Mark V vs. Mark IV

[theroan]

What about the slave out? Instead of the tuner.

 

[primal]

I finally got to play on a Mark V today. They have one at the GC in Raleigh if anyone is looking for one.

It was in GC, it was at around 2pm, the place was dead so I had it all to myself. I went for about 45 minutes.

Now, I understand that it is not enough time compared to the amount of time I have had with the Mark IV, especially considering the sheer volume of options on the amp, but here is my take.

Channels 1 and 2 destroy the Mark IV. With Channel 1 it was a little tougher to gauge. I wasn't sure if it was so much that I like channel 1 better, or that I just liked the reverb better. Either way I definately liked the sound coming out of channel 1 much better.

Channel 2, wow. I am going to say that this was my favorite channel on the amp. Definately liked crunch. Mark 1 seemed to get extremely dark. But I loved edge and crunch.

Now channel 3 left a bit to be desired for me. I understand that I obviously did not have adequate time to tweek, so maybe if I had it sitting here in the house I could have gotten more out of it. Also, I didn't have the volume up to loud either, and I know my recto sounded fizzy at low volumes. I couldn't find the sweet spot with any of the settings. When I had the gain set to low, there wasn't enough bite. When I turned the gain up, it got a little fizzy. I couldn't find the happy medium.

Also, the EQ is not near as responsive as the Mark IV. With the EQ on the Mark IV, small tweeks made a big difference. Not nearly as much with the EQ on the Mark V. Perhaps Mesa felt this was an improvement as it could be argued that the EQ on the Mark IV is too responsive. I was used to the Mark IV EQ.


If I owned this amp, I would probably live on the crunch channel.


But after an unfairly quick test of it, I would give the Mark V the nod on channels 1 and 2, but I prefer the Mark IV channel 3.

 

[redline]

What about the slave out? Instead of the tuner.

According to the manual:

A SLAVE OUTPUT and SLAVE LEVEL Control allows you to capture the full sound of the MARK V, both preamp and power section, for a feed to processing racks and/or additional power amps (perhaps MESA Stereo Rack power) for big venue applications.

NOTE: Always start any SLAVE hook-up procedure by zero-ing out the SLAVE LEVEL Control to avoid possible damage to your speakers or your ears! In fact it is good practice to leave the SLAVE LEVEL Control set to 7:00 (OFF) when it is not in use to avoid accidents.

Can't see how the outcome could be different as compared with regular speaker out?

 

[redline]

Should get THD Hot Plate 8 Ohm delivered early next week - will compare the sound quality with 4 Ohm version and post my findings.

 

[theroan]

What about the slave out? Instead of the tuner.

According to the manual:

A SLAVE OUTPUT and SLAVE LEVEL Control allows you to capture the full sound of the MARK V, both preamp and power section, for a feed to processing racks and/or additional power amps (perhaps MESA Stereo Rack power) for big venue applications.

NOTE: Always start any SLAVE hook-up procedure by zero-ing out the SLAVE LEVEL Control to avoid possible damage to your speakers or your ears! In fact it is good practice to leave the SLAVE LEVEL Control set to 7:00 (OFF) when it is not in use to avoid accidents.

Can't see how the outcome could be different as compared with regular speaker out?

The slave is meant to be heard. The tuner just needs the notes. It's worth a try especially if you're going to spend $200 on an attenator

 

[redline]

Got the HotPlate 8 Ohm delivered yesterday; just spent another couple of hours in headphones tweaking and A/B'ing Mark IV/V and after all, I just can't get Mark V + HotPlate and Line out sound nearly as nice as Mark IV + Recording out .

Will be shipping my Mark V back next week. I might still look at Mark V(b) in a couple of years if Mesa manages to add the Recording out feature.

 

[themisfit138]

I am gassing for a V, but there is one thing I have to ask first. Is the V as compressed as the IV of is it more open and bright sounding like the III and II?

 

[jHemy]

I am gassing for a V, but there is one thing I have to ask first. Is the V as compressed as the IV of is it more open and bright sounding like the III and II?

Having both a IV and a V, I would say the IV is more compressed. I've been toying around trying to match the settings and I've come pretty close but no matter what the V is just a bit more bright.

 

[hazbin]

IMO the V is more bright and less scooped than the IV.

 

[phyrexia]

IMO the V is more bright and less scooped than the IV.

agreed.

 

[themisfit138]

Cool, I always wanted the IV to be a little brighter.

 

[PhilBelanger]

I have a Mark IV and brought it with me to compare with the Mark V head. Played it with the same guitar and cab.
I found CH 1 and 2 goes to the Mark V (hands down)
I liked the Ch 3 more on the Mark IV than on the V. I live on channel 3 so it was enough for me to pass on the Mark V.

 

[Gizzorge]

This is what I have tried to point out, maybe the selling features on the V are Channel 1 and 2 (among many other killer features!)

Seems like some on the forum have tunnel vision when it comes to Marks and Channel 3....

 

[DaveDaveDave]

Cool, I always wanted the IV to be a little brighter.

Really? My IV is brighter than my V. I'm starting to think that all I needed to like my IV's tone better was try some more tubes out. Oh well, I'm selling it anyway, whenever I get enough time to line up an auction.

The V though - WOW do I dig this amp better than my IV. There's only one thing I like better about the IV and that's the way the footswitch clips into the back of the amp. Oh, and that it's easier to access the preamp tubes. Sound wise - not even looking back!

Dave

 

[nomad100hd]

would like to point out that putting the 4 ohm attenuator on the output with the 8 ohm speaker in the other 4 ohm spot still a miss match.

 

[niilz]

I played the IV for three years until I sold it last year when my V arrived.

Channel 1 and 2 are better in the V and the 3rd channel seems to be better in the IV if you compare them (channel to channel) with stock tubes.

During the first days with the new MkV I was quite dissapointed about the MkIIC+/MkIV modes in its 3rd channel,
but after some experiments with Tung Sol Preamp Tubes and Mesa EL 34 in the V, the two 3rd channels (IV vs V) are equally good.
Even JP - he played my amp during a clinic here in germany - was amazed how good it sounds with this tube combination.

Imho for high-gain stuff, the 2nd channel in the V is even better than the 3rd channel in the IV and I now use it for lead sounds an heavy rhythm in edge or crunch mode. :twisted: To me edge feels and sounds very, very good and beats my old lead sounds with the 3rd channel of the IV by far. :shock:

So I lived on the 3rd channel of the IV and now I live on the 2nd channel of the V.

After six months with the new amp I could not be happier!!! :mrgreen:

...never looked back since I found my channel 2 settings with the V!

 

[Scary]

If I had to pick one out of the two, I would not hesitate to choose the FIVE. Luckily I don't, so I enjoy the IV's lead channel every once in awhile. =)