Mark IV vs Mark V

[rocknroll9225]

Before you all berate me because this has already been discussed to death... I'm sorry. And I'm also sorry about how long this post is. But I'm sitting on the fence about this and I need some nudging, no matter which side I fall on.

Lately, I've been considering downgrading from my Mark V to a Mark IV. Well, at least in my rig. I have close to a grand saved up so selling the Mark V wouldn't be necessary to fund it.

My reasons:
- I hear that the general consensus is that the Mark IV's lead channel sounds better than the Mark V's Mark IV mode (or at the very least, they don't sound exactly alike, since "better" is subjective). The Mark IV is supposedly more raw whereas the V is more refined, and going off of the clips I've heard I would agree with that. The lead channel is the most important one to me personally, so I'm not so sure I want to sacrifice it for the much better 1st and 2nd channels in the V - especially since I have the Axe-Fx II which can quite capably handle the cleans and crunch sounds. If I were to switch to the IV, I would use it as a 1 channel amp (on the lead mode) and just use the axe for the rest.
- Not that it should really matter what they're labeled, but the Mark V doesn't really have it's own voice or personality. The lead modes have always been the defining characteristic of Boogies and the Mark V only has less-than-100%-faithful recreations of the previous models instead of it's own "Mark V" lead mode. As long as I'm using the amp for one main sound, why not have the real thing rather than one based on the real thing that sacrifices tone for features that I don't need or use?
- I love all of the features of the Mark V, but realistically I only ever use the fat, crunch, and Mark IV modes on the V. I'll occasionally use Mark I, Extreme, or IIC+ if I'm in the mood but I can't use them live. I can replace the V's preamp versatility with the Axe-Fx, and that leaves only the better reverb, preset EQ option, solo boost and multi-watt switches as features that the V has over the IV (for me). I don't even use the reverb in the context of my rig because of the axe-fx, and I honestly never use the preset EQ. If I were to get a Mark IV, I'd have it modded to use the reverb knob in the back as a solo boost knob since I wouldn't be using the reverb anyway. And the multi-watt switches are nice, but they aren't enough to keep me on the V's side if the IV's tone is better. And the IV does have the Class A switch, too.
- The Mark IV can fit in a standard rack. I'm almost done with building my rig, and the rack itself is one of the last things I still have to get. It'd be much easier to be able to order a standard rack instead of a custom one built specifically for the head.

I love all of the V's bells and whistles, but so many of them, in the context of my rig, are just unnecessary (minus the solo boost, that's pretty necessary).I will truly miss the Mark V's clean channel, as it's my favorite clean I've ever heard. BUT - I just might be able to use it even if I switch to the IV.

Fractal is about to release this new "tone matching" feature in the next axe-fx update. It basically sends a series of sweeps through an amp, and compares the amp's output with the original signal to create a profile of an amp, much like the Kemper Profiling Amp does. They've already put up a few clips demonstrating the feature and I honestly couldn't hear much of a difference, and I like to think I have relatively trained ears. It can copy the frequency spectrum from 50 Hz to 18K within 1 dB. :shock: SO, I could just "profile" the Mark V's fat mode (and maybe crunch, too) and use it through the IV's power amp.

-DISCLAIMER-
I know you're not supposed to judge an amp off of a studio mix, but for the sake of making my point, it's either this or youtube videos taken with camera phones.

Not that I want to sound exactly like John Petrucci (because I don't) but take for example The Dark Eternal Night (recorded with the Mark IV) and On the Backs of Angels (recorded with the Mark V). Honestly the V just sounds castrated in comparison IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkF4JD2rO3Q listen to 7:32
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oasnbzEMV08 listen to 1:54

See what I mean? I know a lot of production went into those sounds, but still... that's quite a coincidence. His tone sounds amazing in A Nightmare to Remember also, and that was on the Mark IV, too (well, the rhythm tones were).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADX9DdURn8o listen to 1:42

If you made it through all of that, thanks for sticking with me. Does this sound like a good idea to any of you?

 

[gummx97]

nice post. taking the time out to fully explain what your needs and wants are is pretty commendable. I can't argue with your points though. I have a Mark V and a Mark III. Lately, i have come to love my Mark III because of it's own "sonic personality." The V does indeed put out what folks would sometimes refer to as "smooth" distortion, i come to agree with that assessment. from your post, i don't think you need any nudging to which direction you want to go. it's obvious you want the Mark IV, go for it if that amp suits your needs. at the end of the day, you have to be happy with your set up no matter what others say or form an opinion. go get the IV and settle your internal debate.

 

[thunder100]

Hard to answer

As a start I know exactely about what you talk.Beeing familiar with Mark IV (at least 3 of them) I would agree that Lead channnel is different,cuts through better,has an own voice(with the EVM12L)and is more powerful.

( my former bandmate is a die-hard Mark IV fan(and 100% in tubes of course) and we tried to let him look stupid by replicating his Mark IV with Axe FX(STD)-Apart response you can do that)

Point is very simple-->if you like them get them.Just really play the one you want to buy-on the 3 Mark IV's not one sounded same to next and NOT by a narrow margin

All this as you can keep Mark V as otherwise you lose 10W setting,the chance to play at (bed)room levels and for me big loss would be,the cleans(FAT Petrucci) and the Mark I and Mark IIC+.
Depending on your music I do NOT agree on no life use of Mark II-->Good sound,very good cut through,just like the real Mark II(again different) a sheer nightmare to dial in.If you play like me sometimes Santana you are at between 6.5-6.7 on the gain and if you nailed it on a day on the next its gone.And if you go to 6.8 you lose it all together( and all this again if you change volume)

Last word on this-->Part of Mark IV Rawness comes off the speaker you use.The V30's(I like them a lot BUT) usually soften any rawness down a bit

My 2 cts

Roland

 

[andylaughs]

Play what you love and use the amp that suits you best. Be sure you get a chance to sit down and spend some time with a IV before making the choice to buy one ... I once decided that based on one player's tone, I needed to sell all my guitars to buy one Les Paul. It's a great guitar ... but I miss the hell out of my '87 Mockingbird and Jr. V. I don't much care for the lead channel on the IV, but the crunch mode takes pedals a lot better than the V's in my experience. But I really think that with the right tubes, boost, enough tweaking and through the right speakers, the Mark V can pull off ANY sound ... case in point: I have no use for my handwired Vox AC15 anymore thanks to the V's Edge mode at 10 watts.

 

[masque]

different strokes for different folks....i MUCH prefer the tone in on the backs of angels over the dark eternal night but that's why music and tone is so subjective......

but i do agree it sounds like for YOU that the IV is really what you want and if that is what you want and what you ears need to hear then it's right for you.

 

[eudaimonia02912]

A few years ago, I was strongly considering replacing the V with a IV, since everyone claimed the IV's lead channel was superior. A local GC had a used IV in stock. I spent over two hours A/B'ing a V and IV through the same cab. I found that at any of the settings I would use, the IV and the V's lead channel sounded identical. Now, perhaps there's enough variation among the IVs that many of them are superior to the Vs. But I decided to keep the V.

 

[BigAl]

The best way to tell which you want is to have both side-by-side and actually play them. There are way too many variables involved in studio recordings that make them untrustworthy in determining the raw tonality of an amp.

If you're not going to take advantage of the wealth of other features on the V and are going to use your Axe-FX for those sounds, why not just get your money back and get a IV?

My $.02.

 

[ave]

Hello from England.
I went through this exact same dilemma on the issue of the Mark V.
I also experienced deja-vu on the launch of the Mark 1V - and it's predecessor the Mk 3 AND yet again on Mark 2 ( C+ never seemed to reach over the pond ) - I never have owned the original Mark 1.
Yes, I have been besotted with your amplifiers for over thirty years and Mr Smith will insist on tweaking/reinventing/improving his already iconic series of amplifiers. And lo just when you think that you will never need another amplifier in your life he announces another Mark Series and I have to have it.
The Mark 1V I had was a beauty - a combo with an EV12 which I sat atop a vintage Thiele 1x12 EV cab and I loved it and gigged it constantly for 15 years - but I always had a problem with Channel 2 - which I found difficult to say the least and only partially compensated by the use of additional and ephemeral toys on the floor to achieve the requisIte ' in between sound ' going from clean through crunch to lead sounds.
The Mark V does the lot and wins over the 1V for pure sonic versatility, the amazing flexibility of the output settings, the variac and also the footswitch.
It has even improved the 1V's cleans and has completely resolved the troublesome Mark 1V
Channel 2 with even more options in Edge and Mk1 modes.
The only Mk 1V winner for me over the 1V was the awesome brutality of it's Channel 3.
If you can financially justify both have them both I envy you !

 

[Neptical]

Tough call. I've heard them both live (and LOUD) so many times that they both sound really good cranked, which is key for these amps. I know a few fellas who've switched from the IV to the V and still have no regrets. None the other way around though. The V is definitely more versatile. However, I'm a fan of Simulclass and love the EL34/6L6 mix which I think really makes the leads stand out nice. I've pretty much heard all those silky smooth leads from both,though..and they both do it extremely well. Overall, I'd have to go with the Mark V. I think in this case it may be better to trace back to the speakers/cabs,pickups,etc. I believe the tones are right in front of you. Would rather see you dig into what you already have rather then go tone chasing something that's already there. Good luck,brother.

 

[rocknroll9225]

Thanks for all the replies. The more I think this over, the more I talk myself into it, and I'm getting dangerously close to just pulling the trigger. I figure the worst case scenario is that I buy one, try it out for a little bit, decide I like the V better and flip it for the same price I bought it for. And I could consider the shipping costs my "rental fee".

 

[mule#1]

IMHO I felt the V was a huge improvement for me. ALL of the sounds are useable. The IIC+ mode is great although I use the MK IV mode most of the time. Did you try running your amp in triode? The leads are certainly more silky that way. I always ran my MK IV's in triode but kind of like pentode on the V.

 

[rocknroll9225]

I just talked to my friend about it who also owns a V and has owned two IV's before, and he said that he thinks they do sound different, but he likes the IV better. And he even uses the IV mode on his. He also said the V is capable of way more gain, saturation, and compression, and that the IIC+ mode sounds more like the real IV than the IV mode does :?: :!: His best argument was, "You have better things to spend a grand on than a head that you already have."

:?

That certainly didn't make this decision easier lol

 

[fdesalvo]

I went from MKIVb > Splawn QR > MKV

I can set my MKV's lead channel to sound and feel exactly as I remember my MKIVb sounding. I don't miss a thing about the MKIV.

The MKV has an amazing crunch channel that can stand on its own. The cleans are the best of any MK series, aside from maybe the original MKIs - and the flexibility in the lead channel along with all of the power scaling/mode/rectification options has erased any fond memories and longing curiosity about the MKIV from my mind.

The biggest problem I have with the MKV so far is knowing there are so many flavors and textures available. If you are going to be performing with this amp, it makes no sense to step back down to the MKIV unless you feel you love the balance between all 3 of its channels. Personally, my crunch channel was uninspiring. As a performer using the MKV, I love knowing I have instant access to 3 distinct, useable, and head-turning tones.

You can read all you like online and that's a fun way to pas the time, but you will only know what's right for you when it's in front of you. IF you just love the MKIV for what it is, then by all means pull the trigger. They are still fine amps.

 

[thunder100]

and that the IIC+ mode sounds more like the real IV than the IV mode does

THIS but needs time to dial in.As the original the Mk IIC+ is a beast to dial in

Roland

 

[DWAKO]

I guess it's just my personal preference, but I think the V sounds way better out of the two clips. I like a more refined tone, so it makes since why I tend to prefer the V over the IV. I use the Extreme mode over the IV mode anyways which I find to be even more refined. That was probably Mesa's mindset as well when creating the V, more refined/musical = better, however that is not everyone's thought process. Personally from my experience the Mark IV tones are in the V with the right amount of tweaking, but if you think the IV will make you happier, do what makes you happy.

 

[Scary]

I own both and could not part with either.. IMO the Mark IV's lead channel is the best.. it's just easy to play. It seems to have some serious mojo that isn't specific to any genre. I love channel 2 as well although many dislike it, i'm starting to think I got a lucky amp.

Mostly i'll use my Mark V for it's 10 watt mode. In the house you can get into the power band and still be in the room. El 34's are nice for switching it up, and makes the amp a little easier to play for me.

IMO Extreme mode is the signature Mark V mode, as well as Crunch and Tweed.. in their channels. The FIVE really stands on it's own though, as even when emulating the IV it still cuts through with it's signature clarity.

If you're a boob guy stick with the FIVE, if you're all about the *** look no further than the IV. Have fun!

 

[LPJunky]

oups!

 

[edge59]

I have studied the schematics of the Mark IVA, IVB and V. There are of course some differences in the lead circuits. First as the Mark IVA Lead channel is more designed like the IIC+, the little snubber caps (they help take out harshness and smooth the tone and add compression and reduce hiss etc. in high gain circuits) on the different stages of the 12ax7 are attached in different places that effect the nuances in a way that you perceive as maybe more brightness, more Raw, articulate etc. where the IVB was somewhat warmer or smoother, not as aggressive maybe? Sorry for a lack of better words here, but I have spent some time tweaking my IVB back and forth from the IVA (IIC+) to the IVB (Smoother) sounds. Also the IVA had 15uf in the Lead circuit (as did the IIC+, giving it more gain and bass) caps on some of the cathodes where the IVB went with 2.2uf which pulls a lot of gain and bass out for a smoother warmer tone. Of course some earlier models had different power/output trannys that had an impact on the overall tone, especially at higher volumes, but just changing the components per version on the Lead circuit really gets you either version fairly well! Looking at the Mark V, I see at least one of the caps in a different place that would pull some of the highs and attack out for a smoother tone. I have built some Dumble clones and know how different caps and where they are placed affect a Dumble circuit for either a more compressed tone, with reduced highs or a more open, less compressed tone. There are other areas in the amp that will contribute to the sounds as well, but I think the V could be slightly modded to sound more like the IVA or IVB. If I wanted more of the Mark IV sound on the V since it has some great tones on channel 1 and 2, I would consider the mods to the 3rd lead channel on the Mark V in this respect. I once had a Mark III simul-class Red stripe, eventually Mike B. retro-graded it to a IIC+, it sounded much better, wish I had the IIC+ output tranny then that I have now! It sounds awesome in the Mark IVB! Also the bias may be set differently in the V. There are some bias grid resistors on the IVA that ran hotter bias on the outer power tube sockets, where the IVB reduced some of that bias on the out tubes for cooler, more reliable operation, and maybe less of a attack or bite. They made several changes over the years, some good for longevity, some not so good for tone, depending on what you are going for tone-wise. Running a hotter bias as in some of the older versions, for some sound sweeter and more vintage, where lower cooler bias tends to have a more modern metal tone and the tubes also last through the warranty period usually, so they have their trade-offs. I am thinking I would like to try out the V, and consider slightly modding the Lead channel to be more like the IV or IIC+ or use a switch or push/pull pot or to place the cap(S), to get tones of the different versions more realistically. I don't know why they put the cap where they did, maybe they were trying to give the V it's own voice, but it does affect the integrity of the older circuits it is trying to replicate. I have noticed John P. said similar things when he first tried the IV, he always loved his IIC+ but when he tried the IV,he fell in love with it. Now the V comes to town and he is saying nice things about the V. Maybe he truly likes the V, but my favorite tones from him are with the IIC+ with the Ibanez guitar, sorry guys, that's my preference when it comes to John's tones over the years (The IVB does sound sweet and warm, but the IVA (IIC+) with a little hotter bias and the old output tranny) Lead circuit is very liquid sounding to my ears. If you are in a position to have all these amps at your disposal, you can pick and choose from day to day, which one sounds best for a certain track, be it a Rhythm or Lead track.... I love what I have heard from the Clean and second Mark I channel, a major improvement here I think, now with mods to channel 3 to bring it to either IIC+, IVA or IVB you should be quite happy if you are not happy with the Lead channel on the V as it is stock.

 

[bandit2013]

I never considered there would be much difference between the IVB and IVA. I have the IVB and it does not come close to the recordings. Actually I would not trade my MKV. I love it over the Mark IVB. Also I am not much of a fan for the V30 or C90 and favor the EVM12L for the heavy stuff. I did put one in the Mark IV but opted to move that to the 412 and keep the C90 for the combo.

If you want some killer tone without having to change components on circuit boards, replace V1 with a high gain Ruby, use EH in all other preamp tubes and Sovtek LPS in V7. Throw in a matched quad of winged =C= (SED or TAD). I used to love my Mark IV, well, the V rips the IVb is a bit soft (even when played through 4 EVM12L's).

I believe the IV needs a mod to get up to par with the V.

 

[Monsta-Tone]

Over the last 10 years, I have had two Mark IVA's and two IVB's.
I always loved the clean channel of both versions, but wanted more of a Fender clean.
I always loved the lead channel of both versions.
I always hated R2, although I seem to remember that R2 on the A version had a little more crunch. I never found anything interesting with this channel other than being able to cover Stones songs.
I always hated how sensitive the IV was to everything. I would leave the amp plugged in and set up. All settings, cables, guitars, FX, everything....would be exactly the same as the night before, but sometimes it would just sound completely different!

I've owned just about every Mesa amp they have released, with the exceptions of many of the new models and the IIC+.

I have a V head at my house that a good friend has loaned to me for a few weeks. I will be using it with my band today for the 2nd time. My friend really wants me to buy the amp. I am still on the fence because I just got a Rivera Fandango.
I love channel 2! The Mark I mode with the gain high has the most wonderful controlled feedback and touch sensitivity and note clarity while still sounding "Vintage."
I have not found my setting for channel 1 yet. I'm sure it's in there. I've owned a few Lonestars (both the Classic and the Special) and loved the cleans on them.

I have not bonded at all with channel 3 yet. It is much brighter than I remember my IV's being. I call it the "Metallica Channel." All I seem to be able to get out of it is Metallica tone. I'm not looking for that. The V lead channel seems to be much more focused and smooth to me than the IV was. I really miss the raw aggression that I had with my old IVA! It was percussive like a Blue Strip III but more refined.....
I am running it with the treble and presence almost all the way down just to dial out the brightness......
This really is annoying me because it kills all of the gain and harmonics!
So....If I get the amp, I will most likely mod channel 3 to get more of a IV type rawness and aggression. I know this is subjective, and the flamers/haters will have a field day with that statement, but I don't care.
I think it all has to do with how a person is running the IV's lead channel. I do not think the V, in it's stock form can achieve the settings/tones that I used to get with my IV because of a few things.
1. The lack of the "Lead Gain" pot - The Gain on the V is not located directly after the tone stack like it is on the IV. The Gain on the V is the pot that used to be called, "Lead Drive" on the IV.
2. The lack of all of the push/pull functions - The V has the pull function of the Treble (on the IV) in the circuit all the time. This boosts upper mids and trebles. I never ran my IV with the treble pulled.

EDIT: I just found this great Killswitch Engage tone that another BB member posted. Might have to give these settings a try at practice today!

All that being said, I will gladly stop using my Rivera as amp #1 the second I find this sound in the V! I think the improvements made to R2, Clean and the reverb circuit are wonderful! I am not trying to "Hate" on the V in any way.
:mrgreen: Hope the V is not as sensitive to voltage differences........... :mrgreen: