[Review] TAF Mesa Mark V (now finished)

So what was the trouble then?

Hi Quitty! You have the TAF Mark V and find them strange, too!? I opened a thread some days ago >>Amp Factory Mark V problem<< - Do you also have those problems if you turn Gain back on the Hi Gain profiles?

Todd

Quote from Ingolf

So what was the trouble then?

I'm also curious to know what the problem was.

Demo sounds great btw!

well........it sounds excellent. lots of people in the forum searching for a petrucci sound: there you have it, it does the job very well.

I say: great job Andy!!

and excellent palying as well

Thanks.

Quote from Quitty

So, in keeping with my goal of flooding this forum, next up is the controversial Mark V pack from TAF.

I bought this a while ago looking to get a Dream-Theater-ish wall of sound thing going on, didn't click with it and moved on to other ventures. Don't even remember what didn't work for me -
however, the rig manager has since made auditioning profiles so simple that when Alex on SS.org asked about the TAF Mark V i figured i'd give it a go.
I loaded it up and immediately remembered why i didn't like it. Further inspection revealed some really, really weird stuff going on with that profile... Possibly, this is one of the 'unprofilable' amps? Or maybe something went awry in the gain staging of the recording chain.

Sorting the trouble out, however, was really simple - and the resulting rig is one of the best, most convenient and versatile i've ever had the pleasure of playing.

Here's my template demo with the same rig for both rhythm and leads.
No settings were changed from the Engl pack and the guitars have nothing but a low pass on them.

You can hear the Mark V demo here.

pros

• Absolutely massive wall of sound and great (stiff) mids.
• Fairly easily attainable DT sounds - both rhythm and leads
• Extremely versatile 'Definition' parameter.

cons

• Needs some drastic modifications to work
• Doesn't like single coils
• Weak cleans

It's worth noting it's also not much for diversity once modified - i found all i wanted in the extremely versatile first lead profile. Don't know if that's a pro or con

Trouble
Loading up the first Lead preset reveals some weird stuff is going on.
First, the 'Definition' parameter is on 0.0 . For a modern amp like the Mark V, this ain't right. Second, the gain is on 3.3 - or rather, that's what the toaster shows. Playing the profile feels more like a 7.0 .
My guess is that the amp distorts some frequencies much more than others and the profiler somehow 'latched' on to the cleaner frequencies - which also makes it increase dramatically in volume if you turn the gain down.
It also completely obsoletes the 'direct mix' parameter (on 0.1 you can hear the DI louder than the profile) and makes 'power sagging' behave much like the 'compressor' parameter.

So, you might ask why you'd still want this amp profile on your machine - and that's where the fun begins.
We all know what we came here for, right?
I had to resort to two profile modifications that i usually avoid - 'Definition' and cab swapping - but before you dismiss the profile altogether, let me assure you that for once, it's worth it and those JP tones are very much here.

tl;dr
Clean sense to -12.0
Definition between 2.5 (modern DT leads) and 8.0 (Lamb of God-ish)
Cab swap to LL - ChugChug
It takes two minutes tops and the amp profile itself is priceless.

Solutions
First off, to solve the volume weirdness, unlock your input and turn 'clean sense' to -12.0 . I'd have liked it even a bit lower, but now the gain control is perfectly usable - although the profile stays crunchy even at 0.0 .
anywhere between 2.5 and 8.0 works great and this is actually one of the coolest things about this profile - the 'definition' parameter's range here is fully usable because it focuses almost solely on the attack part of the profile;
2.5 for some 'Train of Thought' lead tones, 5.5 for 'Systematic Chaos', 7.0 for the older Ibanez stuff, 8.0 for Lamb of God. Awesome.
(demo was recorded on 6.2)
Next, the cab is very, very mid-heavy. Too much for me, and i'm a mids-cranker. I think Andy actually meant 'lead' when he tuned these
I'll cut it short and tell you straight away that Lasse Lammert's 'ChugChug' cab is probably what you're looking for, but feel free to try any 5150 variant through a Mesa cab (rectifiers are way too loose).
Consider another presence boost (1.0 or so) and maybe a slight bump around 8KHz post-stack.

The profiles
The first lead profile does it all - DT stuff, general Mark IV mayhem, Santana leads etc. It's a wall of sound, massive and thick, for single notes and chords. Lower the gain a bit to get more attack.
You might want to increase 'Clarity' if you want less string crosstalk. 6.4 for me.
Doesn't really like single coils, but that's understandable

Crunch2 is surprisingly awesome too - with the stock cab It's very warm, but has just the right amount to crunch up only when you dig in. Try it for oldschool rock and blues on a neck SC.
Tweed is actually pretty tweedy, but there's better tweed available elsewhere.
Cleans are really weak and flimsy but i've said many times i'm not a fan of the toaster's stock preamp.
If you find the first lead too modern, maybe try the others - they are all quite similar with the swapped cab but your starting 'Definition' value is different - once you set it to taste the result is a bit more 80's style grain in the sound.

All in all, for a JP kind of sound or just general Mark IV stiff mids, there's only one other good solution i've ever come across (Milla's XFX-II, once you swap cabs)
and the TAF one, once modified, blows it right out the water.

Display More

nice review...........I found the cab on TAF profiles not perfectly at my taste sometimes, so I tend to change it. But I guess Andy's cabs are the choice of a sound engineer which cares about getting that guitar tone out in the mix: the way to go for a pro result.
On my side, I'm a dark sound lover but this sometimes can jeopardize the guitar coming out in the mix. instead, since Andy has tons of mixing experience, he adds cabs which guarantee the listening of the guitar among the various instruments.

just my thoughts though................

Thanks Quitty!! It worked - completely usable now! It really seems the KPA had some problems profiling this Mark V...

I used your settings on the "AF5-Mark V Lead" - is that the right one? My profile factory definition was on 6.2.

Hey Quitty, I didn't have the Definition issue you had, but I did find the profiles "out the box" were very far from what I wanted from the amp.

I agree to put Definition around 5-6 for the best tone, but additionally, I use a Graphic EQ in front the amp using a completely diagonal line, so I'm cutting bass and boosting treble progressively up the frequency spectrum. Set the first bass slider as low as possible, and the last treble slider as high as possible, then make a diagonal line to fill in the rest. Then start at 0% mix and keep turning it up until you hit the sweet spot. Gonna be around 50%, maybe higher depending on your tastes, guitar, etc. Now, this is going to get you a tight Mark IV type tone. If it's still a bit harsh, try lowering the highest treble slider on the Graphic EQ. Try messing with Definition beyond this to get more of the Mark II type sound.

Now for the cab/EQ. Obviously the cab tone is VERY midsy. At first I was just like switch to Till's Recto (62 is my fave as of right now) and do some EQ adjustments. But I actually tried all of the Mark V profile cabs and actually prefer them once EQ'ed in. My favorite I think is either lead #2 or 3. What you need is a Studio EQ and cut around 500 HZ and boost around 2500 HZ. You need quite a boost on the treble. And boom - best cab profile I have heard so far - it has a graininess to the treble that is musical and just cuts, but you still have those super creamy mids.

I will be sending my tweaked profiles to Andy when I'm totally done, with the recommendation that he adds them to his pack - it will greatly help out many novice users, and I really feel that for the price, this is a great pack; but I'm sure many people will be very disappointed with the profiles as is if they are expecting any kind of tight, metal sound.

Now as I checked the Clean Sense of the Mark V, I kept my Clean Sense unlocked for the first time. I browsed through some other Rigs (Lasse Lammerts, TAF Herbert, TAF EVH5150) and noticed, that they all have different Clean/Distortion Sense settings and now sound different compared to my 0.0-locked Senses. I never profiled an amp by myself, but does it matter how these parameters are set during the profiling process?

Quitty, when you say lowered the volume, you mean your guitar volume pot, right? I would agree that it does sound off in that case. I use it mostly for rhythm, not lead, and never am lowering the guitar volume.

But I don't understand how it's so different using the Graphic EQ with amp Definition at ~5 vs. no pre-EQ and Definition at 8.5. That's basically what Definition is, but you get a bit more control with the EQ. The settings may seem extreme, but I don't put Mix all the way up.

I definitely like LL's Stiletto cab profiles. What I didn't like about some of them is that they sound a bit "bigger" than it seems like they should, like the attack/transient is compressed and slightly washed out. But they definitely get that wall of sound going on.

In general I agree about EQ, though. I dunno - I'll circle back - I just dialed all that in the other night, so it might be that honeymoon kind of thing. But it definitely had the raw-ness that Till's cabs lacked, but excellent attack response I wasn't getting from LL's cabs.

Quote from meambobbo

But I don't understand how it's so different using the Graphic EQ with amp Definition at ~5 vs. no pre-EQ and Definition at 8.5. That's basically what Definition is.

Definition isn't just EQ.

Quitty, I've tried your tweaks to Mark V and got a rather nice lead tone. I am not sure what's up with 3.3 gain on this profile (your theory sounds plausible). Nonetheless, I believe Mark V is one of these amps which are better to own than profile.

I want to test out Definition. I know the manual says it changes the way the distortion behaves, but I've also read stuff from CK around the forums that made it sound like a glorified treble booster. In my experience, taking a profile with Definition at +8 and setting it down to 5-6 and then using EQ to make up the difference produces a very similar tone.

Quitty's onto something...

Doubled back on the LL cabs - I like the ChugChug best, at least for this purpose. It's the least scooped and "metallic" sounding. I still had good attack - so I think I was using a more compressed profile when I demo'ed them before. Tried it vs. Till's and Andy's Mark V cabs with EQ. In every case the ChugChug ruled the roost.

I adjusted my Graphic EQ settings to try to get more of the trough at 300 and peak at 6k. Definitely improved things a bit. I was already dipping at 10k a bit lower than 5k, but the low end was more of a straight line. Now it looks more like a shelf with everything 300 and below at the same levels.

I found even with Definition at 10 the Lead 1 profile is still not to my tastes. I like Definition around 6.2 in addition to the EQ.

I liked post EQ a to boost Mids in the Tone stack but then do the Mark series 750 HZ cut in a Studio EQ. I also used the Studio EQ to cut at 80 HZ and 9kHZ with the low/high shelves.

Pete Turley has a 22 profile pack of the Mark V but he hasn't officially released it yet. I have it and can say that it's much better out the gate than this pack, but I did have to use a few tricks to "optimize" them.