Just found out Mesa is discontinuing the Mark IV's…

[LEVEL4]

I don't know why people complain about the temperamental nature of the MKIV. In my mind it's the ultimate studio amp, and I'd never use one to gig with live.

Agreed! Just got the LAST, new Mark IV short-head, rackmount from the Mesa/Boogie Hollywood store today, and I'm in love with its tweakability! The MORE knobs, sliders, and toggle switches, the BETTER! I bought it SPECIFICALLY for (home) studio recording. I beat up on my little DC-3 in my "new amp" thread a bit, simply because the Mark IV deserves all the acclaim it has received. TONS of gain. TONS of variability. GREAT metal amp! NO pedals required (but, to cover the full-metal spectrum, I still think you need a Recto as well).

 

[devilrob1979]

I always thought the Road King/Roadster was the heir apparent of the Mark line. More knobs, more channels, more tube choices, more everything..

This is a wonderfully useless thread, so let me contribute. I believe the RK/RST are heirs of the Recto world, and the Lonestar is the heir to the Mark line. Consider the Lonestar the Mark V if you will.

I believe all Mark's are great yet different. Obviously from the more knowledgeable contributors to this site the C+ is the best, but this does not diminish any other Mark IMHO. They each stand on their own merits. Now from what I have read it is the C+'s clean channel that sets it apart, correct? Obviously the lead channel is great as well, but the clean is the real deal. However the Lonestar seems to reclaim the best clean in the Mesa line and from my limited experience the lead channel of the Lonestar is not quite Boogie. Perhaps the new Mark will finalize this last step, providing a clean channel that is king and a lead channel that provides a worthwhile next step in the Mark lineage. It is quite possible that the next great Mesa amp will elegantly tie both the Recto line and Mark line in one neat package.

I think you're kind of incorrect. The vast majority of people who buy C+'s do so for its lead channel with the clean as a bonus. The Lonestar's lead channel is absolutely nothing like the Mark's. I can't see Master of Puppets or Ashes of the Wake, or The Dark Eternal Night being played on a Lonestar. I hope to God that there's nothing in the Recto line introduced into the Marks. I believe in separation of church and state almost as much as I believe in separation of mark and recto.

 

[MesieBooga]

I always thought the Road King/Roadster was the heir apparent of the Mark line. More knobs, more channels, more tube choices, more everything..

This is a wonderfully useless thread, so let me contribute. I believe the RK/RST are heirs of the Recto world, and the Lonestar is the heir to the Mark line. Consider the Lonestar the Mark V if you will.

I believe all Mark's are great yet different. Obviously from the more knowledgeable contributors to this site the C+ is the best, but this does not diminish any other Mark IMHO. They each stand on their own merits. Now from what I have read it is the C+'s clean channel that sets it apart, correct? Obviously the lead channel is great as well, but the clean is the real deal. However the Lonestar seems to reclaim the best clean in the Mesa line and from my limited experience the lead channel of the Lonestar is not quite Boogie. Perhaps the new Mark will finalize this last step, providing a clean channel that is king and a lead channel that provides a worthwhile next step in the Mark lineage. It is quite possible that the next great Mesa amp will elegantly tie both the Recto line and Mark line in one neat package.

I think you're kind of incorrect. The vast majority of people who buy C+'s do so for its lead channel with the clean as a bonus. The Lonestar's lead channel is absolutely nothing like the Mark's. I can't see Master of Puppets or Ashes of the Wake, or The Dark Eternal Night being played on a Lonestar. I hope to God that there's nothing in the Recto line introduced into the Marks. I believe in separation of church and state almost as much as I believe in separation of mark and recto.

+ 1 I buy the C+'s for the Lead Channel alone. The clean channel is a bonus. Although I have NEVER dialed in a clean tone. :lol:

 

[Restless Rocks]

I agree with Devilrob that when you try and take the pure Black Face Fender heritage out of the mark you end up with something like the Nomad. Not saying these are bad amps just no where near the tonal bliss of the Marks. And by the way the Mark III's and IV's are incredible both in the studio and live. No problemo getting all three channels to blend even before putting the R2 Master Volume mod on my three I used for years before the IV's came out. If Randall can improve the MkIV in some way, that's hard to imagine, I guess it will be awesome beyond beleif. Will never ever never ever let go of my III's and IV's.

 

[EirikBrandal]

Mark V doesn't sound very logical to me. nor does the discontinuation of the mark IV.

it will be exiting to see whatever mesa comes up with anyway. I just hope that the Mark IV will kick *** in comparison to the new thing, so that I can feel a bit cooler than the guys who buy the new stuff..

 

[trem]

Now from what I have read it is the C+'s clean channel that sets it apart, correct? Obviously the lead channel is great as well, but the clean is the real deal.

I might be wrong, but did you happen to read this at wikipedia? If so then you've been duped. The lead channel is the real deal. Don't believe everything you read in wiki.

Here's a quote (if somebody haven't changed it when you read this):
Mark IIC & IIC+
The Mark IIC and IIC+ are gaining reputations in vintage circles as the best Boogies, next to the classic Mark I, due to their much-praised rhythm channels, and to a lesser degree their lead channels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesa_Boogie_Mark_Series

 

[carlosasi]

No, I read it on the boogie files published by Dr Ian.

 

[trem]

Interesting. I have nothing against Ian, and I'm sure the cleans are great, but aside from Keef, is there anyone else notable for using the IIC+'s cleans?

 

[Octavarius]

Just posting an exerpt from an interview with Randall Smith which was posted at the Petrucci forums:

http://www.mesaboogie.com/Reviews/gu...gning_f-50.htm

WILL THERE EVER BE A MARK V?

“Yes, there will probably be a Mark V… but not for a long time. And it will probably sound just like the Mark IV but with a simpler control layout. It’s not next on my palette because the Mark IV is still going strong after 12 or 13 years. But who knows? By the time that bad boy comes around, anything could happen!”

I like what he's saying there. It's exactly what I have in mind. Imagine all the years from the very first Mark I that have shaped what the Mark IV is today. It's the culmination of all those generations together, and discontinuing it completely, or even suddenly redesigning the tone and everything into a completely new model and sound would ruin that whole lineage. In my opinion, the Mark IV sounds exactly the way it's supposed to, and it doesn't take much changes in the sound itself to get it into perfection. Obviously I'm not referring to the Lead channel, as it's as good as perfect for me, but more like giving rhythm 2 more diversity and stuff like that. But again, it doesn't take much. It's more about the control layout and organizing space and features.
And all those who complain about it having to many knobs and switches, well, maybe you don't realize it, but mostly everyone uses the features differently. It is what makes it so diverse. Even if it's complicated, it's what makes it able to be used in everything from jazz to metal. Which you really can't say that the Road King is able to.. despite all of it's bells and whistles in cabinet switching, loop assignment. That sort of thing. Those don't really affect the diversity of tone, but make an amp more practical in live and studio. And that's what I miss a bit on the Mark IV. Stuff like that. More routing and assignment options. But I wouldn't eliminate those pull switches for anything in the world, as they are what makes the amp so versatile. Even if they make it more complicated, it's really not that hard to understand it all if you have a critical ear and listen to what changes they make..

 

[sfarnell]

It's funny how people's opinions can vary so much. I couldn't stand my Mark IV and couldn't get rid of it fast enough. I love the Mark I, the Mark IIC and the Mark IIC+, and all of the Mark III flavors. My Mark IV was the harshest ear piercing amp that I've ever owned. It was not musical at all. I know, I know, you say I didn't know how to dial it in. I say B.S. to that. I've been dialing in Boogies since the '70's.

I am a big fan of the Lonestar and currently have four Boogies, including the nicest Mark IIC+ I ever had. So, I'm not biased against Mesa.

Good riddens. Bring on the Mark V. Just my opinion.

 

[Octavarius]

It's funny how people's opinions can vary so much. I couldn't stand my Mark IV and couldn't get rid of it fast enough. I love the Mark I, the Mark IIC and the Mark IIC+, and all of the Mark III flavors. My Mark IV was the harshest ear piercing amp that I've ever owned. It was not musical at all. I know, I know, you say I didn't know how to dial it in. I say B.S. to that. I've been dialing in Boogies since the '70's.

I am a big fan of the Lonestar and currently have four Boogies, including the nicest Mark IIC+ I ever had. So, I'm not biased against Mesa.

Good riddens. Bring on the Mark V. Just my opinion.

They say Mark III had a much harsher voicing on the lead channel than the Mark IV, though.. perhaps there was something wrong with the one model you had? Just speculating, 'cause I didn't think there was that big of a difference between them..

 

[LEVEL4]

It's funny how people's opinions can vary so much . . . My Mark IV was the harshest ear piercing amp that I've ever owned.

I'm often surprised by the hugely varied opinions on amps too. It just shows how wildly different all of our tastes are. I agree, the Mark IV can sound harsh. But as a recording amp, I need all the frequency range on-tap that I can get. I like hard rock and metal sounds, and the Mark IV really delivers those. Lots of guts and tons of presence, if you need it. Personally, the Lonestars are definitely not for me, so it makes sense that you didn't like your Mark.

As for the Mark IIIs reportedly being "more aggressive" than a modern Mark IV, I've yet to audition a Mark III to prove that out. When I spoke to Mesa technicians in Petaluma, they didn't agree with that opinion, when I discussing with them the comparative gain characteristics of older Mark-series, and DC-series Mesa amps to the current Mark IV.

I'm also not sure what we necessarily mean by "aggressive." I think of aggressive as "gutteral." Having that deep, stuttery-ish, growly sound—the kind of growl Soldano SLOs have, and what I hope my soon-to-be-modded 6505 will have (which it actually does have, unmodded, if you dial back the gain, treble, and presence enough to hear it), which I admit, the Mark IVs MAY be a bit shy on. Is a Mark IV is "smoother" than a Mark III? Again, not too sure what we all mean by "smooth" either. I think of "smooth" as a lack of that "stuttery" growly character (which I really like). But I'm so incredibly pleased with my new Mark IV. I'm going to keep this amp forever.

 

[guitardude05]

i agree with sfarnell. i hate my mark iv. but ive kept it cause ive been in denial of hating it. it can sound pretty good at low volumes, but when i turn it up it reminds me of a **** SS amp no matter how i dial it.

 

[LEVEL4]

i agree with sfarnell. i hate my mark iv. but ive kept it cause ive been in denial of hating it. it can sound pretty good at low volumes, but when i turn it up it reminds me of a **** SS amp no matter how i dial it.

Weird! Maybe it's just too "clean" and too "smooth." Plenty of gain, but not enough "dirt?"

 

[guitardude05]

perhaps, maybe i just like a little bit more "sag" if you know what i mean. a little more slay and grind when i need it. i wish i had a dual rec + mark iv kind of tone. tight for riffs and leads, but chunky and saggy for those huge sounding chords.

 

[LEVEL4]

perhaps, maybe i just like a little bit more "sag" if you know what i mean. a little more slay and grind when i need it. i wish i had a dual rec + mark iv kind of tone. tight for riffs and leads, but chunky and saggy for those huge sounding chords.

Well maybe you can pick up a used Single-Recto. They're only $800-$900 used, and it may cure your Mark IV "ails." Then you could play with an A/B/Y switch and have a "wall of sound."

 

[EirikBrandal]

hi gain pickups definitly helps alot, boost it with a tubescreamer as well if you like

 

[Aart]

perhaps, maybe i just like a little bit more "sag" if you know what i mean. a little more slay and grind when i need it. i wish i had a dual rec + mark iv kind of tone. tight for riffs and leads, but chunky and saggy for those huge sounding chords.

I think you prefer looser amps when playing chords. I like the tightness and I mostly use mine for rythm chords(skatepunk). A recto gets muddy, but it sounds bigger.

 

[carlosasi]

Interesting. I have nothing against Ian, and I'm sure the cleans are great, but aside from Keef, is there anyone else notable for using the IIC+'s cleans?

I believe Petrucci used the C+ for cleans as well as leads. If you go to the Mesa Website under artist videos JP discusses switching to the IV over the C+. One of the reasons was the cleans on the IV were better then the C+ in his opinion.

 

[Shep]

i reckon the C+'s clean is awesome, better than a mk IV's..??