Talk:Mesa/Boogie

Restructuring

I went through and edited up to section 2.7.2, fixing sentence structure and grammar, upgrading the tone of the writing, and removing strongly opinionated sections. If at all possible, I would appreciate if someone would rewrite the remainder of the article, and once it is entirely completed, remove the tags. Bargain Fanta (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Gilmour used one?

As far as I know, David Gilmour uses either Hiwatt or Fender amps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.202.34 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Poor structure, very opinionated.

I noted that throughout reading this article there was a very lax tone to it and frequent use was made of authors' own personal opinions (going as far as using the pronoun 'I'). I suggest this article be redesigned and re-written from the ground up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.93.78 (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Written like an advertisement?

I'm no expert but it seems like the use of present tense where there should be past and the amount of largely irrelevant material makes this seem very "advertisy"160.39.18.104 02:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur this is definitely written like an advertisement. Mostly has very good and complete information, but could just use some general cleanup to take out the sales talk. For example, "The Road King is well known for its vast number of options. It has an unprecedented 4 channels, each with the option of two different speaker outputs, two effects loops and Progressive Linkage, which allows five different power tube configurations (2x6L6, 2xEL34, 2x6L6+2xEL34, 4x6L6, 4x6L6+2xEL34), which are signaled by different LED lights on the front of the amplifier." - this sounds like it could have (and perhaps did) come straight out of a catalog. There are many such examples throughout, like overuse of words like "features" and "unprecedented" and others.

I would not be surprised to learn that this article was submitted directly from the MESA marketing department, possibly even from Smith himself. Obviously it is an advertisement, there is no doubt. It contains all the typical Mesa hype and promotion of Randall Smith. With that said, to be perfectly fair, Mesa gear is known to be Professional grade and rugged, and is used by a lot of big name performers. However, there are an equal number of players who would not be caught dead playing such uber-gain amplifiers with four times as many knobs as really needed, and bells and whistles galore. Many are of the opinion that all the extra gobbeldy-gook actually detracts from the tone, and prefer simpler more traditional vintage inspired amplifiers from Mesa's competitors, which offer vastly superior clean tones compared to Mesa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59Tremolux (talk • contribs) 05:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Your use of "uber-gain amplifiers" and phrases like "as really needed" "bells and whistles" is just as opinion-based as "unprecedented". That you would go further to state that other manufacturers offer amps with better clean tones further detracts from your credibility. While I think this article isn't written very well, the reasons you state aren't extremely valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.119.25 (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there is no mention of problems with MESA amps with the exception of RoadKings complexity, positioned again positive as versitility, goes to show that the article is advertizing material from MESA itself. It is disappointing to see MESA posing as individual contributer for advertizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.124.57 (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree - sounds like an advertisement - this article could be toned down for NPOV. "One of the most influential" ??? This article describes a product and musical instrument, that drew heavily on the re-engineering of previously designed products and instruments. A little less hyperbola would be appreciated Richardsidler (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So what's the reason for the tag...?

Other than matters of style and grammar, the article seems fine to me... without my having verified any of the information herein through other sources. Can someone either put forth a concrete point disputing the article, or erase the tag altogether? Feel free to address any questions to me through my talk page... --Daniel Villalobos 20:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"visceral aesthetic and aggressive gain structure" doesn't read like a MESA brochure? Really? musant (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Poor Text

This article seems to borrow heavily from publicity materials of the firm's. Is it possible for someone to write a literate article? 198.96.134.61 06:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have red the article throughout. Although no native english speaker, I am overwhelmed with the comprehensive information. I think the language of the article reflects the language skills of the targeted audience (me). There is no need for "literate article" in my opinion. --BEG 18:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Metallica

Just a small point but wasn't the black album recorded with a Mark IIC+ (Metallica's usual studio amp) slaved into a Marshall 1959SLP?

No, Master of Puppets was recorded the above combination —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.135.133 (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this combination of amplifiers was used on Master of Puppets, ...And Justice for All, and the black album. True story. However, one thing the author got wrong was that Metallica never used a Coliseum 300 Mark Series amp. I don't know where he got that from. The amp he's talking about is a Mark IIC++ wide chassis head, but it's not a Coliseum.

Strategy Series

Well, i have a Strategy 500 (and i remember there was a Strategy 400, too). These are not even mentioned in the article. Why? -Marcus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.78.64.171 (talk) 13:38, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

That is because Mesa/Boogie did not submit this article, like some here are saying. This article was obviously written by a Rectifier fanboy, not Randall Smith - otherwise, there'd be more information on other Mesa products. Note the length of the section regarding Rectfiers vs. other amps. A lot of fluff and rambling about Rectifier specs and features are listed because that's what the author knows. Yet, other equally significant models seem to be neglected, while many others are not mentioned at all. This isn't an advertisement. It's an online user review.

Also, concerning the tube bass amps, I'd also like to add that, while the D and 400 series amps are important bass amps in Mesa's history, the Buster series was also significant. Hopefully somebody knowledgable about the Buster bass amps can include them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.140.133 (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A section on the Strategy amps, as well as the Stereo Simul Class 2/395 amps was added recently, but was clearly based on opinion (by a harmony-central member no less...). I just cleaned it up, but it's just a skeleton at this point. Feel free to add info and dates as needed. Try to keep it as neutral as possible. The last contribution raved about how the 395 was the "Best power amp mesa ever made because it sounded like a IIC+ and a IV and everything in between," while the S400/500 only said "more powerful versions of the 2/395." This article is an opinionated mess already, so don't make it worse. Photi G (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Split Into Sub Pages For Each Model

Someone seems to have dropped in a whole section cribbed from somewhere else (complete with copyright notice) on the Mark series. Perhaps someone who cares about this article can clean it up, and consider making subpages for each model or series? 76.10.153.220 (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

New mesa model 2009

Please note the release of the new M9 carbine.210.215.75.3 (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

New 2010 models

the new Mesa Boogie 2010 updates of the Dual and Triple Rectifiers, and the introduction of the Tranatlantic need to be added to this page. I'll put them up in a few days if nothing has been done. SwampAshSpecial (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverb Rocket

What about the wonderfully diminutive Reverb Rocket series (usually a small combo but I once saw a fab. looking mini-stack)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.40.137.121 (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced advertisement

The whole thing is unrefd, and serves as an ad for the company. I will remove some of the content, per wp policy.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of content

I wrote a part of the section on the Coliseum Series, strictly describing the features based on my experience. How would you like the information on these rare amplifiers to be referenced? We cannot use the Mesa material (manuals or brochures for obvious reasons). I don't see why this content was deleted. Understandably, many areas on this page did come across like an advertisement. But that doesn't justify the deletion of almost the "whole" page. It seems to be a heavily flawed process where one can delete excessively due to paranoia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.171 (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Going back

I think we should go back to this version (06:01, 24 August 2012‎ Mercurywoodrose ) but removing the patented technologies and older products, what do you guys think? Tuner420 (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of content

On the 19th of July 2014, a large amount of content was removed from this page without much justification and apparently without any discussion. I can see that perhaps it was overly verbose for the main page on Mesa, but it was useful information nonetheless. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think nuking over half the content on a wiki article is something which should be done without some discussion.

Perhaps it could be relocated to a new page dedicated to the Mesa product lineup (past and present)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.181.126 (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)