Mark V tidbits

[Sixstringpsycho]

I agree with everything you guys are saying about Marks being Marks and Rectos being Recots and what not. The Mark V is something new because it should/will add another color and flavor to the traditional mark series vien. I am hoping it does have its own voice like the II III IV does that is all im saying. I just want it to kick ass and take names and not be a silly attempt at a copy amp which I DONT think ti will be that. I cant wait to try and so far it sounds amazing.

 

[CoG]

If the lead sounds aren't all as "compressed" as the MkIV (the thing that sells me on the III over the IV is the "aggressiveness")

I had both and agree. which is why i don't understand why LOG, for example, doesn't use the III.... they only use the lead channel anyways...

M/B ain't gonna give you no sweet endorsement for using an amp they don't make no more :lol:

meaning that y'all can probably expect LoG and Petrucci to be rolling out the Mark Vs Real Soon Now.

 

[siggy14]

My point was that they could have made that britt channel on the RK2/roadster damn close to the stiletto, we know it can be done because people on this forum have done it by changing a few of the pots. But i bet mesa knows this and the on purpose did not do this because it would have hurt the sales of the stilettos.

Me personaly, I love the Britt channel on RK1 so much better then the stiletto or the RK2's britt channel, you want to talk about true plexi tone! No high gain on that channel, not even with a pedal, but damn you crank the treble, crank the bass, keep the mid around noon and the presense to your likeing (keep mine around 1oclock) and then boost that channel and you are are in marshall heaven from the 70's!

I get your point but keep in mind that Ch2 on RK has a brit mode. so it's not a brit channel as you say.

The true RK would be ch1 = LS, ch2 = Stiletto, ch3 = Mark X, ch4 = Recto

I think a lot of ppl would then be buying way more RK's... and a lot less other mesa's...

 

[siggy14]

You also have to remember that when lamb of god formed Mark III's were discontinued and it was probaly just easier to go into a store and get a Mark IV, plus having the independent channels for clean and dirty is a nice added bonus.

I can almost guarentee they also did not know many people with Mark III's since at the time everyone was playing recto's so they probaly didnt know much about them or that they are more aggressive.

If the lead sounds aren't all as "compressed" as the MkIV (the thing that sells me on the III over the IV is the "aggressiveness")

I had both and agree. which is why i don't understand why LOG, for example, doesn't use the III.... they only use the lead channel anyways...

M/B ain't gonna give you no sweet endorsement for using an amp they don't make no more :lol:

meaning that y'all can probably expect LoG and Petrucci to be rolling out the Mark Vs Real Soon Now.

 

[amused]

the fat clean and the crunch voicings are new to the mark series, and very useful imho.
the crunch channel sounded sounded like my Stiletto or maybe better, definitely beefier than R2 on my Mark IV.
but I only played it for 10 mins so I might be wrong

 

[Silverwulf]

the fat clean and the crunch voicings are new to the mark series, and very useful imho.
the crunch channel sounded sounded like my Stiletto or maybe better, definitely beefier than R2 on my Mark IV.
but I only played it for 10 mins so I might be wrong

Would you say that crunch setting is closest to the Stiletto "Crunch Mode" or "Tite Gain" mode?

And to what siggy is saying, I agree. It's funny that he mentions the RK1 Brit channel as being really close to the Plexi and more so than the RK2. I always said the Channel 1 Crunch on the Series I Stilettos were almost dead on Plexi-ish. I wonder if those 2 are similar, where as the RK2 and Stiletto 2 Crunch are similar?

 

[siggy14]

The crunch on the stiletto is more JCM800, it is agressive by that era's standards where the britt on the RK is defintly more dry and more plexi, alot smoother.

the fat clean and the crunch voicings are new to the mark series, and very useful imho.
the crunch channel sounded sounded like my Stiletto or maybe better, definitely beefier than R2 on my Mark IV.
but I only played it for 10 mins so I might be wrong

Would you say that crunch setting is closest to the Stiletto "Crunch Mode" or "Tite Gain" mode?

And to what siggy is saying, I agree. It's funny that he mentions the RK1 Brit channel as being really close to the Plexi and more so than the RK2. I always said the Channel 1 Crunch on the Series I Stilettos were almost dead on Plexi-ish. I wonder if those 2 are similar, where as the RK2 and Stiletto 2 Crunch are similar?

 

[amused]

tite-gain or maybe crunch gain on 9. I think some of the difference may be 6L6 instead of EL34, the shrillness of the stiletto was not there, which I liked.

 

[Silverwulf]

With all the speculation and reviews etc.... (keeping in mind the reviews of the one at Mesa Hollywood are for a prototype MK V)

How many posting in this thread have played through a C+, MkIII, MkIV and the MK V prototype?

If there is one can he comment?

I'd like to hear from some people that get to A/B the V to some previous models in the near future. I've owned a couple IIC+, all III's except Purple, a couple IV's, etc...but I don't have them now to compare, even if I had a V. Doing it from memory, through different guitars/cabs, different tubes, etc...is a shaky comparison at best...

 

[jdurso]

The C+ mode or whatever it's called on the V... I have a hard time believing it'll really nail a C+ down. Have the sound, subtlety, the dynamic touch sensitivity. All the old C+ parts, being what they were, put together created sort of a unique amp stew. And with these parts no longer being available or produced, it's hard to see how any mix of currently made parts will produce the same stew that made and makes a C+ what it is. The V may or may not come close but I'd really like to hear someone who's played both extensively make the call. (And it'll likely be awhile before anyone with those credentials has the chance).

take for what its worth because i can't speak from first hand experience, but the guys at mesa hollywood a/b'd the mark V C+ mode vs the real thing. They said they couldn't tell the difference. I mentioned that there had to be some difference because your not using the orginal parts, so some part of the tone equation has to be different. They said they thought the same thing but putting it to the test proved that theory wrong. Whatever Randall did in the past 20 years, he figured out a way to get that mojo and tone with currently produced parts. Again this is word of mouth and everyone's hears are different but these guys at Mesa Hollywood know their stuff.

 

[camsna]

Also consider that every IIC+ is a different beast as well. I've heard only a few. They were all a little different. Each had its own character. I've heard from Mike B. that "Some sound great, some sound like crap. I've heard some Cs that sound better than some C+s."

If the V can get close, cool! Maybe what's taken so long to release this beast is getting a consistent IIC+(esque) sound considering the new components, mfg. techniques, insertion loss, improvements, "improvements," etc.

I can't wait to play one. But I might feel like I'm cheating on my dear Mk. III.

 

[danyeo1]

Also consider that every IIC+ is a different beast as well. I've heard only a few. They were all a little different. Each had its own character. I've heard from Mike B. that "Some sound great, some sound like crap. I've heard some Cs that sound better than some C+s."

If the V can get close, cool! Maybe what's taken so long to release this beast is getting a consistent IIC+(esque) sound considering the new components, mfg. techniques, insertion loss, improvements, "improvements," etc.

I can't wait to play one. But I might feel like I'm cheating on my dear Mk. III.

Iv'e owned a few and compared a few. Me and my friend had 3 in the same room at once. I thought my 60 watt non-simul was the best sounding one i have heard. The only IIC+ that i thought was dull sounding was a loaded long chassis model. I mean, we had a Mark IV on hand that sounded better. So if someone who hasn't been familiar with these amps was there that day, we would have crushed any potential IIC+ hype for him.


I have owned a bunch of III's and IV's. The III's don't sound like IIC+'s at all to me. It took me a while to realize the III's have their own thing going. The Blue stripes i owned were actually better at metal than the IIC+ IMHO. They had more gain and just sounded nasty. Keep in mind that by saying that i thought they were better for metal doesn't mean i think they sound better overall. The IIC+ just has this warmer overall tone and a singing sweet lead sound. The III's are just rude, with a nasty sort of "Get the **** out of my way" kinda vibe.

The last Blue stripe III i owned actually had a very nice crunch channel, MUCH MUCH better than R2 on the IV. But the IV to me CAN get pretty close to the IIC+ if you dial it on right. I feel you have to keep the presence pulled out as it sounded sweeter than pushed in. Of course it depends on what cab you're playing on.


But with the V, IMHO it sounds like it's going to have the IIC+ beat in every way even if it doesn't get 100% the same tone. IMHO the IV gets you about 90% close to a IIC+ on the lead channel. If the V is 95% there then I'm happy.

Plus, with the ability to footswitch out the loop, the power settings, the SOLO feature, the different modes, the clean channel i keep hearing about.......how can we not possibly be excited. I AM.

 

[JOEY B.]

Channel 2 will be the deal maker/breaker for me. :twisted: I have no doubt that it will have good clean and lead sounds, but the middle ground tone and touch response is what has me curious about the new amp.

 

[MetallicaFreak65]

It 3 different lead channels it has a mark iiC+ channel and Mark IV channel and an extreeme channel based of the Mark IIC+ but with more gain treb, ect. And the realse date is after winter Namm sometime in March I know some people who have already ordered one it cost 2100 for combo and 1999 for head

 

[danyeo1]

It 3 different lead channels it has a mark iiC+ channel and Mark IV channel and an extreeme channel based of the Mark IIC+ but with more gain treb, ect. And the realse date is after winter Namm sometime in March I know some people who have already ordered one it cost 2100 for combo and 1999 for head

Well no it doesn't have 3 lead channels. It has 3 different modes on the lead channel and from what i have heard you won't be able to footswitch between them. So for a live gig you have to pick your favorite and stick with it.

 

[JOEY B.]

It 3 different lead channels it has a mark iiC+ channel and Mark IV channel and an extreeme channel based of the Mark IIC+ but with more gain treb, ect. And the realse date is after winter Namm sometime in March I know some people who have already ordered one it cost 2100 for combo and 1999 for head

Well no it doesn't have 3 lead channels. It has 3 different modes on the lead channel and from what i have heard you won't be able to footswitch between them. So for a live gig you have to pick your favorite and stick with it.

Much like the Stiletto. Pick your mode for each channel and switch between the channels.

 

[danyeo1]

It 3 different lead channels it has a mark iiC+ channel and Mark IV channel and an extreeme channel based of the Mark IIC+ but with more gain treb, ect. And the realse date is after winter Namm sometime in March I know some people who have already ordered one it cost 2100 for combo and 1999 for head

Well no it doesn't have 3 lead channels. It has 3 different modes on the lead channel and from what i have heard you won't be able to footswitch between them. So for a live gig you have to pick your favorite and stick with it.

Much like the Stiletto. Pick your mode for each channel and switch between the channels.

This is the only thing that bugs me about the V. I feel they should have put a IIC+ mode on channel 2, and a IV mode on channel 3, that way you could switch between them. But, i REALLY REALLY hope these Edge, and Crunch modes on channel 2 are worth it.

 

[stephen sawall]

I have talked to them about this and other heads. The reason is you well need to set the tones, gain and everything else different for the different modes. So that would be a whole other channel.

I feel the reason the II and IV are on the same channel is the circuit are much alike. Most people do not need two high gain sounds and a clean. Most people need a clean, medium and high gain sound.

The foot pedal by the reviews....

Channels 123,EQ,Solo,Reverb,Effects and ?

 

[denrad]

...........Mute

 

[Silverwulf]

I don't understand the need to footswitch between modes. So what if you could switch between IIC+ and IV modes? Your settings never change, so it won't be some huge, distinct tonal difference. Would you really have some big advantage by being able to switch between IIC+ and IV modes in the same song if you're going to be using the same settings on both? No, probably not. Without different settings, there's no big advantage in being able to footswitch between modes.