Mesa Quad vs IV

[peterc52]

I might have bought a Mesa Quad and already have the Mark IV (and love it btw)

The quad comes with a VHT 2/90/2 power amp. How similar are they?

 

[JackBootedThug]

Who cares? That’s a badass setup bro!!! Congrats

 

[NinjaRaf]

Agreed. Who cares! They're different enough to justify keeping them both, and equally as awesome.

 

[marvcus]

I would roll out with the Quad setup. That’s a killer combo! Curious from a touch sensitivity perspective which is more dynamic.

 

[Sick Michael]

Quad is killer. Good that you have the Mark IV, so you wont need to spend 5 years figuring out how to dial it in. haha.

Channel 1 is where the magic happens, and yes there are optimal settings for clean, which are NOT the optimal settings for heavy crunch and vice versa, but you can get around it if you push it with a Tubescreamer or something similar for tightening. That first channel with the EQ engaged is basically Master of Puppets.

Looking forward to hearing clips, sounds like you have a killer power amp with it.

 

[Code001]

They are different enough to keep both. Biggest thing with the Quad is knowing its outputs. Main out vs Recording out vs Effects send. A lot of people think the Effects send sounds better than the Main out. All 3 sound different, so experiment.

 

[skoora]

Owned one for a while. At least with mine, like Michael said CH 1 is the better channel. It’s a MKII. Channel 2 is based on a MKIII. Gainier but less size in its sound and also quieter. CH1 does a great classic rock tone on the clean when you max the gain. From my memories of playing a IV many years ago, I would say the lead setting on CH1 of the Quad I liked a lot more. Just richer and pretty dynamic with volume rolloff.
I tried using the send as an out vs. the mains and you get a little more brightness from using the send but I stuck with the main outputs because ai was getting a great sound and top end differences were minimal.

 

[Little B]

Currently own both for decades.Both offer a bit different in tones and feel..Both are keepers if you're a boogie fan.
Mesa preamps have a knack for mating up really well with mesa poweramps. But climbing up the ladder to a vht 292 is killer too.Dial in those 5 bands carefully and with that vht you'll have a massive huge tight bottom going on.

 

[Candiria]

Really liked Ch1, hated CH2 but I later learned that I just hate the Mark III.

I loved the Studio with the C+ mods, which is pretty similar to Ch1 of the Quad.

 

[Fusionbear]

They are different enough to keep both. Biggest thing with the Quad is knowing its outputs. Main out vs Recording out vs Effects send. A lot of people think the Effects send sounds better than the Main out. All 3 sound different, so experiment.

I used a Quad/Strategy 400 rig for a good while. I used the effect send out to the rack effects and then straight to the power amp. The return in the Quad added too much compression and mush in my experience

 

[peterc52]

Picking it up tomorrow!

 

[hirah5150]

I had a quad into a mesa simul sat into a 5150 cab. used it live for a few years. no pedals though. bought a mark 4b and got rid of the quad. to me the mark 4 sounded more like an amp. the quad is great, just not what i was looking for at the time.
mark 2c channel needs a bit of a gain boost to get the most out of this channel
mark 3 channel needs something to tighten up the flubby low end

 

[anomaly]

Leon Todd does a good comparison of a Mesa studio preamp (which is like channel 1 on the Quad) and a Mark IV. They are definitely similar, but I think with the power-amp it will be different enough to justify both. Touch sensitivity seems about the same, but that will depend on your settings obviously... Cause as you probably know Harmonics is more touch sensitive than Mid Gain on the IV, as well as pulling out the pull-fat on the IV.

 

[skoora]

I had a quad into a mesa simul sat into a 5150 cab. used it live for a few years. no pedals though. bought a mark 4b and got rid of the quad. to me the mark 4 sounded more like an amp. the quad is great, just not what i was looking for at the time.
mark 2c channel needs a bit of a gain boost to get the most out of this channel
mark 3 channel needs something to tighten up the flubby low end

I would say the simul sat was the weak link, if it didn’t sound amp like enough. Mine into a 50/50 was pretty great and never needed to boost Ch 1. It had a ton of tight gain. The MKIII channel just seemed weaker to me in size and scope of dynamics but had more saturation.