Markbass to Jad Freer Sisma

[HolmeBass]

Markbass is fine gear. I bought a used LM-III as a backup amp and it will definitely handle my gigs.

That said, I really prefer my Mesa D-800+. I prefer the voice of the amp, but also prefer the EQ, HPF, and gain structure.

And I have to agree that I would certainly hope that the Sisma, as an absolute top-shelf bass amp, would easily out-perform the Markbass amp. Given the accolades for the Sisma, I am not surprised to hear that is the case. I fully realize this is in the realm of diminishing returns, so you pay 3x as much for a 5 or 10% improvement in performance, but that’s just how it is.

 

[gtirard]

I fully realize this is in the realm of diminishing returns, so you pay 3x as much for a 5 or 10% improvement in performance, but that’s just how it is.

I agree about the principle of diminishing return in general, but I would not try to quantify the improvement like you do, because it's very sujective. Some people may actually prefer the Markbass over the Sisma (why not?), others may prefer the Sisma but think it's not worth the price difference, and some may think it's worth it.

 

[frankie5string]

Markbass is fine gear. I bought a used LM-III as a backup amp and it will definitely handle my gigs.

That said, I really prefer my Mesa D-800+. I prefer the voice of the amp, but also prefer the EQ, HPF, and gain structure.

And I have to agree that I would certainly hope that the Sisma, as an absolute top-shelf bass amp, would easily out-perform the Markbass amp. Given the accolades for the Sisma, I am not surprised to hear that is the case. I fully realize this is in the realm of diminishing returns, so you pay 3x as much for a 5 or 10% improvement in performance, but that’s just how it is.

What does "outperform" actually mean in this context? It's amplifying a bass signal with a voice Markbass has found to sell well. For the Sisma, you're paying what the market seems to accept for something classified as boutique. It's no secret that Markbass tries to make gear that's affordable, but does that mean that the couple of "boutique" amps they make and sell (for higher prices) actually "outperform" the cheaper models?

 

[HolmeBass]

I agree about the principle of diminishing return in general, but I would not try to quantify the improvement like you do, because it's very sujective. Some people may actually prefer the Markbass over the Sisma (why not?), others may prefer the Sisma but think it's not worth the price difference, and some may think it's worth it.

Yes, it is very subjective. I agree with your comments.

But I think if you took 50 random bassists across all genres and let them try both amps, most would prefer the Sisma. Whether they would prefer it enough to offset the price difference is of course a different question!

 

[HolmeBass]

What does "outperform" actually mean in this context? It's amplifying a bass signal with a voice Markbass has found to sell well. For the Sisma, you're paying what the market seems to accept for something classified as boutique. It's no secret that Markbass tries to make gear that's affordable, but does that mean that the couple of "boutique" amps they make and sell (for higher prices) actually "outperform" the cheaper models?

Outperform means sounds better at a gig, with the band. You may say that is subjective; I would counter all of this discussion is subjective.

I think so, yes, in the opinion of a broad cross-section of bassists.

And I assure you that for me the Mesa seriously out-performs the LM-III.

When was the last time you A/B’ed your Markbass amp against a different amp with the same cabs and bass?

 

[frankie5string]

Outperform means sounds better at a gig, with the band. You may say that is subjective; I would counter all of this discussion is subjective.

I think so, yes, in the opinion of a broad cross-section of bassists.

And I assure you that for me the Mesa seriously out-performs the LM-III.

When was the last time you A/B’ed your Markbass amp against a different amp with the same cabs and bass?

This is starting to sound like forum-speak... "Sounds better" is subjective... A lot of people out there feel that Markbass gear sounds better than the Sisma. Your opinion on what out-performs what doesn't matter all that much to the player who likes their Markbass gear.

I've A/B'd gear a lot - I get to use a lot of different gear - and I'd never say something was universally "Better" just because I liked what it did at that time. That's not how "better" works - but it is how arm-chair-forum users like to talk about gear... ;-)

 

[Sparky Mark]

I think a fairer comparison from the Markbass stable would be the 1000 watt Vintage head that also incorporates a 12ax7 tube in its front end. Of all my amps, including GK, Orange, Ampeg, Hartke, TC, I find Markbass the most neutral sounding with their filters off and EQ controls at noon.

 

[HolmeBass]

This is starting to sound like forum-speak... "Sounds better" is subjective... A lot of people out there feel that Markbass gear sounds better than the Sisma. Your opinion on what out-performs what doesn't matter all that much to the player who likes their Markbass gear.

I've A/B'd gear a lot - I get to use a lot of different gear - and I'd never say something was universally "Better" just because I liked what it did at that time. That's not how "better" works - but it is how arm-chair-forum users like to talk about gear... ;-)

Yes, but that’s just your opinion, and yes, that is EXACTLY how better works!

And I would love to see A/B testing by 50 random bassists. I would bet that the Sisma would beat out the best Markbass has to offer.

If you are trying to say that Markbass is objectively the same quality as a Sisma then I will have to strongly disagree with you. Are you one of those guys who argues that a Squier is as good as a Fodera?

List some opinions, other than your own, that Markbass is better than the Sisma. You said it was so, let’s see the quotations.

And when was your last A/B of your Markbass head? What did you try it against?

 

[gtirard]

A lot of people out there feel that Markbass gear sounds better than the Sisma.

How many is "a lot"?
How do you know?
How do they know, since almost nobody has even tried or heard Sisma?
Can you provide a source of anyone who has actually played Sisma and says MB amps sound better?

I think that if you want us to believe in such a bold statement, you should provide some evidence and sources.

 

[frankie5string]

How many is "a lot"?
How do you know?
How do they know, since almost nobody has even tried or heard Sisma?
Can you provide a source of anyone who has actually played Sisma and says MB amps sound better?

I think that if you want us to believe in such a bold statement, you should provide some evidence and sources.

It's not that bold. How many millions of bass players use and love Markbass products?
Why is it so bold to ask what's objectively better about them? Even the guys who say "This thing crushes..." temper that enthusiasm (and let's be honest, it's enthusiasm.)

Nobody has told me exactly what makes the Sisma objectively better at anything. It's a great tube pre, with a great amp. Is it better because it's not Class-D? Is that what you're alluding to? It's its own flavour, for sure, and a lot of people like it, but if you can't get one, or you can't wait, or you don't like what it does there are other options.

And those options get you up on stage, or into the studio and working, regardless, right?

I personally believe the CAPO is superior to the Sisma. Maybe objectively it's "better" because it's more crafty about emulating "tubey sound" to various degrees, with a creative signal flow, with solid state gear? ;-)

 

[frankie5string]

Yes, but that’s just your opinion, and yes, that is EXACTLY how better works!

And I would love to see A/B testing by 50 random bassists. I would bet that the Sisma would beat out the best Markbass has to offer.

If you are trying to say that Markbass is objectively the same quality as a Sisma then I will have to strongly disagree with you. Are you one of those guys who argues that a Squier is as good as a Fodera?

Nope, never said that. But if you can't get a Sisma and you can get a Markbass, and you like what the Markbass does?
Does it mean you suck because you like the supposedly "less better according to forum posters" Markbass product? I don't think so.
If 50 random bass players try the Sisma, but then 30 feel it's not worth the price difference, like you mentioned, is it still objectively better?

The Squier vs Fodera thing is a red herring. If you show up to a pit gig with a Fodera, and the MD tells you you need a Jazz bass (and the sheet music says "4 string Jazz Bass,") is the Jazz bass suddenly better? You can argue at them that the Fodera is a better built instrument, but everyone making sure you get paid (or called back) expect you to have a specific tool.

 

[Nuisance]

Interesting take OP. I've pretty much noticed the opposite.

All of the MarkBass heads I've owned have been pretty much unremarkable. That said, I haven't been able to get along with any of the MarkBass cabs I've owned over the years. Just shallow and lifeless sounding to my ear (all mids, no depth).

 

[gtirard]

It's not that bold. How many millions of bass players use and love Markbass products?
Why is it so bold to ask what's objectively better about them? Even the guys who say "This thing crushes..." temper that enthusiasm (and let's be honest, it's enthusiasm.)

Nobody has told me exactly what makes the Sisma objectively better at anything. It's a great tube pre, with a great amp. Is it better because it's not Class-D? Is that what you're alluding to? It's its own flavour, for sure, and a lot of people like it, but if you can't get one, or you can't wait, or you don't like what it does there are other options.

And those options get you up on stage, or into the studio and working, regardless, right?

I personally believe the CAPO is superior to the Sisma. Maybe objectively it's "better" because it's more crafty about emulating "tubey sound" to various degrees, with a creative signal flow, with solid state gear? ;-)

I agree with a lot of things you say, but it's just that the sentence "A lot of people out there feel that Markbass gear sounds better than the Sisma." is excessive IMHO because very few people have actually tried Sisma since it's hard to find (so how can there be "a lot of people" since very few actually know it), and because I've never seen anyone saying he prefers MB or Sisma - that's all. So I wonder: maybe you see yourself as "a lot of people"?

---

My personal view on Markbass amps VS Sisma (not saying it's objectively better, just why I prefer it):

• Markbass sound really good IMO, especially with the filters at zero, I find them transparent but not cold, simply good sounding. Like @Nuisance, I prefer MB amps than their cabs. For context, I don't own one, but I play them very frequently in rented rehearsal studios.
  • I don't like MB filters, but it's not an issue at all — I just avoid them.
  • The EQ section is efficient, but nothing crazy
• I prefer Sisma for the following reasons:
  • I prefer Sisma's EQ, with the Bass and Treble controls which act on a wide frequency range, super quick to use, and the chirurgical parametric mids than can fix any issue.
  • Sisma can sound clean and almost flat if desired, or much more colored depending on the settings, and it never sounds bad for my taste, whatever the settings. By comparison with a MB head, there are settings that I dislike and situations where I struggle.
  • There's something glorious with Sisma when you push the master volume. I don't know if it's due to the Class G power section, maybe it would sound exactly the same with a classic Class D power section - I don't care about the technical reason. But it's something I've never experienced with a MB amp. When I set the EQ at low volume and then increase the master volume, the tone remains the same (it doesn't become boomy), and with the added loudness comes an extra "je ne sais quoi" that I (and my band mates) can feel. I know it sounds like BS and I'm sorry for lack of better words, but it's hard to describe a feeling (+ English is not my native language).

That was just my personal opinion.

---

Like you, I prefer the dirt of the CAPO than pushing the internal tube of Sisma's preamp, but it's the same with all the tube preamps and full tube amps that I've tried, nothing specific to Capo and Sisma. It took me years to find out that I don't care for real tube saturation (at least for bass), I prefer transistors saturation in general. But I love the sound of tube when set "clean, at the edge of breakup". And in fact, I keep Sisma clean and use Capo for distortion. But Capo followed by a clean Sisma sounds better than Capo alone, for my taste.

 

[Bassdirty]

Maybe better means "more expensive"

Like when they (retailers) have different levels of an item for sale (Automobile Brakes for instance).
"Good, Better & Best." And the prices reflect that.

Well at least nobody's debating/Discussing the BEST amp.



On a Totally separate note:

• super quick to use, and the chirurgical parametric mids than can fix any issue.

Not gonna lie, I had to look this up.

 

[Sparky Mark]

Maybe better means "more expensive"

Like when they (retailers) have different levels of an item for sale (Automobile Brakes for instance).
"Good, Better & Best." And the prices reflect that.

Well at least nobody's debating/Discussing the BEST amp.



On a Totally separate note:

Not gonna lie, I had to look this up.

Agreed. Both Jad Freer and Markbass 58R products are manufactured in Italy, so I'm not convinced there will be any significant difference in the assembly quality of the two companies. One big cost advantage Markbass has is its economies of scale due to the implementation of its power amp and other modules across many products.
I would estimate that JF costs in producing relatively low volumes of amps, compared with MB, are significantly more than MB and drive the much higher selling prices, not necessarily a better product.
I'd be interested to know whether this particular use of class G topology has real benefits over any other when it comes to bass amplification? It's definitely a unique selling point.

 

[HolmeBass]

Nope, never said that. But if you can't get a Sisma and you can get a Markbass, and you like what the Markbass does?
Does it mean you suck because you like the supposedly "less better according to forum posters" Markbass product? I don't think so.
If 50 random bass players try the Sisma, but then 30 feel it's not worth the price difference, like you mentioned, is it still objectively better?

The Squier vs Fodera thing is a red herring. If you show up to a pit gig with a Fodera, and the MD tells you you need a Jazz bass (and the sheet music says "4 string Jazz Bass,") is the Jazz bass suddenly better? You can argue at them that the Fodera is a better built instrument, but everyone making sure you get paid (or called back) expect you to have a specific tool.

If you like Markbass better does it mean you suck? Dude, don’t be paranoid. Seriously, W T F.

You seem to be unable to differentiate between quality and value.

Quality is whether one thing is better than another. It is subjective. Then there is value, also subjective, which is whether the higher quality is worth the price for that person.

I drive a Subaru. It’s a great car. I recognize that Porsche makes better cars. Porsche is higher quality. But, for me, the Subaru gets the job done, and I don’t want to completely change my priorities in order to pay enough money to get a Porsche - I feel for me that the Subaru is better value.

It doesn’t mean I suck, and it doesn’t mean that Subaru is just as good Porsche.

Don’t be so defensive. The gear you own and use does not define you.

 

[Planetguitar]

Nope, never said that. But if you can't get a Sisma and you can get a Markbass, and you like what the Markbass does?
Does it mean you suck because you like the supposedly "less better according to forum posters" Markbass product? I don't think so.
If 50 random bass players try the Sisma, but then 30 feel it's not worth the price difference, like you mentioned, is it still objectively better?

The Squier vs Fodera thing is a red herring. If you show up to a pit gig with a Fodera, and the MD tells you you need a Jazz bass (and the sheet music says "4 string Jazz Bass,") is the Jazz bass suddenly better? You can argue at them that the Fodera is a better built instrument, but everyone making sure you get paid (or called back) expect you to have a specific tool.

Interesting. I started playing open mics with my boutique F Bass with hopes of finding a band to play with. I’d get offstage and people would say, “Nice bass!”.

I realized I was not rock and roll enough. I sold it and got a Jazz bass. When I got offstage people would say- “Nice playing!”. I was soon asked to join a band.

 

[Planetguitar]

I agree with a lot of things you say, but it's just that the sentence "A lot of people out there feel that Markbass gear sounds better than the Sisma." is excessive IMHO because very few people have actually tried Sisma since it's hard to find (so how can there be "a lot of people" since very few actually know it), and because I've never seen anyone saying he prefers MB or Sisma - that's all. So I wonder: maybe you see yourself as "a lot of people"?

---

My personal view on Markbass amps VS Sisma (not saying it's objectively better, just why I prefer it):

• Markbass sound really good IMO, especially with the filters at zero, I find them transparent but not cold, simply good sounding. Like @Nuisance, I prefer MB amps than their cabs. For context, I don't own one, but I play them very frequently in rented rehearsal studios.
  • I don't like MB filters, but it's not an issue at all — I just avoid them.
  • The EQ section is efficient, but nothing crazy
• I prefer Sisma for the following reasons:
  • I prefer Sisma's EQ, with the Bass and Treble controls which act on a wide frequency range, super quick to use, and the chirurgical parametric mids than can fix any issue.
  • Sisma can sound clean and almost flat if desired, or much more colored depending on the settings, and it never sounds bad for my taste, whatever the settings. By comparison with a MB head, there are settings that I dislike and situations where I struggle.
  • There's something glorious with Sisma when you push the master volume. I don't know if it's due to the Class G power section, maybe it would sound exactly the same with a classic Class D power section - I don't care about the technical reason. But it's something I've never experienced with a MB amp. When I set the EQ at low volume and then increase the master volume, the tone remains the same (it doesn't become boomy), and with the added loudness comes an extra "je ne sais quoi" that I (and my band mates) can feel. I know it sounds like BS and I'm sorry for lack of better words, but it's hard to describe a feeling (+ English is not my native language).

That was just my personal opinion.

---

Like you, I prefer the dirt of the CAPO than pushing the internal tube of Sisma's preamp, but it's the same with all the tube preamps and full tube amps that I've tried, nothing specific to Capo and Sisma. It took me years to find out that I don't care for real tube saturation (at least for bass), I prefer transistors saturation in general. But I love the sound of tube when set "clean, at the edge of breakup". And in fact, I keep Sisma clean and use Capo for distortion. But Capo followed by a clean Sisma sounds better than Capo alone, for my taste.

Regarding the MARKBASS EQ, although I’m the original poster saying that the SISMA is much better, I have to give MARKBASS props for their EQ. I think they’re 2 mid controls work fantastic too take care of the mid range to bring out the high strings or whatever. That being said the SISMA is just plug-in play and it just sounds great without even thinking about it.

And, the CAPO is fantastic and helped my Markbass with it’s saturation in a big way. But, I graduated to bigger and better (imho).