I know... Another Mark V review... But, I love it!!

[MusicManJP6]

I stopped by the local Mesa dealer while in the area while I was (supposed to be) working to play a Mark V today. Holy smokes!!! I have major, major GAS.......

Quick rundown:

Channel 1:
Clean - much better version of the Mark IV clean. Nice and balanced with much more life than MIV clean.
Fat - added bottom end and warmth - my favorite clean mode.
Tweed - add some gain and think Fender-ish type or loose boutique tone. Lovely!

Channel 2:
Edge - very, very bright - reminds me of a Stiletto big time - needs the presence and treble around 9:00 to sound 'right' - then it sounds awesome! Lots of touch responsiveness.
Crunch - what the Mark IV's R2 should have sounded like. Plenty of gain and very crunchy. Perfect!
Mark I - very dark and bold. Needs the presence at noon or more to even out the dark tone. Very smooth and purring!

Channel 3:
IIC+ - not as much gain as I would have liked - could have been the pickups in the guitar I was using. Great for leads though! Lots of clarity.
MIV - This is my favorite mode!!! It is the PERFECT rhythm tone! Amazing. Spent most of the time I had with the amp in this channel. Sounds even better than a real MIV!
Extreme - kind of lessens the gap between Mark and Recto IMO. Very over the top! Great heavy rhythm sound.

The power settings are a very cool feature. You can get great low volume tone easily! The reverb sounds great, and the tube/diodes and pentode/triode options add more tones/feel.

Overall I was very, very impressed. Every mode is extremely usable IF YOU KNOW HOW TO EQ THEM. It sounded great through the 4x12 as well as the 1x12 3/4 back! I'd like to hear the new ported widebody with it...

If my PRS sells I'm going to have a hard time not selling some more stuff to buy this amp... Mesa did a great job! I'm gonna try to bring my JP to the store this weekend for a more familiar comparison. I was using a Les Paul type guitar (for lack of better options).

They had a white one and a red one, but the black just looked killer.

Adam

 

[Silverwulf]

You're about the third or fourth person I've now heard say the Mark IV mode sounds better than an actual Mark IV.

 

[lesterpaul]

+1...!

 

[rispsira]

+1...!

NO SIR!! you are NOT allowed any +1's or any other opinions for that matter.


Until we have your review

 

[MusicManJP6]

You're about the third or fourth person I've now heard say the Mark IV mode sounds better than an actual Mark IV.

Well, for me, it is because there is more usable gain in this mode compared to a real IV, and the bass response does not go to hell when the bass knob is turned up. It just seemed thicker and more aggressive to my ears. It was a pleasure to experience this amp first hand and this mode in particular was my favorite. I look forward to owning this amp as soon as I can sell some shtuff...

 

[JAZZGEAR]

Well, I spent 3 hours yesterday in the same situation as the OP.....

Agree for the most part with his review, except on Ch 3.

I had the benefit of auditioning the amp right next to a used Mark IV (I also own a IV)....and IMO the IV mode on the V is not on par with the real IV. It's in the neighborhood no doubt. So if your main use is the 3rd channel, then you don't need a Mark V.

 

[MarkIVwidebody]

Well, I spent 3 hours yesterday in the same situation as the OP.....

Agree for the most part with his review, except on Ch 3.

I had the benefit of auditioning the amp right next to a used Mark IV (I also own a IV)....and IMO the IV mode on the V is not on par with the real IV. It's in the neighborhood no doubt. So if your main use is the 3rd channel, then you don't need a Mark V.

Did you forget about IIC+ and extreme modes on that channel? IV doesn't have those.......

 

[bradg]

The V does everything the IV does on channel 3 and much more. You just have to be willing to think outside of normal Mark series settings IMO.

 

[MusicManJP6]

The V does everything the IV does on channel 3 and much more. You just have to be willing to think outside of normal Mark series settings IMO.

Very true!

 

[Tuna141]

I had the benefit of auditioning the amp right next to a used Mark IV (I also own a IV)....and IMO the IV mode on the V is not on par with the real IV. It's in the neighborhood no doubt.

Jazzgear, will you describe what you mean as "not on par" a little more? Did you think that ch3 on the V was thinner sounding or lacking some complexity of the IV's ch3? Why did you think the IV's ch3 sounded a little better?

 

[Vigo1999]

Hey Adam, cool! i was wondering . . . since you had the stiletto im curious about the "crunch" mode on the MkV . . . it has the same versatility and gain as the crunch mode on the stilleto?? (yeah again, im not talking about tone)

 

[MusicManJP6]

Hey Adam, cool! i was wondering . . . since you had the stiletto im curious about the "crunch" mode on the MkV . . . it has the same versatility and gain as the crunch mode on the stilleto?? (yeah again, im not talking about tone)

Hmmm... I suppose they do share similar versatility qualities! They both can be used as a bright/hot clean tone with nice dynamics in the lower gain regions. I'm pretty sure there is more gain on the V's crunch mode though.

 

[Bobby_E]

I've heard a lot of people say that "Extreme" mode is the Mark V's "own" voicing and does have almost the bridge between the gap of tone from a Mark IV and a Recto. That's awesome!

 

[bradg]

I'm not sure I agree with the Recto comparison on the Extreme mode. Yeah it has more lows than the IV and IIC+ modes but it's pretty damn tight and doesn't sound much like a Recto to me. You don't need to boost it to make it tight/right.

 

[MusicManJP6]

I'm not sure I agree with the Recto comparison on the Extreme mode. Yeah it has more lows than the IV and IIC+ modes but it's pretty damn tight and doesn't sound much like a Recto to me. You don't need to boost it to make it tight/right.

OK, so it's what most people want the Recto to sound like!!

 

[lesterpaul]

I aquired a Triple Rec in a trade a year ago_ I used a Lehle pedal and the rec/IIC+ in unison-think of C+ 70 %/Rec 30%..just enough low end added, and I copped a pretty cool Adam Jones/TOOL tone I thought..this is what extreme reminds me of

 

[JAZZGEAR]

Well, I spent 3 hours yesterday in the same situation as the OP.....

Agree for the most part with his review, except on Ch 3.

I had the benefit of auditioning the amp right next to a used Mark IV (I also own a IV)....and IMO the IV mode on the V is not on par with the real IV. It's in the neighborhood no doubt. So if your main use is the 3rd channel, then you don't need a Mark V.

Did you forget about IIC+ and extreme modes on that channel? IV doesn't have those.......

I was mainly referring to the Mark IV Mode...and quite honestly, no one could tell the difference between the modes in a live setting ...and they could be all made to sound the same with slight adjustments of gain/tone controls/

 

[JAZZGEAR]

I had the benefit of auditioning the amp right next to a used Mark IV (I also own a IV)....and IMO the IV mode on the V is not on par with the real IV. It's in the neighborhood no doubt.

Jazzgear, will you describe what you mean as "not on par" a little more? Did you think that ch3 on the V was thinner sounding or lacking some complexity of the IV's ch3? Why did you think the IV's ch3 sounded a little better?

Exactly as you stated, I found the IVs to be thicker at the same or similar settings of the common controls. My point is, if you love the IV lead tone and this is your main channel, then you don't need to get a Mark V now and wait a bit until the used prices make sense for you.

I bought a Mark V combo for: better clean channel, Mark I, and always was curious of the IIC+ tone everyone raved about. But after auditioning the amp, I found I can replicate that IIC+ tone on the Mark V on my IV with the proper gain/tone controls adjustments.

Therefore, I am really benefiting from the improved ch's 1 & 2 -- and well worth the cost IMO.

If you own neither amp, then its a no brainer (given that used IVs prices are still too high relatively) that if you're buying now, to get the V.

 

[Tuna141]

Thanks for the info. Your description helped a lot.

I have a IIC (not a +), a III blue, and a IV. I prefer the tone of IIC and the III over the IV. Unlike a lot of IV users, I do like the tone of the IV's ch2, but hate the clean channel (kind of bland and not jangly/Fendery enough for me) and I find the Lead channel just OK (kind of muddy and too smooth for my taste).

I presently use the IV for gigs, however, I use an Egnater IE-4 preamp, for the majority of the songs, powered by the IV's power amp (Egnater output fed into the IV's effects return).

I was hoping that the V would do it all for me. It seems like everyone loves the clean on the V, so that was a big plus. My big concern now is the Lead channel - I'm looking for a more cutting tone (less round/smooth) than the Lead on the IV. Since the IV Lead appears to be a little thicker it may also be more "cutting" and in your face" which is what I'm kind of looking for. I just hope that it is not too bland sounding - I'm looking for cutting, but still harmonically complex (if that makes sense).