I don't love my Mark V

Discussion for the new Mark V

Moderators: Grandor, ned, Guitarzan, Platypus

ranchak
Mark I
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:52 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: I don't love my Mark V

Post by ranchak » Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:59 am

iceman wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:38 am
ranchak wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:04 pm
On your amp, or anyone else who wants to jump in, are the Mark I and Mark IV settings overly bassy and muddy? I know if you get the Master volume up it helps, but I’m not sure if I can run my Master volume high enough to eliminate the excess bottom end. Also the tone controls don’t seem to have much effect on these two settings, is this just my amp?
Yes Mark I and Mark IV modes have more bass. Mark I especially. It will also depend on the guitar I use on how those channels react, will often have set bass to 0 on Mark I and barely much more on Mark IV mode. Power settings will also play a role like pentode/triode etc. Image
Wow, my amp would sound terrible with those settings. I have my treble and presence set way higher and the amp is still muddy sounding. I'll try to post a picture tonight of my settings (I haven't had any luck posting images on here). I am going to try your settings and see, you never know......

ranchak
Mark I
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:52 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: I don't love my Mark V

Post by ranchak » Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:44 am

Iceman, I don't know what tone you are going for with your settings, I'm looking for a classic rock or a slightly heavier rock tones. I tried my original settings, your settings, everything I could try in the Mark I and Mark IV modes. I can not get rid of the excess bass and boxyness. I think the words I'm looking for are clarity and openness. I'm going through all of the threads in the Mark V sub forum and trying to read the ones that I think will help me with my tone. There was one that I can't find now, someone posted that they too couldn't use the Mark I and Mark IV modes, they where using Crunch and Extreme like me. I noticed even last night that until I turned the treble and presence up, especially on the Extreme setting that I couldn't get the amp to have definition. If I remember I have the treble and presence at 3:00, which I thought was a bit excessive. After playing I noticed my ears where fatigued, so I can assume that there is too much.

I tried a 10 band GEQ in the effects loop, it helped slightly. I think what I don't like is that the Mark modes are "Pull Deep" and this is what I think is causing the lack of clarity. Maybe the WGS ET65 isn't the best speaker if I'm going to use these two modes, maybe the Reaper 50 will help balance out the low end.

iceman
Mark III
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:16 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: I don't love my Mark V

Post by iceman » Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:29 pm

ranchak wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:44 am
Iceman, I don't know what tone you are going for with your settings, I'm looking for a classic rock or a slightly heavier rock tones.
This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO-1jVVCLMQ 8)

BTW I added ET65 to my cab to get additional bottom end. So it makes sense to pull the ET65 to reduce the bass. Also is it possible the power tubes are worn adding flub?
Roadster 2x12
Mark III SRG Blue, IV, V
RA 100
Triaxis
PortCity 2x12 OS

ranchak
Mark I
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:52 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: I don't love my Mark V

Post by ranchak » Wed Jul 01, 2020 8:04 pm

iceman wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:29 pm
ranchak wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:44 am
Iceman, I don't know what tone you are going for with your settings, I'm looking for a classic rock or a slightly heavier rock tones.
This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO-1jVVCLMQ 8)

BTW I added ET65 to my cab to get additional bottom end. So it makes sense to pull the ET65 to reduce the bass. Also is it possible the power tubes are worn adding flub?
How ironic, I just watched that video before I went to bed last night.

I also was wondering about the ET65. I’m going to try it with my new cab (if it shows up on time) and see what results I get.

Brand new amp, I hope the power tubes aren’t bad.

ranchak
Mark I
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:52 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: I don't love my Mark V

Post by ranchak » Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:02 pm

Ok, here we go again..... I was reading one of the post about the effects loop and how it changes the amp. I switched the effects loop off and wow.... besides being extremely loud, there was better tone. I didn’t realize that the master volume is removed from the circuit. I lowered the channel volumes to a level that was acceptable. I then engaged the effects loop and adjusted the master volume until I couldn’t tell if the loop was engaged or not. This has removed a large amount of the low end from the Mark I and Mark IV settings. I guess the love affair is back..... for now

iceman
Mark III
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:16 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: I don't love my Mark V

Post by iceman » Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:47 am

Yeah the effects loop has been something called out really early on within this forum for this amp. Should be multiple threads mentioning that. It’s why I mentioned to keep fx loop around noon and find that sweet spot for the master where the volume jumps and keep it as close to that point. It’s like the lowest volume where the amp comes alive. My fx loop is set to noon.

My roadster is the same way, i.e. there is a min volume before it can sound good (actually goes from meh to god like), and I tend to disable the fx loop all together on that amp. I have been struggling the most with my Mark IV. Ironically I couldn’t get the tone on lead channel until the volume is really pumping, much higher than the V and I never considered the volume was the reason. I should have figured that out much sooner but I can achieve a good tone on the V at lower volume.

Also I have 2 cabs, both port city OS 2x12s with different speakers mix. One of which seems quite a bit louder. The V runs through the quieter one (et65&vet30). I’ll have to open the louder one up to see what’s in that (I’ve forgotten, but I think a v30 plus some other wgs speaker). They are both wired in series to 16ohm. For quite a while one of them was wired in parallel to 4ohm (which I think I preferred). The V seemed to handle the mismatch fine and the V manual actually points this out as well. Even the “unsafe” mismatch of higher impedance on amp side to lower speaker impedance (which isn’t usually the case).

While we are speaking of volume I find my 60 watt Mark III has the better tone at lower volume compared to my other Marks. And recently I’ve picked up a Boss Waza Tube Expander more so for silent playing but the attenuator should let me get a better tone at lower volume through the cab as well. I haven’t had enough time with it to find the sweet spots yet.
Roadster 2x12
Mark III SRG Blue, IV, V
RA 100
Triaxis
PortCity 2x12 OS

rarebitusa
Mark I
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:15 am

Re: I don't love my Mark V

Post by rarebitusa » Fri Jul 03, 2020 10:45 am

iceman wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:43 pm

Couldn't agree more. Clean on C90 is nice but does not do the Mark V justice. Completely different sound when I went to a 2x12 ported and added a ET65 to the mix. Shout out for port city cabs too BTW!

Speaker/cab is such a huge piece of the signal chain. The same cab/speaker combo I use for the Mark is way too bassy for my RA100 (for example).
+1 and another +1 :)

for far too long I avoided the speaker/cab rathole... logistics, being a bit lazy, hoping for a one size fits all. Now with a small mix of open & closed back 1x12s, 2x12s and a 2x10 to choose from, mixing and matching really opens up the options. Also playing with the impedance matching can make a difference. Also at times I'll use an atten on one to blend the vols.

digital amp modelers have tons of cab choices... for a reason :)

Post Reply