The mark V hype

[Scary]

I can't imagine having a tone more juicy than channel 1 tweed on the Mk5. I have to get my hands on a IIc+ one of these days. The Mk4 is not calling me back I can say that at least.

Notice that I spoke of the lead channel in the later Marks. The MkV tweed mode, channel 1 with the gain low and the master cranked was very close to the DRG C+ with all STR-415 tubes. The fat clean on the V did not have the "Spank" that the tweed mode did, for sure. A very nice tone, indeed.

Right. I didn't notice you said 'lead channel'. Guess I just speed read through and it came off like no channel has been as juicy since the IIc+. Which wouldn't be suprising, given all the IIc+ gushing on this forum. (I don't have personal experience with the IIc+ so I don't have my own opinion yet)

That aside, tweed mode is a lead channel for me, as well as rhythm. Leads cut clearly like i've never heard from my MkIV. And the bass respone is so thick and gainy on the thick strings without getting muddy, I can't imagine anything MORE juicy. It's hard to believe one channel is THIS good! Hard to believe people have sold this amp at all. I'd pay 2k for tweed alone.

The MarkIV's lead channel is something very special to me also for similar reasons. I'm eager to get my mitts on a IIc+ one of these days, of course i'll probably never want to leave the music room after that!

 

[Shang Chi 66]

When captain crunch comes out with a chocolate flavored cereal are all these IIC+ dorks going to sit down with a bowel and A/B it with a real chocolate bar? I'll be getting one of these amps next year probably. And its because of the way it sounds and the features it has, not the names on the faceplates. Doesnt anyone have a beating a dead horse smiley?

Say what you want. The 2 Mark IIC+ heads i owned completely smoked the Mark V. Let's leave out the talk of how close the V can get and just judge them as different amps. The Mark V sounds and feels congested, harsh, boxy. The IIC+ sounds and feels tight, liquidy, organic, you know, all the good stuff. Most everyone i know has sold off the V's and moved on, or gone back to IV's or IIC+'s.

Funny how i see people compare and while they say the V gets close, they always pick the IIC+. And forget comparing combos, if you like the sound of an open back 1x12 for high gain then i can't relate to you at all.

Perhaps you played one that was sick/congested, and in need of some cold medicine, I don't know...

I've now played several besides mine, and all of them were anything but congested. They were pretty consistent, and all excellent. To my ears, harsh, boxy, and the like never came to mind. Smooth, succulent, and Jennifer Beil's booty did however! :mrgreen:

I also seem to recall you absolutely glowing, and gushing
over the Mark 5 at first, and that has gone from, it simply cannot compare to the IIC+, to, it just does not sound good period...(ie, congested, boxy, etc.)

Now that's fine and all, cause one likes what they like, and don't like what they don't like, cool...and I can certainly see one reforming their opinion after awhile, that's just human nature...

but did'nt you mention that you own/owned IIC+'s before?

You did'nt hear or notice any of these things at first?

How could this amp (as far as you're concerned), go from, "it compares so nicely and it's killer", to, "it simply doesnt compare, it's congested & doesnt sound good", all with the same set of ears?

It's almost as if it was, "I'm going to listen with my, gotta love it ears, to, "well, for some reason, I don't like it anymore...so now I'm only gonna listen to it with my, it sucks ears!"

With all due respect, are you sure of what you yourself think sounds good, and what you actually do/or don't like?

I hope everyone here is able to ultimately find the tone that they love in their head, (of course, one has to know what that tone is first), and is able to get it from some amp, any amp...I sure have!!!

 

[ryjan]

I thought when I first got my Mark IV that it was the end all amp for me. It was exciting when I first heard about the V and I did more than my share of gassing but I held on to the IV because I thought I had come to my senses and had "my" amp and should never part with it. Then I played a V back to back out of the same cab as my IV and I'm sold that the V is the amp for me. The V's lead channel isnt as insanely adjustable as the IV, but it seems that they took the best tones you could dial on the IV and just narrowed them down a bit. I have never been lucky enough to play a IIC+ and could really care less if it nails it perfectly and the IV is so **** versatile that I could make it sound just like the V if I spent enough time on it. All I know is that the IIC+ channel is kickass for leads, IV channel is an awsome middle ground "compromise" sound and the extreme channel is pure 11 in my book. Take the pepsi challenge blindfolded with this amp and several others and I bet a lot of people would take the V.

 

[danyeo1]

the findings that were stated in the original V vs. IIC+ shootout are pretty spot on.

. As far as the "feel" goes, the original C+ has a juicy quality that I have not heard from any Mark series lead channel since 1985. There, I said it, and it is only my opinion, so keep the flaming to a minimum, please. :twisted:

And there you have it.

 

[Geiri]

Well

I finally played the V. It is really nice, maby not " I'm gonna sell my mk4 nice" but a really nice amp nevertheless. What I found most impressing were ch1 and 2. Ch three well I didn't spend a lot of time there but out of the three modes I liked the mk4 best. I've never played a 2c+ so in comparison with the mk4 and the extreme I found that mode the lesser of the three.

When I was driving home I felt a bit of a let down feeling creeping in. I had really high hopes for this thing and well it left me wanting. I will go back in a few day's and give it another spin with my guitars and play it like it was mine. Fiddle with everything and make it sound better.

But after my first encounter with the fifth kind meh I don't think I will be buying it anytime soon.

On another note tho, if I could have ch1 and 2 incorporated into my mk4 holy moly that would be sweet. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

 

[theroan]

It's not an instant gratification kind of an amp. You need to take time and READ THE MANUAL. Each mode is on a totally different EQ curve. You cant go from Edge to Crunch and expect it to sound good. But if you invest the time, it will pay off.

 

[Geiri]

Yeah that's why I plan on going back and give it a three to four hour spin in the sound room. I don't mean that it sounded bad it's more like I need some time with it.
And I know it's not an instant gratification but I was kinda expecting more of a wow factor. That's what I got from the mk4 even tho I'm still finding new colors in it.

 

[Oldschool]

Well, obviously going from a IV to a V is not as much jump as going from a Marshall Valvestate to a MkIV. I think you said it best yourself, the first two channels are the real improvement in MKV vs. MKIV IMO.

 

[mejoshee]

here's what i think after about an hour fiddling @ the store a fews weeks ago (which prompted me to put down a deposit):

ch 1 is clean/light driven paradise! i've owned/tried a non-simul mark iic+ (which i sold, gasp! :shock: another story for another time) and i have a mark iv. the cleans to me just don't quite sparkle like a fender. i know that's not always what boogies are about and fender's got their own vibe, but mesa still tends to advertise "fender-like cleans" and for once, i think they hit it with the v. maybe i'm inviting all sorts of flaming (please don't though, it's just my opinion and i admit in advance i didn't spend enough time with it). but so far i don't think anyone has said they hate, dislike, or even are disappointed by ch 1. i mean tweed on 10w/slight reverb is very nice and definitely a great tangent for vintage vibe, but i have to say clean and fat are just awesome, esp on 90w!

i saw dream theater in san jose a couple weeks ago and petrucci played only through v heads (i think, though the rest of his rack was probably hiding behind the 4x12's so i may be wrong) and i think this is probably his best clean tone yet (live and studio). i don't know how much he used the v for the recording, but live tones were just so right!

i know this was already mentioned, but ch 2 is a huge addition. it's a lot more "willing" to do classic rock than the mark iv ever was. now i can switch back and forth from jimmy page and john petrucci. hey, they have the same initials...weird... anyway, i didn't spend much time in edge mode (more on the principle that i don't like u2), but 45w tube crunch was quite a bit better than anything the iv ch 2 has ever done for me. that alone sells me. i did the little opening riff to "since i've been loving you" on a les paul and i just stopped dead right there. no other mark amp i've tried yet comes close to that tone. it was so brit! i'd like to spend more time on that, but like i said, i stopped dead.

channel 3...well that should just be its own thread. i'm not going to say more than what's already been constantly discussed since day 0 on this amp. i will post more on it once i get it. i tried it and i love it, but i didn't tweak it much more than the classic v on iic+ and iv. wow. so, i don't know if i can say right off the bat that it's "perfect" or an exact copy of the originals, but i did love it and was very very pleased! when i go in to pick it up next week (or whenever it comes in) i will ask if they can hook it up to a stiletto 4x12 straight and then see where that goes...so, stay tuned. :wink:

 

[Geiri]

Dude forget the stiletto cab. I hook my mk4 regularly to a recto 4x12 and holy moly that sound alone could make me give up sex for good.
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

 

[mejoshee]

holy moly that sound alone could make me give up sex for good.

are you so sure? :wink:

 

[Geiri]

yep

everytime I hook the mk4 to the recto my wife leaves the house :mrgreen:

 

[mejoshee]

yep

everytime I hook the mk4 to the recto my wife leaves the house :mrgreen:

something to look forward to when i get married, i guess...

how easy is it to get a hold of a traditional 4x12? (forgive my ignorance) that's the same as a stiletto cab, right? i've never seen them on clist, but not much on ebay (plus i don't want to pay for shipping). i don't need one right now, but if ever i actually played in a band and/or recorded, i might want to acquire one...

 

[Geiri]

Traditional recto cab is bigger than the stiletto cab. The recto cab delivers more bass, bigger tone and just plain and simply rocks the a$$ off other cabs.

The recto cabs tend to show up on the ebay for $ 5-700. But f your'e buying a mk V combo the reality of the matter is that a 1x12 thiele cab will suffice. A mark combo with an extra 1x12 cab will kill any drummer any day.
So if you want to play it smart you really don't need a 4x12 :mrgreen:

 

[mejoshee]

now i can switch back and forth from jimmy page and john petrucci. hey, they have the same initials...weird...

so yeah, apparently his middle name is peter:
http://johnpetrucci.com/biography.htm

page's is patrick. so, indeed they have the exact same initials! what does that mean for your mark v tone? you can bet it'll help you channel lead guitar awesomeness for years to come! (not really what i believe/endorse, in retrospect, i guess. whatever. it's a rant )

but seriously, i'm willing to trade the tonal versatility, tube-based, non-modeling reality of the v for "the" tone from the other revered (and more expensive) amps. not to mention not having to own/move/feed quite as many amps. i think the 10w, improved cleans, and useable ch 2 are the big changes. i don't really mind that the iic+ is arguably close (or not, depending on who you ask).

 

[steve_k]

the hype is all true. having a blast with my mark v head....on channel 3, gain dimed and EQ. i haven't gotten around to the other channels yet. it mixes well with the uberschall and herbert. like it best running alongside the uberschall though.

steve

 

[CudBucket]

I'm just say'in - it's weird to have "Mark V" on the front of an amp that doesn't even have a "Mark V" setting?

What a jackass. Does the Mark IV have a Mark IV setting? Does the IIC+ have a IIC+ setting? And if you're "just saying" than why end the sentence with a question mark? Illiterate troll.

 

[theroan]

I agree, what about Clean, Fat, Tweed, Edge, Crunch and Extreme. Aren't all of those Mark V settings?

 

[mejoshee]

I'm just say'in - it's weird to have "Mark V" on the front of an amp that doesn't even have a "Mark V" setting?

What a jackass. Does the Mark IV have a Mark IV setting? Does the IIC+ have a IIC+ setting? And if you're "just saying" than why end the sentence with a question mark? Illiterate troll.

cudbucket, i think you meant "mark v w/ mark v mode" (of course, the iv didn't have its own mode). but you're right. how confused would santana have been if rcs said "i call it the mark i!" right off the bat? i guess that would've been ultra ambitious in the sense that he expected more mark versions to arise (which they did, but that's not the point).

as it is, i still don't know all the differences between the mark ii versions (why is the c the only that can be made +)--you would think that a+ is the best grade you'd shoot for in an anything.

anyway, looking at the previous numbers, none of them have the labels of what they were, let alone what they are now. so, for once, as advertised, this is a "collection" of prior mark designs and therefore have labels for those modes. and yet we don't expect it to say "mark v mode" on it because it contains prior modes.

i don't call mark v related information hype unless it's clearly over-the-top advertising (open to interpretation, i guess). i mean, personally i think it's a little much for how they billed it as exact replicas, but you have to admit they're probably the ones who know the most about their own circuits and should be expected the ones to best replicate them. but really, wouldn't you be super excited (maybe too much so) to release a 40th anniversary product, let alone one that opens up more opportunity to include more advanced tech than was available in prior versions, showcasing all the options and tube manipulation you could squeeze in a box? and one that allows people to have a chance to own something that, while not 100% accurate for whatever reasons, is still better and closer to the original than a modeller will ever get?

i'm full of crap but anyway, my mark v is in the store! too bad i don't have time to pick it up today...

 

[dodger916]

cudbucket, i think you meant "mark v w/ mark v mode" (of course, the iv didn't have its own mode).

I think he stated it correctly. The original question was why doesn't the Mark V have a Mark V mode. Cudbucket was saying it's completely consistent with prior Marks, such as the Mark IV, which did not have a separate "mode" for the Mark IV sound. It's implied that the amp has its own sound without needing a seperate mode. The Mark IV manual included a method for attaining the C+ sound, although there was no seperately designated mode.

as it is, i still don't know all the differences between the mark ii versions (why is the c the only that can be made +)--you would think that a+ is the best grade you'd shoot for in an anything.

anyway, looking at the previous numbers, none of them have the labels of what they were, let alone what they are now. so, for once, as advertised, this is a "collection" of prior mark designs and therefore have labels for those modes. and yet we don't expect it to say "mark v mode" on it because it contains prior modes.

There were definite upgrades between Mark II models. It was possible to upgrade an A or B to a C+ back when these preamp boards were still manufactured (I believe the part numbers were RP11A and SP11A). Now that these boards are no longer manufactured, only the C's can be "upgraded" to a C+.

From the following website: http://homepage.mac.com/mesaboogie/MarkIIC.html
The Mark II introduced channel footswitching, so you could go from rhythm to lead. It also wasn't referred to as the "Mark IIA" until the Mark IIB was issued. You could also get a separate head for this model, which could be hooked up to a number of different speaker combinations, although a 1x12 cabinet was typical. However, the reverb circuit is considered noisy and the footswitching made a popping sound when used; both of these features were later improved on in the IIB and IIC. The preamp gain on the Mark IIs occurs after the tone controls, unlike the Mark I. A MESA/Boogie person has stated that the IIA has a "tighter, more focused sound" than the Mark I. The clean channel on this is very nice, but some argue that EQ is needed on the lead channel to be able to dial the midrange out in order to get something other than the "Santana" tone. A landmark review of this amp was posted in the German literature, namely the Fachblatt Test.

The IIA and IIB, and some late-model Mark I amps used a silicon device called "fetron" in place of one of the 12AX7 pre-amp tubes, and included a switch for configuring the amp for either fetron or 12AX7 operation. The reason for using a fetron was to address some of the problems associated with microphonic 12AX7 tubes in a high-gain situation; somehow, Boogie users didn't care too much for the fetron, so its use was later discontinued.

Mark IIB

It was the second folio of footswitch lead and rhythm modes between the huge warm clean tone and the famous Boogie lead tone that in the Mark I was obtained via separate channels. Early problems in the Mark II were addressed in the IIB, namely less popping in the footswitch, less reverb noise and the Mark IIB introduced an effects loop and an expanded control panel, featuring both a lead drive and a lead master dial. More importantly, it marked the introduction of Mesa's "simul-class" system, where two of the power tubes (always 6L6s) run in class AB pentode while the other two tubes (either 6L6s or EL34s) run in class A triode.


The Mark IIC featured a quieter footswitching system and a new mod to the reverb circuit. Sacks again: "The reverb was noise-ridden on the Mark II, a problem which persisted with some IIB models as well. The solution Mesa came up with involved resistor swaps and a change in ground lead placement. That mod is still on the books of 'official' mods, which they send to their authorized techs; it runs about $50." Nowadays, Mesa/Boogie no longer does this mod at its own factory. Any Mark IIB to Mark III should have an "R" by the power cord if the reverb mod was done.

The Mark IIC+ was the last of the Mark II series and featured a more sensitive (i.e. useful) lead channel and, more importantly, an improved circuitry in the effects loop. Unlike earlier Mark II models, pedals could be used without the amp's signal overloading their inputs. However, the volume pedal option on the Mark IIB discussed by Sacks cannot be implemented on Mark IIC+s.