Does the Mark IV sound like the V?

[MarshMesa]

I've never been able to play a Mark IV, but I have played the V when I was in Hollywood. It was by far the best amp I've ever played. Didn't feel like I needed anything else. However, we all know the V is very expensive and I was wondering if the IV is very close in terms of tone. I don't need all of the features of the V, and the IV is a lot less expensive on the used marked.

Thanks!

 

[bgh]

I'm the other way around. I have a Mark IV but have never played through a Mark V. I am completely satisfied with my Mark IV. It is a great amp! True, it does not have all of the options that the Mark V has (the Mark IV has 3 channels, the Mark V has 3 channels with 2 modes each). But i have found that I get the full range of tones that I need from the IV. The only 'down' side of the IV is that channels 1 and 2 share the bass and mid EQ controls. But, for me, that has not been a big deal.

When I was looking for mine, economics dictated I not even consider a Mark V - it was out of my price range.

And like you, I would like to hear the experiences of someone who has had both and can give us a first hand account.

 

[swbo101]

I own a IV and have played a V. This was my feelings. The clean channel for both was about even, maybe a very slight push to the V, which was a bit rounder. The bass controls on the V didn't make the amp flubby on the V like it tends to do on the IV. The R2 was much better in the V, not even close, much more usable and you could get some very nice lead tones. As far as the lead, I personnally liked the IV better, much more variable. You have a much greater range on the IV than the V, though the overall liquid tone is still there on the V. Those little switches that supposed to get you either a Mark I or IIC+ or IV sound, kind of boxes you in. I know that they are trying to package those great amps for you in a flip of a switch, but not 100% sold on that.

Overall I perfer my IV, but if I could never get a IV again I'd be happy with a V, it's still a great amp.

 

[etepbbb]

I used to have a Mark iv, and now have a Mark V. My opinion on them is the Mv cleans are better, and the Miv dirt is a little more to my liking. Channel 2 on either I never really used. All in all both are great amps.

 

[MarshMesa]

I agree about the flubbiness on the Mark V, meaning that even if you turn up the bass to 7, I didn't get that usual Mesa flub. It stayed tight, had ridiculous amounts of gain, and more customizing tone options than I would ever need.

I'm probably going to sell my DC-3 and save up for a Mark IV. I'm just tired of using an overdrive pedal all the time to tighten up the gain channel. I know it's not an issue with the guitar I have, because it sounds really tight through my Marshall.

 

[bgh]

MarshMesa, you mentioned your guitar and how it sounded through the Mesa as compared to a Marshall.

That is an excellent point. When I play my LP through my Mark IV, I have to use a completely different set of settings than I use when I play my SG through it. The bridge pickups on the two guitars are not that far apart in what I can get out of them. But, the SG is superb using the neck pickup. The bass settings on my IV are not flubby at all (until you get up to about 7). Whereas when I use my LP, I usually have to the the bass to 2 or below to keep the flubbiness out of the sound.

Both sound good, but you have to adjust the Mark IV accordingly.

 

[danyeo1]

The V has the better crunch channel but the Mark IV lead channel smokes the V easily...IMHO.

 

[arkohandler]

I'm definitely torn between the two. I wish I had the money to just buy both and call it a day. I really have enjoyed this topic yet find myself still undecided on what I want to do.

 

[swbo101]

I'm definitely torn between the two. I wish I had the money to just buy both and call it a day. I really have enjoyed this topic yet find myself still undecided on what I want to do.

Unfortunately or fortunately the only way to know is play both and then decide. It's never fun picking between two like these when they are sooo close. I agree, you should buy both! :wink:

 

[MarshMesa]

I'm definitely torn between the two. I wish I had the money to just buy both and call it a day. I really have enjoyed this topic yet find myself still undecided on what I want to do.

I don't think you can go wrong with either one. For me, it's easy to decide because I will not be able to afford a Mark V unless I win the lottery. :lol:

The V was just an amazing amp. It was really hard to make it sound bad. I think I had the gain at 12:00 or 1 at the most, and that was plenty. It stayed tight and focused, yet was warm, rich and thick. Cleans were great too, but if I were to buy a Mark V, it would be for the gain channels. My DC-3 has a nice clean for low volumes. The gain is good, but always requires an overdrive. You definitely won't need an overdrive with the V.

 

[fretout]

I'm definitely torn between the two. I wish I had the money to just buy both and call it a day. I really have enjoyed this topic yet find myself still undecided on what I want to do.

Both amps are great amps. The choice may come down to what style you play. If you need an all around great amp, the Mark V is for you. If you will spend the majority of your time playing high gain hard rock/metal, the Mark IV would be a wise choice.

As far as the tonal differences, the Mark V's Channel 3 "Mark IV" doesn't seem to replicate the Mark IV's lead channel IMHO. After playing at all different wattages, I found the "Mark IV Extreme" setting to come closest to the actual Mark IV lead.

Keep in mind, the Mark V doesn't have a "lead drive" control (the Mark V was created with the "lead drive set to 7.5, which is typical of many players settings), but as for my playing, I use all different lead drive" settings. Also, if you wanted to use both 6L6s and EL34s at the same time, you need a Mark IV.

One option on the Mark V that doesn't seem to get much attention is the fact that it has tube rectification which can add some dimension to your tone. I tend to prefer tube rectification on my clean channel.

Overall, both amps are great at what they do. The Mark V has rounder, deeper cleans, and a higher gain Rhythm/Channel 2, and the high gain (IIC+, IV and IVX) are very convincing, but are different than the amps they are named after, but to get a great clean, great Rhythm and good high gain tones, a Mark V or Triaxis are the most well rounded Boogies with plenty of options to keep you busy.

 

[bandit2013]

I have both amps. Mark IV combo and Mark V head driving an EVM12L 412 Mesa Recto Slant Cab. First off before swapping the V30's for the EVM's the MKV was easy to get flubber from the V30's if there was too much bass on the parametrics (more prone in the Mark I setting on ch2). C90's would have been an improvement, but opted for the EV since I have always cherished the EV black Shadow's in my Mark III (combo and 1x12 ext. cab.)

Clean Channel comparison: Mark IV provides a glassy smooth tone. You can adjust the gain some to get a slight clip but will not become so saturated that it sounds terrible. I like the clean channel on the Mark IV better than the Mark V. There are some voicing switches on the Mark V that will tailor the clean channel and the gain is more sensitive and will allow for clipping early in the settings. It is possible to adjust the controls on the V to get as close to the IV clean channel. On the other hand, the 45W mode of the Mark V set to tube rectification will add some dimension or sag that is harder to obtain with the Mark IV even in tweed mode. They both sound great, and it is difficult to compare the two, even when using the 412 cab for both amps.

Channel 2 comparison: Where to begin? I never really cared much for the Rhythm channel on the Mark IV . That was until I re-tubed the amp. It is difficult to compare the Mark V and Mark IV since this is where they differ the most. I like all of the achievable settings on the MKV channel 2. The crunch mode sounds like it is voiced to be a Marshall clone. The only issue I have with the Mark IV in the Rhythm channel is that it shares the same parametric bass and mid as channel 1.

Channel 3 LEAD comparison: Hands down, the Mark V has more versatility than the Mark IV. Talk about sustain, WOW! the Mark IV setting on the Mark V sounds better than the actual Mark IV in pentode mode. The only difference is you have a pull switch to shift the gain on the Mark IV and another rocker switch to alter the harmonics. The Mark IV tends to react differently at higher volumes than the Mark V due to feedback. Some may like this effect on the Mark IV, I find it annoying unless the shift pot is pulled and thus loss of desired tone I wanted to achieve (sometimes you need to set the rocker switch to Harmonics which also drops the gain some). If you never experienced the Extreme setting in a Mark V, you are really missing out.

Reverb: Another plus for the Mark V! Ample supply of reverb which is very rich and does not sound like springs. Due to the longer reverb tank adds to the ambience of the amp. The Mark IV is not as robust in the reverb department. It is better than most but not as nice as the Mark V.

To really admire either of these amps, selection of tubes is paramount. I have discovered that the old Mesa 12ax7 (EEC83) with the square getter (Chinese source) sounded the best in the Mark V with the exception of the PI being a matched sovtech LPS. As for final output, SED winged C 6L6GC tubes. The Mark IV sounded awesome with a JJ HG 12ax7 in V1, Mesa old style tubes listed above in V2-V4 and a matched Tung Sol for the PI. Pushing Svetlana 6L6GC. I have not tired the SED's in the Mark IV. Tube rolling seems to be more effective in the Mark V than the Mark IV due to the differences in how the pre-amp tubes are used.

In summary, not one amp is better than the other. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. When I bought the Mark IV in 2000, I compared it to the Dual Rectifier and the Nomad. I did not care much for the DR but liked the Nomad. I also bought the Mesa 412 cab with V30's at the same time. I could have opted for the MkIV head but wanted a combo for portability. Up until October of 2012 I had both Mk III (blue stripe) and the MK IV (version b). The Mk V arrived in late Nov which has taken the front seat, the MK IV is still used but not as much. Mk III was sold.

 

[bandit2013]

I'm definitely torn between the two. I wish I had the money to just buy both and call it a day. I really have enjoyed this topic yet find myself still undecided on what I want to do.

Both amps are great amps. The choice may come down to what style you play. If you need an all around great amp, the Mark V is for you. If you will spend the majority of your time playing high gain hard rock/metal, the Mark IV would be a wise choice.

As far as the tonal differences, the Mark V's Channel 3 "Mark IV" doesn't seem to replicate the Mark IV's lead channel IMHO. After playing at all different wattages, I found the "Mark IV Extreme" setting to come closest to the actual Mark IV lead.

Keep in mind, the Mark V doesn't have a "lead drive" control (the Mark V was created with the "lead drive set to 7.5, which is typical of many players settings), but as for my playing, I use all different lead drive" settings. Also, if you wanted to use both 6L6s and EL34s at the same time, you need a Mark IV.

One option on the Mark V that doesn't seem to get much attention is the fact that it has tube rectification which can add some dimension to your tone. I tend to prefer tube rectification on my clean channel.

Overall, both amps are great at what they do. The Mark V has rounder, deeper cleans, and a higher gain Rhythm/Channel 2, and the high gain (IIC+, IV and IVX) are very convincing, but are different than the amps they are named after, but to get a great clean, great Rhythm and good high gain tones, a Mark V or Triaxis are the most well rounded Boogies with plenty of options to keep you busy.

If you use the active effects loop on the V, you get very close to the mark IV lead.
Mark IV extreme ? Did you mean Mk V extreme? I thought the extreme was a V exclusive. How do you get the extreme setting on the mark IV? after 13 years of ownership I missed out..

Put the Mark V into hard bypass and it becomes a different animal.

 

[swbo101]

I'm definitely torn between the two. I wish I had the money to just buy both and call it a day. I really have enjoyed this topic yet find myself still undecided on what I want to do.

Both amps are great amps. The choice may come down to what style you play. If you need an all around great amp, the Mark V is for you. If you will spend the majority of your time playing high gain hard rock/metal, the Mark IV would be a wise choice.

As far as the tonal differences, the Mark V's Channel 3 "Mark IV" doesn't seem to replicate the Mark IV's lead channel IMHO. After playing at all different wattages, I found the "Mark IV Extreme" setting to come closest to the actual Mark IV lead.

Keep in mind, the Mark V doesn't have a "lead drive" control (the Mark V was created with the "lead drive set to 7.5, which is typical of many players settings), but as for my playing, I use all different lead drive" settings. Also, if you wanted to use both 6L6s and EL34s at the same time, you need a Mark IV.

One option on the Mark V that doesn't seem to get much attention is the fact that it has tube rectification which can add some dimension to your tone. I tend to prefer tube rectification on my clean channel.

Overall, both amps are great at what they do. The Mark V has rounder, deeper cleans, and a higher gain Rhythm/Channel 2, and the high gain (IIC+, IV and IVX) are very convincing, but are different than the amps they are named after, but to get a great clean, great Rhythm and good high gain tones, a Mark V or Triaxis are the most well rounded Boogies with plenty of options to keep you busy.

If you use the active effects loop on the V, you get very close to the mark IV lead.
Mark IV extreme ? Did you mean Mk V extreme? I thought the extreme was a V exclusive. How do you get the extreme setting on the mark IV? after 13 years of ownership I missed out..

Put the Mark V into hard bypass and it becomes a different animal.

I believe he means the Mark IV extreme mode ON the Mark V

 

[swbo101]

The V has the better crunch channel but the Mark IV lead channel smokes the V easily...IMHO.

+1

 

[bandit2013]

I know the person meant the Mark V I was just being bad.

I beg to differ on the lead channel of the MKIV being better than the V. But that is only my opinion.
During the first few weeks, I would have agreed, but after getting more familiar with the V that opinion has changed.
Since I was also comparing the two amps, I used the same 412 cab. If I had a choice between either of them, I would choose the Mark V. Since I have both I do not have to side one way or the other. If I were to buy another Mesa amp, I would opt for another Mark V half stack.

In either case, The tubes are the key to getting great sound. The stock 12ax7's from the Mark V are okay but are lacking something, even when transferred to the Mark IV you will get the same results. I now have the same preamp tubes in both which really make a difference. They are from the late 80's, mesa branded 12ax7 that have the square getter. Many have complained about them but I feel they sound the best in both amps. I believe that current production tubes are not up to par to the previous production from the 80's or earlier. Of course having a great set of power tubes makes a difference.

There is one thing that is annoying on the Mark V, changing channels kills the reverb for a brief time. The Mark IV does not do that.

 

[swbo101]

In either case, The tubes are the key to getting great sound. The stock 12ax7's from the Mark V are okay but are lacking something, even when transferred to the Mark IV you will get the same results. I now have the same preamp tubes in both which really make a difference. They are from the late 80's, mesa branded 12ax7 that have the square getter. Many have complained about them but I feel they sound the best in both amps. I believe that current production tubes are not up to par to the previous production from the 80's or earlier. Of course having a great set of power tubes makes a difference.

I haven't used stock Mesa tubes on my IV for many, many years (except for the V4 reverb driver). I do agree that new production tubes today are not the same, but with that in mind.......

I've been using the following to great success, at least to my ears.

V1 - Tung-Sol (RI)
V2 - JJ
V3 - JJ
V4 - Stock Mesa (12AT7 - I have an 'A' revision IV)
V5 - Mullard (RI)

As far as power tubes SED =C= all the way. I have alternated between all 6L6's and EL34/6L6 combination.

The above have opened up the amp a bit and it no longer sounds as compressed and fizzy as with the mesa branded tubes. I believe that mesa rebrands JJ's. I'm OK with them in the gain stages of the amp. Sometimes I will switch those with the Mullard (RI).

The Mesa labeled STR-450 EL34's are great. I tried those years ago when they were just $70 a pair, but now at $150. It's a bit much.

Just my .02.

 

[MichaelC4]

Just my .02.

Off topic- if you hold Alt and then press 0162, you can get ¢ (the cent sign).

 

[swbo101]

Just my .02.

Off topic- if you hold Alt and then press 0162, you can get ¢ (the cent sign).

2¢ ---- lol thx!

 

[bandit2013]

In either case, The tubes are the key to getting great sound. The stock 12ax7's from the Mark V are okay but are lacking something, even when transferred to the Mark IV you will get the same results. I now have the same preamp tubes in both which really make a difference. They are from the late 80's, mesa branded 12ax7 that have the square getter. Many have complained about them but I feel they sound the best in both amps. I believe that current production tubes are not up to par to the previous production from the 80's or earlier. Of course having a great set of power tubes makes a difference.

I haven't used stock Mesa tubes on my IV for many, many years (except for the V4 reverb driver). I do agree that new production tubes today are not the same, but with that in mind.......

I've been using the following to great success, at least to my ears.

V1 - Tung-Sol (RI)
V2 - JJ
V3 - JJ
V4 - Stock Mesa (12AT7 - I have an 'A' revision IV)
V5 - Mullard (RI)

As far as power tubes SED =C= all the way. I have alternated between all 6L6's and EL34/6L6 combination.

The above have opened up the amp a bit and it no longer sounds as compressed and fizzy as with the mesa branded tubes. I believe that mesa rebrands JJ's. I'm OK with them in the gain stages of the amp. Sometimes I will switch those with the Mullard (RI).

The Mesa labeled STR-450 EL34's are great. I tried those years ago when they were just $70 a pair, but now at $150. It's a bit much.

Just my .02.

I'll raise your 2¢ so you will have an even $. I would definitely agree the SED =C= make a difference.

The crappy Chinese tubes from the mid 80's are not fizzy at all. Then again they are used tubes from my band days with the Mark III. I have used Doug's tube cocktail in the MKV but did not care much for that either. I was amazed how good the old Mark III tubes sounded in both amps. Not too bight, ample gain, full tone from bass to treble. The tube that were originals in the Mark IV look identical to the one's I pulled from the Mark V. They are similar to the JJ tube but are not identical. Internal materials are different. They may be manufactured by the same source but are not identical. At least I am getting use out of the old tubes I held on too.