Revised Mark V Manual on Mesa Website

[Nermel]

It's revised from the one that I recieved with my amp: Clearer on certain points

http://www.mesaboogie.com/manuals/user_manuals.htm

 

[danyeo1]

DId they make it clear that the Mark V is in no way a IIC+?

 

[Nermel]

"MARK II C+ is exactly that. This Mode is a faithful – down to the last detail – recreation of the LEAD Mode of this legendary circuit. Blistering focused gain and explosive attack that gives way to morphing harmonics are it’s soulful signature and after 20 years, these sounds remain at the forefront of Rock. The tight mid-punch focus of this sound provides an open canvas for coloring with the Graphic EQ and the classic “V” setting has become a staple ingredient of the II-C high gain sound for heavy music."

Nope...doesn't bother me at all though...cause it sounds great...

 

[theroan]

What stuff does it clarify?

 

[danyeo1]

"MARK II C+ is exactly that. This Mode is a faithful – down to the last detail – recreation of the LEAD Mode of this legendary circuit. Blistering focused gain and explosive attack that gives way to morphing harmonics are it’s soulful signature and after 20 years, these sounds remain at the forefront of Rock. The tight mid-punch focus of this sound provides an open canvas for coloring with the Graphic EQ and the classic “V” setting has become a staple ingredient of the II-C high gain sound for heavy music."

Nope...doesn't bother me at all though...cause it sounds great...

Well, they're feeding us a load of BS. It's simply NOT the same. The feel ain't there. The V gets as close to the IIC+ as the IV did. Remember Boogie did claim that the IV included the IIC+ tone. I wonder if those guys are having hearing issues?

 

[lesterpaul]

DId they make it clear that the Mark V is in no way a IIC+?

I have my V right next to a C+...I can get them close(of course, I have changed a few tubes here and there ..just like I have done on all of my amps...does make a difference)

 

[danyeo1]

DId they make it clear that the Mark V is in no way a IIC+?

I have my V right next to a C+...I can get them close(of course, I have changed a few tubes here and there ..just like I have done on all of my amps...does make a difference)

Of course everyone will come to their own findings. I'm just not feeling the love.

 

[Nermel]

Don't get so sour about it...its a great amp...I don't think many people felt it would nail the past MK tones...if you want exact you're going to have to go back to the other amps...

and also, the ear is in the beholder (yeah I know...a new notion around these parts)

 

[Nermel]

What stuff does it clarify?

Well I had a problem with my Power tubes...it clarifies which tubes are used during different power settings...and other miscellaneous things...nothing huge...but I've noticed subtle difference...if you've read your Manual in detail before you'll notice (also I got my amp pretty early on)

 

[danyeo1]

..if you want exact you're going to have to go back to the other amps...

What you're saying here contradicts what you posted from the manual. I for one, put a little faith in Boogie to get it right and they claim up and down that this amp has all the other amps in it. I disagree with them.

 

[JohnDNJ]

the triaxis and 2:90 combo has a much better feel to its c+\iv modes then the v can ever hope to achieve.
there is another guy here (mesadude666 or something?) who also said the same thing and i agree with him 1000%.
I LOVED playing lead on the lead2 yellow channel and i've been missing it since I sold the thing. better harmonics,
better overtones, more liquid tone....the v sounds like a tin box in comparison..sorry.


hopefully the next time around (mark Vb anyone? it goes something like this:

chan 1: lonestar
chan 2: c+
chan 3: mark iv

separate gain\drive with the push\pull pots to shape, triode\pentode assignable by channel and
a non crippled eq. oh and fix that FX loop thanks.

 

[Shang Chi 66]

Wow...clearly 2 different camps of thought developing on this. I,ve never owned (or played) any Mark series Boogie before, so I go into this with sort of a clean slate if you will, judging this amp only on it,s own merits.

But, it,s confusing to me; why would Mesa build an amp, claim certain modes in it to be exactly like it,s predecessor(s) in tone, feel & circuitry, and then it not be?

Surely they knew these would be one of the first things players would do; stack Mark IV,s & IIC+,s up to it side by side to see how it measures up? And if guys here can hear differences, how on earth could Randall Smith & crew not?

I like to deal with bottom lines & absolutes...and here, there can be only two;

1. Someone has not tweaked & learned enough about the Mark 5 to get it there and/or they just don,t hear it;

or

2. Mesa marketed an amp to be capable of something that it,s not.

And for someone like daneyo who has spent so much time with several Marks from his past, I,d have a hard time believing that someone like him could,nt tell...hmmm?

 

[danyeo1]

; why would Mesa build an amp, claim certain modes in it to be exactly like it,s predecessor(s) in tone, feel & circuitry, and then it not be?

Because most people won't be able to compare to a IIC+. And Boogie already claimed that the Mark IV had the IIC+ included, and we all know that was a load of BS.

The IIC+ is a great amp, but that doesn't help make money for Mesa now does it. They want people to buy what they make now. I personally think they will never capture the IIC+ tone ever unless they do a faithful reissue, and we have all heard the story about them not being able to get the same parts. Well, where did they dig up the parts for the mark V, and what makes them think a 3 channel amp with all this extra garbage thrown into it is going to sound the same?


Now let me say, the Mark V isn't a bad amp, it's just not what i thought it would be.

 

[JohnDNJ]

I owned a triaxis\2:90 for 10 years...The tri is "capable" of the mark 1, mark 3, 2c+, IV,
recto etc etc etc. If I sat here and said...throw out all your old amps and just get the tri I would be shot on sight
and deservedly so.

I got a brand new IV (one of the last in fact) a few months back OVER the V. Why? Because
there is no substitute for the original. Simple as that. The Tri was nice...real nice actually but
I would be smoking crack to think it compared to the originals of what it was supposed to mimic.

The V is no different..It's a triaxis with a power amp built in and knobs instead of midi. Personally
if I had to go back to an all-in-one amp i'd get an old tri (10 years ago minimum, the new ones are
pieces of ****) in a heartbeat over the V.

 

[lesterpaul]

shang-if you play clean channel stuff and mid gain rock stuff, I bet you will be happy-I am the only one on the board so far, it seems, that has a/b'd the amp with a C+...I own two C+ amps and it would benefit me ,from an investment standpoint, for the V to be crap-IMO, it does come close-the one I have played it against has an export tranny, a gain mod, and better preamp tubes-hence the difference
...if you know the C history, you know its impossible to recreate it down to the last detail...but for a gigging musician who needs to cover a lot of ground, I think it does-marketing is exactly that-danyeo is right about them wanting to profit off of the C hype-just a matter of time
I think if you want it to do more than metal, you are good-if you want primarily a metal amp, I dunno-seems like most of the modern stuff I have heard is recto city..last Guitarworld I saw, they had a rundown of a lot of the newer metal cats in there and what they played-either recto or Peavey
in respect to others here, I have made some changes(ancient Chinese secret..) ..just like I had to do to my other amps ..she is on the bright side(tubestubestubes...)
I am respectfully holding off making a "final judgement" until next week , when I can A/B with a couple of different C+'s...will let those owners weigh in...and I will be very impartial, but it will be a fair COMPARISON...hopefully a dependable, credible dissection

 

[Shang Chi 66]

daneyo, I hear ya, and understand your points.

I,m sure It,ll never happen, but it would be beyond awesome for Randall Smith or Doug West to speak to the differring of opinions here.

Because, obviously folks are hearing these modes differently. Some are saying those 2 modes are very close to the originals; and others are saying no way, no where nears the same.

I,ve never played a IV or IIC+, so maybe not having that experience is better for me going in!

Personally for me, it doesnt matter, because as I said, I,m only going to be judging the Mark 5 on the Mark 5...and if it sounds good to that extent on it,s own merits, that,s what will determine (for me) if I like it enough to keep it.

shang-if you play clean channel stuff and mid gain rock stuff, I bet you will be happy-I am the only one on the board so far, it seems, that has a/b'd the amp with a C+...I own two C+ amps and it would benefit me ,from an investment standpoint, for the V to be crap-IMO, it does come close-the one I have played it against has an export tranny, a gain mod, and better preamp tubes-hence the difference
...if you know the C history, you know its impossible to recreate it down to the last detail...but for a gigging musician who needs to cover a lot of ground, I think it does-marketing is exactly that-danyeo is right about them wanting to profit off of the C hype-just a matter of time
I think if you want it to do more than metal, you are good-if you want primarily a metal amp, I dunno-seems like most of the modern stuff I have heard is recto city..last Guitarworld I saw, they had a rundown of a lot of the newer metal cats in there and what they played-either recto or Peavey
in respect to others here, I have made some changes(ancient Chinese secret..) ..just like I had to do to my other amps ..she is on the bright side(tubestubestubes...)
I am respectfully holding off making a "final judgement" until next week , when I can A/B with a couple of different C+'s...will let those owners weigh in...and I will be very impartial, but it will be a fair COMPARISON...hopefully a dependable, credible dissection

Thank you for your honest opinion & info.

I,m pretty certain that I,m going to enjoy this amp. I,m not that nit-picky about the smallest of details. If you,re hearing it (and feeling it!), a good tone is a good tone...period.

And if I like what I hear and can achieve that with the Mark 5, it stays, if not, it go,s... and it,s that simple!

 

[danyeo1]

daneyo, I hear ya, and understand your points.

I,m sure It,ll never happen, but it would be beyond awesome for Randall Smith or Doug West to speak to the differring of opinions here.

Because, obviously folks are hearing these modes differently. Some are saying those 2 modes are very close to the originals; and others are saying no way, no where nears the same.

I,ve never played a IV or IIC+, so maybe not having that experience is better for me going in!

Personally for me, it doesnt matter, because as I said, I,m only going to be judging the Mark 5 on the Mark 5...and if it sounds good to that extent on it,s own merits, that,s what will determine (for me) if I like it enough to keep it.

shang-if you play clean channel stuff and mid gain rock stuff, I bet you will be happy-I am the only one on the board so far, it seems, that has a/b'd the amp with a C+...I own two C+ amps and it would benefit me ,from an investment standpoint, for the V to be crap-IMO, it does come close-the one I have played it against has an export tranny, a gain mod, and better preamp tubes-hence the difference
...if you know the C history, you know its impossible to recreate it down to the last detail...but for a gigging musician who needs to cover a lot of ground, I think it does-marketing is exactly that-danyeo is right about them wanting to profit off of the C hype-just a matter of time
I think if you want it to do more than metal, you are good-if you want primarily a metal amp, I dunno-seems like most of the modern stuff I have heard is recto city..last Guitarworld I saw, they had a rundown of a lot of the newer metal cats in there and what they played-either recto or Peavey
in respect to others here, I have made some changes(ancient Chinese secret..) ..just like I had to do to my other amps ..she is on the bright side(tubestubestubes...)
I am respectfully holding off making a "final judgement" until next week , when I can A/B with a couple of different C+'s...will let those owners weigh in...and I will be very impartial, but it will be a fair COMPARISON...hopefully a dependable, credible dissection

Thank you for your honest opinion & info.

I,m pretty certain that I,m going to enjoy this amp. I,m not that nit-picky about the smallest of details. If you,re hearing it (and feeling it!), a good tone is a good tone...period.

And if I like what I hear and can achieve that with the Mark 5, it stays, if not, it go,s... and it,s that simple!

Channels 1 and 2 sound good to me. Well, crunch mode on channel 2 sounds good, the Mark I mode and Edge are utter crap IMHO. I can't believe I'm saying this but the crunch mode is the best sounding thing on the amp, again IMHO. It has a much bigger sound than anything on channel 3. It will fill a room with sound where channel 3 is very narrow, over compressed, and boxy sounding. It's only what I'm hearing and everyone has their own ears.

 

[lesterpaul]

edge has some potential...as in les paul on neck pickup-you can cop some srv ala paul-good with single coils as well
prob. not a lot of single coil cats around here :lol:
on mk 1, its about bass elimination!