mesa mark III vs dc-5
- Thread starter dani
- Start date
Boogie Bill
New member
Re: mesa mark III vs dc-5
If you are going to get a Mark III, take the time and spend the bux to get a fully loaded version with the Simul-Class, Reverb, Graphic EQ and the EVM speaker. And then hunt down a Mesa 112 EVM Theile cab to match. The Theile cab adds a lot of bottom-end punch. A Mark III Simul-Class 112 EVM combo with a 112 Theile cab can put a lot of half-stacks to shame with its power, punch and projection.
The Mark Series amps are designed to have less bass than say, a Fender amp. They have a strong mid-range focus--that's how they get the smooth, singing sustain. These amps are designed to be a lead guitarist's amp in a band. I don't recommend them for solo guitar performers who need a lot of low-end. The Theile cab provides that low-end; and as a bonus, the Theile cab gets the amp up off the ground and puts the knobs at a readable level. Much, much better choice than a chair or milk crate!
While you can use combo+cab for big gigs; on tight stages, jam sessions, home playing and practices you'll only need to take the combo. But beware--the fully loaded combo is well, a load. There's a lot iron in that transformer--and the EVM has a BIG magnet. I think mine's about 75 lbs., so it ain't no Roland Cube!!! Caveat emptor, and that goes for unsuspecting roadies, too!
A road case is wonderfully protective, but I don't need that weight or that level of protection for my amp anymore since I'm just doing gigs around town. I have Tuki Covers for all of my amps, and I have been very happy with them.
Biggest minus for the Mark III is probably the inability to adjust the gain, tone and level of the R2 Crunch Channel--it is dependent on the R1 GAIN control. A lot of players don't use either R1 or R2 and just toggle between either R1 or R2 and the LEAD Channel. It is most useable with the controls set in the recommended "sweet spots" (which I use). R2 is dark, almost jazzy dark--but don't believe the hype that it sounds like a browned-out Marshall. It doesn't. I love R2 with a humbucker Les Paul.
There really are some happening tones in the Mark III and it is one of my favorite amps to use live. I have a fully-loaded Mark III combo, and a 200-watt (6x6L6) Coliseum head with a C90/EVM Half-Back 412. Both are just glorious sounding amps.
It has been a while since I have played a DC-5 (though I have a DC-3--which I also use with a Theile cab). The DC Series is designed essentially with the Mark IV CLEAN Channel and a Rectifier LEAD Channel. The DC-5 combos came with the Mesa/Celestion C-90; and there are matching open and closed back 112 cabs available. The combo is a Wide-Body--the 112 Theile cab does't match (but still sounds AWESOME!) They sound pretty good with the 212 V30 horizontal Recto Cab underneath for a 312 configuration, too. It's ONLY 50 watts, but these suckers will have people running for the doors with their ears bleeding if you crank them.
All in all, I'd say the DC-5 is the more versatile amp--with the separate EQs on each channel and the Graphic EQ. The Wide-Body combo is no lightweight--I'd say about 65 lbs.--but in my mind, the DC-5 is one of the premier club-sized combo amps for the Rock and Blues player. The Mark III may be a bit antiquated, but I love them anyway. I would say that the DC-5 is probably tighter, especially in the bass. To my ear, I recall that the Mark III Simul-Class had a spongier feel--a little more organic.
Along with the DC-3 (35 watts, 4xEL84s), there is also a 4x6L6 100-watt 212 C-90 version called the DC-10. Budget for a hernia repair.
Play them both, if you can. I honestly don't think you can go wrong with either a fully-loaded Mark III or a DC-5.
Good Luck!
Bill
If you are going to get a Mark III, take the time and spend the bux to get a fully loaded version with the Simul-Class, Reverb, Graphic EQ and the EVM speaker. And then hunt down a Mesa 112 EVM Theile cab to match. The Theile cab adds a lot of bottom-end punch. A Mark III Simul-Class 112 EVM combo with a 112 Theile cab can put a lot of half-stacks to shame with its power, punch and projection.
The Mark Series amps are designed to have less bass than say, a Fender amp. They have a strong mid-range focus--that's how they get the smooth, singing sustain. These amps are designed to be a lead guitarist's amp in a band. I don't recommend them for solo guitar performers who need a lot of low-end. The Theile cab provides that low-end; and as a bonus, the Theile cab gets the amp up off the ground and puts the knobs at a readable level. Much, much better choice than a chair or milk crate!
While you can use combo+cab for big gigs; on tight stages, jam sessions, home playing and practices you'll only need to take the combo. But beware--the fully loaded combo is well, a load. There's a lot iron in that transformer--and the EVM has a BIG magnet. I think mine's about 75 lbs., so it ain't no Roland Cube!!! Caveat emptor, and that goes for unsuspecting roadies, too!
A road case is wonderfully protective, but I don't need that weight or that level of protection for my amp anymore since I'm just doing gigs around town. I have Tuki Covers for all of my amps, and I have been very happy with them.
Biggest minus for the Mark III is probably the inability to adjust the gain, tone and level of the R2 Crunch Channel--it is dependent on the R1 GAIN control. A lot of players don't use either R1 or R2 and just toggle between either R1 or R2 and the LEAD Channel. It is most useable with the controls set in the recommended "sweet spots" (which I use). R2 is dark, almost jazzy dark--but don't believe the hype that it sounds like a browned-out Marshall. It doesn't. I love R2 with a humbucker Les Paul.
There really are some happening tones in the Mark III and it is one of my favorite amps to use live. I have a fully-loaded Mark III combo, and a 200-watt (6x6L6) Coliseum head with a C90/EVM Half-Back 412. Both are just glorious sounding amps.
It has been a while since I have played a DC-5 (though I have a DC-3--which I also use with a Theile cab). The DC Series is designed essentially with the Mark IV CLEAN Channel and a Rectifier LEAD Channel. The DC-5 combos came with the Mesa/Celestion C-90; and there are matching open and closed back 112 cabs available. The combo is a Wide-Body--the 112 Theile cab does't match (but still sounds AWESOME!) They sound pretty good with the 212 V30 horizontal Recto Cab underneath for a 312 configuration, too. It's ONLY 50 watts, but these suckers will have people running for the doors with their ears bleeding if you crank them.
All in all, I'd say the DC-5 is the more versatile amp--with the separate EQs on each channel and the Graphic EQ. The Wide-Body combo is no lightweight--I'd say about 65 lbs.--but in my mind, the DC-5 is one of the premier club-sized combo amps for the Rock and Blues player. The Mark III may be a bit antiquated, but I love them anyway. I would say that the DC-5 is probably tighter, especially in the bass. To my ear, I recall that the Mark III Simul-Class had a spongier feel--a little more organic.
Along with the DC-3 (35 watts, 4xEL84s), there is also a 4x6L6 100-watt 212 C-90 version called the DC-10. Budget for a hernia repair.
Play them both, if you can. I honestly don't think you can go wrong with either a fully-loaded Mark III or a DC-5.
Good Luck!
Bill
Pink Unicorn Horsey
Megä Pöny Rÿdr
Re: mesa mark III vs dc-5
I owned a DC-5 for several years. The only reason I sold it is because I have a Single Rec as well and couldn't justify keeping both of them around. At the time, I was playing heavier music that called for the Rectifier more than the DC-5. That said, the DC-5 is, as Bill says above, a versatile amp. It's great for clean, blues and straight-ahead rock.
I understand the gain side being modeled after the Rectifier series, but I couldn't get the same kind of bone-crunching gain from my DC-5 as I could my Single Rectifier. However, for bluesy rock and alt-rock tones, the DC-5 has its brother beat.
Fifty watts is plenty loud for the size of bars and clubs I played. I used both with horizontal and vertical 2x12 V30 Mesa cabs.
- Keith
I owned a DC-5 for several years. The only reason I sold it is because I have a Single Rec as well and couldn't justify keeping both of them around. At the time, I was playing heavier music that called for the Rectifier more than the DC-5. That said, the DC-5 is, as Bill says above, a versatile amp. It's great for clean, blues and straight-ahead rock.
I understand the gain side being modeled after the Rectifier series, but I couldn't get the same kind of bone-crunching gain from my DC-5 as I could my Single Rectifier. However, for bluesy rock and alt-rock tones, the DC-5 has its brother beat.
Fifty watts is plenty loud for the size of bars and clubs I played. I used both with horizontal and vertical 2x12 V30 Mesa cabs.
- Keith
SlowGroove
New member
Re: mesa mark III vs dc-5
Oh man, i soooo want a .50 cal, it hurts !!!
I will join the army if it means i can shoot one !!!
James
Oh man, i soooo want a .50 cal, it hurts !!!
I will join the army if it means i can shoot one !!!
James
Re: mesa mark III vs dc-5
I have a Nomad 100 head. I like it, as do several other Nomad owners like theirs. However, in my time spent on the Mesa/Boogie Forums, I got the impression that the Nomad is the black sheep of the Mesa family. The control layout is very nice and easy to follow, IMO, but several people didn't care for the tones they got out of them; not enough gain, not enough heaviness, too loose fizzy, way too much mids, etc, etc, whatever their complaints may be. Judging by the language of the manual, and press material on the amp, the Nomad was intended to be a less expensive jack of all trades when it came to tone, and thus is considered by some to be a master of none in that regard. However, since there are some satisfied owners of the Nomad, either the amp can't be that bad, or there are some people weird people out there. I'll vote for the former, though I likely fall squarely in the latter category.
There's three differently voiced channels, ranging from clean, medium to high gain, or anywhere between depending on how you set the knobs and switches. The 1st channel has a warm clean that is very nice. Not as awesome as a classic Fender clean, but still very, very usable. In it's alternate mode the 1st channel can also double as a light to medium gain channel that can be set on the edge of breakup or all the way into an overdriven crunch.
The 2nd channel has been described to me as a "Classic Boogie lead", which I take to mean it's supposed to be voiced similar to the lead channel of an early Mark series or something. Having not played any early Boogies, I don't know how true that is. What I do know is that the 2nd channel is very fat, with big round bass, and a very smooth voice. The gain can be set very low just on the edge of breakup, or all the way up to medium high levels for a nice, thick sweet sound. IMO, this channel does well for lead work with it's smooth voice. In it's alternate mode the gain is bumped increased, and can be taken to very high levels, where you can get a compressed, sustaining lead sound, or an awesome heavy thick crunch. The crunch of the second channel is what sold me on the amp.
The 3rd channel was described as "a traitor to the Crown." in press literature, which makes me think this channel is supposed to be voiced similar to a modified or hot-rodded Marshall. I don't know how true that is, IMO, a Marshall makes for a better Marshall sound than a Nomad does, but that doesn't mean the 3rd channel is unusable. Of all the channels in their normal modes, this one has the most gain, so it's best to be cautious with the gain knob. The bass is also set in slightly higher frequencies than channel 2, which makes channel 3 sound tighter and faster. If your chops aren't totally up to snuff, or your EQ is dialed weird from one channel to the other, the 2nd channel can sound slow and clumsy in comparison to Channel 3, or Channel 3 can sound unduly thin in comparison to Channel 2. Channel 3 can go anywhere from a medium low gain light crunch to a very high gain, suitable for tight and fast hard rock or heavy metal rhythms or bright, shreddy leads. In it's second mode, the gain in Channel 3 gets pulled back and it can be set lower, from not-as-heavy crunches, to a clean, on the edge of breakup sound, for blues.
The reverb is nice on the 1st channel, but on the 2nd and 3rd channels, it is subtle at best, and weak to non-existent at worst. There is a mod out there to change a couple resistors to bring the reverb levels for the latter channels up to one comparable to the first channel, but stock, it isn't that great. The effects loop is the parallel loop with a mix pot, but even with the mix set to 100%, you may have a hard time using digital effects in the loop. Again, there is a mod out on the Internets to address this.
A tip for trying to get nice sounds of a Nomad if you decide to demo one to see if it is the amp for you: for the heavier, higher gain sounds, pull the gain knob back, and throw an OD type boost set on the edge of breakup in front of the amp. Upping the gain on a Nomad not only adds more compression, but also lower mids as well. Too much of both and you get mud. The gain pulled back with an OD boost in front will sound tighter and more articulate. Secondly, you'll probably get the best sounds with the EQ knobs near noon, even the mids (especially the mids).
That's all I got. If you have the opportunity to demo a Nomad, I'd give it a shot. Though if you have the chance to demo the Nomad and the DC-5 back to back, I'd do so. The DC-5 may very well be exactly what you're looking for.
I have a Nomad 100 head. I like it, as do several other Nomad owners like theirs. However, in my time spent on the Mesa/Boogie Forums, I got the impression that the Nomad is the black sheep of the Mesa family. The control layout is very nice and easy to follow, IMO, but several people didn't care for the tones they got out of them; not enough gain, not enough heaviness, too loose fizzy, way too much mids, etc, etc, whatever their complaints may be. Judging by the language of the manual, and press material on the amp, the Nomad was intended to be a less expensive jack of all trades when it came to tone, and thus is considered by some to be a master of none in that regard. However, since there are some satisfied owners of the Nomad, either the amp can't be that bad, or there are some people weird people out there. I'll vote for the former, though I likely fall squarely in the latter category.
There's three differently voiced channels, ranging from clean, medium to high gain, or anywhere between depending on how you set the knobs and switches. The 1st channel has a warm clean that is very nice. Not as awesome as a classic Fender clean, but still very, very usable. In it's alternate mode the 1st channel can also double as a light to medium gain channel that can be set on the edge of breakup or all the way into an overdriven crunch.
The 2nd channel has been described to me as a "Classic Boogie lead", which I take to mean it's supposed to be voiced similar to the lead channel of an early Mark series or something. Having not played any early Boogies, I don't know how true that is. What I do know is that the 2nd channel is very fat, with big round bass, and a very smooth voice. The gain can be set very low just on the edge of breakup, or all the way up to medium high levels for a nice, thick sweet sound. IMO, this channel does well for lead work with it's smooth voice. In it's alternate mode the gain is bumped increased, and can be taken to very high levels, where you can get a compressed, sustaining lead sound, or an awesome heavy thick crunch. The crunch of the second channel is what sold me on the amp.
The 3rd channel was described as "a traitor to the Crown." in press literature, which makes me think this channel is supposed to be voiced similar to a modified or hot-rodded Marshall. I don't know how true that is, IMO, a Marshall makes for a better Marshall sound than a Nomad does, but that doesn't mean the 3rd channel is unusable. Of all the channels in their normal modes, this one has the most gain, so it's best to be cautious with the gain knob. The bass is also set in slightly higher frequencies than channel 2, which makes channel 3 sound tighter and faster. If your chops aren't totally up to snuff, or your EQ is dialed weird from one channel to the other, the 2nd channel can sound slow and clumsy in comparison to Channel 3, or Channel 3 can sound unduly thin in comparison to Channel 2. Channel 3 can go anywhere from a medium low gain light crunch to a very high gain, suitable for tight and fast hard rock or heavy metal rhythms or bright, shreddy leads. In it's second mode, the gain in Channel 3 gets pulled back and it can be set lower, from not-as-heavy crunches, to a clean, on the edge of breakup sound, for blues.
The reverb is nice on the 1st channel, but on the 2nd and 3rd channels, it is subtle at best, and weak to non-existent at worst. There is a mod out there to change a couple resistors to bring the reverb levels for the latter channels up to one comparable to the first channel, but stock, it isn't that great. The effects loop is the parallel loop with a mix pot, but even with the mix set to 100%, you may have a hard time using digital effects in the loop. Again, there is a mod out on the Internets to address this.
A tip for trying to get nice sounds of a Nomad if you decide to demo one to see if it is the amp for you: for the heavier, higher gain sounds, pull the gain knob back, and throw an OD type boost set on the edge of breakup in front of the amp. Upping the gain on a Nomad not only adds more compression, but also lower mids as well. Too much of both and you get mud. The gain pulled back with an OD boost in front will sound tighter and more articulate. Secondly, you'll probably get the best sounds with the EQ knobs near noon, even the mids (especially the mids).
That's all I got. If you have the opportunity to demo a Nomad, I'd give it a shot. Though if you have the chance to demo the Nomad and the DC-5 back to back, I'd do so. The DC-5 may very well be exactly what you're looking for.
Boogie Bill
New member
Re: mesa mark III vs dc-5
There are the original .50 Caliber amps; and then the + versions that came later. The Caliber Series are a great studio amp, but I'm not crazy about them for live use. They have even less flexibility than the Mark III. There are 2x6L6 and 4xEL84 versions. (The .22 Caliber is a 2xEL84 amp.) I like the 6L6 head version with the vertical 212 Half-Back cabs; I've heard some guys make these amps sound great in clubs over the years--they do great for classic rock and blues.
I've also seen a few jazz box guys use both .22s and .50s. They like the small, portable tube amps. Back in the Eighties when these amps came out, there weren't as many pro-quality small tube amps on the market as there are now.
I prefer the control layout and flexibility of the Mark III, but if the Caliber Series amps work for you, go for it.
Bill
There are the original .50 Caliber amps; and then the + versions that came later. The Caliber Series are a great studio amp, but I'm not crazy about them for live use. They have even less flexibility than the Mark III. There are 2x6L6 and 4xEL84 versions. (The .22 Caliber is a 2xEL84 amp.) I like the 6L6 head version with the vertical 212 Half-Back cabs; I've heard some guys make these amps sound great in clubs over the years--they do great for classic rock and blues.
I've also seen a few jazz box guys use both .22s and .50s. They like the small, portable tube amps. Back in the Eighties when these amps came out, there weren't as many pro-quality small tube amps on the market as there are now.
I prefer the control layout and flexibility of the Mark III, but if the Caliber Series amps work for you, go for it.
Bill
