NAD: Mesa Mark V 90 Watt Head

P

peckhart

Active member
Traded a TC-100 for a Mark V 90 Watt.
I've got a lot of exploring and testing to do, but a first run through the channels in modes at low volume gives me the impression I'm going to love this thing.

I had a Mark IV a while back and also have a 5:50+ Express. I've read a lot about the Mark V before buying so perhaps a combination of all of that allowed me to quickly dial in some really nice tones. I can see where certain settings are just wrong for some of the modes, but could quickly adjust to get it starting to sound right...now just some minor tweaks or adjustments for volume or room change.

Cleans are killer! I like what is going on in Mark I mode, but can see where I'll need to work a bit to bring the sound out front more. Mark IV mode is also just killer.

Should have more time over the next few days to explore it with the house to myself so I can give it some volume.

I'm playing it through a Bogner OS 2x12, which is the only cab I have left. Dumped my 4x12s and don't plan on going back. Kinda eyeing those Mesa vertical 2x12s though.
 
Last edited:
Cool amp! Got rid of mine in favor of the JP2C. But here are my settings if you want to give them a trey. C+ mode on Channel 3. Triode. Reminds of the more vintage mark tones and feel.
 

Attachments

  • 8EB60C2D-77B5-4E03-AFAE-8798B310CD4A.jpeg
    8EB60C2D-77B5-4E03-AFAE-8798B310CD4A.jpeg
    3.4 MB · Views: 50
@peckhart how would you say the Mark V differs from the Mark IV in terms of tonal possibilities?

I had a Mark IV; loved the cleans and high gain, but never gelled with R2.
To scratch the itch after I sold it, I found a used Mark V:25 and love it; especially the Crunch mode, which finally does that classic (hotrodded) Marshall thing, that I always hoped R2 would give me.
 
I hated the Mark 5. Just sounded processed to me. Mark 4 lead channel had this grind and fluid feel that was just unmatched. Agree on R2 channel, sucked ass unless boosted with an overdrive.
 
motorboy1 said:
I hated the Mark 5. Just sounded processed to me. Mark 4 lead channel had this grind and fluid feel that was just unmatched. Agree on R2 channel, sucked ass unless boosted with an overdrive.
Click to expand...
Weird, I'm having the exact opposite experience.
 
Speeddemon said:
@peckhart how would you say the Mark V differs from the Mark IV in terms of tonal possibilities?

I had a Mark IV; loved the cleans and high gain, but never gelled with R2.
To scratch the itch after I sold it, I found a used Mark V:25 and love it; especially the Crunch mode, which finally does that classic (hotrodded) Marshall thing, that I always hoped R2 would give me.
Click to expand...
I had the Mark IV a while ago now. I'm finding the Mark V more organic and natural sounding...or at least its easier to get it there.
I just dropped a quad of new JJ 6L6 in it and was playing at a pretty decent volume, maybe like low band practice volume and I am really enjoying this amp.
There are a ton of different sounds and it is easy to dial up clean, low and mid gain, high gain and melt your face lead tones.
I was just playing my OD and Gain pedals out front into the clean channel and those sound great too so its even more options.

I do like the Crunch mode and agree it hints at modded Marshall. Hard not to use the Mark I mode on Ch 2 though...super liquidy lead tone.
 
It makes a great power amp as well. The voicing switches on CH 3 affect the power section (or post loop) so they are tweakable for a preamps. You should try it with 34’s as well. Not a subtle difference.
 
skoora said:
It makes a great power amp as well. The voicing switches on CH 3 affect the power section (or post loop) so they are tweakable for a preamps. You should try it with 34’s as well. Not a subtle difference.
Click to expand...
Yeah I may try EL34. I have a few sets I can put in to see if they bias in the right range. If not I would probably get some JJ E34Ls rated for the Mark. I've always had good luck with those tubes and like the extended low end.
 
I had a V. The IV mode is where it's at.
Mesa really failed by trying to clone a non GEQ C+ for this amp. Obviously they wanted the IV to reign supreme..
I would argue a regular set of 34s and not an L set would work better. The preamp has a lot of mids built in already. 34Ls are kinda extreme and don't sound like a 34 should.
 
Emg77 said:
Cool amp! Got rid of mine in favor of the JP2C. But here are my settings if you want to give them a trey. C+ mode on Channel 3. Triode. Reminds of the more vintage mark tones and feel.
Click to expand...
Tried these settings last night. Very interesting EQ setup that I wouldn't have thought to try. It actually worked for all the modes on Ch 3. Tight, fast tracking metal all the way.
 
midnightlaundry said:
I had a V. The IV mode is where it's at.
Mesa really failed by trying to clone a non GEQ C+ for this amp. Obviously they wanted the IV to reign supreme..
I would argue a regular set of 34s and not an L set would work better. The preamp has a lot of mids built in already. 34Ls are kinda extreme and don't sound like a 34 should.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I just got Mesa 34’s, dropped them in 10 years ago and never looked back, I’ve had JJE34L’s in my Stiletto for even longer and they seem to do great. Probably because I’m not gigging for the longest time now but I’ve yet needed to change the power tubes in those amps.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top