MkIV - Greatest amp ever?

[jerseydrew]

I'm going to vote the MKIV as the greatest amp of all time. I've owned tons of amps, (Boogies, Marshalls, Fenders, boutique's, etc.), and I've sold them all. Nothing beats my MKIV. (I haven't tried the MIIC+)

I just thought that I would tell all of you non MKIV users who are afraid of all the dials, not too worry. Once you dial in your sound, you never have to touch the knobs again.

Channel one is beautifully clean. Dare I say Fender clean? Channel 3 is just awesome! Rich overdrive and sustain for days. Channel 2 is my secret weapon. I have it set up to just have a slight touch of overdrive. This is a great channel.

I may be one of the only ones not to use the graphic eq in a normal fashion. I feel that I dialed in such great tones, that I don't need the eq. I use the eq for a lead boost. I just raise all the sliders up and hit the eq button on the footswitch for a great volume boost.

 

[Fxrs]

I wish I could do that with my DC-5, w/o the EQ on, just mud on both channels, but especially lead.

 

[hazbin]

I'm going to vote the MKIV as the greatest amp of all time. I've owned tons of amps, (Boogies, Marshalls, Fenders, boutique's, etc.), and I've sold them all. Nothing beats my MKIV. (I haven't tried the MIIC+)

I just thought that I would tell all of you non MKIV users who are afraid of all the dials, not too worry. Once you dial in your sound, you never have to touch the knobs again.

Channel one is beautifully clean. Dare I say Fender clean? Channel 3 is just awesome! Rich overdrive and sustain for days. Channel 2 is my secret weapon. I have it set up to just have a slight touch of overdrive. This is a great channel.

I may be one of the only ones not to use the graphic eq in a normal fashion. I feel that I dialed in such great tones, that I don't need the eq. I use the eq for a lead boost. I just raise all the sliders up and hit the eq button on the footswitch for a great volume boost.

Yup!! I fully concure

 

[psychodave]

While I dont think the MArk IV is the best amp "ever", I do think it is one of the best.

Right now I have been into George Lynch, so I am using an MXR script phase 90 into the front and heavy delay and EQ in the loop. Instant Lynch tone...softer attack with TONS of tone. I asked George (3 months ago) about the Mark IV's and how they sound a lot like "his" sound. He said he liked them, but liked the pre 500 DR's the best. :x

 

[guitardude05]

i dont know maybe my tubes are going bad but i cant get a mean metal tone out of it. i hate ch.2 also. i bought a od808 to push ch3 farther but i hate the digital fuzz that the pedal adds to my sound. i like the amp a lot, i just end up hating my tone more often than not.

 

[chris_EIT]

+1million
LOVE the Mark IV
Considering I drop some of the 240 and 700 from my EQ I just disengage the EQ for my sexually good lead tone
This amp is seriously amazing to me. I've had it for a year now, I change my tone every couple of months but it always just gets better and better!
hehe!

 

[scottywompas]

Oh yeah.....best amp I ever had.

I love everything about it exept the weight. 66lbs or so for the widebody combo.

If I never buy another amp again I'll be just fine with my MKIV.

Scott

 

[MarkofXlnts]

I have been putting money aside and am preparing to purchase either a new Mark IV or another Mark III. Mesa claims that the Mark IIC lead tone can be achieved with the Mark IV. Is this true? How close is the sound? Will it do classic Boogie tones, or is it voiced entirely differently? I would play one but all of the shops in my area do not have any at this time. I would love to hear from the Mark IV owners on this one. Thanks.

 

[visualrocker69]

*sees this thread and vomits*

 

[AJ_Newkirk]

When you're reading a Boogie owners manual and you see something that says "to get the sound of our fabled IIc+...." take it with a grain of salt. Like any other company, they will use any phrase that pays gimmick in their marketing materials.

 

[visualrocker69]

When you're reading a Boogie owners manual and you see something that says "to get the sound of our fabled IIc+...." take it with a grain of salt. Like any other company, they will use any phrase that pays gimmick in their marketing materials.

Oh no, I just think its funny that they'd phrase it like that. They're pretty much implying that they hope to GOD that the Mark IV dialed in right will trick you and an audience into thinking its as good as a IIC+. Forward-thinking progressive philosophy, my ass. Which Randall Smith can kiss.

 

[Shep]

When you're reading a Boogie owners manual and you see something that says "to get the sound of our fabled IIc+...." take it with a grain of salt. Like any other company, they will use any phrase that pays gimmick in their marketing materials.

Oh no, I just think its funny that they'd phrase it like that. They're pretty much implying that they hope to GOD that the Mark IV dialed in right will trick you and an audience into thinking its as good as a IIC+. Forward-thinking progressive philosophy, my ass. Which Randall Smith can kiss.

i think the mk IV and C+ is pretty close.. my mk IV A can get smoother and darker than the C+ but the punch isn't quite there... there is more gain in the mk IV to the C+ but the C+ is cleaner.. the mk IV compresses alot more to the C+..

I thing the mk IV is as Wonderful of a amp to the C+ in a different way to the C+..

I think with you and your Mk IV you didn't give it enough time.. %99 of the time it's user error not the equipment's fault..it took me months and months (about 6 ) to work my tone out.. The first 6 months sounded ****.. reason-User fault..

Think about it before Saying Stupid immature comment's like *sees this thread and vomits*

 

[visualrocker69]

I think with you and your Mk IV you didn't give it enough time.. %99 of the time it's user error not the equipment's fault..it took me months and months (about 6 ) to work my tone out.. The first 6 months sounded sh!t.. reason-User fault..

Well, OBVIOUSLY. Why do you think I have a Triaxis now and why do you think if I switch from it, it'll be back to a Mark IV? I'm not sure if you remembered, but I realized that it was user error within minutes of getting feedback on the board about it. In a few days, I was already getting MUCH closer to the tone I wanted. This is due to a number of factors... approaching the Mark IV with a diff mindset, devouring the manual, thinking critically about advice given to me on the boogieboard and incorporating it into my sessions with the amp, etc.

However, I think some of the problem was that it was a widebody combo. Because of the open back, the sound became more spread out and unfocused the more I turned it up. Also, a lot of the low end response was lost, and I was forced to overcompensate with the GEQ. I imagine that a Mark IV head through a 4x12 would be much more suitable for me. I'm very eager for the day when I can try this

Think about it before Saying Stupid immature comment's like *sees this thread and vomits*

Heh........... Ok, I see my comment is pretty offensive on the surface. Easily misinterpreted. I ******* love the Mark IV, don't get me wrong. But this fanaticism is just... *sigh* Well instead of going into another rant here, I'll quote one I already wrote last week! :lol:

From the NAMM rumors thread:

Conversely (and this is in no way directed towards srf399), I'm sick and tired of you narrow minded Mark IV lovers babbling like pre-teen NSYNC fangirls about how superior to everything your amp's lead tone is (and especially how it blows Marshall leads away). Here's the truth: no it f%&# is NOT.

Just because your amp has a different flavour of lead doesn't mean that it's superior to everything else. Furthermore, don't be so delusional to think that your amp has the only smooth and tight lead tone in the world. There are plenty others that have just as much creamy goodness and clarity of tone. :wink:

Here's a great example of a great lead tone which (*gasp*) doesn't come from a Mark IV.

Custom Audio Electeronics OD-100 SE+

Played by Rob Marcello. You might know him as "that guy who replaced Andy Timmons in Danger Danger."

 

[Shep]

Dude a mk IV is MADE for a Quad.. aha.. combos/open back 1x12s are cool but a mk IV into a a mesa quad on 3 is ******* insane..ahah

as for other amps i am a sucker for a fuchs OD-100 after hearing Dwezil Zappa a month ago ..but in saying that the C+ is meant to be nearly the same.. i really don't think marshalls are a very smooth clean lead amp.. randy roads was a awesome player but didn't he get voted to have the 2nd worst tone in history..but then again 3rd was kirk hammett with his scooped C+ sound...ahah..


Anyway now some porn

 

[Zorshelter]

Love this amp so much I just bought a second one

but before that, I was really tempted to sell it but changed my preamp tubes and spent some time understanding how it works (thanks to the manual and Antoine) and now I can assure you that I don't wanna sell them

 

[visualrocker69]

Dude a mk IV is MADE for a Quad.. aha.. combos/open back 1x12s are cool but a mk IV into a a mesa quad on 3 is f%&# insane..ahah

So I've heard! Btw - how sees thou EMV12L-equipped 1x12 Thieles? Those seem to be popular with the Mark series...

Ah, and about 4x12's did I read something about swapping speakers and having different ones in an X-pattern? Or was that about something else?

i really don't think marshalls are a very smooth clean lead amp..

Yes, exactly, they're not! I wasn't attributing to marshalls. (I was using OD-100 as an example of an alternatively good SMOOTH lead tone...) However! "Smooth" and "good" are NOT synonymous! Some people LIKE a little more hair, a little more Marshall flavour in their lead tone. The clarity and smoothness of the Mark IV leads are amazing for what they do, but its not like they cover all tones lead territory - particularly given the Mesa / Marshall dichotomy.

Personally, it's high gain rhythm rather than lead where I start to desire something in hot-rodded Marshall territory. Mark IV's for high gain rhythm are great for fast, articulate riffing... however... it's this tightness that makes them seem a bit ... TOO tight, TOO...mechanical for my purposes. I want something a bit more human sounding.

And you know, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I can get what I want just by moving some dials. Maybe EL-34's in the class A slots would help. But I really think that I need something Marshall flavoured. CAE OD-100, for example.

But I'm also realized for a LONG time that one amp won't satisfy me.

Remember when I just joined the Boogie board? I was talking about running 4 different heads because of all of the sounds I needed. People ridiculed me, but look what they're asking for now. They keep talking about how wonderful it would be if Mesa made a 4 channel amp with clean (Lonestar = Fender), british (stiletto = Marshall), and 2 RK leads or 1 RK and 1 MK4...

Anyway, you get the point. I'm not the only one who has the need for MORE versatility as far as FUNDAMENTAL tone. The 3 channels on the MK4 are differently voiced indeed...but to me they're 4 variations of the same idea, as opposed to the RK and Roadster which actually incorporate a clean channel from an entirely DIFFERENT amp - the Lonestar.

I don't know if my solution is multiple heads or multiple preamps through a VHT power amp or what, but this is what I need/want to have on a foot controller interfacing everything: Four channels, two modes each.

Channel 1: A) Fender-esque clean / B) more bell-like Vox clean

Channel 2: A) Vintage Marshall crunch / B) hot-rodded Marshall sound... Bogner/Soldano/CAE territory

Channel 3: A) Recto tone, but tighter à la pre-500. B) Looser, more saggy, modern Recto tone.

Channel 4: A) Milder lead tone. Maybe not Mark-flavoured, dunno. Just beautiful and lower gained. B) High gain Mark-flavoured lead. Tight, smooth, creamy, well-defined, articulate... everything that a Mark 4 is.

So you see? Unless Mesa makes an amp like that, I have nowhere but multiple heads/preamps to turn to. I mean, Mesa COULD feasibly make something like this. Too bad they don't have a custom shop from which I could order it. They got all the preamp circuits...

1) Fender = Lone Star Classic. Vox =Lone Star Special.
2) Marshall territory = all in the Stiletto.
3) Rectos... no-brainer.
4) Same goes for Mark lead tone.

They could conceivably do it!

Can't ask for miracles though... so what should I do? Just make a compromise and settle for one thing? That's cool - for now. But soon, I'll have money to blow and tones to conquer :twisted:

 

[visualrocker69]

are you crazy? EL34's for Marshall tone? you gotta be kidding... :lol:

Bro, all I know is they make the tone more crunchy but the clean sound suffers a bit. It's the crunch thats lacking for me mainly, in the Mark IV. The basis of the tone is produced by the preamp voicing, I know, but if EL-34's get me part of the way towards what I want, it's a start.

 

[visualrocker69]

Oh

Sorry, just woke up. I can still write long as **** posts, but sarcasm is entirely lost on me :lol:

 

[JOEY B.]

I would like to see an auto assign power section. That way you could use the inner pair of 6L6's for R1, the outer pair of EL-34's for R2, and all four tubes for the R3 channel. Then give R2 about 30% more available gain (if needed), and a little less compression on R3 (more like a IIC+). With the MkIV's seperate master volumes, it could work. Just my .02

 

[adrenaline junkie]

I would like to see an auto assign power section. That way you could use the inner pair of 6L6's for R1, the outer pair of EL-34's for R2, and all four tubes for the R3 channel. Then give R2 about 30% more available gain (if needed), and a little less compression on R3 (more like a IIC+). With the MkIV's seperate master volumes, it could work. Just my .02

That would be pretty cool. 8)