Mark IV vs Mark V

[bandit2013]

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:

I had similar opinions when I first got the V. There was absolutely no treble control or presence function on CH3 in the IV mode. Presence does nothing in Extreme setting. Turns out the power tubes (even though they were new with the amp) were on the way to self destruction. HF oscillation (above audible frequency) resulted in red plate overload. The super brightness was not just limited to CH3. Burning out the stock power tubes did me a favor, reason to re-tube the amp. Now I actually love the MKV over the MKIV.

As for #2 above, are you referring to the pull switch on the presence control (phase shift)? The treble pot on my MKIV(b) does not pull out. The only pull knobs on the Mark IV that I have experienced are; all three gains, LEAD drive, and two of the presence controls (ch2 and lead) and the Master volume pull for silent recording. As for the LEAD Drive control, I believe that was stated in this thread (may be else where). The Mark V CH3 circuit is configured to be similar to a 7.5 setting on the LEAD Drive control. If you need more punch, do not use the loop (keep it in hard bypass). I have been able to regain that tone with the loop active (master volume needs to be set at 12 o'clock). The only changes I made to the head were tubes. I also made a mod to the 412 cab (v30 to EVM12LBL). I could have opted for C90's instead.

 

[Monsta-Tone]

As for #2 above, are you referring to the pull switch on the presence control (phase shift)? The treble pot on my MKIV(b) does not pull out. The only pull knobs on the Mark IV that I have experienced are; all three gains, LEAD drive, and two of the presence controls (ch2 and lead) and the Master volume pull for silent recording.

I see what you're talking about, I'll have to look at the drawings later and figure out which push/pull I am actually talking about with the mid boost. Might be the Mid Gain switch too.

The Mark V CH3 circuit is configured to be similar to a 7.5 setting on the LEAD Drive control. If you need more punch, do not use the loop (keep it in hard bypass). I have been able to regain that tone with the loop active (master volume needs to be set at 12 o'clock).

I understand what you're saying, but I would rather play a Blue Angel or Deluxe Reverb with some pedals than use a bad *** high gain amp without the loop. Just seems counter intuitive to what I need.
I am always blown away though by a newer Mesa amp when the loop is bypassed.

I'll give some new power tubes a shot. I'm pretty bummed that 6V6's aren't a direct plug in anymore. I really liked the IV's lead channel with 6V6's and EL34/6L6 mixture!

 

[bandit2013]

I have been tube rolling for some time with the Mark V. Why one may ask? I was not pleased with the tone. Along with that, I also changed speakers for the same reason. Yes, the Mark V has a different character when the loop is bypassed. That is easy to correct with higher volume on the master output. Seems like the more I play through the V, the better it sounds. The Mark IV was already broken in, tone will not change much until the filter caps degrade.

It is hard to say one is better than the other. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

 

[cradlefish]

I can definitely say that owning both the IV and V models, that both are great amps. I wouldn't choose one over the other. They both sound great! I did initially had to work a bit harder on the V not because of the eq learning curve, as it turned out to be more of the tubes that was causing some nuisances that annoyed me when comparing to the IV. I realized that the IV had tubes from the 90's that were still in it as opposed to current production tubes in the V. I don't care for ones being made now and the feel isn't the same as the ones in the past...i'm mainly speaking of the chinese tubes that mesa puts in their amp.

I swapped out all the tubes from both the IV and V models with Winged C's and put NOS preamp tubes. The IV had some ringing noise that is now gone and the V has a certain stiffness in its notes that I like again like the IV does. After making those changes or up to date maintenance. Both amps sounds spectacular and wouldn't get rid of either one.

Just pick which ever one you think sounds best but try not to over look the V of maybe a springier sound compare to the IV. You have to take great consideration the year of the tubes that are in the amps that translate the sound you hear on the V as opposed with the better tubes in the IV.

 

[mesa metal]

I can definitely say that owning both the IV and V models, that both are great amps. I wouldn't choose one over the other. They both sound great! I did initially had to work a bit harder on the V not because of the eq learning curve, as it turned out to be more of the tubes that was causing some nuisances that annoyed me when comparing to the IV. I realized that the IV had tubes from the 90's that were still in it as opposed to current production tubes in the V. I don't care for ones being made now and the feel isn't the same as the ones in the past...i'm mainly speaking of the chinese tubes that mesa puts in their amp.

I swapped out all the tubes from both the IV and V models with Winged C's and put NOS preamp tubes. The IV had some ringing noise that is now gone and the V has a certain stiffness in its notes that I like again like the IV does. After making those changes or up to date maintenance. Both amps sounds spectacular and wouldn't get rid of either one.

Just pick which ever one you think sounds best but try not to over look the V of maybe a springier sound compare to the IV. You have to take great consideration the year of the tubes that are in the amps that translate the sound you hear on the V as opposed with the better tubes in the IV.

would you mind telling us what NOS preamp tubes you are using....im doing all nos this weekend

 

[cradlefish]

I can definitely say that owning both the IV and V models, that both are great amps. I wouldn't choose one over the other. They both sound great! I did initially had to work a bit harder on the V not because of the eq learning curve, as it turned out to be more of the tubes that was causing some nuisances that annoyed me when comparing to the IV. I realized that the IV had tubes from the 90's that were still in it as opposed to current production tubes in the V. I don't care for ones being made now and the feel isn't the same as the ones in the past...i'm mainly speaking of the chinese tubes that mesa puts in their amp.

I swapped out all the tubes from both the IV and V models with Winged C's and put NOS preamp tubes. The IV had some ringing noise that is now gone and the V has a certain stiffness in its notes that I like again like the IV does. After making those changes or up to date maintenance. Both amps sounds spectacular and wouldn't get rid of either one.

Just pick which ever one you think sounds best but try not to over look the V of maybe a springier sound compare to the IV. You have to take great consideration the year of the tubes that are in the amps that translate the sound you hear on the V as opposed with the better tubes in the IV.

would you mind telling us what NOS preamp tubes you are using....im doing all nos this weekend

The power tubes is goring to make a bigger impact. The preamp tubes just refines the sound.

Mullard, amperex, ge jan philips, RCA, brimar

 

[Brianiac5150]

Having played my Mk V through six different speaker cabs and recently experiencing the joy of pairing it with a Two Notes Torpedo Live; I wanted to chime in to the OP with this respect. I see a Roadster 2x12 listed in your sig and recall that cab to be the absolute worst sounding cab I've tried. Very thin, boxy, nasally. I was really surprised with this discovery, as it was not how the cab sounded with the Roadster head. The first time I heard the amp was in the store, through an over-sized 4x12 and I was blown away, bought it then and there. Took it home, ran it through JCM900's for a bit, bought the Mills, bought the wide-body 1x12 and finally the vertical 2x12. The best sounding was the monstrous 4x12, but the vertical 2x12 is perfect for home use and small/medium environments.

I cannot claim to be an experienced professional with regard to gear, however, the Mark V amp is the first and best amp I've played through which really provides distinction for the instrument plugged into it and the speakers conveying its message.

Maybe you've already had this voyage and the Roadster cab sounds great to you, though. Just thought I'd toss this out there.

 

[bandit2013]

I just got done playing the MKIV , this time at much higher levels than the single C90 would be able to muster. I am referring to the 412. Aside from the difficult to moderate feedback, I was able to dial in the amp to maintain composure. SWEET !. If all you play is Heavy Metal and nothing else, a Mark IV head with a 412 cab would be the best option. Even CH2 sounded half decent. However, the clean channel sounds the best through the C90. The lead channel on the Mark IV is wicked. Voicing of the three channels is all you get, not much else.

Comparing the Mark IV to the Mark V, it is almost like comparing the Mark III to the Mark IV. They all have there merits. All that should really matter is how satisfied you are with it.

I would favor the Mark V, but yet I am borderline to one or the other. Reason why I still have both.

 

[pivot]

Completely agree with Brianiac5150
I went from a marshal jcm 900 Slant modified with v30's to the oversized 4x12 mesa cab loaded with c90's and the difference was insane. The longer I have had the head the better it has sounded and the more the speakers are worn in the better they sound too.

 

[thunder100]

I have studied the schematics of the Mark IVA, IVB and V.


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.

Dear Edge59

I have modded my JCM410 a lot and build a Deluxe reverb.Would you be so kind to post ,what need to be done apart Transformer to make the CH 3 MKIIC+ a real C+?

I would like to look into that

And I could not more agree on the IIC+ fluid leads

Thanks

Roland

 

[Monsta-Tone]

I'll have some time this next week to try some of the mods that Edge thought of. I'll definitely post my findings.