Mesa Mark V or 5 50 plus

Rockhopper

Ok I know these are two very different beasts and Mesa Pricing is a lot on the high side but I find myself in the position of wanting one of these two.

 

I really can not decide between the simple layout and great sound of the 550+ or the sound and additional features (although slightly complex) Mark V.

 

I play loads of different genres and am currently using a Mesa Triaxis & 2:90. Fundamentally I want something smaller to lug around. I would appreciate anyone's 2 pence. Even if it is look at one of these.....(Insert amp here)

Si_

I recently picked up a Mark V and very happy with it so far. It has a huge range of sounds available and although it may look complex it's really not.

Rockhopper

Do you have the combo or head?

 

Si_

Head

bigdawg

Thats a tricky question - Mark V is definately the better sounding of the two - but the simplicity and range of the 5:50 is the reason I went for the express plus (albeit 5:25) 

Drew_TNBD

For the "something smaller to lug around" thing, I am exceptionally happy with my EVH5153 50-watt head.

Rockhopper

I had a look at those. Really tasty. Not badly priced either. And they satisfy my liking of 6l6s

Rockhopper

I plan on giving a shed load of amps a try next week so it is definitely on the list.

Rockhopper

I actually prefer the sound of the 550+ but (As I am spoiled for channels at the moment) I would prefer 3 Channels. 

 

thisisguitar

As an Express 5:50 owner I will say that 25kg and a flimsy strap handle aren't the most fun to lug around!

ICBM

bigdawg said:

Thats a tricky question - Mark V is definately the better sounding of the two - but the simplicity and range of the 5:50 is the reason I went for the express plus (albeit 5:25) 

Not better - different.

When I bought my Mesa DC-5 - which I got new, although ex-demo so it wasn't quite full price - in the shop there was a mint secondhand MkIV which I could have had for almost the same price. (It was slightly more, but I could afford either.) The MkIV was clearly the much better buy since it was a much higher-range model for the same sort of money and would hold its value much better than the new DC if I came to sell it.

But I just so much preferred the sound of the DC-5 that I bought that - it was much more direct, open and aggressive, I found the Mark too smooth, too compressed and too fussy to set up. To me, the cheaper and more basic amp just sounded better.

I haven't played the MkV yet, but I'd take an Express 5:50 over a MkIV for the same reasons.

Nerine

The Mark V is just chock full of compromises in my opinion.

For example to really dial it in properly so all three channels are usable and sound their best, they require differing settings on the graphic.

Not only that, I liked the idea of having all the knobs and buttons and whatnot.
Thinking I'd be able to satisfy more gas that way and find it harder to get bored.

BUT

With all the modes and whatnot, comes a lot more circuitry. The amp sounds good, but I think it sounds like a lot of circuitry. A bit congested maybe, not as open as it could be.

I also hate the position of the reverb tank. That would be so easy to knacker if you caught it on something.

I've never owned the 5:50 so can't comment.

Lastly, regardless. You always set an amp to how it sounds the best it can.
It's nice to have the modes and switches and options, but once you've set them how you deem them to sound best, they no longer really become options.....

Something to consider.

There's many amps I'd have over the Mark V after owning one...

It's also almost impossible to make settings adjustments on the fly at a gig or something because the tone controls work in a ridiculous way, and sometimes don't yield the results you are after.

For example you might want a bit more bass on the lead channel on the fly.
The actual tone controls do quite little in some ranges so you'd be better off by increasing the 80Hz slider.

That then, will bugger with all your other channels.

Yes there's the preset curves, but I found them pretty crap. Too scooped.

And the amp DOES need the graphic engaged at all times to sound anything like..

Compromise. I had similar issues with the 101B I had.

Si_

Nerine said:

Lastly, regardless. You always set an amp to how it sounds the best it can.
It's nice to have the modes and switches and options, but once you've set them how you deem them to sound best, they no longer really become options..... 

Isn't that true of all amps though? no matter how simple or complicated. I had an AxeFx II, millions of settings and options, but once set to your liking you never need to change them. The point is, those options are there so you can get it to sound the best you can. 

ICBM

Nerine said:

The amp sounds good, but I think it sounds like a lot of circuitry. A bit congested maybe, not as open as it could be.

I don't that's true. The Mark sound is just a bit congested (in my opinion) - but there are many complex amps which don't sound like that. You can't "hear circuitry" really - especially as a lot of the complexity is out of the actual signal path.

I do agree the Marks are a compromise though. I briefly had a III, and that was impossible to set up for more than one really great sound at once, or more than two passably good ones, despite the "three channel" claim. I looked at the MkIV too, but that had one really big and stupid compromise, which was to share the bass and mid EQ between the first two channels… and a lot of other minor ones. I had hoped the V was better with the fully independent EQ per channel and the assignable stuff, but apparently not...

Nerine said:

I also hate the position of the reverb tank. That would be so easy to knacker if you caught it on something.

They're not still mounting it through the bottom of the headshell are they? Doh.

Si_ said:

Nerine said:

Lastly, regardless. You always set an amp to how it sounds the best it can.
It's nice to have the modes and switches and options, but once you've set them how you deem them to sound best, they no longer really become options..... 

Isn't that true of all amps though? no matter how simple or complicated. I had an AxeFx II, millions of settings and options, but once set to your liking you never need to change them. The point is, those options are there so you can get it to sound the best you can. 

I often use my amp for more than the "best" sounds - although admittedly not live. In fact, one problem with it is that it has too many different good sounds to access on the fly with only two channels, and it takes too long too reset it - and there are a couple of settings that apply to both channels so you have to compromise there.

(So I bought another one! )

Rockhopper

Hi all,

 

Spent a day out yesterday trying a 550+ and MkV. Both Combo options. Also tried some others but at the moment I really like the MkV. The extra channel and the amount of options is doing it for me at the moment.

 

The 550+ was really great but the 2 channels and having to use a switch which I believe I would end up doing for some songs put me off. Great amp though.

 

The MkV was just that 'bit' more (in the money sense too!) it was almost identical in some settings and added the extra channel and for whatever reason I really like the Variac setting.

 

I still have a few days to go before I bite the bullet. So it may be the MkV or something else...

robmac5150

I used an Electradyne for a while. Best Mesa i experienced. I have had two MKIV and a Tremoverb in my time.

Rockhopper

Well I have chosen...

 

I have a MKV and a 5:25+ on the way (Thanks to StefB for that) Can't wait to get hold of it really enjoyed them in the shop....