Mark IV vs. Mark V

  • Thread starter Thread starter deadweight
  • Start date Start date
D

deadweight

New member
Ive really been looking at getting a Mark V but have heard great stuff about the Mark IV. I know the Mark V has a Mark IV setting and was just wondering (for those of you that own or have used both) how close the setting on the V compares to the IV itself? Any bad opinions of the V?
 
From what I know of the amps. I've heard people complain that the Mark V's modes don't sound like the amps they are named after. But in the same breath, no one is saying they don't sound good. On the contrary, I think the Mark V has a bitchin fucking pissed off sounding tone and the feel is great.
 
Man,I just picked up a Mark IV and have played the V but breifly and the Mark IV is really a killer amp,just takes a while to learn the EQ and twelve thousand knobs :lol: :LOL:
 
I had a full house of Marks, including the V but I still have a IIC+, III and IV(a). The Mark V didn't stay around. To buy a V to try and emulate a IIC+ or a IV is the wrong thing to do. To me, it never got close. For someone who knows nothing of vintage Mesa tones, and needs a versatile amp that covers a lot of ground, the Mark V is a pretty good amp. It doesn't have near the bottom end and raw tone though that came with the originals. 3 channels, 3 settings per channel for a total of 9 settings, plus lots of other bells and whistles makes it a decent amp for the money. It just doesn't have the balls its predecessors had.

Steve
 
I've owned a Mark IV and had to sell it after having it for 5 years. I later bought (and still own) the Mark V back when they came out. As a lot of people said, the V gets a lot of shit, because they made the mistake of putting specifically named modes "Mark IV" and "Mark IIC+" on the Mark V. Yes, neither mode is actually a match for the tones that the modes are named for...although, the "Mark IV mode" is actually a bit closer than the "Mark IIC+ mode". Despite this, anyone who says the MV isn't a good amp, simply don't know what the fuck they are talking about. Most of the stooges that say this, "verified" this by demo'ing the amp for less than an hour and never took any time to dial in settings...and of course the other reason falls back on the mode naming. The MV is actually capable of a whole lot more than the MKIV. And, many believe (including me) that the MV has a better clean channel than the MKIV. Now, the MKIV has an amazing lead channel that can not be truely duplicated by the MV, although it's not way off. There are times, when I do miss the MKIV, because of this. Although, I am satisfied with the MV more overall. I the both amps are very good in their own right. Like most, I never really got into the MKIV's crunch channel. Where as, just about every channel, mode, etc is usable to me, on the MV. Honestly, I still wouldn't mind picking up a MKIV again down the road for the right price. The MV is here to stay though.
 
Clean .... about the same but different.
RHY2 .... V is better.
Lead ..... easy the IV.

I have plenty of amps that can do cleans on up to crunch .... so the Mark is really about the lead channel for me. For my taste the IV is much better. Do a direct A/B with the same guitar and cab .... many feel the same as I do.
 
I never played or heard the V outside of clips.
I owned a III (Red stripe) and currently have a IV. I love the tone of the Marks.
If I was to grab a V .........I would play it for what it is and not try to 'compare' it to any other amp.
The clips that Big Rich put out sound amazing! :thumbsup:
 
Ya the V was a killer amp I thought but I just didn't have any real time on it to give a good review. :thumbsup:
 
ive owned a mark 4A and now i have a 5

id take the 5 just because i feel all the modes on each channel are 100% useable for any type of style....i didnt really like the clean channel on my 4 for some reason it just sounded very flat, it had no depth to it at all, and i felt that rythm2 was completely unuseable which left the lead channel to be that amps saving grace for me..... i used to get some really sick black album-ish tones out of that amp...it was sweet

but id still take the mark 5's 3rd channel over it any day, the 5 is just soooo damn modern sounding and going through all the modes is alot of fun.....even if they dont sound like the real thing they still sound pretty awesome
 
Big Rich":1ulsbbo5 said:
ive owned a mark 4A and now i have a 5

id take the 5 just because i feel all the modes on each channel are 100% useable for any type of style....i didnt really like the clean channel on my 4 for some reason it just sounded very flat, it had no depth to it at all, and i felt that rythm2 was completely unuseable which left the lead channel to be that amps saving grace for me..... i used to get some really sick black album-ish tones out of that amp...it was sweet

but id still take the mark 5's 3rd channel over it any day, the 5 is just soooo damn modern sounding and going through all the modes is alot of fun.....even if they dont sound like the real thing they still sound pretty awesome
Click to expand...

Exactly. Don't try to compare or you will be disappointed and always saying this don't sound like a 4 or a IIC+, and it doesn't. But, the amp is versatile as hell and the Mark I settings on the clean/crunch are great too. If you haven't done it yet, throw some 34's in there instead of the 6L6's and dial up a decent Marshall JCM grind on Ch.2. It really brings up the bottom end. That was one of my biggest problems with it. To me it lacked bottom end across the board. But, it is a decent, versatile amp for the money....just write your settings down if you are using all the channels.

Steve
 
its cool I havent played either. I'm still playing my peavey xxx which is the first 1/2 stack ive ever owned so, Ive kinda been looking for something with nicer cleans and more versatility so this seems better, will i be able to get as much aggression out of it though?
 
I've spent time with both and I like both amps a lot. IMO, both amps benefit from a tube swap, and both sound killer. Does the IV mode on the Mark V sound exactly like the Mark IV lead channel? Not really. It's very close but the feel is different no matter how I dial it. But it's just that, different. Not better or worse in my honest opinion. I guess it comes down to how much versatility you need and how much you want to spend.
 
deadweight":3ke5iqdl said:
its cool I havent played either. I'm still playing my peavey xxx which is the first 1/2 stack ive ever owned so, Ive kinda been looking for something with nicer cleans and more versatility so this seems better, will i be able to get as much aggression out of it though?
Click to expand...
i can dial my mark 5 to sound just as aggressive as my old bogner uberschall twin jet i had

listen to my vids and tell me thats not brootal lol


 
I own a IV now and have played the V 2 times. I love my IV but I want to go to a V and it all boils down to versatility. That third channel on the V is super close to what I had dialed in the IV and channels one and two on the V are so much better. Just my opinion regardless both amps smoke.
 
The Mark IV has the better lead channel but everything else on the V is better. Even though i may hear a video of a V that sounds cool I'm still underwhelmed by it when I've tried it. The IIC+ i owned sounded great live with a band and did great in the mix since i never scooped it too much. I tried the V with a drummer and it didn't do well. The 2nd channel in crunch mode did sound pretty good but the 3rd channel was a letdown for me.
 
An interesting note on the Mark V is that one of the dudes over on the Boogie forum stuck a Weber Bias Rite on the tube sockets and measured the draw. While it seems that the amp runs 6L6s cold (which is standard Boogie practice) the EL34s are actually running hot.

I've gone back and forth between the two tube types a couple of times and I find that EL34s really light a fire under that amp's ass.
 
Big Rich":m68c1tuv said:
deadweight":m68c1tuv said:
its cool I havent played either. I'm still playing my peavey xxx which is the first 1/2 stack ive ever owned so, Ive kinda been looking for something with nicer cleans and more versatility so this seems better, will i be able to get as much aggression out of it though?
Click to expand...
i can dial my mark 5 to sound just as aggressive as my old bogner uberschall twin jet i had

listen to my vids and tell me thats not brootal lol


Click to expand...

UMMM yeah, thats tons of aggression. Mark V it is.
and id probably put some kt 77's in it
 
stephen sawall":1n8xq1zr said:
Clean .... about the same but different.
RHY2 .... V is better.
Lead ..... easy the IV.

I have plenty of amps that can do cleans on up to crunch .... so the Mark is really about the lead channel for me. For my taste the IV is much better. Do a direct A/B with the same guitar and cab .... many feel the same as I do.
Click to expand...

Yup, my finding as well.
The lead channel is where I spend the majority of my time on the Mark IV so the lead channel on the Mark V was a bit of a let down.
While the tone is quite nice, when I A/B them together, the Mark IV came on top.

If I didn't already have the Mark IV, I would probably get the Mark V because of the flexibility of having a better R2 channel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top