Sold My Mark V this is why (lengthy)

[BrentSSL]

I am so oddly relieved I sold it for just under what I paid and I could not be happier. I feel like the Mark V just does not live up to the hype it never wowed me. I could list the ridicolous amount of amps that I have first hand experience with but thats a long list. I never owned any other mark series amp tried a triaxis rig once and that was brief so i cannot speak for those models but the MarkV is not the holy grail amp its made out to be. I think that if I had started playing on a Mark 3 maybe a 4 I could have figured out how to appreciatte the 5. But I started on a Rec and at the end of the day I think thats more my style.
A nice guy was asking me why I like Recs over the MarkV my honest and most sincere opinion its a overpriced bedroom amp. Why ? because it tracks great for recording no question there. With the right mic or direct input or ISO cab live with a soundman that takes pride in his job it will sound good live. However you have to be so exact in every little detail pickups, guitars, ohms, cab, speakers, the position in the room of the cab. I know at one point I had it sounding awesome but once I lost those settings by trying other ones I could never get it back to the way I liked it sounding. It is so touchy that the tone changes if you move the cab a quarter of an inch in a ISO recording room. Maybe it was my amp maybe it was my cab or maybe it was me I do not know. What I do know is with a rectifier I can always get my tone no matter where it is in a room what cab I am running or guitar I am playing I can get grat tones out of it that sound and feel great.
Thats another thing the MarkVs feel it didn't give me that umph i am used to feeling with rectos and honestly the distortion sounded like a processed walkie talkie kind of thing that I could not dial out. I owned it for a little over a year and honestly for an unmic'd rehearsal jam it sounded thin and too harsh to my ears. The mark V is meant to be an amp in a full band live with leads and you can get great metallica tones from it whoopi I will be looking for a Rev F soon if anyone knows where I can get one let me know. I know this is long but if you do read this let me know if you guys think I did the right thing I feel I did but opinions are always welcome.

 

[59Bassman]

No one says you have to like the Mk V.

If you feel you did the right thing, it was the right thing. My Mk V has killed amp lust for me over the past year, except maybe for the new 25 watt version. I've played through a handful of Rectos over the years and they just didn't work for me. The gain channels were usable, but I hated the clean tones, which I still use a lot.

No reason at all you have to like anything guitar related. Like what you like, play what makes you happy.

 

[Racerxrated]

Yup..personally can't stand rectos, although maybe a boost was needed to tighten it. But I did have a MK3 and I liked it a lot. Great value used...but I've gone back to a Jubilee, which has been my favorite amp yet..SLO is right there too but I can't have that much coin tied up into 2 amps. You gotta go with what YOU like and if a recto is it, go for it. Its your ears that you are trying to please, no one else's. Good luck in your search...

 

[Steinmetzify]

To me Rectos = rhythm and MarkV = leads...I'm a Recto fan too, man. I'm more of a metal guy than a lot of the guys on this board though...the V can get some great lead and rock tones but it always felt way too hard to get a great rhythm tone out of and Rectos are a lot easier for me in that regard.

There was a blackface Rev F in the classifieds yesterday...

 

[WizardSouth-JP]

The MkV I owned sounded fantastic - good clean, good crunch, and pretty ballsy hi-gain. I still prefer my Triple Recto Multi-Watt, but boosting the front end is a must to get the most out of it.

The MkV liked a little goosed front end too, but not like the Dual/Triples.

 

[Chris6870]

Sorry it did not work out for you. Different strokes,that's why there a mind boggling number of amps on the market today.
You should not knock it though just because it didn't work for you (doesn't live up to the hype?) Because clearly it works for many people, pros and amateurs alike. Maybe somebody should tell Petrucci or LOG or the many others that tour the world with them that it's really only an overhyped bedroom amp.

 

[TrueTone500]

The Mark IIC+ setting was why I purchased a Mark V... To my surprise, the Mark V lacks the "Deep Pull" option of a real Mark IIC+ amplifier! WTF?

Mesa told me just yesterday; "The key to getting those Mark IIC+ (and other) tones when using the Triaxis, is the "Deep" mode option on the 2:90 power amp..." THEN WHY THE F--K DIDN'T YOU INCLUDE IT ON THE MARK V AMP? I didn't say that, but that's what I was thinking, of course. I want to own a Mark V amplifier, but I won't until they get the Mark IIC+ setting right - if ever.

 

[BrentSSL]

Sorry it did not work out for you. Different strokes,that's why there a mind boggling number of amps on the market today.
You should not knock it though just because it didn't work for you (doesn't live up to the hype?) Because clearly it works for many people, pros and amateurs alike. Maybe somebody should tell Petrucci or LOG or the many others that tour the world with them that it's really only an overhyped bedroom amp.

I agree someone needs to tell Petrucci his live tone could be better, the reason I say its an overpriced bedroom amp is because once its turned you have to change everything for it to sound good in a rehearsal space unmic'd and Lamb of God are so awesome the could play through Marshall MG heads and cabs and they would still kick ass.

 

[BrentSSL]

The Mark IIC+ setting was why I purchased a Mark V... To my surprise, the Mark V lacks the "Deep Pull" option of a real Mark IIC+ amplifier! WTF?

Mesa told me just yesterday; "The key to getting those Mark IIC+ (and other) tones when using the Triaxis, is the "Deep" mode option on the 2:90 power amp..." THEN WHY THE F--K DIDN'T YOU INCLUDE IT ON THE MARK V AMP? I didn't say that, but that's what I was thinking, of course. I want to own a Mark V amplifier, but I won't until they get the Mark IIC+ setting right - if ever.

I did not know that very interesting and theres nothing different that I know about the Rev F they just seem easier to find

 

[dfrattaroli]

I agree someone needs to tell Petrucci his live tone could be better...

 

[WizardSouth-JP]

I agree someone needs to tell Petrucci his live tone could be better...

my thoughts exactly - Petrucci's tone crushes

 

[sjk]

I agree someone needs to tell Petrucci his live tone could be better...

my thoughts exactly - Petrucci's tone crushes

Probably because he's using IIC+'s and IV's instead of the Mark V

 

[WizardSouth-JP]

he's using old school Mesa rack gear now: Mesa 2:90 and Triaxis
the pics for That Metal Show had this same setup.

 

[ace_operations]

He gets those crushing sounds from a 1x12 cab. Makes me wanna try a 1x12 instead of the 4x12 I use now.. Hmmm

 

[anomaly]

They are touchy amps indeed. I sold my Mark III cause it didn't quite have the rhythm punch i like. It's a good amp but they can be really mid dominant... I actually liked playing thru my old Randall rg100 heads more, cause they are easier to dial in and had much more low end punch, that thump in the chest you feel with palm mutes. The randall's move air. It just walked all over the Mark in a rhythm situation to be honest. The Mark has a marvelous lead tone but i'm not much of a shredder these days... I can never get a great recorded tone out of a Mark series amp either, they always sound like they are missing something in the sonic spectrum.

 

[TrueTone500]

I sold my Mark III cause it didn't quite have the rhythm punch i like. It's a good amp but they can be really mid dominant...

You aren't kidding either! All Mesa Mark III here...

 

[anomaly]

I sold my Mark III cause it didn't quite have the rhythm punch i like. It's a good amp but they can be really mid dominant...

You aren't kidding either! All Mesa Mark III here...

That's a jcm800 dude.

"Angel Dust" was the album that was all Mark III, and the tone does kinda suck. Great album though.

 

[TrueTone500]

I sold my Mark III cause it didn't quite have the rhythm punch i like. It's a good amp but they can be really mid dominant...

You aren't kidding either! All Mesa Mark III here...

That's a jcm800 dude.

"Angel Dust" was the album that was all Mark III, and the tone does kinda suck. Great album though.

My friend Kelly and I were doing trips with the bass player back in '89. He said that Jim used a Mesa Mark III amplifier on those recordings. I've owned three JCM's, and that doesn't sound like a Marshall to me. A cold biased Marshall with EQ maybe?

 

[anomaly]

I sold my Mark III cause it didn't quite have the rhythm punch i like. It's a good amp but they can be really mid dominant...

You aren't kidding either! All Mesa Mark III here...

That's a jcm800 dude.

"Angel Dust" was the album that was all Mark III, and the tone does kinda suck. Great album though.

My friend Kelly and I were doing trips with the bass player back in '89. He said that Jim used a Mesa Mark III amplifier on those recordings. I've owned three JCM's, and that doesn't sound like a Marshall to me. A cold biased Marshall with EQ maybe?

That album was recorded with a Marshall, i'm absolutely certain of it, Jim stated so in many interviews around that time. Jim did start using Marks on the Real Thing tour though, i believe? but "Angel Dust" was the first album with Mesa Mark's, just listen to Angel Dust... there's a very strong contrast when you compare it "The Real Thing". Big difference.

 

[TrueTone500]

I sold my Mark III cause it didn't quite have the rhythm punch i like. It's a good amp but they can be really mid dominant...

You aren't kidding either! All Mesa Mark III here...

That's a jcm800 dude.

"Angel Dust" was the album that was all Mark III, and the tone does kinda suck. Great album though.

My friend Kelly and I were doing trips with the bass player back in '89. He said that Jim used a Mesa Mark III amplifier on those recordings. I've owned three JCM's, and that doesn't sound like a Marshall to me. A cold biased Marshall with EQ maybe?

That album was recorded with a Marshall, i'm absolutely certain of it, Jim stated so in many interviews around that time. Jim did start using Marks on the Real Thing tour though, i believe? but "Angel Dust" was the first album with Mesa Mark's, just listen to Angel Dust... there's a very strong contrast when you compare it "The Real Thing". Big difference.

I prefer the tones on TRT. I'd like to know what tubes he was using, and how he had the amp biased. It sounds like he recoded TRT at high volume to me. The tone seems to be lacking the characteristic compression one usually hears from a cranked Marshall... Cold biased with thin bottle Svetlana's? I've been playing Cornford for so long, I think I've gotten use to it's lower-midrange character. TRT tones sound almost class A to my ears.