more Mesa Boogie pedals

[El Supremo]

Re: more Mesa Boogie pedals

It may be becasue I am distruaght regarding Marshall. The other day, I heard a earlier 50 watt version of the Superlead I have. It was still a 72( point to point tagboard), like mine, but it had lay down transformers like the Hendrix 69 Plexis..IDK, and it just looked more vintage...more "transition PLEXI" than mine. BTW, it had provenence..it was from a guy from a 60's famous San Francisco acid rock heydey band called "Blue Cheer". It had been newly restored (recapped), and was otherwise all original. I heard it through a mint late 70's G12H30 Original Marshall checkerboard bottom cabinet. The tone was nothing short of astonishing.

In comparison, my original '72 Superlead Pont to point 100 watt sounds nothing like it.Teh fck?????Mine is way to clean..doesn't get near the great great breakup as the other one..on the other hand the cleans on mine were nicer, but who gives a fck? I don't own a Marshall for cleans. Basically, the "Blue Cheer" amp didn't really need to get all that blisteringly loud to deliver astonishing mind altering classic breakup. Maybe mine needs a recap, and to run to through two Marshall cabs? I don't know.

Alls I know is right now, mine doesn't even sound anything like that golden 50 watt Superlead, and thats not a good thing.

All that said, I need a Boogie, casue I want modern Hi gain!!!

50W does break up earlier than 100W, so maybe that could be the case? The 100W models are so supposed to have more low end thump tho.
If you're after a Boogie and want the 5 band eq, why not just go for a Mark V?

[ratherdashing]

Re: more Mesa Boogie pedals

I like parametric equalizers for the fact that you can choose your own frequencies and bandwidth. I also happen to like my MXR 10 band. On the dunlop website it says "10 carefully chosen frequencies". If the frequencies they decided on are as myopic and arbitrary as some of you are saying, are dunlop guilty of false advertising?

Nah, I'm sure they "carefully chose" to avoid the hundreds of hours of R&D required to tune an EQ to a specific instrument.

The MXR 10 band is a good EQ, it's just not nearly as good as the Mesa 5 band.

[Mad-Max]

Re: more Mesa Boogie pedals

I bet if you threw one of these pedals in front of an amp that wasn't a Mesa, you would probably get some amazing results with it. It would probably do wonders on a Marshall.

[Boogie Bill]

Re: more Mesa Boogie pedals

I like parametric equalizers for the fact that you can choose your own frequencies and bandwidth. I also happen to like my MXR 10 band. On the dunlop website it says "10 carefully chosen frequencies". If the frequencies they decided on are as myopic and arbitrary as some of you are saying, are dunlop guilty of false advertising?

The MXR 10-band frequencies are ISO...now I can't remember what that means exactly, but I do know that it is a standard that was set up back in prehistoric times so that an engineer could walk into any studio, adjust the EQ and know EXACTLY the frequencies he's adjusting--same as in his own studio. The 10-band adjusts octaves; same goes for 15-band (2/3 octave) and 31-band (1/3 octave EQs). So, no false advertising.

I have a couple of the old blue MXR 10-bands, as well as a new MXR footswitchable 10-band and they are indeed very handy tools. I also have an old Ibanez Parametric EQ pedal which has saved my ass countless times. The typical parametric EQ in pedal form has only a single band. Studio paras usually have four or more, and allow you to set the frequency, boost/cut, and the Q, or the bandwidth of the frequency. So in most cases, the graphic EQ is used to set the broad frequency response, while problem areas like narrow band feedback, are often best addressed by a para EQ.

The old MXR 10-band was not just for guitar; it could be used for guitars, keys, bass--I've even patched mine into a PA system once or twice, and they marketed a stereo tabletop version with phono jacks for home hi-fi use. But, the 10-band has a lot of bands that don't effect the guitar's range and not enough of the ones that do. MXR came up with the little 6-band EQ, and those bands were not ISO centers, but designed to work more in the range of the guitar. Boss came up with their footswitchable 7-band version, and a few other companies have offered similar pedals over the years.

Mesa's 5-band EQ really is a great addition to their amps. I have Mark IIIs, a IV and now a V, and the sliders make a big difference in tone with very little movement. I understand that some folks prefer the Mark II-C+ without the EQ; that the sans-EQ version is really the one with the Holy Grail tone. That may be, but I will probably never get a chance to own one, so I can't say for sure. Personally, I would never buy a Mark III without the EQ; in that amp it makes the LEAD CHANNEL really sweet.

Bill

[Boogie Bill]

Re: more Mesa Boogie pedals

THIS IS THE TONE THE METALMANIAC HAS ENVISIONED ALL HIS STUPID LIFE!!!!Thats it folks.Mesa Dual Recto and 5 band Eq! I have arrived! My tone quest has begun.;

And for me, this is NOT how I would use the EQ with a Recto--keeping in mind that I am a Mark guy and not a Recto user.

I would probably set the Recto up for some good scooped tones WITHOUT the EQ and then use the EQ reverse that curve--to boost the Mids for my solos so that they would cut through better and "sing".

I'm thinking about the possibilities of what these pedals could do for my Mark Series amps; they already have the EQ built in, but the pedals would allow me to reverse that curve, or use it when I change guitars, or...???? Thinking, thinking...

Bill

[MetalManiac]

Re: more Mesa Boogie pedals

.

Mesa's 5-band EQ really is a great addition to their amps. I have Mark IIIs, a IV and now a V, and the sliders make a big difference in tone with very little movement. I understand that some folks prefer the Mark II-C+ without the EQ; that the sans-EQ version is really the one with the Holy Grail tone. ...
Bill

Whats the difference between no EQ and the Eq set flat?

[Boogie Bill]

Re: more Mesa Boogie pedals

Whats the difference between no EQ and the Eq set flat?

As I understand it, there is some additional circuitry in the Mark IIC+ models with the EQ. Doug West writes about this in the Owner's Manual for the Mark V. They really tried hard to duplicate tones of the Mark I, IIC+ and IV in the Mark V. Some players like the EQ version of the IIC+, some players like West prefer the amps without EQ. The Mark V can do both with its sophisticated switching. The manual is available to read in *.pdf format on Mesa's website.

One would think that an EQ set in its center detents would be the same, but it think it depends a lot on the quality of the EQ. I can't claim to have golden ears and I don't hear any major difference in a flat setting versus switching the EQ out on my Mark III and Mark IV combos; I haven't played with my Mark V to test this yet. I have heard some audible differences in some name-brand home audio and pro-sound components between flat and bypass settings.

Good?

Bill

[Boogie Bill]

Re: more Mesa Boogie pedals

Whats the difference between no EQ and the Eq set flat?

As I understand it, there is some additional circuitry in the Mark IIC+ models with the EQ. Doug West writes about this in the Owner's Manual for the Mark V. They really tried hard to duplicate tones of the Mark I, IIC+ and IV in the Mark V. Some players like the EQ version of the IIC+, some players like West prefer the amps without EQ. The Mark V can do both with its sophisticated switching. The manual is available to read in *.pdf format on Mesa's website.

One would think that an EQ set in its center detents would be the same, but it think it depends a lot on the quality of the EQ. I can't claim to have golden ears and I don't hear any major difference in a flat setting versus switching the EQ out on my Mark III and Mark IV combos; I haven't played with my Mark V to test this yet. I have heard some audible differences in some name-brand home audio and pro-sound components between flat and bypass settings.

Good?

Bill

[ratherdashing]

Re: more Mesa Boogie pedals

As I understand it, there is some additional circuitry in the Mark IIC+ models with the EQ. Doug West writes about this in the Owner's Manual for the Mark V. They really tried hard to duplicate tones of the Mark I, IIC+ and IV in the Mark V. Some players like the EQ version of the IIC+, some players like West prefer the amps without EQ. The Mark V can do both with its sophisticated switching. The manual is available to read in *.pdf format on Mesa's website.

One would think that an EQ set in its center detents would be the same, but it think it depends a lot on the quality of the EQ. I can't claim to have golden ears and I don't hear any major difference in a flat setting versus switching the EQ out on my Mark III and Mark IV combos; I haven't played with my Mark V to test this yet. I have heard some audible differences in some name-brand home audio and pro-sound components between flat and bypass settings.

Good?

Bill

Yep, any EQ will have some small effect on the signal even with the boost/cut at zero. In some cases that effect can be very pleasant, e.g. a subtle high-end roll-off. Think about the difference it makes to have no tone pot in a guitar - same idea. You don't have that teeny bit of signal leakage through the EQ components.

This is one of the reasons recording engineers like to mix on the big desks: those SSL/API/Neve etc. EQ modules do something nice to the signal, even when the gain is at unity.

As for the Mesa EQ itself, I've never heard the same Mesa amp with and without a graph, so I can't comment on that. But the Mark V uses relays to take the EQ out of the signal entirely, so if you wanted to test this theory that would be the way.