Mesa boogie mark iv or mark v advice

[strippymo]

Hi, i need some advice.I have Mark iv(a) combo in very,very good condition and i am very satisfied with this amp.But, there is opportunity to add some cash and replace it with Mark v combo.Is it really worth it?Is it Mark v better amp?I ask this because Mark series are not plug and play amps and they requesting some time to understand them.
Thanks!

 

[fretout]

It's a matter of personal taste. I prefer the tone I get on my Mark IVs and my Mark IIIs to what I have been able to dial in on Mark Vs. There are definitely times when I had the versatility of the Mark V, or th clean tones the Mark Vs achieve so effortlessly, but in the end, I feel at home on my lead channel.

To my ears, the Mark IVs lead channel sounds much less sterile than the Mark V's channel 3. I really wanted to have a Mesa that had a beautiful, chimey, bell like clean channel, and a fire-breathing lead channel, but the lead channel is missing the feel and the grit of the Mark IV.

I may be in the minority, but I think a really great product idea would be to create a modern, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink amp based on the Lonestar's clean channel, the 2nd channel to feature IIC+ designs (maybe 3 modes that feature different versions of just the IIC+ versions), and the final channel based on the insane and complex gain structures of the Mark III revisions (with modes that feature no stripe, red stripe and blue stripe). Now, that would be much simpler design wise because it only changes a few caps (typically) that can be switched in and out of the circuit based on the revision, and would give some different "colors" of the best amps for is high gain maniacs.

... Of and should feature the Coliseum power section featuring Simul-Class. I think that would be a powerful amp that would set a new standard for modern amps.

Sorry, to get off topic. So, I would go with a Mark IV. I think if you tried the lead channels on the IV and the V, you wouldn't be able to justify the lower price and inspiration from the IV. Weak ways, if possible; try both out and see what speaks to you, but the IV is more flexible on the lead channel, and that other channels feature shared controls...

 

[swbo101]

It's a matter of personal taste. I prefer the tone I get on my Mark IVs and my Mark IIIs to what I have been able to dial in on Mark Vs. amps.

+1

To my ears, the Mark IVs lead channel sounds much less sterile than the Mark V's channel 3. I really wanted to have a Mesa that had a beautiful, chimey, bell like clean channel, and a fire-breathing lead channel, but the lead channel is missing the feel and the grit of the Mark IV.

+1

try both out and see what speaks to you, but the IV is more flexible on the lead channel.

+1

The Mark IV has a gain (pull fat) AND a drive (pull bright), the Mark V only has a gain. I believe I read somewhere (I could be wrong) the V was voiced with the drive permanently set with the drive at 7.5 pulled. That alone gives you more flexibility on the IV. Also the presence on the IV has a pull for upper frequencies which I believe the V's presence doesn't have. I haven't played a V in a few months but don't remember the presence on the V able to do that.

You should still play them both since it's your decision, but for me, it's the IV.

Good luck!

 

[SonVolt]

Ive found the differences between the IV mode on the V and the actual IV amp to decrease as the volume increases on the Mark V. The Mark IV is brutal at any volume but the V is way too smooth at low volumes (which isn't a bad thing), but the agression doesn't kick in until 90 watt cranked.

 

[HBob]

I haven't spent much time at all with the V but I found it way too stiff. My MKIV channel 3 seems to have more girth and the tone seems more complex. (I did replace all the tubes with JJs and like the amp more than with the Mesa tubes.)

I'm not a big fan of Lamb of God but I did notice they got MK V amp from Mesa but they are still using their MK IVs on tour (Rig Rundown video). But John Petrucci is using the V and not his IVs anymore. So go figure.

 

[user 37328]

I have a Mark IV, and have been similarly tempted to buy a Mark V. From what I have read (mostly here on this thread) and from trying out a Mark V at the Mesa store in Hollywood, I feel like the Mark V is significantly more versatile. But I think I am the kind of player on whom versatility is wasted. I tend to just dial in my tone and stick with it. I'd say that if you like to use a lot of different tones, then the Mark V may be more your ticket.

I also had trouble matching the ferocity of the Mark IV when trying out the Mark V. I know some others have mentioned this as well. It may be that I didn't spend enough time fiddling with the settings, but I feel like it shouldn't take hours and hours of tweaking to get a good high-gain sound.

Anyway, that's my semi-educated two-cents.

 

[SonVolt]

I have a Mark IV, and have been similarly tempted to buy a Mark V. From what I have read (mostly here on this thread) and from trying out a Mark V at the Mesa store in Hollywood, I feel like the Mark V is significantly more versatile. But I think I am the kind of player on whom versatility is wasted. I tend to just dial in my tone and stick with it. I'd say that if you like to use a lot of different tones, then the Mark V may be more your ticket.

I also had trouble matching the ferocity of the Mark IV when trying out the Mark V. I know some others have mentioned this as well. It may be that I didn't spend enough time fiddling with the settings, but I feel like it shouldn't take hours and hours of tweaking to get a good high-gain sound.

Anyway, that's my semi-educated two-cents.

I own both. The Marl IV's cleans and rythem channels are essentially useless. The Mark V smokes it in every way. But channel 3 goes to the IV when cranked.. It seems to have more bite. If you're wanting a fender clean channel, a Marshall sound and a semi-brown sound to play around with it's all in the V. If I could only keep one it would be the V.

 

[Tuna141]

They are both good amps (I have both). It's really a personal decision as to which amp is best for you. Before you do anything, I suggest you try a V - make sure you spend some time with the amp because it does take some time to get to know it.

 

[swbo101]

I own both. The Marl IV's cleans and rythem channels are essentially useless. The Mark V smokes it in every way. But channel 3 goes to the IV when cranked.. It seems to have more bite. If you're wanting a fender clean channel, a Marshall sound and a semi-brown sound to play around with it's all in the V. If I could only keep one it would be the V.

I wouldn't necessarily say the Mark IV's cleans and R2 are useless. The R2 on the V is much tighter and more gain than the IV. However with a Les Paul and the R2 presence pulled with the gain on 10 pulled, you can get a good Marshall crunch sound for rhythm playing. Not so much for lead playing. It's also good for a slight amount of clip if your playing blues.

You can get some good Fender cleans out of the R1 with the bright pulled and the gain low. Also it helps if you are running a good quad of 6L6's opposed of a 6L6/EL34 mixed quad.

 

[SonVolt]

I own both. The Marl IV's cleans and rythem channels are essentially useless. The Mark V smokes it in every way. But channel 3 goes to the IV when cranked.. It seems to have more bite. If you're wanting a fender clean channel, a Marshall sound and a semi-brown sound to play around with it's all in the V. If I could only keep one it would be the V.

I wouldn't necessarily say the Mark IV's cleans and R2 are useless. The R2 on the V is much tighter and more gain than the IV. However with a Les Paul and the R2 presence pulled with the gain on 10 pulled, you can get a good Marshall crunch sound for rhythm playing. Not so much for lead playing. It's also good for a slight amount of clip if your playing blues.

You can get some good Fender cleans out of the R1 with the bright pulled and the gain low. Also it helps if you are running a good quad of 6L6's opposed of a 6L6/EL34 mixed quad.

It's just been so long since I've bothered with R1 and R2 on the IV. The Mark V's are such a vast improvement I just use the IV for R3 exclusively.

 

[MkIII Renegade]

I haven't spent much time at all with the V but I found it way too stiff. My MKIV channel 3 seems to have more girth and the tone seems more complex. (I did replace all the tubes with JJs and like the amp more than with the Mesa tubes.)

I'm not a big fan of Lamb of God but I did notice they got MK V amp from Mesa but they are still using their MK IVs on tour (Rig Rundown video). But John Petrucci is using the V and not his IVs anymore. So go figure.

Petrucci lives in a gear wonderland we can only dream about, and changes his amps and pickups quite often. And I'm sure Mesa employees offer their firstborn children to him in addition to money as incentive to promote their latest products, so I won't try to keep up with him in any way. 8)

I'm brand new to the MkIV, and I don't consider the cleans or R2 useless at all, but R2 has more classic voicing and doesn't really complement the rip snorting Lead channel; it's a different flavor altogether, although not something that couldn't be dealt with using an EQ pedal if need be.

I still prefer my MkIII's Lead channel by far over either. :twisted: Although of course it doesn't have the same level of versatility for live work if you only use one MkIII.

 

[4406cuda]

From the many posts I have read and ny own experience, to get the best results out of a Mark V, replace the tubes and get the head or the combo with an external cabinet.

The stock tubes and the combo alone does not produce the best results.

I replaced my tubes with Winged C's and Tungsol pre's. I run my Mark V through a pair of Bogner Cubes at shows and a 4 x 12 at rehearsals.

I still have my Mark III and Mark V, but sold the Mark IV