• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

Mesa Mark Series Graphic EQ Block

joegold

Fractal Fanatic
FractalAudio said:
A Mesa power section is typically clean enough that putting the EQ before it doesn't sound very different than putting the EQ after it. You can replicate the sound of the MK IV EQ using the Para EQ block AFTER the amp block. I don't have the actual values at hand but it can be done and sounds virtually identical.
Hi Cliff.

I know you're dead set against incorporating some sort of pre-power-amp-sim GEQ within the Amp Block for whatever reasons you have.
But maybe you'd consider adding a single parameter akin to the Triaxis' Dynamic Voice control which was designed to replicate the classic V-shape of their 5-band GEQs at increasingly more dramatic levels of mid-scoop-plus-hi/low-boost as Dynamic Voice is turned up.
[I actually hated the Dynamic Voice control on my Triaxis and never used it. It had a way of sucking all the warmth out of the tone, but that probably had more to do with their implementation of it electronically.]

Just a thought.

This might help stop threads like this from emerging from time to time, and it might even be a good addition to the Amp Block parameters in general.
 

ML SOUND LAB

Cab Pack Wizard
Vendor
FractalAudio said:
A Mesa power section is typically clean enough that putting the EQ before it doesn't sound very different than putting the EQ after it. You can replicate the sound of the MK IV EQ using the Para EQ block AFTER the amp block. I don't have the actual values at hand but it can be done and sounds virtually identical.
I've actually found better results with the PEQ after the amp but the AXEWIKI told me to use 1.414 as Q... It sounds much more like the real thing to use a Q around 0.7. I actually made a clip using a wider Q... I'll post it when I have the time.
 

hsnyder

Member
Whoa looks like i opened up a can o worms. I thikn the reason cliff doesnt want to seperate the preamp and poweramp simulations (aka he doesnt want to add an effects loop to the amp block) is because if the poweramp can be isolated its a lot easier to reverse engineer. He has a point, and this is a competitive business market, so you can't really fault him for that (if i'm right about why he's doing it).

The problem for me is that I don't actually own a real Mark to compare too, so if i see a V setting i dont really know how to "try it out" cause of the GEQ working differently. I'm contemplating actually doing the math on that EQ, though i admit i'd have to do some research to find out exactly how first.
 
Allright, I think this has gone too far. :lol: Out of curiosity I fired up my mark iv yesterday and the tones coming out of the mark iv even though are very nice, its nothing the axe cannot reproduce. Maybe you guys are strictly trying the mark iv model only and giving up? try other models also. The real mark iv does have more bite and presence, but since I'm still a noob with the axe, maybe I need to work on it some more. but its nothing out of this world or something.

The uberschall on the other hand has a low end growl which is simply out of this world and the axe was able to reproduce it faithfully and I've very happy about that. :)
 

Axisman5150

Experienced
Does anybody know what the Mesa EQ's maximum/minimum gain/cut is for the sliders?
Knowing that might help a bit as well the Q setting. Like Clark, I usually keep that at .707.

On the PEG in the Axe it's +12db/-12db, it seems to have more gain/cut than the Mesa. If I dial in the classic "V" shape with the bass and treble sliders up to the max with the mids almost down to -11, it's way over the top bass and too much sizzle with too much poop scoop mids. But if you go +3 to +4 for max gain and the same for the cut for the mids(-3 to -4) and dial to shape like a "V" or like other settings I've seen in pictures, seems to work.
 

ML SOUND LAB

Cab Pack Wizard
Vendor
Yeah... I was a noobish fool (foolish noob?) to trust those settings that we're handed in the axewiki. 0.707 mid scoopage made the tone MUCH better. I kinda copied Chevelle's trick on how to make the Mark IV even more low end rumble-ish. Pete has a GE-7 that cuts highs evenly... I did it with a GEQ so that every knob had -0.5dB more. This one between the amp and cab made the tone a bit more clean... it's cool for that kind of a genre. Lowering the volume on the guitar makes the tone into a cool breakup clean tone.
 

brettllingle

Inspired
I thought it would be cool to be able to change the eq frequencies in the already present eq. That would make the eq we already have all the better.
 

guitarnerdswe

Fractal Fanatic
Axisman5150 said:
Does anybody know what the Mesa EQ's maximum/minimum gain/cut is for the sliders?
Knowing that might help a bit as well the Q setting. Like Clark, I usually keep that at .707.

On the PEG in the Axe it's +12db/-12db, it seems to have more gain/cut than the Mesa. If I dial in the classic "V" shape with the bass and treble sliders up to the max with the mids almost down to -11, it's way over the top bass and too much sizzle with too much poop scoop mids. But if you go +3 to +4 for max gain and the same for the cut for the mids(-3 to -4) and dial to shape like a "V" or like other settings I've seen in pictures, seems to work.
The sliders on the Mesa amps are logarithmic, the ones in the PEQ are linear. That's way you got much more boost/cut.
 

Axisman5150

Experienced
tonygtr said:
The sliders on the Mesa amps are logarithmic, the ones in the PEQ are linear. That's way you got much more boost/cut.
Thanks Tony, so are the sliders on the GEQ in the Axe logarithmic?
Although I get in the ball park with the PEQ and adjust by ear, It would be nice to the have a model of the EQ.
 

guitarnerdswe

Fractal Fanatic
Axisman5150 said:
tonygtr said:
The sliders on the Mesa amps are logarithmic, the ones in the PEQ are linear. That's way you got much more boost/cut.
Thanks Tony, so are the sliders on the GEQ in the Axe logarithmic?
Although I get in the ball park with the PEQ and adjust by ear, It would be nice to the have a model of the EQ.
The sliders in the GEQ are also linear. You're best bet is to use the PEQ :)
 

FractalAudio

Administrator
Fractal Audio Systems
Moderator
The sliders in the GEQ are NOT linear. They are linear-in-dB which is logarithmic. The graphic EQ can be thought of as a subset of the PEQ. The frequency and Q are fixed. The slider is the gain in dB and is identical to the gain in the PEQ.
 
Just found this information on the Mesa forums. I havent tried to replicate the geq yet. But maybe this will help anyone looking for answers...

====================

I found this information on the Fractal Forum, interesting.

'Analysis of a Mesa/Boogie Mark IV schematic revealed the following settings for recreating the famous amp's graphic EQ.'

Frequencies:

* 87.61 Hz
* 371.74 Hz
* 723.43 Hz
* 1575.87 Hz
* 4822.88 Hz

Q:

* 1.414 (ideal for octave equalizer)
* 1.3 (actual, due to component values used)

'There's about 18dB of cut and 17dB of boost. This is in the ideal world, so +/- 15dB was probably the design goal. The pot response is logarithmic – i.e. most of the cut/boost is near the end of the pot travel. Also, this is not a constant Q design, so the Q decreases (or bandwidth increases) with less boost or cut.
 

joegold

Fractal Fanatic
marvinx said:
i think the mark model needs two gains like the real one.
~mx~
The Amp Block will always have one set, and only one set, of available parameters for all the possible Amp Types.

Learn to live with it.

This is just one of many other reasons why the Axe's Amp block will never be able to *exactly* replicate any particular amp that Cliff attempts to simulate.
All he can do is to get us in the general vicinity, in very close proximity actually, but it will never be all the way "there".
Or, he may be able to come very very close to simulating a handful of the potential sounds that one of these real-world amps is capable of producing. But he won't be able to replicate *all* of the sounds that amp is capable of.
If you really want the *exact* sound you've heard from some Mesa amp you've owned, you're gonna have to go back to using that *exact* same amp.

If you want more versatility than that amp is capable of producing, but you still want tones that are equally musical or even more musical than that amp, then you might want to keep using the Axe.
 
Top Bottom