Deal breaker?

[danyeo1]

Honestly, i could care less about any Brit style tones so they should have left off any Edge or Crunch.

Haha, what were they THINKing?!? As if they were trying to make the amp to your specifications. Haha.

They SHOULD have left off edge and crunch because you specifically could care less about Brit tones? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

Sorry, I don't mean to be an ***, but I see this weird self centered attitude all the time when it comes to products intended for the masses. You do realize there are people who will buy the V JUST for edge and/or crunch right? I run a recording studio and I bought a V because of it's versatility. I know with one amp I can get pretty much any genre covered. But I don't need a channel switching pedal. I can't believe those idiots included channel switching when I don't even need it. Didn't they think to call and ask me first??? Haha.

Sorry for the rant, this comment just put me over the edge and I had to reply.

Self centered attitude or an amp that makes sense. Take a step back and read the marketing for this amp again. It's supposed to be a collection of Mark series amps. But where's the Mark III? Do you recall using crunch or edge on any other Mark series amp?

If you bring up R2 on the Mark IV I'll laugh because that channel sucks balls.
And who ever made any popular recordings on R2 that made anyone want to try out these amps?

The point is, I'm not buying a Mark series amp for Brit tones when i can just go out and buy a Marshall. And I'm not saying the V won't be a great amp, if it cops the IIC+ than I'm onboard, I'm just saying it's not anywhere as versatile as it could have been for live use.

 

[Silverwulf]

We talked a little about the III above. Well, I did I guess...

"The Mark III likely wasn't included because it isn't really a staple Mark tone. There's the Mark I which people knew, the IIC+ which obviously people knew, the the IV in recent years had a cult following. The III's...they're great amps, but never had that distinct following and identity the others had, not to mention you could probably use the IV or IIC+ modes and get close enough. Plus, I could just see people complaining now..."It sounds too close to my IIC+/IV mode...how dare they use the Blue Stripe instead of the Red, why didn't they use the Green, etc."

For a crunch channel, why wouldn't you cite the Mark IV? And the Mark III for that matter. Personal use doesn't change the fact they were there. A crunch channel has been a staple on Mark amps for nearly 25 years, so I don't see why Edge/Crunch on the V is such a surprise.

I think the V is going to be extremely versatile live. Please cite some examples of where it would be advantageous to switch between the IIC+ and IV modes in a live setting, keeping in mind your controls would be exactly the same.

 

[Uncle Muscles]

Please cite some examples of where it would be advantageous to switch between the IIC+ and IV modes in a live setting, keeping in mind your controls would be exactly the same.

I am not a shred head - but I can tell you the obvious -- that the 2c+ is much tighter rhythm sound - and the mk4 is a much better "singing" lead tone on the Mk5. So switching between the 2 live in a band situation would probably be what many "metal" or hard rock players would like - however they are not gonna get it without 2 amps. Now if there was midi... 8)

 

[Silverwulf]

I am not a shred head - but I can tell you the obvious -- that the 2c+ is much tighter rhythm sound - and the mk4 is a much better "singing" lead tone on the Mk5. So switching between the 2 live in a band situation would probably be what many "metal" or hard rock players would like - however they are not gonna get it without 2 amps. Now if there was midi... 8)

Well, just my opinion of course, but I still don't see the advantage of it. You'd have the same settings, same options, etc...just going from one mode to the other. I don't see how it could be advantageous enough to constitute the extra $300 - $400 charge they'd probably tack on for adding the capability. You'd probably get a more dramatic effect for a lead by staying on that IIC+ mode and stepping an on OD pedal than just switching to a Mark IV mode with the exact same settings/options as your IIC+.

 

[danyeo1]

I am not a shred head - but I can tell you the obvious -- that the 2c+ is much tighter rhythm sound - and the mk4 is a much better "singing" lead tone on the Mk5. So switching between the 2 live in a band situation would probably be what many "metal" or hard rock players would like - however they are not gonna get it without 2 amps. Now if there was midi... 8)

Well, just my opinion of course, but I still don't see the advantage of it. You'd have the same settings, same options, etc...just going from one mode to the other. I don't see how it could be advantageous enough to constitute the extra $300 - $400 charge they'd probably tack on for adding the capability. You'd probably get a more dramatic effect for a lead by staying on that IIC+ mode and stepping an on OD pedal than just switching to a Mark IV mode with the exact same settings/options as your IIC+.

That's why I'd rather see the IIC+ on channel 2 so you could use different settings.
And what if you wanted a singing lead with a little mid hump AND a scooped metal tone? The way the amp is now, good luck. I don't think Mark 1 or Crunch would do as well as a IIC+ mode on channel 2.

 

[Uncle Muscles]

Can I just ask a practical question of you silverWulff - why have you owned over 60 Mesa amps? :shock:
I would think that you got close to what you were looking for after the first 30 or so... but that is me.

 

[Silverwulf]

That's why I'd rather see the IIC+ on channel 2 so you could use different settings.
And what if you wanted a singing lead with a little mid hump AND a scooped metal tone? The way the amp is now, good luck. I don't think Mark 1 or Crunch would do as well as a IIC+ mode on channel 2.

Oh, I'd rather be able to do that too. I was just saying I can understand why they included Edge/Crunch (even if I'd rather have the IIC+ and IV on separate channels) and was saying as it stands, I can't see enough practical advantage for footswitching modes to justify the likely price increase.

 

[Silverwulf]

Can I just ask a practical question of you silverWulff - why have you owned over 60 Mesa amps? :shock:
I would think that you got close to what you were looking for after the first 30 or so... but that is me.

Haha, sure... :lol: I have a primary rig of amps that I keep. From there, I have "backup amps" that I rotated in and out to try personally and A/B, including over 40 Rectos now (those numbers are outdated, maybe 41 within a couple days here, we'll see). Most of that was for personal comparison and research, and now about 5 years after the fact, I'm putting all my findings into a "2 Channel Recto Users Guide" I'll be releasing probably in a month or so. That's been 40+ Rectos and 5+ years of field testing in the making.

 

[Uncle Muscles]

That's why I'd rather see the IIC+ on channel 2 so you could use different settings.
And what if you wanted a singing lead with a little mid hump AND a scooped metal tone? The way the amp is now, good luck. I don't think Mark 1 or Crunch would do as well as a IIC+ mode on channel 2.

Channel 2 on the M5 is a blinding conundrum. First of all the Mark 1 is all gain all the time. It does sound good - but there is very little variance to the amount of gain. It is either OFF or on 7-10. There is no real variety there. Plus it is way more full sounding than anything on channel 3 - so when you switch between the two - it is like a totally different amp. And sharing the EQ is - FOR ME - a bad deal. They just don't match up. That can be good for some - but I like some unity in my sounds going from clean to mean. The other 2 settings on channel 2 just suck balls - to coin a phrase. They aren't quite marshally enough but not quite vox enough either - they feel very stiff - they don't sing - and they feel - TO ME - completely out on left field. Even with pedals - they kind of miss the mark ( :lol: ). Channel 2 is - theoretically - where I make my bread and butter sounds - medium crunch - and FOR ME - that means I am using channel 1 with pedals to get a good low - medium gain drive sound that is full. And that sound doesn't really match up with the blazing lead tones you get when you switch to channel 3 or the endless gain of channel 2. So there is some loss of continuity on this amp --- ahem... FOR ME.

 

[JOEY B.]

Has anyone thought about using the MkI mode for their lead single note solos (contour or EQ off) and the C+ mode (EQ Sliders) for heavy rhythm blasts? When I had my '78 MkI, I could do this same thing with my A/B/Y pedal. The MkI is a little loose for the heavy chugging riffs, but mine loved the juicy lead work. Food for thought. 8)

 

[danyeo1]

That's why I'd rather see the IIC+ on channel 2 so you could use different settings.
And what if you wanted a singing lead with a little mid hump AND a scooped metal tone? The way the amp is now, good luck. I don't think Mark 1 or Crunch would do as well as a IIC+ mode on channel 2.

Oh, I'd rather be able to do that too. I was just saying I can understand why they included Edge/Crunch (even if I'd rather have the IIC+ and IV on separate channels) and was saying as it stands, I can't see enough practical advantage for footswitching modes to justify the likely price increase.

Yeah, price hike is an issue. And i do have a OCD and a Tim on the way so we shall see how some of those take to OD pedals. I did like the Mark I mode as a smooth lead voicing.

 

[JOEY B.]

I did like the Mark I mode as a smooth lead voicing.

See my last post? :wink:

 

[danyeo1]

That's why I'd rather see the IIC+ on channel 2 so you could use different settings.
And what if you wanted a singing lead with a little mid hump AND a scooped metal tone? The way the amp is now, good luck. I don't think Mark 1 or Crunch would do as well as a IIC+ mode on channel 2.

Channel 2 on the M5 is a blinding conundrum. First of all the Mark 1 is all gain all the time. It does sound good - but there is very little variance to the amount of gain. It is either OFF or on 7-10. There is no real variety there. Plus it is way more full sounding than anything on channel 3 - so when you switch between the two - it is like a totally different amp. And sharing the EQ is - FOR ME - a bad deal. They just don't match up. That can be good for some - but I like some unity in my sounds going from clean to mean. The other 2 settings on channel 2 just suck balls - to coin a phrase. They aren't quite marshally enough but not quite vox enough either - they feel very stiff - they don't sing - and they feel - TO ME - completely out on left field. Even with pedals - they kind of miss the mark ( :lol: ). Channel 2 is - theoretically - where I make my bread and butter sounds - medium crunch - and FOR ME - that means I am using channel 1 with pedals to get a good low - medium gain drive sound that is full. And that sound doesn't really match up with the blazing lead tones you get when you switch to channel 3 or the endless gain of channel 2. So there is some loss of continuity on this amp --- ahem... FOR ME.

You do have the combo. I've owned a couple of Mark series combos and sorry to say, they sound like garbage to me. My last IIC+ sounded like crap until i threw it in a headshell. PLayed on a good 4x12 or 2x12 and it's like a different amp. The IIC+, III and IV combos all have a boxy/mushy sound to me and i can't imagine the V being any different.

And the graphic EQ sliders are going to be used for channel 3 only for me, and the preset contour knob will be used for channel 2.

 

[Silverwulf]

Has anyone thought about using the MkI mode for their lead single note solos (contour or EQ off) and the C+ mode (EQ Sliders) for heavy rhythm blasts? When I had my '78 MkI, I could do this same thing with my A/B/Y pedal. The MkI is a little loose for the heavy chugging riffs, but mine loved the juicy lead work. Food for thought. 8)

This is exactly how I plan on using my Mark V. Channel 1 set up for sparkling cleans. Channel 3 on IIC+ set up for my heavy rhythm work. Channel 2 set up on Mark I for lead work. Won't need the OD808 as a boost with that amp like I use with the Rectos, so I'll probably step on it on the clean when I want a mid gain crunchy sound, kinda like my "4th channel."

 

[lesterpaul]

I am holding my tongue until I actually HAVE mine, but have you guys considered using chan 3 for the heavy rhythm and using the Mk I for your lead tone?I think that will work for me...(sorry JB..didnt see your post!beat me to it..)
...having owned IIC+ and the Iv, I found them to be very close on the lead channel-I would have been perfectly happy to gig/jam with the IV based on its versatility and the fact that I wouldnt have to drag the + into smokey biker bars-with all of the frequencies flying around in a live band situation, I think the IV and + would be close enough for rock n roll...so, is the V radically different in C+ vs. IV?..or is it "feel" thing,etc...

 

[Mark Fore]

I actually found myself going to the contour knobs on all 3 channels. The sliders on the Mark V EQ seem very flimsy and cheap compared to older Marks. The contour knobs sound great.

 

[iFreedom]

Honestly, i could care less about any Brit style tones so they should have left off any Edge or Crunch.

Haha, what were they THINKing?!? As if they were trying to make the amp to your specifications. Haha.

They SHOULD have left off edge and crunch because you specifically could care less about Brit tones? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

Sorry, I don't mean to be an ***, but I see this weird self centered attitude all the time when it comes to products intended for the masses. You do realize there are people who will buy the V JUST for edge and/or crunch right? I run a recording studio and I bought a V because of it's versatility. I know with one amp I can get pretty much any genre covered. But I don't need a channel switching pedal. I can't believe those idiots included channel switching when I don't even need it. Didn't they think to call and ask me first??? Haha.

Sorry for the rant, this comment just put me over the edge and I had to reply.

:lol:

 

[danyeo1]

Honestly, i could care less about any Brit style tones so they should have left off any Edge or Crunch.

Haha, what were they THINKing?!? As if they were trying to make the amp to your specifications. Haha.

They SHOULD have left off edge and crunch because you specifically could care less about Brit tones? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

Sorry, I don't mean to be an ***, but I see this weird self centered attitude all the time when it comes to products intended for the masses. You do realize there are people who will buy the V JUST for edge and/or crunch right? I run a recording studio and I bought a V because of it's versatility. I know with one amp I can get pretty much any genre covered. But I don't need a channel switching pedal. I can't believe those idiots included channel switching when I don't even need it. Didn't they think to call and ask me first??? Haha.

Sorry for the rant, this comment just put me over the edge and I had to reply.

:lol:

Yeah, it's funny that someone would actually buy a Mark series amp for a crappy version of a Marshall tone.

 

[MarkIVwidebody]

You forgot to add 6 more sets of eq sliders.

 

[JohnDNJ]

I actually found myself going to the contour knobs on all 3 channels. The sliders on the Mark V EQ seem very flimsy and cheap compared to older Marks. The contour knobs sound great.

They are cheap and flimsy...and really dont sound that hot either. I dont know
what it is but the graphic on the V just had me going "wtf why is this so cheap feeling\sounding?"

I'm kinda shocked though you actually think the contour knobs sound "good".
One thing all of us in my local shop universally agreed on was that they were lousy. :lol:
The dynamic voice circuit on the Triaxis is\was MILES better then that contour knob, sorry.