I guess I just dont get the Mark series amps

[cisspcism]

Maybe the Mark V will bebetter , but I dont understand an amp design that kinda requires the amp to have the Graphic eq to make it sound good.

I would understand something like a Bogner xtc, Marshall Plexi, or some other allready killer sounding amp by itself having a built in Graphic eq for fine tuning, but the Mark sounds like crap with out the graphic eq. The Mark Series are just too darn boxy and have a midrange thats not warm and pleasant at all but more horrid. I have to agree though with the Graphic EQ the amp sounds incredible, but why would it be designed this way? The Graphic eq is there for more of the initial tone setting opposed to fine tunning the way I would think it would be.

anyway, I am one of those dumb asses who stupidly bought a Mark III with no graphic eq and has to use an external eq to get to sound right.

 

[Keld]

In the early Marks, and perhaps all of them, the tone controls were pre-gain. The graphic is post gain - more flexibility I suppose.

Are you keeping the bass low? That's the first thing to try.

 

[walterw]

In the early Marks, and perhaps all of them, the tone controls were pre-gain. The graphic is post gain - more flexibility I suppose.

Are you keeping the bass low? That's the first thing to try.

right, kill the flubby pre-gain bass knob, and put it back in post-gain with the lowest slider on the graphic.

 

[stephen sawall]

This way you have "Fender" type tone control - pre gain
You have "Marshall" type tone control - post gain

It does not matter if a control is a slider or knob ~ they do the same thing. They are interchangeable.

The Mark amps do not need the graphic EQ at all.
They are designed with out them and many of them do not have them as you well know.

I get my best clean and lead sounds without the EQ.

Sounds to me you like the sound of the EQed Mark amps.

 

[soldano16]

You have to run the input on at least 7 if memory serves me.

 

[Trebor Renkluaf]

Sold my original '77 Super 60 head (they were not called Mark I's until the Mark IIs came out) back in '92 and haven't looked back. The really only did one thing well and that was the Boogie lead tone. And even that had to be LOUD to get the classic Santana/Carlton tone. The clean tones were not as good as Black Face Fender or Silver Face Fender for that matter. And then there was the compromise with the cascading gains; get a decent clean tone and not have enough gain for leads; get a decent lead tone and not be able to get a good clean tone. Good riddance.

 

[Jon C]

Sold my original '77 Super 60 head (they were not called Mark I's until the Mark IIs came out) back in '92 and haven't looked back. The really only did one thing well and that was the Boogie lead tone. And even that had to be LOUD to get the classic Santana/Carlton tone. The clean tones were not as good as Black Face Fender or Silver Face Fender for that matter. And then there was the compromise with the cascading gains; get a decent clean tone and not have enough gain for leads; get a decent lead tone and not be able to get a good clean tone. Good riddance.

... likewise here ... got my Super 60 combo brand new in '77 and sold it in '98. Enjoyed but I have never missed it.

 

[pavlov]

Sold my original '77 Super 60 head (they were not called Mark I's until the Mark IIs came out) back in '92 and haven't looked back. The really only did one thing well and that was the Boogie lead tone. And even that had to be LOUD to get the classic Santana/Carlton tone. The clean tones were not as good as Black Face Fender or Silver Face Fender for that matter. And then there was the compromise with the cascading gains; get a decent clean tone and not have enough gain for leads; get a decent lead tone and not be able to get a good clean tone. Good riddance.

Every Boogie I've owned does low volume leads better than any amp out there. I can record at 3:00am with high gain leads and not wake anyone up. Try doing that with a Plexi.


And FWIW, here's a recent clip i made with a Non-EQ IIC+.

http://www.musicv2.com/listen.php?m=60781


Although these amps do record well with the EQ engaged, they just don't sound right in the room without the EQ on. Using an EQ all the time is just something to get used to. And yes, the shared clean/gain channels were a pain. I said "were" because hopefully the new Mark V solves ALL the issues of channel sharing these amps always had.

 

[Waxhead]

Maybe the Mark V will bebetter , but I dont understand an amp design that kinda requires the amp to have the Graphic eq to make it sound good.

I would understand something like a Bogner xtc, Marshall Plexi, or some other allready killer sounding amp by itself having a built in Graphic eq for fine tuning, but the Mark sounds like crap with out the graphic eq. The Mark Series are just too darn boxy and have a midrange thats not warm and pleasant at all but more horrid. I have to agree though with the Graphic EQ the amp sounds incredible, but why would it be designed this way? The Graphic eq is there for more of the initial tone setting opposed to fine tunning the way I would think it would be.

anyway, I am one of those dumb asses who stupidly bought a Mark III with no graphic eq and has to use an external eq to get to sound right.

hahaha - I get them completely.
The concept is versatility & Mesa completely slayed everything when they were released. The Marks are still some of the most versatile amps ever made. The Mark V will set the bar even higher. And you know what - the 5 band EQ is one of the keys to the versatility. I didn't even know Mesa made a Mark minus the EQ. Can't beleive you bought one

But the good part is - everyone should have an EQ pedal anyway IMHO (except Mark owners)- so don't feel bad. They make a big improvement to any amp.

 

[cisspcism]

I agree the Marks with Graphic EQ are very versatile, but without they sound bad.

I shouldnt say bad, I can get a good clean tone and a half assed lead tone and vice versa. I am using a Eminence swamp thang and that helpd out alot, I can crank the treble without it being too bright and for some reason I can have the bass up past 5 now without it getting flubby so the speaker swap helped a lot, but I really wish I had the Graphic EQ

 

[Waxhead]

I agree the Marks with Graphic EQ are very versatile, but without they sound bad.

I shouldnt say bad, I can get a good clean tone and a half assed lead tone and vice versa. I am using a Eminence swamp thang and that helpd out alot, I can crank the treble without it being too bright and for some reason I can have the bass up past 5 now without it getting flubby so the speaker swap helped a lot, but I really wish I had the Graphic EQ

It's about time you upgraded to the Mark V anyway.
I've got serious gas for one

 

[takakat]

I have a 81 MKIIB 60w w/o eq and I did not like its overdrive channel because it had to be played so loud to sound good and I don't get to play so loud so I let my keyboard player use it for rehearsal. I use 74 Twin Reverb with master volume for rehearsal and I just tried MKIIB with OCD pedal and it sounded much better than going through Twin Reverb so I plugged in my other pedals and it was very nice sounding. I put Ibanez UE405's compressor to OCD to RGW Bad Bob to UE's analog delat to UE's parametric eq to MKIIB and it was a magical sound within useable volume. I am glad I kept MKIIB.

 

[cisspcism]

I have a 81 MKIIB 60w w/o eq and I did not like its overdrive channel because it had to be played so loud to sound good and I don't get to play so loud so I let my keyboard player use it for rehearsal. I use 74 Twin Reverb with master volume for rehearsal and I just tried MKIIB with OCD pedal and it sounded much better than going through Twin Reverb so I plugged in my other pedals and it was very nice sounding. I put Ibanez UE405's compressor to OCD to RGW Bad Bob to UE's analog delat to UE's parametric eq to MKIIB and it was a magical sound within useable volume. I am glad I kept MKIIB.

I actually got a better tone using the clean channel how I like it set up on the Mark III and then kicking on a Rat 2 distortion pedal , then I did using the lead channel on its own w/o graphic eq

but it seems sacriligious to use pedals and bypass the whole reason the marks were created, which is the lead channel.

 

[takakat]

I actually got a better tone using the clean channel how I like it set up on the Mark III and then kicking on a Rat 2 distortion pedal , then I did using the lead channel on its own w/o graphic eq

but it seems sacriligious to use pedals and bypass the whole reason the marks were created, which is the lead channel.

Well like I said I don't play loud enough to get good lead channel tone and I found out clean channel sound awsome with pedals. Also MKIIB makes nasty pop noise when I switch to lead channel from footswitch and it is so hard to set up both channels in reasonable volume difference.