Anyone miss their IV???

[Monsta-Tone]

So....
I have an older Mark IV, dated 1990.
I really like the sustain on the clean channel, the reverb is pretty decent and the lead channel is bad *** but noisy.
I don't like R2 very much. I can dial in a nice bluesy OD sound, but it lacks in depth and sustain.

I've been on the fence about selling it and getting a V, but just wonder if the grass is greener where I am now.....

My amp is the narrow body combo. I really prefer the widebody combo for a little bit more bass.


I have a few questions for you Mark V gurus out there.....
1. Is there any delay when changing channels?
2. Is there a noticeable drop out in the reverb when changing channels like the Lonestars have?
3. Are there any regrets in changing from a IV to a V, other than being broke afterward?
4. Have you guys found that the V is easier to dial in than the IV?
5. What is the general opinion of channel 2

Any help would be greatly appreciated. I know of only 1 Mark V on Maui and can't afford to fly anywhere and try one out.
I tried the 1x12 combo and the head/2x12 cab years ago when they 1st came out, but it was in a noisy store with lots of people and I couldn't bond with it at all.
Also, at the time, I was way more into my Recto tones and DC tones than the Mark tones. I am now leaning more toward a mixture of both Recto and Mark tones. Wish they made an amp with LSC cleans, Recto channel and Mark V lead channel. That would be perfect for me!

 

[BoogiePete]

I've had a MKIV combo and head in the past. I've only had my MKV combo a couple of months and it's taken this long to start getting to grips with it. I'm really starting to bond with it now and after initially thinking I'd made a mistake going from the IV to the V I have no regrets whatsoever.

In answer to your question 4.... I'd say my tweaking time with the MKV is about on par with the time I spent with the IV. You get more variation with the V though and if you like the basic Boogie tone then the possibilities are endless. My advice if you go for the MKV is to treat it as a totally new beast and start from scratch regarding settings. In my opinion the MKIV and MKV are the same in many ways but also surprisingly different in many as well.

Channel 2 on the MKV is the most versatile on the amp imo. The 'edge' mode is a hybrid of Vox and Marshall I'd say, and has a very round and 'chimey' timbre. You can even set it up as a very good alternative clean sound if needs be but crank the gain and its a great crunchy rhythm sound with loads of mojo. I like the mids up and treble and presence backed off in this mode. The 'crunch' mode has lots of MKIV rhythm 2 channel similarities but it seems you can do more with it on the MKV, it has lots of 'punch' and there's more gain if you need it. MK1 mode is a beast! like many others I've found it to be a bit finicky to get right but when you do it's a huge, thick, dark singing tone with loads of character. I like it with Strats personally.

To sum up, the MKV does need time and patience like most Boogies. The EQ and interaction between gain and channel masters gives a huge range of tone and 'feel' difference, sometimes with only minor adjustments. I made the mistake of thinking that the only good sounds would be with the preset or graphic sliders switched on. Thats certainly not true and I think the amp often has a more '3D' vibe and character without the added EQ. It can be quite a bright sounding amp and the best tones for me (except MK1 mode) are achieved by bumping up the mids and cutting the treble and presence.

If you have the time and enjoy tweaking as well as playing there isn't a better amp around. If I still had my MKIV as well as the MKV I don't think I'd be spending much time on the MKIV.

I recently was in the horrors as I came within inches of having to sell mine. I'm very pleased that I didn't have to in the end.

 

[Monsta-Tone]

Thanks Pete!
I really like the clean and the lead channel on my IV, but R2 just eludes me. I can't seem to find a decent crunchy tone that has any character or depth.

Last night I tried,
Gain - 8 (pulled)
Bass - 7
Mids - 6
Treble - 6
Master - 3
Presence - 10 (pulled)
It's almost there, but really feels dry and lifeless. Like the tone is good, but there is no sustain and no feeling to it when you play it.

I A/B'd the IV against my neighbor's Soldano Lucky 13 (souped up gain channel), and the IV blew it away at bedroom volume. I couldn't crank it though because the kids were watching cartoons in the next room.


I think, given my experiences with GAS and amp swapping, that I will play the IV until the end of the year. If I am still stoked with it, I'll pick up a V and either sell the IV or keep it as a backup.
I do really like the idea of having a better R2 channel though......

 

[Tuna141]

To answer your first two questions: I have not noticed a delay when switching channels. I have not noticed any reverb drop-out.

I have a V and a IVa. I like Channel's 1 and 2 on the V better than the IV. However, unlike most people, I actually like channel 2 on the IV - I think it has kind of an older Marshall type vibe to it, and it works good for classic rock.

I've never been a fan of the IV's clean - kind of dull and not chimey enough for me. The V's clean is much more chiney and Fender sounding. It does sound a little compressed though.

Channel 2 on the V can basically do it all - can get a nice Marshally type tone, decent crunch/chugging tone, cutting lead tone etc. Channel 3 on the IV and V are just OK, but I'm more into a cutting lead tone and not that round singing tone. I basically live in Extreme mode when in channel 3 because I find it cuts more than the other two modes. (btw- I'm not a metal player, and that may explain my tone preferences)

 

[MBJunkie]

Monster-Tone,

My short answer is NO, but I do still own my MkIV widebody combo originally purchased new in 1995. Not because I couldn't part with it as much as I didn't have to part with it!!
Don't get me wrong.....the MkIV is a great amp and especially for its time.

I am a very happy original owner of the MkV when it was first released (3+ years ago) and still am today. Prior to the purchase I read the MkV user manual and immediately realised it offered everything else I wanted that the MkIV didn't (at least on paper).

Here is the bottom line IMO:

1. Channel 1 of the V offers everything and then some of the MkIV. If you really like the Ch1 offering of the IV....set the V on Ch1 to the "Clean Mode". While this isn't my favorite setting of Ch1 with my V......I do appreciate the sounds that are achievable in this mode.
2. Channel 2 of the V offers ANYTHING YOU WANT unlike the MkIV which didn't offer much at all to me. Seriously, Ch2 of the V offers the most diversity between modes of any channel. The crunch type tone that I always wanted in Ch2 of my MkIV, but was never able to achieve is easily achievable in the Crunch Mode of Ch2 of the V. In fact, I even use the Crunch Mode of Ch2 with the gain set high for nice classic rock lead solo sounds.
The "Edge" and "MkI" modes of Ch2 also offer very nice sounds, but the difference in the modes in Ch2 are night and day. Yes, you do have to experiment to determine what works best for your needs!
3. Channel 3 of the MkV. Many people complain about how the MkV can't deliver the true IIC+ and MkIV sounds suggested by their modes. Personally, that might be a fair assessment in general, but all 3 modes are capable of sounding fantastic IMO!! The Extreme Mode can be set to sound fantastic as well.

Personally, I very much prefer my MkV vrs my MkIV for my needs, but that is just my opinion. I will say that the overall MkV architecture/interface is much more intuitive than the IV and it offers the optional "solo boost" feature that I find to be very beneficial in a live situation.

Best of luck!

 

[MBJunkie]

BoogiePete,
I agree with your post largely, and am glad to hear you didn't have to part with the V! :mrgreen:

 

[ziggys]

Just my opinion:
1)You will never find a Mark IV channel 3 on a Mark 5. I just sold a Mark IV and am now rebuying one. The V is long gone.

2)FINDING A MARSHALL TONE ON ANY MARK AMP IS A MYTH!! No offense.
End the argument, go buy/rent a DSL, TSL or something and compare. It's not there, only in the mind of the guy who wants to beleive it.

Hope I have saved someone some money as I have spent a fortune chasing down these myths.

 

[MBJunkie]

Ziggy....I respectfully disagree.

IMO, it is possible to achieve the so called "Mark IV, Ch3 lead sounds from the MkV in Ch3 (MkIV mode). Are they identical sounds?....NO! However, one can get very close to the same if willing to spend some time with the MkV? Admittedly, I have never owned a MkIIc+. The IIc+ might be a better sounding amp compared to the V. Good for you!!

What I like about the V is the incredible footswitchable versatility of sounds (clean, crunch, and hi gain lead sounds) offered like no other amp I have ever owned!!

I am not one to say the V is better than the IV (and I own both the MkIV and V)!

For my needs, the benefits of the V far outweigh those of my MkIV. Just My Opinion.

 

[THTH]

Please do not take offense. I own a MKIV too and I've played several V's over the last couple years at Mesa Hollywood. Nice amps. IMHO the V's channel 3 doesn't sound as organic or smooth(less gain available too, hardwired gain max 7.5 in V, vs. 10 in IV) as my MKIV channel 3, that's why I never purchased the V.

The V is a nice amp with definite improvements on channels 1 and 2 in comparison to the IV. The V lead channel doesn't sound identical to a IV, so I wish people would just stop saying it sounds like one. I would never recommend a V to anyone who absolutely has to have the IV's lead sound. Just pick up a used IV if you need that sound, they're cheap!

The MKIV lead channel is legendary. It has that reputation for a reason. Its lead channel is as good as ANY available today.

 

[MBJunkie]

No offense taken whatsoever!!

No question that the MkIV is a great amp in it's own right, and for those that really only need or want the Ch3 lead sound of the actual MkIV....case closed....it can be set to sound incredible!! So can Ch1 of the MkIV for that matter, but it does not offer the versatility of great sounds offered in Ch1 of the MkV IMO. Ch2 left me wanting a lot more from the IV which is the main reason I bought the V and have not been disappointed.

That said, I find it useful to have nice footswitchable clean, crunch and high gain lead sounds available that I can easily achieve with my MkV....that I wasn't really able to achieve with my MkIV, but that is just me.

ziggys, I totally agree with you that finding a "Marshall" sound on any Mark is a Myth!

 

[THTH]

I agree MBJunkie. The V is a great amp. I really liked channel 1 on the V. The main reason I didn't buy one was already owning a Triaxis rig and a MKIV combo covers a lot of ground. Maybe someday if used V's start going for $1000 I'll buy one, but I don't see that price happening any time soon.

 

[67mike]

I like the Extreme mode in channel 3. It is incredible, I do not bother with the lV mode at all.

 

[DaveDaveDave]

Not at all.

For my needs, in terms of crunch and clean tones, I'd need 3 Mark IV's to get close to what I do out of the Mark V - and I'd be using the IV's lead channels to get my clean and rhythm tones. I like the Extreme mode on the V's lead channel better too.

 

[KH Guitar Freak]

Funny thing is, a lot of people would prefer the Mark V's intepretation of the Mark IV if it precedes the lead channel of the Mark IV...

 

[bandit2013]

I do not miss my Mark IV because I still have it. I almost miss my Mark III blue stripe but not since I got the Mark V. If I could get it to stop blowing power tubes I would be happier.