Question for those who've played the Mark V

[rcc]

Or to those with "insider" knowledge...

I'm hearing that the V sounds even more compressed, less-open, and altogether boxy on gain channels. Much more than the IV. If true, that would potentially be a deal killer for me. I run a IV through a 4x12 and at band volumes it can be made to sound great, though it is a compressed sound and rather focused/closed/non-open. Still, it's awesome and I love it for high gain stuff. If the V is worse in those regards, then what a disappointment.

Anyone have insights on this??

 

[danyeo1]

Or to those with "insider" knowledge...

I'm hearing that the V sounds even more compressed, less-open, and altogether boxy on gain channels. Much more than the IV. If true, that would potentially be a deal killer for me. I run a IV through a 4x12 and at band volumes it can be made to sound great, though it is a compressed sound and rather focused/closed/non-open. Still, it's awesome and I love it for high gain stuff. If the V is worse in those regards, then what a disappointment.

Anyone have insights on this??

The only people who are saying that it sounds boxy are the arm chair Quarterbacks watching YouTube videos, or guys who didn't like Mark Series amps to begin with. The guys i talked to that played it said it sounded killer and it's everything that the Mark IV should have been.

 

[rcc]

Or to those with "insider" knowledge...

I'm hearing that the V sounds even more compressed, less-open, and altogether boxy on gain channels. Much more than the IV. If true, that would potentially be a deal killer for me. I run a IV through a 4x12 and at band volumes it can be made to sound great, though it is a compressed sound and rather focused/closed/non-open. Still, it's awesome and I love it for high gain stuff. If the V is worse in those regards, then what a disappointment.

Anyone have insights on this??

The only people who are saying that it sounds boxy are the arm chair Quarterbacks watching YouTube videos, or guys who didn't like Mark Series amps to begin with. The guys i talked to that played it said it sounded killer and it's everything that the Mark IV should have been.

Glad to hear that. I should mention that those I'm hearing this from aren't your typical forum armchair quarterback/critics. Primarily heard this from someone who was with Mark Morton when he demo'd a prototype earlier and those were his sentiments on it. Still, that's someone else's opinion (if fully true) so I'll reserve judgment until mine arrives. Just got a touch worried...

 

[bryan_kilco]

Im sure this amp is great and all, and sounds great, but what really irks me is the fact that they "reinvented" the old Mark amps instead of taking a leap forward and coming up with something a bit different. i mean, yeah, cool idea to put the I, IIC+, and IV all into one package, but it just defeats the purpose if you ask me.

 

[dodger916]

Im sure this amp is great and all, and sounds great, but what really irks me is the fact that they "reinvented" the old Mark amps instead of taking a leap forward and coming up with something a bit different. i mean, yeah, cool idea to put the I, IIC+, and IV all into one package, but it just defeats the purpose if you ask me.

I know what you mean, but as the product line develops (over 40 years) it becomes increasingly difficult to make leaps while maintaining the Mark voice. The Mark I was an easy leap - nobody had marketed super-charged Fenders. The Mark II was a leap in that it was a two channel amp with shared controls and amazing tone. The Mark III was a leap with a third channel, but still shared controls. The Mark IV introduced mostly separate channel controls, modern voicing (some find it boxy and compressed), and an amazing selction of options (some find this overly complicated). So where could the Mark V "leap" to and still be loyal to the Mark voicing? They incorporated successful features from their other lines like multiple voicing and eq options, power tube selection, rectification, power wattages, etc. per channel while simplifying operation and remaining loyal to the Mark voice. Whew! I'll wait until I play it before passing judgment.

 

[TemporarilyStairs]

I wish I could help more, (not to mention, wish humans would actually decide to invent words to accurately describe sounds instead of saying 'boxy,' 'warm,' 'sterile,' etc. ;P) but I did play around with a Mark V at NAMM for maybe 10 minutes.

Though I didn't have the gain pegged or the volume very high, one of the things that really stood out to me about the gain channel was the responsiveness. Even with fairly high gain settings (which really cooked when I played hard and the guitar volume was pegged) it seemed pretty darned sensitive to picking dynamics and whatnot, which I'm vaguely guessing is sort of the opposite of "compressed" and "closed." I might be wrong on that though, and I do stress that I only had a very short time to come to this conclusion. Playing at moderate volume in a crowded convention center doesn't really let you 'get to know' a piece of gear very well, eh?

But as is being stressed, we'll all know very well what the V can and can't do once everybody and their rich mother buys one I wouldn't get too stressed out either: if it sucks, just keep your Mark IV, and if everybody else comes to the same conclusions about the V... well your old IV will sky-rocket in value.

 

[Silverwulf]

I'm hearing that the V sounds even more compressed, less-open, and altogether boxy...

...I should mention that those I'm hearing this from aren't your typical forum armchair quarterback/critics. Primarily heard this from someone who was with Mark Morton when he demo'd a prototype earlier and those were his sentiments on it...

The funniest part about this statement is what he was saying he didn't like or was being critical about of the Mark V (assuming it's even true) is exactly the way I would describe his Mark IV tone with Lamb of God.

 

[rcc]

I'm hearing that the V sounds even more compressed, less-open, and altogether boxy...

...I should mention that those I'm hearing this from aren't your typical forum armchair quarterback/critics. Primarily heard this from someone who was with Mark Morton when he demo'd a prototype earlier and those were his sentiments on it...

The funniest part about this statement is what he was saying he didn't like or was being critical about of the Mark V (assuming it's even true) is exactly the way I would describe his Mark IV tone with Lamb of God.

I agree! Their sound is the essence of nasal, compressed, Mark IV tone by design. It works well for them - particularly live - and having 2 guitarists using them with both eq'd differently compensates for any shortcomings I suppose. Moreover, I'm assuming there's at least a grain of truth involved here but won't know for sure until I talk with Mark in a few months. At any rate, I'm told he had those sentiments and that a direct comment was something about it not "opening up" when pushed in volume the same way that the MIV's do. What he means by that I don't really know.

Anyway, all taken with a grain of salt until we can all get our hands on the V to see & hear firsthand

 

[Bourque]

All the clips of the Mark V recorded with a camera sound just as bad as all the Mark IV clips recorded with a camera (at least from what I've heard). That's good news to me because I have a Mark IV and in person and/or properly recorded, it sounds awesome! I don't doubt the Mark V will be the same. Those camera mic's make everything sound like a broken AM radio.

 

[JimmyB]

I wish I could help more, (not to mention, wish humans would actually decide to invent words to accurately describe sounds instead of saying 'boxy,' 'warm,' 'sterile,' etc. ;P) but I did play around with a Mark V at NAMM for maybe 10 minutes.

Though I didn't have the gain pegged or the volume very high, one of the things that really stood out to me about the gain channel was the responsiveness. Even with fairly high gain settings (which really cooked when I played hard and the guitar volume was pegged) it seemed pretty darned sensitive to picking dynamics and whatnot, which I'm vaguely guessing is sort of the opposite of "compressed" and "closed." I might be wrong on that though, and I do stress that I only had a very short time to come to this conclusion. Playing at moderate volume in a crowded convention center doesn't really let you 'get to know' a piece of gear very well, eh?

But as is being stressed, we'll all know very well what the V can and can't do once everybody and their rich mother buys one I wouldn't get too stressed out either: if it sucks, just keep your Mark IV, and if everybody else comes to the same conclusions about the V... well your old IV will sky-rocket in value.

Thanks for the first-hand info.

I don't recall if this was addressed in other Mk V threads, but what cabs were they running the head(s) into? It'd be good to know if this beast was optimized for C90s or V30s!

 

[danyeo1]

Or to those with "insider" knowledge...

I'm hearing that the V sounds even more compressed, less-open, and altogether boxy on gain channels. Much more than the IV. If true, that would potentially be a deal killer for me. I run a IV through a 4x12 and at band volumes it can be made to sound great, though it is a compressed sound and rather focused/closed/non-open. Still, it's awesome and I love it for high gain stuff. If the V is worse in those regards, then what a disappointment.

Anyone have insights on this??

The only people who are saying that it sounds boxy are the arm chair Quarterbacks watching YouTube videos, or guys who didn't like Mark Series amps to begin with. The guys i talked to that played it said it sounded killer and it's everything that the Mark IV should have been.

Glad to hear that. I should mention that those I'm hearing this from aren't your typical forum armchair quarterback/critics. Primarily heard this from someone who was with Mark Morton when he demo'd a prototype earlier and those were his sentiments on it. Still, that's someone else's opinion (if fully true) so I'll reserve judgment until mine arrives. Just got a touch worried...

I wouldn't worry, especially since Morton's tone is complete garbage anyway. IMHO.

 

[TemporarilyStairs]

I don't recall if this was addressed in other Mk V threads, but what cabs were they running the head(s) into? It'd be good to know if this beast was optimized for C90s or V30s!

Good question! I'm pretty sure the one I played on was your run-of-the-mill 1x12 Widebody w/ a C90, but they may have had other setups going there too. I just played on whatever the guitar they handed me happened to be plugged in to

 

[Satch12879]

Every time I played a Mark IV - I don't own one - I enjoyed it, from the clean channel to the lead channel. I never found it hard to dial it in or too intimidating. I also don't every use so many buzz words as they naysayers because as another posted mentioned, they inherently have little to no quantitative - or really qualitative - meaning.

As for the complaint about it three, old amps in a box I say don't mess with something that isn't broken. Each of those amps set the standard for what the company's products have been about. The Mark series is based on a modified Fender circuit topology, mutated over the past 40+ years. THAT'S your bread and butter so why try to screw around with it? Mark I clean, Mark IIC+ filthy, and the Mark IV lead are what people want and I truly think the Mark V gives them all of that plus some of the best bits Randall has developed in others from the product line.

 

[paytojt]

I'm sure like with most Mesas taking out the stock tubes and replacing them will just kill! (if indeed something sounds off... can't wait to try one!)

 

[tom241]

Im sure this amp is great and all, and sounds great, but what really irks me is the fact that they "reinvented" the old Mark amps instead of taking a leap forward and coming up with something a bit different. i mean, yeah, cool idea to put the I, IIC+, and IV all into one package, but it just defeats the purpose if you ask me.

yeah, i would have ratherd to see/hear a Mk V Channel, that was the amps signature tone, aswell as all the other tones in the box.

 

[dodger916]

Im sure this amp is great and all, and sounds great, but what really irks me is the fact that they "reinvented" the old Mark amps instead of taking a leap forward and coming up with something a bit different. i mean, yeah, cool idea to put the I, IIC+, and IV all into one package, but it just defeats the purpose if you ask me.

yeah, i would have ratherd to see/hear a Mk V Channel, that was the amps signature tone, aswell as all the other tones in the box.

From the limited NAMM videos, I thought the low to medium gain sounds were most interesting and contained some nuance...sort of like a marriage of the Mark and Lonestar. I suspect that's where the Mark V will make its "mark", but I've been wrong before...

 

[ryjan]

Triaxis voicing and channels + mark iv power section = kickass amp!