to my taste then.

 

[Dreamtheaterrules]

DLP, regarding the loop. Disengaging it removes gain stages, but also removes the master volume. Well DUH, right? No, you have to think about that when you say it adds extra OOOMPH by disengaging it.

I read early on that you needed to keep individual channel masters near noon or above to sound best, when using the loop/master. But if you do that and then say have the master on 10:00, 11:00, wherever, and the channel volumes are at noon, remember that with the master volume engaged you have pulled that way back with the master. Meaning, 12:00 on say C2 is true halfway up, if the master isn't engaged. But if the master is engaged, unless it's all the way up, your aren't half way up because you have two volume controls in the path now. So noon on the channel is much louder than noon on the channel and 10:00 on the master for example. Noon and noon is starting to get close (depends on other settings) and with the master all the way up its louder or more gain, than when it's disengaged.

I'm simply saying, you can't fairly compare Channel volume at noon with the loop/master engaged vs disengaged. If you really want to compare the tone, roll the master up to where it's the same exact volume when it's engaged as when it's not. Oh, and start with the loop volume on the back around noon as well. You are introducing some variables with you engage the loop, but actually more gain stages. If you have the loop and master set right, I found (initial testing, haven't done a tone since) that it sounds better with the loop engaged. And NO question it's more convenient. Wife walks in and says "too loud. Take some more lessons before you play that loud" and I turn down the master and all 3 channels go down equally, instead of resetting all 3 channel volumes. Next day, wife is out in the garden, I turn it up louder than it was, and all three channels go up and are still matched.

 

[dlpasco]

DLP, regarding the loop. Disengaging it removes gain stages, but also removes the master volume. Well DUH, right? No, you have to think about that when you say it adds extra OOOMPH by disengaging it.

I read early on that you needed to keep individual channel masters near noon or above to sound best, when using the loop/master. But if you do that and then say have the master on 10:00, 11:00, wherever, and the channel volumes are at noon, remember that with the master volume engaged you have pulled that way back with the master. Meaning, 12:00 on say C2 is true halfway up, if the master isn't engaged. But if the master is engaged, unless it's all the way up, your aren't half way up because you have two volume controls in the path now. So noon on the channel is much louder than noon on the channel and 10:00 on the master for example. Noon and noon is starting to get close (depends on other settings) and with the master all the way up its louder or more gain, than when it's disengaged.

I'm simply saying, you can't fairly compare Channel volume at noon with the loop/master engaged vs disengaged. If you really want to compare the tone, roll the master up to where it's the same exact volume when it's engaged as when it's not. Oh, and start with the loop volume on the back around noon as well. You are introducing some variables with you engage the loop, but actually more gain stages. If you have the loop and master set right, I found (initial testing, haven't done a tone since) that it sounds better with the loop engaged. And NO question it's more convenient. Wife walks in and says "too loud. Take some more lessons before you play that loud" and I turn down the master and all 3 channels go down equally, instead of resetting all 3 channel volumes. Next day, wife is out in the garden, I turn it up louder than it was, and all three channels go up and are still matched.

All that I'm saying is that, to my ears, the main output control appears to be the primary culprit for tone suck, at least at low to moderate volumes.

It's apparently not the fx loop itself, and it sounds really good when you've engaged solo mode instead of using the output volume control.

If you use the solo boost as your primary volume instead, you can have the loop active, keep your wife happy, and sound better.

And, from what I've seen, both disabling the fx loop entirely or engaging it and controlling your volume by the solo control instead of the output BOTH seem to sound great.

 

[APEMAN]

-

 

[Dreamtheaterrules]

D, I wasn't criticizing your method or findings, I was just trying to say what would make the A/B-ing more fair. I read and re-read the manual on the loop, loop volume, master etc., and read all the comments here about keeping channel volumes at or above noon when using the master. That DID make the amp come alive for me. Didn't need the solo on, nor the loop off. And I read all the comments about the loop sucking tone but read many that said if you turn the loop volume up to where it should be, it not only wouldn't suck tone by many said it sounded better. When I did my first test of that, it did sound better on...once I set the loop volume up some. Heck, I'll add this... the guy that sold it to me said he really liked it but it just didn't "blow him away." He said he'd send it to me just like he used it. The loop volume being adjusted to where it should be, from where he had it, made a HUGE difference. I wondered if he'd ever heard it sound as good as I heard it 20 minutes after getting it. It really did make the amp sound weaker and not nearly as impressive. Want to guess what he said when I asked him? He ran it with the loop off because it sounded better! Where he had the loop volume at, it DID! Where I have it, I thought it sounded better on.

All I was pointing out, was that when you engage or disengage things that significantly affect the volume, of course it will sound different. So, if I were comparing the TONE of solo on vs. off, the only fair way to compare them is when you turn solo off, turn the channel volume up to the exact volume it was with solo on. That's all I was trying to clarify. And one easy way to check that, is to set the solo level so that it doesn't affect the volume at all when engaged. Then, does it affect the tone? When I tried that initially, it didn't. Of course, when it's kicking the volume up, it did!

It's a complicated amp! Engaging the loop and the master adds gain stages and two volume controls as well. Don't get both right, and yeah, it probably sucks tone.

Moral: Do what works for you! Rock on! I think I have the amp sounding great all over the place. Different settings every day and I can dial them in quickly, but I'll revisit the loop off and see what I think.

All that said, one night last week I accidentally turned the loop off. That night, the amp was LOUD and I was rocking out and thinking "holy crap this thing is loud and I didn't touch anything. It sounded really good that night, indeed, but it was significantly louder than the nights before. After about 30 minutes, I turned the master down some and nothing happened. I quickly realized why and when I turned the loop back on the volume dropped significantly, and of course, the amp didn't sound as powerful or alive. The master was at 10:00-10:30 though. When I turned it up to noon, it was about as loud as before and at quick listen, sounded as good. That jibed with what I had read and was part of the reason for my posts above. I will revisit it though.

 

[MrSmitty]

Daniel: I'm glad this is working for you. And as I mentioned before... I'm surprised you got another MkV. That crunch clip you posted was very cool.

Re: Having the cabinet coupled with the floor, the Mesa manual(s) even suggest doing that. I ALWAYS play with my cabs directly on the floor, with the exception of when I use the GRAMMA isolation riser, which is a great product BTW for live/mic'd gigs and home recording. I actually made a comparison (some of you may have seen already) video of: the cab on the floor, on wheels and the isolation board. There IS definitely tonal/dynamic difference that GEQ will not necessarily always fix.

I usually run my channel masters around 11:00-noon, and the output about 10:30. Yeah, at "bedroom" levels the amps sounds ok. I use solo boost and the FX a lot, so I deal with the slight tone suck. But when the amp is cranked and at 90 watts...its just sounds great either way!

 

[nitefly]

The JP-2C revolt continues haha

 

[barryswanson]

I've been saying this for years re: fx loop tone suck. I've compromised by leaving the output knob at 11 o'clock if I need to use the loop. I also post a few years back about the tone shift when using the solo knob. Sounds more open to me.

 

[Nicklotsaguitars]

I too like the sound of the solo control. I always put it down to enjoying more volume.
I implemented Mesa's 2nd volume control into my 2203KK. It's an easy easy mod. Just so I don't have to have pedals in front of me when I gig that rig. Been using that for 3 years now can't say I've noticed anything aside from a volume jump. To the point that when setting up I have to go crazy with the 2nd volume just so I know where the amp is switched to.

 

[Dreamtheaterrules]

I've been saying this for years re: fx loop tone suck. I've compromised by leaving the output knob at 11 o'clock if I need to use the loop. I also post a few years back about the tone shift when using the solo knob. Sounds more open to me.

Ok, I only played the V25 last night, but I'll definitely check these things out right away.

Glad we are discussing this as there is a lot to learn on this amp.

I settled into a mode of going weeks where all three channels were on 45 watt mode and variac power. And every tone I dial up is great! No weak anemic tones anywhere, and I'm using half power and variac. I'll flip them over to 90, or Full power, or both, but I've mostly stayed in 45 watt mode, and most nights variac. Still haven't put anything in the loop yet, but have had it on most of the time, volume at noon. I'll post some results after playing with the loop and solo.

I appreciate you guys sharing your thoughts on this.

 

[IronSean]

Hey guys, some of this got cleared up already, but some clarifications about the Solo Knob:

Despite what the manual says, it's not just another knob in parallel, and switching to it doesn't just work the exact same as if you'd subbed over to a second knob. If you want any proof of that, just follow this logic: If you were just switching from one pot to the other, then having the Solo set lower than the master would make the volume lower when you switched to it. Since it doesn't work like that, obviously something else is going on.

If you look at the schematic, page 7, you can see where the circuit for the loop, master, and bypass are defined. If it's bypassed it just goes straight from the EQ circuit into the phase inverter. IF you don't bypass, then there's the send level pot affecting volume out to the loop (like the master control on the old Mark IIC+, etc) and a gain stage in V6 to make up the volume on the way back in. Then you have the output pot with two possible configurations:
1)Normal, with it's one signal in one terminal, out another, and the third terminal connected to ground
or
2) Signal in the one side, out the middle, and the third terminal going to the solo pot, affecting the resistance to ground.

I assume this essentially changes the balance between signal flowing to ground and flowing to the output stages, where with no resistor it's very easy to flow to ground instead of the output, but as resistance rises it gets funnelled to the output stages. A poster above who knows more than I said this whole collection of components acts as a filter and adding the additional pot changes how it works, and I could believe that. If that filter is what's making the amp feel a bit lifeless, then I could see how bypassing the loop entirely, or engaging the solo could alleviate that.

If I had more time, I'd try and figure out and calculate exactly what that filter might be doing at different settings of master and solo, but I'm not sure where to start. Maybe someone else can.

 

[Nicklotsaguitars]

When you look at the schem, tell me if the solo function is like this, between the tonestack and the PI

 

[IronSean]

Also, for the different volume controls and gain stages, it helps to have an idea what they each do and where they work so you know why you might or might not want your channel volumes at noon.


On the old Mark series amps (MarkIIC+ in particular), you'd get a volume AND a lead drive, which could affect the gain into your second gain stage, and then the lead drive, which controlled the gain into the third gain stage in the lead circuit. Then the lead master controlled the volume into the effects loop and reverb, and the master controlled the volume into the GEQ, and from there the power amp.


So you had in the Mark IIC+:
input -> V1A -> EQ + Vol -> V1B -> Lead Drive -> V3B -> V4A -> V2A -> Lead Master -> Effects Loop/Reverb -> V2B -> Master -> GEQ -> Phase Inverter(V5) -> Power Amp

6 Gains stages (Not counting 2 in the reverb), and control over the levels in the 2nd (volume), 3rd (Lead Drive), 6th (Lead Master), and the Phase inverter (master/GEQ).


On the Mark V we have:
Input -> V1A -> EQ and Volume fixed at 7.5 -> V1B -> Gain -> V5A -> V4B -> V3A -> Reverb -> V6A -> Master -> EQ -> Send Level -> Effects Loop -> V6B -> Output/Solo -> Phase inverter(V7) -> Power Amp

7 Gain stages now, and slightly different control. (Because the loop is after the GEQ now, we need another gain stage for the loop).
The second gain stage is fixed (or only affected by EQ). We control the 3rd (Gain), 7th (with the send level, equivalent to Lead Master), and the Phase inverter (Output/Solo, equivalent to master).


If you bypass the loop you get:
Input -> V1A -> EQ and Volume fixed at 7.5 -> V1B -> Gain -> V5A -> V4B -> V3A -> Reverb -> V6A -> Master -> EQ -> Phase inverter(V7) -> Power Amp
And only control the 3rd gain and phase inverter volumes.
This looks like a IIC+, just with the Volume fixed and Lead Master deleted, and no way to plug into the effects loop.


So back to the whole reason I'm writing this: you control the gain (and distortion) at different stages of the circuit with different controls.

This was most obvious with the Mark IIC+, where your clean volume and your lead drive would each inter-react and behave in different ways to define the characteristic of the gain. But you could also control the levels to the 6th stage with the Lead Master, and to the phase inverter/power amp with the Master. If you hit a point where the control doesn't increase volume anymore, it's because it'***** the maximum headroom and is now just adding distortion.

On the Mark V with he loop bypassed you've got similar control. You can no longer adjust the fabled Volume control (I wish they'd just put a dial knob pot on, and might mod one in when I'm done warranty), and your lead master doesn't exist, but your Master control works the same as master did on the MarkIIC+. And your Lead Drive Knob is your gain knob.

With the loop enabled, things get muddier, but you've got control over several places: The Gain acts like the Lead Drive, affecting your third gain stage. You still have no lead master. The master comes next, and still feeds the GEQ, but then you get an additional control in the Send Level which works in tandem with the Master and feeds the Effects returns tube. (Sort of like Lead Master, but later in the circuit and at an extra gain stage). Then your Output and Solo controls feed the Phase Inverter.

So things like your channel master affect a few things, like the signal into the GEQ, and then the effects return makeup gain stage. I find once they hit noon you usually don't get any more volume, and therefore what you're getting is additional saturation of the V6B tube after the loop. Raising the send level also does the same thing, but after the GEQ.


So practically this means:
Turning up your channel EQ on channel three (treble especially), will hit your second gain stage harder and get more early distortion.
Turning up Gain will hit the 3rd stage in the lead circuit harder.
Turning up the Master and Send level will hit the Effects return tube harder, and possible introduce more saturation there.
Turning up the Output/Solo hits the phase inverter harder, and your power section.

Activating the Solo control will change the filtering done by the Output control, and might sound better.
Bypassing the effects loop will skip that whole section, and let your Master feed the Phase Inverter/Power amp directly.

 

[IronSean]

When you look at the schem, tell me if the solo function is like this, between the tonestack and the PI

Similar, but this is the schematic I was referencing. Caps and resistors there too, and the solo isn't connected to ground on both lugs.

 

[dlpasco]

When you look at the schem, tell me if the solo function is like this, between the tonestack and the PI

Similar, but this is the schematic I was referencing. Caps and resistors there too, and the solo isn't connected to ground on both lugs.

This is some serious black magic **** right here. (I am NOT an electronics guy)

 

[Dreamtheaterrules]

That schematic is pulled from the limited edition "Mark V-oodoo" :mrgreen:

 

[IronSean]

That schematic is pulled from the limited edition "Mark V-oodoo" :mrgreen:

That, and the Mark IIV+ I kept mistakenly typing would both be awesome limited edition amps.

 

[dlpasco]

That schematic is pulled from the limited edition "Mark V-oodoo" :mrgreen:

That, and the Mark IIV+ I kept mistakenly typing would both be awesome limited edition amps.

Lol

 

[Nicklotsaguitars]

Thank you IronSean.