Difference between Mark IV and a Dual Caliber?

[SeaweedChampion]

I was think about picking up another Mesa in the future and I was wondering what the difference was between the Mark IV and the DC-5. A few people I have talked to have recommended the DC-5 over the Mark. I can't really find any information on the DC so I was hoping a few of you could enlighten me?

Thanks in advance.

 

[GD_NC]

I've owned a DC-3 and a few Mark series amps. They are really different animals. I can't speak to the DC-5 specifically, but the DC-3 sounds nothing like a Mark. That said, I really like the DC-3 for very tight crunchy distortion and vox-like cleans. I understand the DC-5 has much more headroom and is a great rock/metal amp.

Basically the DC is a very simple amp layout. Two completely separate preamps, one for rhythm and one for lead. Shared EQ and Reverb. They all have basically the same layout but sound quite different due to the variation in the power amps.

The DC -2 uses 2 EL-84 tubes (no eq), DC-3 has 4x EL84, DC-5 is 2x 6l6, and DC10 has 4x 6l6

The best DC info I know of is the manuals available on MesaBoogie's website.

The Mark IV is such a flexible amp it's really hard to compare them briefly. Obviously the 3 channel pre amp makes a big difference, and selectable power amp settings give you lots of options to vary the tone. When I A/B my Mark IV with my DC-3 the most striking difference was the IV's increased dynamic range (more highs and lows) over the DC. That is likely not the case with the DC-5/10 since they use 6L6 tubes. Seems the EL-84 tubes tend to compress the tone quite a bit and the V-30 is a very MID centric speaker.

DC's are great amps for the $$$. Pick one up an give it a try. If you don't like it, they are very easy to sell.

 

[silentrage]

I had a dc-5 and a mark iii, they're definitely quite different.
You could probably dial them to be similar, but I think they're each good at their own thing so you should probably test them out and get one that suites your taste.

One thing I highly recommend though is getting the head so you can get a good cab/speaker combination that works for your style.

 

[rvschulz]

these two amps are different animals. i would think the DC is going to be MUCH simpler to get your tones from. My experience with the DC-3 which I owned briefly was that it was brittle sounding - EL-84 is the culprit here IMO. Perhaps the DC-5 in a 6L6 configuration would have been more to my liking.

The Mark IV discussions I have noted usually center around 2 themes - one is how the user can;t "find their tone" and the other is "how many different tones are in this amp - wow". some people think the amp is impossible to lock in. i always counsel patience, my young Paduwan learner. it isn't a SS Marshall - set those dials on 10 and let it rip !!!

that being said ... i like the Mark III better. for me.

 

[GD_NC]

The Mark IV discussions I have noted usually center around 2 themes - one is how the user can;t "find their tone" and the other is "how many different tones are in this amp - wow". some people think the amp is impossible to lock in. i always counsel patience, my young Paduwan learner. it isn't a SS Marshall - set those dials on 10 and let it rip !!!

The above is true. No doubt the Mark IV sounds great, but the tone changes as the volume goes up. So all the time you spent finding the perfect setting in you bedroom isn't worth much when you get it out in the real world. You've gotta be able to know what sound you are looking for and how to dial it in quick. You CAN dial it in, but it's not easy until you really get to know how to dive it.

There are much easier amps in the world and great souding ones at that, but what they offer in simplicity, they loose in flexability.

 

[lockbody]

I had a Mk IV, and now own a DC-5 which I like better. Tonally, the Mk IV can sound like DC-5, but not the reverse, as the Mk just has too many options for sculpting the tone, but that's where it ends. In my opinion, the DC-5 has a better clean channel, better reverb, is easier to dial in (although I've never had a problem dialing in a Mk series amp, either), has more gain on tap for the lead channel, and the lead channel is less compressed sounding at volume. The DC-5s lead channel also doesn't sound as "dated" to my ears as the Mk IV's.

With the Mk IV, due to the shared controls for ch 1 and 2, you're always in a struggle for a good clean on ch1 vs an okay (at best, IMO) crunch on ch2. Whereas with the DC-5 I can turn the gain up on ch1 and ride my guitars volume control for either warm, round, sparkly clean with the guitars volume rolled down a shade (with a better reverb that smokes the Mk IV all kinds of ways), or turn it up for AC/DC-James Gang type crunchiness. Personally, I never liked the sound of the Mk IV's ch1 turned up, and didn't like the sound of Ch2's gain turned down.

And as much as I like the DC-5's ch2, it does have a certain amount of gain and low-mids that simply cannot be dialed out. Back the gain all the way down to "3" and your still no closer to the sound of ch1 on "10" than you are to have it on "7" etc... If you like your amp's channel switching to sound like a logical progression in gain from one channel to the next, the DC is not for you. Tube substitution can go a long way to help in that regard, however.

I'm sure someone will be along to discount my opinions, but they are just my opinions, after all. I did use the Mk IV for three years as my stage and recording amp, and also used it to record a bunch of other bands who might not have had the best equipment and managed to have all of them sound like they were playing something different. I'm not so sure I would have been able to pull that off quite so easily with my DC-5.

It all comes down to the Mk IV is way more versatile, but I like the sound of the DC-5 better.

 

[TimeSignature]

I currently own a Mark IV and a DC 10 2x12 combo. The Mark IV is for sale.

The Mark IV has 3 channels... the DC 10 has 2 so advantage Mark IV. I personally only use two channels.

The clean on the DC is much warmer and I prefer the overdrive / distortion of the DC although they are similar. Ive had the Mark IV for about a year and just have not been able to dial in a tone that I really like. I can dial in a sweet distortion tone on the DC 10 in a minute.

I recommend trying both out. If you want to buy a Mark IV. Buy mine.

 

[Fronzil]

apples and oranges

 

[brungio]

Some of the comments here have me confused. I have a DC-5 and it does in fact have separate EQ and reverb for the two channels.

 

[kekam35]

Some of the comments here have me confused. I have a DC-5 and it does in fact have separate EQ and reverb for the two channels.

I don't see any comments on here that dispute that.

 

[rockboy999]

I believe the Mark shares it's EQ on one of the channels.

 

[edward]

This is what he refers to:

...Basically the DC is a very simple amp layout. Two completely separate preamps, one for rhythm and one for lead. Shared EQ and Reverb. They all have basically the same layout but sound quite different due to the variation in the power amps....

definitely in error, perhaps typing too quickly.

Edward

 

[GD_NC]

I believe the Mark shares it's EQ on one of the channels.

The Mark IV shares only the Mid and Bass control between R1 and R2. Each channel has it's own gain/treble/presence control. Given the limited impact that Mid and Bass have on the sound for R1 & R2 it's rarely (if ever) a problem. (This was one of the major improvements over the Mark III)

The Lead channel has completely separate controls from the Rhythm channels.

All Mark IV channels share the switchable/assignable Reverb, Loop & GEQ

 

[TimeSignature]

I own a DC10 and a Mark IV... both stock (no mods), both combo's with C90's... both running 4 6l6's. I was AB'ing them a few days ago and they sound VERY similar. Most people would probably fail a blindfolded listening test. Obvioulsy the features are a bit different, but they really are very similar sounding amps.

 

[phyrexia]

DC amps are like Caliber amps but with two sets of controls, right?

A Studio .22 is more like a baby Mark amp than a DC-2, is this also right? Or are the .22 and the .50 just precursors to the DC2/3 and the DC5?

 

[madryan]

We were playing my DC-5 and the Mark V the other night and could dial in very similar tones with the V on channel 3 and my DC on channel 2 with the EQ engaged.

 

[GD_NC]

This is what he refers to:

...Basically the DC is a very simple amp layout. Two completely separate preamps, one for rhythm and one for lead. Shared EQ and Reverb. They all have basically the same layout but sound quite different due to the variation in the power amps....

definitely in error, perhaps typing too quickly.

Edward

Yes, sorry for the confusion. This was referring to the shared/switchable graphic EQ. They do not share the same tone stack.

 

[mesa1360]

How does the gain on tap of a dc-5/dc-3 compare to say a mark 4?

Also, is dc hi gain tone and feel closer to a mark or a recto?

 

[madryan]

How does the gain on tap of a dc-5/dc-3 compare to say a mark 4?

Also, is dc hi gain tone and feel of the closer to a mark or a recto?

My DC-5 has more gain available than the Mark IV/V and the feel is much closer to the Mark series amps than the Recto.

 

[MusicManJP6]

My DC-5 has more gain available than the Mark IV/V and the feel is much closer to the Mark series amps than the Recto.

The same is true for my DC-3.