Mark V vs. Mark IV
- Thread starter spanny
- Start date
Help Support The Boogie Board:
stephen sawall
Well-known member
I feel the clean channels were about the same but different.
Channel 2 goes to the V.
I like the lead channel of the IV better.
I have about a dozen amps with very different voices. For me the lead channel is the most important on the Mark amps because I have other amps that do the clean and middle ground better than the Mark amps.
:mrgreen: ...... so for me the IV is better.
Channel 2 goes to the V.
I like the lead channel of the IV better.
I have about a dozen amps with very different voices. For me the lead channel is the most important on the Mark amps because I have other amps that do the clean and middle ground better than the Mark amps.
:mrgreen: ...... so for me the IV is better.
Rufuss Sewell
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2006
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 0
I've run a studio full time for the last 8 years and played in lots of bands with the Mark IV as my main amp. I got my Mark V on July 15th and so far I prefer every aspect of the Mark V.
Channel 1: The V is much better sounding to me. Fat and Tweed are both beautiful in very different ways. The IV was fine but not great.
Channel 2: LOVE Crunch mode. Sounds like a totally different amp. I'm not a fan of edge or Mark 1. Ch. 2 on the IV sucked nuts.
Channel 3: I really loved the lead channel on the IV but the big deal for me was the lack of a solo boost. With the V I can get just as good if not better tone (I generally prefer extreme, but sometimes mkIV) and boost it for solos. So yes even the V's channel 3 wins hands down over the IV.
Throw in better (and more flexible) reverb, footswitch, hard FX bypass, mute, more flexible EQ, no shared knobs, tuner output, watts per channel, and there's really no contest. It's just an all around better amp.
Channel 1: The V is much better sounding to me. Fat and Tweed are both beautiful in very different ways. The IV was fine but not great.
Channel 2: LOVE Crunch mode. Sounds like a totally different amp. I'm not a fan of edge or Mark 1. Ch. 2 on the IV sucked nuts.
Channel 3: I really loved the lead channel on the IV but the big deal for me was the lack of a solo boost. With the V I can get just as good if not better tone (I generally prefer extreme, but sometimes mkIV) and boost it for solos. So yes even the V's channel 3 wins hands down over the IV.
Throw in better (and more flexible) reverb, footswitch, hard FX bypass, mute, more flexible EQ, no shared knobs, tuner output, watts per channel, and there's really no contest. It's just an all around better amp.
theroan
Well-known member
I used to be a IV owner, I don't miss it at all. Every aspect of the V is better. No contest.
ryjan
Well-known member
You guys are aggravating my GAS!
The IIC+ mode sound is what I´ve been trying to get all my (3) Mark IV´s to sound like through the years. All the other modes on the V is killer as well.
I love my Mark IV, but this far into the honeymoon (5 days) I prefer the V.
I love my Mark IV, but this far into the honeymoon (5 days) I prefer the V.
Nermel
Well-known member
This is a great clip for MK IV tone...it's probably one of the best tweaked MK V's I've heard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHCqO7SUimU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHCqO7SUimU
user 16490
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2009
- Messages
- 102
- Reaction score
- 0
LOL, I love the end of that clip!
"Great amp... I'd buy it - twiiiiiing - wait, I bought it."
"Great amp... I'd buy it - twiiiiiing - wait, I bought it."
redline
Member
Hello everybody - this is my first post on this forum. 
I've received my Mark V 1x12 combo last Friday and haven't spent enough time comparing it side-by-side to my Mark IV combo yet. One issue I found thus far, is that Mark V doesn't have silent recording feature that Mark IV has - apparenly they got rid of it completely. For me personally it's a big deal: I have a 7 months old baby and pretty much the only time I can play my guitar is pretty late at night, so being able to play the amp through mixer/headphones is really a feature that I'm going to miss a lot. I should have done my homework a bit better, I guess, but this really could be a deal breaker for me.
If anyone has suggestions about possible solutions/workarounds, I'd love to hear them as I happened to like Mark V a lot so far. Thanks.
I've received my Mark V 1x12 combo last Friday and haven't spent enough time comparing it side-by-side to my Mark IV combo yet. One issue I found thus far, is that Mark V doesn't have silent recording feature that Mark IV has - apparenly they got rid of it completely. For me personally it's a big deal: I have a 7 months old baby and pretty much the only time I can play my guitar is pretty late at night, so being able to play the amp through mixer/headphones is really a feature that I'm going to miss a lot. I should have done my homework a bit better, I guess, but this really could be a deal breaker for me.
If anyone has suggestions about possible solutions/workarounds, I'd love to hear them as I happened to like Mark V a lot so far. Thanks.
Rufuss Sewell
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2006
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 0
http://www.thdelectronics.com/product_page_hotplate.html
theroan
Well-known member
Pull out the solo boost dial for silent recording.
LPJunky
Well-known member
theroan said:
Pull out the solo boost dial for silent recording.
Exactly! The signal is then route at the back (MUTE). I have been using this for quite a while now and I am very happy with the results. You'll still need some speaker emulation to process this signal. I'm using the cheap Berhinger Ultra-G GI100 box (75$) . Of course you won't get power amps distortion but I am still quite impressed with the grawl it makes with this setup.
I've had my MkV 4 months now and I am liking all the modes so far. Even the mode that I thought I would never dig. Examples: Channel 1 clean is great for neck pickup jazz fingerpicking (with my guitar at least), channel 2 edge is best for older rock&roll covers. Of course you have to fine tuned the setup for each of mode but it's a small price to pay to get exactly what you want.
LPJunky
Well-known member
Here is a quick take when I was debugging my recording setup. Nothing to write home about really but give an idea of the sound recorded using the MUTE output.
http://soundclick.com/share?songid=8062468
Note: Lead guitar is Mk V Channel 3 can't remember the mode, Backing track is ... you guessed it.
http://soundclick.com/share?songid=8062468
Note: Lead guitar is Mk V Channel 3 can't remember the mode, Backing track is ... you guessed it.
redline
Member
Thanks a lot for suggestions. I am going to try the mute option first (with a speaker emulator) and the THD HotPlate second. Apparently in my Mark V combo "Mute" output on the back is labeled as "Tuner", but I assume it's the same thing.
I liked the sound from the clip, very warm and juicy - but no, I didn't guess the backing track.
I liked the sound from the clip, very warm and juicy - but no, I didn't guess the backing track.
LPJunky
Well-known member
Correct me if I'm wrong but if you use the THD HotPlate for silent recording you would still need speaker emulation. On the other hand you could mike the MkV at low volume but at such a large attenuation you may be lossing a lot of low end.
The backing track was the instrumental version of Wither from 3rd CD of Dream Theater.
Cheers
The backing track was the instrumental version of Wither from 3rd CD of Dream Theater.
Cheers
stephen sawall
Well-known member
LPJunky said:
Yes you well need speaker emulation.
redline
Member
Update: finally I had a chance to spend some quality time with Mark V this weekend, tried both suggested approaches and compared it side-by-side with my Mark IV(b).
My set-up: Strat/CU24 connected to A/B pedal; both A/B outs connected to the input jacks on Mark IV/V. Then Mark IV recording out was connected to the mixer; Mark V had it's own 8 Ohm speaker connected to the 4 Ohm speaker jack, the second 4 Ohm jack was connected to 4 Ohm Hot Plate which was then connected to the mixer via Line Out with main dial on HotPlate switched to the Load mode.
Initially, I wanted to try 8 Ohm HotPlate with Mark V but couldn't find it in stock at couple of dealers I tried. One dealer even told me that they backordered and current wait on those is about 8 weeks?? So, I picked up a used 4 Ohm HotPlate at local GC instead to try it out.
I tried to dial my favorite Mark IV lead channel sound on Mark V. It took some (or rather a lot) of tweaking but at the end I got it sound pretty close via built-in speakers. Then I used my headphones connected to the mixer to compare the sounds.
Below are my observations:
The good stuff:
1. It's much easier to dial a good sound with Mark V
2. I liked reverb on Mark V a lot more
Not so good stuff:
1. Even with some mixer tweaking, I wasn't able to adjust the output sound of Mark V/HotPlate to sound nearly as good as Mark IV with Recording out while listening through headphones. The sound became pretty sterile, lost some of it's warmth, sparkling highs and dynamics.
2. I also tried using the Mute (Tuner) output and results weren't very good - a lot of white noise (I don't use noise gate as I had no need for it with Mark IV) and I also realized that since the signal comes from preamp, I completely lost my effects loop (which sucks as I have a few pedals there which I like to use from time to time like delay/chorus).
I think I am going to try Mark V with 8 Ohm HotPlate if I can find one within the next couple of weeks. I have a suspicion that the 4 Ohm HotPlate I got, isn't 100% functioning - the bright/deep button don't seem to have any effect and also according to the on-line manual some lights supposed to be lit up during use - maybe that's why I am not getting good results with it, not sure.
I do like the sounds I get with Mark V and versatility it offers, but for foreseeable feature 90% of my playing time will involve headphone use and if I couldn't get the good results with Mark V, I'll probably have to send it back. Who knows, maybe they will add the recording out feature back in Mark V(b)?
My set-up: Strat/CU24 connected to A/B pedal; both A/B outs connected to the input jacks on Mark IV/V. Then Mark IV recording out was connected to the mixer; Mark V had it's own 8 Ohm speaker connected to the 4 Ohm speaker jack, the second 4 Ohm jack was connected to 4 Ohm Hot Plate which was then connected to the mixer via Line Out with main dial on HotPlate switched to the Load mode.
Initially, I wanted to try 8 Ohm HotPlate with Mark V but couldn't find it in stock at couple of dealers I tried. One dealer even told me that they backordered and current wait on those is about 8 weeks?? So, I picked up a used 4 Ohm HotPlate at local GC instead to try it out.
I tried to dial my favorite Mark IV lead channel sound on Mark V. It took some (or rather a lot) of tweaking but at the end I got it sound pretty close via built-in speakers. Then I used my headphones connected to the mixer to compare the sounds.
Below are my observations:
The good stuff:
1. It's much easier to dial a good sound with Mark V
2. I liked reverb on Mark V a lot more
Not so good stuff:
1. Even with some mixer tweaking, I wasn't able to adjust the output sound of Mark V/HotPlate to sound nearly as good as Mark IV with Recording out while listening through headphones. The sound became pretty sterile, lost some of it's warmth, sparkling highs and dynamics.
2. I also tried using the Mute (Tuner) output and results weren't very good - a lot of white noise (I don't use noise gate as I had no need for it with Mark IV) and I also realized that since the signal comes from preamp, I completely lost my effects loop (which sucks as I have a few pedals there which I like to use from time to time like delay/chorus).
I think I am going to try Mark V with 8 Ohm HotPlate if I can find one within the next couple of weeks. I have a suspicion that the 4 Ohm HotPlate I got, isn't 100% functioning - the bright/deep button don't seem to have any effect and also according to the on-line manual some lights supposed to be lit up during use - maybe that's why I am not getting good results with it, not sure.
I do like the sounds I get with Mark V and versatility it offers, but for foreseeable feature 90% of my playing time will involve headphone use and if I couldn't get the good results with Mark V, I'll probably have to send it back. Who knows, maybe they will add the recording out feature back in Mark V(b)?
