Mark V v.s. Mark IV

[Nitrobattery]

Hey guys I'm sure this has been discussed a billion times, but for those of you who have owned both a Mark IV and a V....how does the Mark IV mode on the Mark V sound? Can it get pretty close? I'm on the hunt for another Mark IV, and the V will be a little easier to get my hands on.

 

[MesaGod666]

Search the forums for exact breakdowns, but Mark V models the Mark IV exactly.

 

[Overture2152]

I have to say it's the best mode for channel 3, with the right EQ and settings on the knobs it can be a real #$%^ing beast of an amp.

 

[espmaster1]

Search the forums for exact breakdowns, but Mark V models the Mark IV exactly.

That's a strong statement.

I would consider it the Mark V's 'take' on the Mark IV, it isn't exact but you can get it close to fooling a lot of people.

 

[eudaimonia02912]

I spend 2 hours A/B'ing a IV and V (with the V on IV mode) with the same guitar, tube type, and speakers. Using the kind of settings I like, I could not hear a difference between the two.

 

[JOEY B.]

Using the kind of settings I like, I could not hear a difference between the two.

You said a mouthfull. The Mark V does not have the "pull" knobs like the IV. The IV has more options in channel 3, than the V does. Sometimes this is a good thing, other times not.

 

[primal]

I did a side by side for a good 45 minutes at guitar center. I would say they are close. I thought the IV sounded slightly more raw, if memory serves. Kind of in the same way I think the Mark III is more raw then the Mark IV.

Both sounded killer

 

[thunder100]

I spend 2 hours A/B'ing a IV and V (with the V on IV mode) with the same guitar, tube type, and speakers. Using the kind of settings I like, I could not hear a difference between the two.

Apart the pull options for me that is true as well.We had recently a shootout with my bandmates Mark V and with same guitar/speaker ,provided you tweak a bit,they sound same.

But settings are not same.

e.g.for me the Mark IV gain is more steep goes higher then Mark V.

Roland

 

[Rkorn]

It's true the Mark V doesn't have the pull knobs, but the knobs pulled isn't the MarkV extreme setting?
Sincerely... The Mark IV mode with gain at 1o´clock is enough for the metal i play...
Extreme isn't too much... but IV hits the spot. Obviously, with a better guitar the extreme will be better.
The extreme, in my opinion is very guitar sensitive, in the USA it seems everyone has good or decent guitars, here... a lot of people have crappy guitars! hehehe

 

[Bullen]

I have both. And this is my conclusion after having owned this IV for 3.5 years (I´ve had 2 other IV´s through the years) and the V for a year and a half and playing them side by side for all that time. And this comparison is just between my amps, maybe your amps sound closer to each other, I don´t know.

To me the V is the better amp. The clean and crunch modes are better and with one exception so are the lead modes.
If I´m comparing just the Mark IV modes (IV and Extreme) on the V then to my ears, no. The V doesn´t quite nail the IV, but it´s pretty close and sometimes the V sounds better.

The IV mode on the V sounds better to me than the actual IV does with the presence knob pulled.
As others have stated above, the IV sounds a little bit more raw compared to the V which is slightly more refined and a bit smoother. But the V´s Mark IV mode is very sweet and to me slightly better sounding.

Extreme mode is also very close to the Mark IV with the presence pushed in, but it´s voiced slightly different. The Extreme mode has more bass and is voiced slightly darker and warmer than my IV. I do prefer the IV with the presence knob pushed in over the Extreme mode as I find it slighly more aggressive. It´s my main heavy crunch tone, but don´t worry they are pretty close.

Overall, I´d say that the IV is a bit more midrangey and has a slightly better "chunk factor". The V is voiced slighty brighter and isn´t as midrange honky with the eq off as the IV (or III) is.

The graphic eq on the IV seems more powerful too, perhaps because of the IV´s more midrange rich character. You can´t quite get the same amount of "scoop" out of the V when you use it´s siders as you can with the Mark IV.

Both are great amps so you can´t go wrong with either,

 

[MBJunkie]

I also own both the MkIV 112 widebody combo and the MkV 112 combo. I have owned my MkIV since about 1996 and my MkV for 1-1/2 years.

I have previously posted a detailed comparison between both amps...so definitely do a search in this forum and you will find a lot of opinions.

Personally, I prefer my V over my IV for several reasons, but both are great sounding amps.

My "cut to the chase" review of my IV versus my V is as follows:

1. I feel the V is a bit brighter in general than my IV.
2. I feel the V can closely duplicate the IV for fairly high gain lead sounds in channel 3 when the V is set to either the MkIV mode (actual MkIV amp with presence knob pulled) and when the V is set to Extreme mode (actual MkIV amp with presence knob pushed in). As others have said....the controls on the V will likely not be set the same as they are for my IV to achieve similar sounds. The V is also capable of many other great sounds in both the MkIV, Extreme and the IIC+ modes....which makes it a more versatile amp to me in Ch3 alone.
3. The GEQ sliders do not work exactly the same on my V as the GEQ sliders on my IV, but both amps offer an unbelievable amount of post pre-amp shaping with this feature.
4. The V also offers GEQ knob control option of each channel in lieu of the GEQ sliders....and in some cases seems to work very well for my needs (Ch1) while allowing my GEQ sliders to be set to specific needs in Ch2 and/or 3.
5. The V also offers "footswitchable solo boost" which I find very useful for live situations, and always wished it would have been available on my IV.
6. Ch1 and Ch2 of the V are so much better for my needs than the IV had to offer and are much easier to dial in great sounds based on the intuitive layout of each channel.

Both are great sounding amps, but the V is my preferred amp of choice based on its excellent overall sound and features.

I do still own my MkIV as well, but I seldom play it now that I have a MkV.

 

[heru]

I am new to the Mesa world. I have always loved the Mesa tone but could never afford one. So take this from where it comes. I hear all this talk comparing the Mark V to the IV, IIC+, and the Mark I. I really don't get it. If I wanted say a IIC+ sound, I know hard to get and all, I would find one. Same goes for the others.
I got the Mark V mainly for the versatility, and yes it can approximate those others, but it is not them. To me it is better because not only can it come close to all the previous Marks, it has an unlimited amount of New Tones that they can not do. You know the Mark V tones.
I have never had or been around an amp that had this much to offer. Anyway still love to hear about all the comparisons because they usually end up with the Mark V sounding and performing better than the predecessors.

Like I said just a NOOB's thoughts

 

[AceBoogie]

I am new to the Mesa world. I have always loved the Mesa tone but could never afford one. So take this from where it comes. I hear all this talk comparing the Mark V to the IV, IIC+, and the Mark I. I really don't get it. If I wanted say a IIC+ sound, I know hard to get and all, I would find one. Same goes for the others.
I got the Mark V mainly for the versatility, and yes it can approximate those others, but it is not them. To me it is better because not only can it come close to all the previous Marks, it has an unlimited amount of New Tones that they can not do. You know the Mark V tones.
I have never had or been around an amp that had this much to offer. Anyway still love to hear about all the comparisons because they usually end up with the Mark V sounding and performing better than the predecessors.

Like I said just a NOOB's thoughts

i agree with this..the original amps are amazing but the mark V is the next chapter in the book. for how many options the amp is outfitted with, it does a nice job of reproducing the tones it aims for.

 

[MrPolatis3]

hI,
here are my thoughts in a nutschell as I owned a MK V and still own a IV.

Mark V:
Ch 1 : awesome, unbelievable, maybe the best clean ever
Ch 2 : all the modes are very nice, the MK I mod is great, big dark grainy rock tone.
Ch3 : C+ mode : i never managed to approximate the real C+ tone
IV : interesting, focused, beefy and some nice modern elements
Extr : definitely modern, tweakable, focused

Mark IV :
Ch 1 : sparkling, warm , very nice
Ch 2 : i never managed to tweak an interesting tone, compatible with my playing
Ch 3 : tweakable, warm, creamy, focused , perfect for searing leads

Bottom line :
I sold back the MK V, kept cautiously the MK IV and bought a third MK IIC+ because after playing the V, I was definitely convinced that it's impossible to replicate the C+ benchmark tone. :lol:

 

[heru]

I sold back the MK V, kept cautiously the MK IV and bought a third MK IIC+ because after playing the V, I was definitely convinced that it's impossible to replicate the C+ benchmark tone. :lol:

Like I said if that is the tone you want, then get the original

 

[ifailedshapes]

Hey guys I'm sure this has been discussed a billion times, but for those of you who have owned both a Mark IV and a V....how does the Mark IV mode on the Mark V sound? Can it get pretty close? I'm on the hunt for another Mark IV, and the V will be a little easier to get my hands on.

Ignore my signature. I spent some quality time with a Mark IV for a couple years, so I know a couple things about it (but not much more than a couple, haha.) Here's my opinion: if the only channel you play through on a Mark IV is the Lead channel, then don't settle for the Mark V. The Mark IV isn't better or worse, but it is its own unique voice. If you play the entire amp, go Mark V all the way. The Mark V is a vast improvement across the board.

EDIT: I forgot that I had the old Mark in my sig.