Mark IV comparisons?

[theroan]

It seems like a lot of attention has been paid to the IIC+ but nothing much on the Mark IV front. I am a former owner of a IV, I find this IV mode to be less convincing than the IIC+. I doesn't sound the way I remember it sounding like, but then I again, I think it's an over all better sound.

Thoughts? Anyone A/B the two?

 

[ryjan]

Comparing my IV to my friends V is like comparing Michael Keaton to Christian Bale. Different people, but the both play Batman.

 

[theroan]

Could you eleborate?

 

[dmcguitar]

well one plays it very stick straight.. and the other ruins the movie with a freaking stupid whisper grumble voice....

"FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD, ARE YOU AN AMETEUR, WALKING AROUND HERE ALL A-DUH-DA DUH-DA..."
(AAHAHAHAHAHAH thats not a poke at anyone but christian bale, good actor (except for that voice) but a hot head, and a funny one at that)

 

[Nermel]

That's ONE interpretation lol

 

[EtherealWidow]

Damn dude I know. Not to hijack the thread but his voice pissed me off the whole movie. Heath Ledger made that movie. Maybe because he died, but dead or not his role was much less annoying and much more entertaining than Christian's.

 

[Iconoclysm]

I can't take it! :x Out of all the Batman movies - Michael Keaton remains my favorite.

Mine too. The new movies were better than just good, but are still completely and entirely overrated. They're about an 8.5 out of ten.

 

[CudBucket]

Mesa should never have named those modes IIC+ and IV. The comparisons are doing a disservice to the Mark V. You had to know that opinions would vary on whether or not they sounded like the older marks. Couldn't they have just called them things like "Raw", "Vintage", "Fat", "Thick"? Whatever? Then it would just be a Mark V.

I mean, even if they re-issued the IIC+ and were able to use the exact same components that have suddenly disappeared from the universe, people would still "hear" a difference. It's a joke and the discussions are getting tiresome. It seems people are busier discussing the amp than playing it.

Dave

 

[ryjan]

When these people see mint flavored ice-cream at the store do the buy it then run home and compare the ice-cream to real mint leaves? Its mint FLAVORED! Just like the the V has IIC+ and IV flavores. Picking fly **** out of pepper if you ask me.

 

[Supreeth]

Mesa should never have named those modes IIC+ and IV. The comparisons are doing a disservice to the Mark V. You had to know that opinions would vary on whether or not they sounded like the older marks. Couldn't they have just called them things like "Raw", "Vintage", "Fat", "Thick"? Whatever? Then it would just be a Mark V.

I mean, even if they re-issued the IIC+ and were able to use the exact same components that have suddenly disappeared from the universe, people would still "hear" a difference. It's a joke and the discussions are getting tiresome. It seems people are busier discussing the amp than playing it.

Dave

+1. I agree with you. It would have been far better had the modes been named in a generic way!

BTW are you on the EBMM forums as well? I used to post there ocassionally but havent been there in more than a year now. I still play my EBMM petruccis as my main guitars though!

cheers,
Supreeth

 

[nicoroy123]

Mesa should never have named those modes IIC+ and IV. The comparisons are doing a disservice to the Mark V. You had to know that opinions would vary on whether or not they sounded like the older marks. Couldn't they have just called them things like "Raw", "Vintage", "Fat", "Thick"? Whatever? Then it would just be a Mark V.

I mean, even if they re-issued the IIC+ and were able to use the exact same components that have suddenly disappeared from the universe, people would still "hear" a difference. It's a joke and the discussions are getting tiresome. It seems people are busier discussing the amp than playing it.

Dave

+1. I agree with you. It would have been far better had the modes been named in a generic way!

BTW are you on the EBMM forums as well? I used to post there ocassionally but havent been there in more than a year now. I still play my EBMM petruccis as my main guitars though!

cheers,
Supreeth

Not sure if it would have been better: people would complain that they sound too much like a IIC+ and IV and not enough like an original V! :lol:

 

[gibson5413]

I didn't think the Mark IV mode sounded much like my actual Mark IV. The actual Mark IV sounded much more smooth and sustained more musically than the Mark V mode. The Mark IV mode didn't sound bad, just not much like the actual amp. I must admit I was disappointed with that aspect of it. I sold the Mark IV (and passed up on re-buying it) in hopes the V would suffice. That was one of the reasons I traded my V. My intention was to get a Mark IV again but had the opportunity to pickup a IIC+. I'm happy with my decision.

 

[Jmango]

Mesa should never have named those modes IIC+ and IV. The comparisons are doing a disservice to the Mark V. You had to know that opinions would vary on whether or not they sounded like the older marks. Couldn't they have just called them things like "Raw", "Vintage", "Fat", "Thick"? Whatever? Then it would just be a Mark V.

I mean, even if they re-issued the IIC+ and were able to use the exact same components that have suddenly disappeared from the universe, people would still "hear" a difference. It's a joke and the discussions are getting tiresome. It seems people are busier discussing the amp than playing it.

Dave

+1000

Everyone knows the Roadster and Road King II boast the Lonestar cleans and everyone loves the amps for that. I believe channel one on either amp makes no mention whatsoever about the Lonestar but calls them something completely generic. Wise choice to do that on Mesa's part.

In a world where they called it Lonestar channel 1 mode instead, those amps would have gotten ripped to shreds by the bored and dickless who can hear the difference between the red GeorgeL cable and the black one...... Too bad really.

 

[theroan]

Maybe the toggle should say
- 80's
- 90's
- 00's

 

[phyrexia]

skinny/fat/obese
dirty/crunch/blur
dry/wet/aggro

 

[CudBucket]

BTW are you on the EBMM forums as well? I used to post there ocassionally but havent been there in more than a year now. I still play my EBMM petruccis as my main guitars though!

I used to be. I don't play EBMMs anymore so I don't visit much. I sold my EBMMs and Carvins and bought 2 Suhr Moderns.

 

[CudBucket]

Mesa should never have named those modes IIC+ and IV. The comparisons are doing a disservice to the Mark V. You had to know that opinions would vary on whether or not they sounded like the older marks. Couldn't they have just called them things like "Raw", "Vintage", "Fat", "Thick"? Whatever? Then it would just be a Mark V.

I mean, even if they re-issued the IIC+ and were able to use the exact same components that have suddenly disappeared from the universe, people would still "hear" a difference. It's a joke and the discussions are getting tiresome. It seems people are busier discussing the amp than playing it.

Dave

+1. I agree with you. It would have been far better had the modes been named in a generic way!

BTW are you on the EBMM forums as well? I used to post there ocassionally but havent been there in more than a year now. I still play my EBMM petruccis as my main guitars though!

cheers,
Supreeth

Not sure if it would have been better: people would complain that they sound too much like a IIC+ and IV and not enough like an original V! :lol:

You're probably right.

 

[CudBucket]

Mesa should never have named those modes IIC+ and IV. The comparisons are doing a disservice to the Mark V. You had to know that opinions would vary on whether or not they sounded like the older marks. Couldn't they have just called them things like "Raw", "Vintage", "Fat", "Thick"? Whatever? Then it would just be a Mark V.

I mean, even if they re-issued the IIC+ and were able to use the exact same components that have suddenly disappeared from the universe, people would still "hear" a difference. It's a joke and the discussions are getting tiresome. It seems people are busier discussing the amp than playing it.

Dave

+1000

Everyone knows the Roadster and Road King II boast the Lonestar cleans and everyone loves the amps for that. I believe channel one on either amp makes no mention whatsoever about the Lonestar but calls them something completely generic. Wise choice to do that on Mesa's part.

In a world where they called it Lonestar channel 1 mode instead, those amps would have gotten ripped to shreds by the bored and dickless who can hear the difference between the red GeorgeL cable and the black one...... Too bad really.

Excellent point.