-

The Boogie Board

Help Support The Boogie Board:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
As an owner of a Mark IV and Mark V I can say without any doubt that the Mark IV's lead channel was way more balls and aggression compared to the Mark V. I will try this tonight and see what happens. I'm not holding my breath.
 
SonVolt said:
As an owner of a Mark IV and Mark V I can say without any doubt that the Mark IV's lead channel was way more balls and aggression compared to the Mark V. I will try this tonight and see what happens. I'm not holding my breath.

That is a bit discouraging to someone who was looking at the V as the dream amp and prepping to sell lots of other stuff to fund one. :(
 
Dreamtheaterrules said:
SonVolt said:
As an owner of a Mark IV and Mark V I can say without any doubt that the Mark IV's lead channel was way more balls and aggression compared to the Mark V. I will try this tonight and see what happens. I'm not holding my breath.

That is a bit discouraging to someone who was looking at the V as the dream amp and prepping to sell lots of other stuff to fund one. :(

I wouldn't worry. I have never played in another Mesa amp before, but I have a V combo and I love it. Channel 3 sounds awesome in any of the modes. But it could take some time to reach the tone you want, since it have a LOT of knobs and modes to deal. Plus, it will sound a lot different depending of the pickups you use.
 
So did anyone try Apeman's trick last night with the output mismatch? I tried it last night but didn't care for it at all. I wasn't holding my breath either but I have to say I was a little let down. I plugged it back normally and it sounded better to my ears.
 
Yeah I did it and it does sound fatter, richer and less fizzy...balls-tastic. Loving it. Had been a while for me too. Sounds great even through valvestate cabs...! Smooth as a cashmere codpiece.
 
I also tried it today. I was not playing very loud, but I couldn't hear much difference.
 
Would be interesting, and more importantly, informative, if guys who tested it mentioned more about HOW they tested it. What speakers, what volumes, even settings, to see if we can draw any more info since so far we are getting mixed results. I would bet that with the mis-match, both speaker type and number of speakers and also volume of the testing are all very important factors in results.
 
Dreamtheaterrules said:
SonVolt said:
As an owner of a Mark IV and Mark V I can say without any doubt that the Mark IV's lead channel was way more balls and aggression compared to the Mark V. I will try this tonight and see what happens. I'm not holding my breath.

That is a bit discouraging to someone who was looking at the V as the dream amp and prepping to sell lots of other stuff to fund one. :(

Don't let that stop you. If I could only have one I'd keep the V. It's way way more versatile. I got the V first and loved it for years. If you haven't played through a IV then you won't know any difference. Plus the clean and crunch channels are kind of meh on the IV compared to the V's.
 
Thanks for your thoughts on that! If I am going to dump 2-3 amps to fund a V I need it to be great at cleans, crunch and gainy stuff.

Anyone else tried the mis-match?
 
I saw someone ask above, but can anyone verify that this would be safe with the combo? I'm pretty curious about this myself, but don't want to hurt my baby lol.
 
It is not news to me. I have often used only one 8 ohm speaker in the 4 ohm output jack. There is a slight tone change.

What is even better, two 412's in parallel (one cab loaded with V30 and the other with EV). If you wanted the steroids, that is the way to go. I generally used my Mark IV with a 1x12 deep cavity cab for awesome low end response. Since converting the Mark V head to a combo, it is great with the 1x12 cab in combination to the combo speaker.

Better yet, if you have both a V and IV, run them in stereo, that is even better than pushing two 412's.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top