screamingdaisy
Well-known member
Played a Mark V.
For lack of a better word it was - impressive.
I've played/owned a lot of nice amps and I'm still in awe of the experience.
I'll jot things down kinda hap hazard like... I had a Mark III so I'll use that as a reference.
R1 - Did the Mark III cleans, but then it also had fat clean and tweed. Fat cleans were killer... seriously F-A-T. Lots of headroom. I dialed the gain to half and had no breakup with a neck humbucker on full. Tweed was good too, but not a tone I'd normally use. Did the fast breakup on clean thing well. I could see using fat cleans if I was the only guitarist, and regular cleans if I needed to cut.
R2 - Both excellent and better than I expected. R2 on the Mark III blew chunks, so there's no comparison there. Not sure how it'd compare to a Mark IV. All three R2 voices can be dialled in to remain quite articulate, even with a fair bit of dirt on them. They don't sound British at all, yet do the low to mid gain rock and roll thing extremely well. I was able to cover a lot of great Marshall songs convincingly, just totally Boogied up.
Crunch mode is no Marshall, but it does mid-gain well and gave me enough AC/DC to get the job done live, and would do much heavier gain tones if required. One guy described crunch as being almost Hiwatt-ish... it crunches, but you have to work it hard. If you're used to using an amp that's 'easy to play' then you might find crunch to be somewhat frustrating at first.
Edge - Edge sounds useless if you're switching from crunch or Mk I to it as the EQ is totally different. Tuned like a Marshall (bass way up, mids cut, treble somewhere in the middle) it actually sounds really nice. Unfortunately I didn't figure this out until near the end, so I don't really remember the details of it beyond thinking it was really good.
Mark I - Great tone that can cover lead or rhythm duties. Doubles as an alternate to LD. I was generally setting it up as a lower gain, more rock and roll version of the classic high gain Mark tone, which it did excellently. I believe the 'thick' switch is meant for lead work as it adds density but at the cost of some articulation.
LD - F*ckin' A!
I think the catch with this channel is to approach the amp as a live head. If you're looking for Metallica's recorded tones you're going to frustrate yourself. If you're looking for the amp that Metallica used to create their recorded tones then it's all there. You just need to approach those tones with an ear towards live sound and you'll understand it. The frequency spread was such that even deeply scooped metal tones had plenty of punch and presence (just don't get carried away and zero the mid slider), with potentially lots of top end bite and sizzle that sounds solid rather than fizzy.
Mk IIC+ - Touch lower gain with less bottom end extension and more mid presence than the Mk IV voice. This channel felt cleaner even when I'm pretty sure it was technically dirtier than Mk IV. I think this channel tended to crunch more and thump a little less. A little rounder feeling.
Mk IV - More gain, meaner sounding. Deeper bottom end. A little bigger sounding. Mid peak shifted down in frequency. A little tighter/stiffer feeling. Both give great rhythm tones, but both have a different vibe. C+ nails Master of Puppets, and IV sounds like everything after Master of Puppets.
Both the Mk IIC+ and Mk IV leads sounded great. MkIIC+ having more midrange clarity and Mk IV having more sizzle and bite.
Extreme - I'm going to call this voice Mk V, because I think it has the potential to become a classic. It's like a cross between the Mark and the Rectifier, but maybe 80% Mark vs 20% Rectifier. Compared to the Mk II/IV voices the gain is more open and more aggressive. Engaging it feels like it opened up the power amp in the same way that Recto Modern opens up the Recto's power amp. Deeper response, more active bottom end. Slightly looser tracking, but way tighter than any Recto. It's like they took classic Mark rhythm tone, and added just enough "Recto bigness" to it to give it a touch of that 'huge' rhythm tone that Rectos have.
I found the EQ presets in channels 2 and 3 to be extremely useful (never used them in channel 1). They're not as extreme as you'd think, and are generally somewhat moderate and seem dialled in for live use. If you need a more extreme shape, like the classic Metallica "V" you need to go to the sliders. And like all previous Marks, even with the mid slider dropped 75% the amp still has plenty of mids but sounded clear and tight.
The reverb was nice, but I only tested it on channel 1. It was similar to the Lonestar on bright, so it was lush but not as lush as it could've been. Still, it wasn't thin or clangy. Not sure why they didn't include the 'warm' switch as it would've been the icing on the reverb cake. Still, it's a really great reverb.
One of the things that's selling me on this amp is the low volume sound... it's excellent. I think you could easily dial this amp to sound good on those gigs where you can't play as loud as you'd like. I never even cracked 9:00 on any of the masters and the tone was brilliant. I more or less stayed on the 90w settings the whole time as I preferred their response/feel to that of the 45w settings. As an example, when I tried playing rhythm on MkIV/45w the low E string just felt soft and I couldn't dial it out. Switching back to 90w stiffened it right back up and brought on the metal.
Finally...
THIS AMP DOES NOT HIDE YOUR MISTAKES.
It schooled me some good and made me look the amateur. The amp is tight and it responds fast... so fast that it threw off my timing as the amp felt like it was running away from me and I was stumbling to keep up. Even with the gain poured on uneven picking shows through, as do poorly disciplined 'muting' fingers going astray and brushing against strings. The Recto has made me lazy and the Mark V b*tched me for it.
My experiences with this amp kind of make me wonder how many people who're disappointed with the Mark V just haven't come to terms with their own inadequacies as a player? It's a great sounding amp if you're into that style of tone... just don't expect it to work miracles as it will show you - in very loud detail - where you're lacking.
Anyway... that's my opinion. I think I'm going to trade my Lonestar in on it. It does everything I'm currently using the Lonestar for, only is better suited/voiced for my tastes/purposes.
For lack of a better word it was - impressive.
I've played/owned a lot of nice amps and I'm still in awe of the experience.
I'll jot things down kinda hap hazard like... I had a Mark III so I'll use that as a reference.
R1 - Did the Mark III cleans, but then it also had fat clean and tweed. Fat cleans were killer... seriously F-A-T. Lots of headroom. I dialed the gain to half and had no breakup with a neck humbucker on full. Tweed was good too, but not a tone I'd normally use. Did the fast breakup on clean thing well. I could see using fat cleans if I was the only guitarist, and regular cleans if I needed to cut.
R2 - Both excellent and better than I expected. R2 on the Mark III blew chunks, so there's no comparison there. Not sure how it'd compare to a Mark IV. All three R2 voices can be dialled in to remain quite articulate, even with a fair bit of dirt on them. They don't sound British at all, yet do the low to mid gain rock and roll thing extremely well. I was able to cover a lot of great Marshall songs convincingly, just totally Boogied up.
Crunch mode is no Marshall, but it does mid-gain well and gave me enough AC/DC to get the job done live, and would do much heavier gain tones if required. One guy described crunch as being almost Hiwatt-ish... it crunches, but you have to work it hard. If you're used to using an amp that's 'easy to play' then you might find crunch to be somewhat frustrating at first.
Edge - Edge sounds useless if you're switching from crunch or Mk I to it as the EQ is totally different. Tuned like a Marshall (bass way up, mids cut, treble somewhere in the middle) it actually sounds really nice. Unfortunately I didn't figure this out until near the end, so I don't really remember the details of it beyond thinking it was really good.
Mark I - Great tone that can cover lead or rhythm duties. Doubles as an alternate to LD. I was generally setting it up as a lower gain, more rock and roll version of the classic high gain Mark tone, which it did excellently. I believe the 'thick' switch is meant for lead work as it adds density but at the cost of some articulation.
LD - F*ckin' A!
I think the catch with this channel is to approach the amp as a live head. If you're looking for Metallica's recorded tones you're going to frustrate yourself. If you're looking for the amp that Metallica used to create their recorded tones then it's all there. You just need to approach those tones with an ear towards live sound and you'll understand it. The frequency spread was such that even deeply scooped metal tones had plenty of punch and presence (just don't get carried away and zero the mid slider), with potentially lots of top end bite and sizzle that sounds solid rather than fizzy.
Mk IIC+ - Touch lower gain with less bottom end extension and more mid presence than the Mk IV voice. This channel felt cleaner even when I'm pretty sure it was technically dirtier than Mk IV. I think this channel tended to crunch more and thump a little less. A little rounder feeling.
Mk IV - More gain, meaner sounding. Deeper bottom end. A little bigger sounding. Mid peak shifted down in frequency. A little tighter/stiffer feeling. Both give great rhythm tones, but both have a different vibe. C+ nails Master of Puppets, and IV sounds like everything after Master of Puppets.
Both the Mk IIC+ and Mk IV leads sounded great. MkIIC+ having more midrange clarity and Mk IV having more sizzle and bite.
Extreme - I'm going to call this voice Mk V, because I think it has the potential to become a classic. It's like a cross between the Mark and the Rectifier, but maybe 80% Mark vs 20% Rectifier. Compared to the Mk II/IV voices the gain is more open and more aggressive. Engaging it feels like it opened up the power amp in the same way that Recto Modern opens up the Recto's power amp. Deeper response, more active bottom end. Slightly looser tracking, but way tighter than any Recto. It's like they took classic Mark rhythm tone, and added just enough "Recto bigness" to it to give it a touch of that 'huge' rhythm tone that Rectos have.
I found the EQ presets in channels 2 and 3 to be extremely useful (never used them in channel 1). They're not as extreme as you'd think, and are generally somewhat moderate and seem dialled in for live use. If you need a more extreme shape, like the classic Metallica "V" you need to go to the sliders. And like all previous Marks, even with the mid slider dropped 75% the amp still has plenty of mids but sounded clear and tight.
The reverb was nice, but I only tested it on channel 1. It was similar to the Lonestar on bright, so it was lush but not as lush as it could've been. Still, it wasn't thin or clangy. Not sure why they didn't include the 'warm' switch as it would've been the icing on the reverb cake. Still, it's a really great reverb.
One of the things that's selling me on this amp is the low volume sound... it's excellent. I think you could easily dial this amp to sound good on those gigs where you can't play as loud as you'd like. I never even cracked 9:00 on any of the masters and the tone was brilliant. I more or less stayed on the 90w settings the whole time as I preferred their response/feel to that of the 45w settings. As an example, when I tried playing rhythm on MkIV/45w the low E string just felt soft and I couldn't dial it out. Switching back to 90w stiffened it right back up and brought on the metal.
Finally...
THIS AMP DOES NOT HIDE YOUR MISTAKES.
It schooled me some good and made me look the amateur. The amp is tight and it responds fast... so fast that it threw off my timing as the amp felt like it was running away from me and I was stumbling to keep up. Even with the gain poured on uneven picking shows through, as do poorly disciplined 'muting' fingers going astray and brushing against strings. The Recto has made me lazy and the Mark V b*tched me for it.
My experiences with this amp kind of make me wonder how many people who're disappointed with the Mark V just haven't come to terms with their own inadequacies as a player? It's a great sounding amp if you're into that style of tone... just don't expect it to work miracles as it will show you - in very loud detail - where you're lacking.
Anyway... that's my opinion. I think I'm going to trade my Lonestar in on it. It does everything I'm currently using the Lonestar for, only is better suited/voiced for my tastes/purposes.
excellent description....... I own the Mark V head. after a couple of weeks of playing with it, it stills amaze me on all the options you have. I am very happy with this amp :mrgreen:
