What REALLY is the difference between the mark IV and V?

[theweatherman]

I owned a Mark V. loved it. sold it like an idiot. now i want it again, but can't really afford it. I can however afford a used mark IV. What are the differences besides all the bells and whistles? i am only interested in the differences in tone. here is what ive gathered...

Clean mode on the V is the same as the clean on the IV
channel 2 on the V is leaps and bounds better than Channel 2 on the IV
The IV lead channel is slightly better than the "mk IV and extreme" modes on the V

So can someone elaborate on these differences? why is the 4 lead better than the 5?

I would like to have a good channel 2 for classic rock but i mainly live on the hi gain side. i dont really care about a good clean channel either.

much help would be appreciated because ive never played a IV and would have to buy it blind.

the mark IV mode on the V was my favorite, the rest was kind of nice but overkill. so this makes me think the IV is for me.

 

[GD_NC]

So I'm going to start off by saying I've never owned a MkV. However, I have had a MkIV for many years. I've had both the "a" and the "b" model of the IV. I'm sure the V is stellar and I'm not trying to start the "Why IV is better then V" tread. From what I can see it appears the V essentially takes the Mark IV and further separate the channel functions to eliminate trade-offs in eq and voicing. Very much like the IV refined the III. The V also does a great job of simplifying the control layout and aligning the power section controls with each channel.

Most of the Mark IV complaints seem to come from lack of familiarity with the amp, complexity of the many switches and knobs, or channel/voicing trade-offs. You can get a ton of good classic rock tones from either channel 1 (some sacrifice to clean) or Channel 2. That said, it sounds nothing like a Marshall which is often associated with classic rock. If you go in looking for that you will never be happy.

Adding a little boost or OD box will get you just about anything you need. If you can live with the trade-offs (which are fairly minor) and get used to the controls you will be very happy with a Mark IV. And if you get frustrated with tweaking, just switch to the Lead channel and you'll remember why you put up with it.

 

[theweatherman]

interesting. thanks for the input. anyone else? convince me that the IV is as good or better than the V! some have posted that the lead channel on the IV is more fat and full than the lead channel of the V? is this true...

 

[screamingdaisy]

interesting. thanks for the input. anyone else? convince me that the IV is as good or better than the V! some have posted that the lead channel on the IV is more fat and full than the lead channel of the V? is this true...

The simplified layout of the Mark V doesn't have all the options of the Mark IV. The Mark IV has dual gain pots (gain and drive), plus a bunch of options like pull deep, bright, and mid shift options. The Mark V lead is basically hardwired with the drive knob on 7.8 and pull deep off.

The end result is that the Mark IV's lead channel was more tweakable, so it's capable of a number of tones and subtleties that the simplified layout of the Mark V can't pull off.

The missing 'fatness' is probably due to the lack of the pull deep feature. It was originally meant to fatten up single coils and it probably bugged someone within Mesa that people insisted on using it with humbuckers.

 

[THTH]

I would like to have a good channel 2 for classic rock but i mainly live on the hi gain side. i dont really care about a good clean channel either.

It is possible to have a good clean on channel one and a great classic rock tone on channel two of the MKIV, you will just have to tweak a little more due to the shared eq controls compared to the MKV. I don't understand when I hear people say that channel two sucks. It actually is becoming my favorite channel on the MKIV. There is something about the range and dynamics on that channel that work so well with a nice guitar for the classic sounds.

the mark IV mode on the V was my favorite, the rest was kind of nice but overkill. so this makes me think the IV is for me.

The MKIV lead channel is awesome. That's why I bought the MKIV. It is really one amp unto itself depending on how the gain staging, power options and pull shifts are set up. If you like high gain and liked the MKV's IV setting you won't be disappointed. The lead channel sounds really good on tweed and class A settings to me. Bonus is that you will save some cash for something else!!!

 

[dodger916]

I would like to have a good channel 2 for classic rock but i mainly live on the hi gain side. i dont really care about a good clean channel either.

It is possible to have a good clean on channel one and a great classic rock tone on channel two of the MKIV, you will just have to tweak a little more due to the shared eq controls compared to the MKV. I don't understand when I hear people say that channel two sucks. It actually is becoming my favorite channel on the MKIV. There is something about the range and dynamics on that channel that work so well with a nice guitar for the classic sounds.

I really dig R2, especially for low-mid gain lead sounds. I've always used the guitar tone pots to adjust for any shared eq limitations imposed by the amp, and never found it to be a deal breaker, especially with the option of using graphic eq.

the mark IV mode on the V was my favorite, the rest was kind of nice but overkill. so this makes me think the IV is for me.

The MKIV lead channel is awesome. That's why I bought the MKIV. It is really one amp unto itself depending on how the gain staging, power options and pull shifts are set up. If you like high gain and liked the MKV's IV setting you won't be disappointed. The lead channel sounds really good on tweed and class A settings to me. Bonus is that you will save some cash for something else!!!

The lead channel is the reason I will always have a Mark IV, and not JUST for the liquid lead sound. I've been able to get close to the Marshall rhythm crunch sound in this channel with the gain around 4-5 (pulled), drive around 7-8 and EL34s run in Class A triode. I'm not an EL34 guy, but there are times when I MUST plug in my 81 Goldtop with hot stock ceramic pups run this way. Sometimes I could swear my pants begin to bell-bottom, or maybe it's just a flash-back! :wink: Either way, it definitely invokes 70's crotch rock.

 

[Tuna141]

Clean mode on the V is the same as the clean on the IV

I disagree with this. The clean on my V is much nicer than the clean on my V. It's also more versitile. The clean on V is more chimey than the IV's clean, and this is why I dig the V's clean more.

Also, I like the IV's R2. It has kind of an older/plexi Marshall vibe. It doesn't have the gain of ch2 on the V, but it sounds great for classic rock. Although they sound different, I like both the IV's and V's ch2's - but V's is much more versitile, though.

 

[lesterpaul]

agree with tuna on channel 1-more versatile for sure!!!(different wattages,voices,etc..)....and I prefer chan 2 on the V- chan 1 and 2 hold the mojo for me-soo many variables to play with-if you are only into high gain played at bedroom temperatures,then it might not matter,but chan 1 and 2 offer many different tones-tones that can really take your playing into different areas..and thats always good

 

[THTH]

Also, I like the IV's R2. It has kind of an older/plexi Marshall vibe.

Using an old Les Paul with P90's it's possible to get close to the old Aerosmith sound from Rocks and Toys in the Attic. That is one of my favorites on R2. Instant 1970's!

 

[THTH]

I've been able to get close to the Marshall rhythm crunch sound in this channel with the gain around 4-5 (pulled), drive around 7-8 and EL34s run in Class A triode. I'm not an EL34 guy, but there are times when I MUST plug in my 81 Goldtop with hot stock ceramic pups run this way. Sometimes I could swear my pants begin to bell-bottom, or maybe it's just a flash-back! :wink: Either way, it definitely invokes 70's crotch rock.

Tweed/Class A/Triode/EL34's/crybaby wah/1978 Lester w/P90's here! :mrgreen:

 

[GD_NC]

I've been able to get close to the Marshall rhythm crunch sound in this channel with the gain around 4-5 (pulled), drive around 7-8 and EL34s run in Class A triode. I'm not an EL34 guy, but there are times when I MUST plug in my 81 Goldtop with hot stock ceramic pups run this way. Sometimes I could swear my pants begin to bell-bottom, or maybe it's just a flash-back! :wink: Either way, it definitely invokes 70's crotch rock.

Tweed/Class A/Triode/EL34's/crybaby wah/1978 Lester w/P90's here! :mrgreen:

Just picked up and Goldtop with P-90's. I guess I need to pick up a pair of EL-34's to go with! 8)

 

[MesaDCLP]

... start the "Why IV is better then V" tread ...

:lol:
Or "why did I sell" thread...

 

[babow2]

I have had two Mk IVs over the years and a Mk V. Both are great amps, no doubt. Personally, I find Ch 1 on the V to be more refined, to offer a wider palette of great tones, than the IV. Likewise, Ch 2 on the V has its own specific voice, which I never thought the R2-IV had. It was usable and could sound good, but it didn't have its own voice. Also, Ch 2 on the V has the Mark I option, giving it an entirely additional flavor. Perhaps the Ch3-IV mode on the V isn't as exact a replica, but it sounds good on its own. Also, you get the MkIIC setting. So, the multiple modes add more versatility to the V. Given the difference in architecture and technology, I don't imagine you can ever get a later generation of amp to sound "exactly" like a prior. Still, there isn't a wasted mode on the V.

So, I think the Mark V has more voicing/mode options that sound great on each channel. Also, it has the Solo feature, which is very valuable to me, and the multiple options for the GEQ, and separate settings for each channel. This is added versatility and usability. The tuner silent option is additional technology. You get these on the V, making it a more versatile tool.

Each person has their favorite Boogie tone. The IIC+ lovers thumb their noses at the IV tone, etc.... So, we can always argue about which model's pure tone is tops and whether the latter's version of a prior's tone captures it exactly. That said, I think the newer technology and additional features, options and usability of the Mark V make it a more versatile tool, with gobs of great tones. If a used Mk IV is in the $1000-1200 range and a used Mk V is in the $1700-1900 range, Personally I would hold out and spend the extra money, just for the Solo, GEQ options and the multiple modes and 10 watt option. But, that's just my $.01 worth (which is all I have left).

It would be interesting to post this query on the Modern Amp/Mark V page. In general, I think the folks on this page favor their models and the folks on that page favor theirs.
Brent

 

[liquidchris]

Hello!

I have a Mark IVb for 1 year and a MarkV for 1 week!

it is obviously too early to judge which is the best amp ....

Yesterday before the rehearsal with my band I wanted to compare only one sound: the lamb of god / petrucci / metallica lead channel sound!

Here are the settings I use with the mark IV for this type of sound:

Gain: 8 Pulled
Trebble: 7
Bass: 3
Middle: 5
Presence: 3 Pushed
Master: 3 (my ears are still bleeding)
Simul class, pentode, harmonics setting.
Classic V Eq (not extreme setting)

I love this setting as rhythm and solo and i want to found the same sound on the Mark V.

Mark IV With 6L6/El34
Mark V With 6L6.
Test at high volume.

1st observation:

With extreme mode, "bright" with the same preamp eq settings and classic V eq: the sound is very different. Not bad but different. Same grain but different voicing.
The Mark V seems to be more pronounced high mid. Both are good low-mid end it seems it does not work with the same low midrange. Mark IV seems to work lower than the Mark V. Mark V is more “open”

Well, I tried changing the settings of the Mark V to arrive at my favorite Mark IV tone and I think I'm almost arived (subject to later listening, my ears were already very tired)

Gain: 3:00
Trebble: 1:00
Middle: 11:00
Bass: 10:00
Presence: 9:30
Master 10:00
Bright, pentode settings
Classic V eq With The Band 2200 and 6600 reversed and slightly declined.

With these settings the sounds are very close, I think someone who does not know the 2 amps is convinced. Only users of Mark IV for long date will see the difference.

Conclusion for this type of sound (in my opinion):

The 2 amps are good, same grain but different voicing. Both are Mark’s legendary aggressive and orgasmic liquid sound ?

With adjustment Mark V can to approch the Mark IV good sound.

One thing is sure: the two are very good!!

Ps: when the repeats began with my band, my sound was so big and thick that I have changed all settings in the Mark V to get a good sound in the mix who do not eat the other instruments (less gain, bass and upper midrange). This sound was great!
Remind you of this: the settings very flattering when you play alone will never be applicable with a band.

I'll post my opinion later on another channel

 

[markwayne]

The only thing that bothers me with the V is not being able to mix run simul-class with el-34s in the outer sockets. To my ears that is such a big part of the Boogie tone that I've loved since my first Mark III. I could live with all 6l6s. I don't think I could go with all el34s.

Other than that, I thought the V sounded great. Of course, I could not crank in the demo room and so the power section was not really coming into play.

At the moment I just don't want for anything that I don't already have so I'm sticking to my old faithful.

Wayne

 

[liquidchris]

It's possible to mix 6l6 with EL34 in the mark V as all simul class power amp . (El34 in the inside sockets, unlike the past simulclass power amp)

Warning, you musn't use this configuration in 10 watts mode; il's very dangerous for your amp. That's why mesa don't talk about this in the user guide.

 

[CudBucket]

To me, the Mark IV cleans are excellent. Are the cleans on the Mark V better? That's subjective isn't it? I like channel 2 on the Mark V but it's not "better" than channel 2 on the Mark IV. It's so different you can't compare it. On the Mark V, channel 2 has way more gain. On the Mark IV, channel 2 is at most, a mid-gain channel. But you can add an OD to it. Who doesn't own an OD pedal?

And for me, Channel 3 on the Mark IV, is classic and can't be copied by the Mark V. I like the Mark V and would love to own one but I can't sell my Mark IV to get one. I'd miss it too much.

 

[RR]

...
The end result is that the Mark IV's lead channel was more tweakable, so it's capable of a number of tones and subtleties that the simplified layout of the Mark V can't pull off. ...

You pretty much could make this case with all predecessor and successor models.

The successor model say a Mark V could do just about of every Mark Series. But there's some subtleness we prefer from the older Mark Series. Same could be said with the Rectos. Plenty of members prefer their 2-channel Dual Rectifier over the newer 3-channel Dual Rectifiers.

 

[Fronzil]

...
The end result is that the Mark IV's lead channel was more tweakable, so it's capable of a number of tones and subtleties that the simplified layout of the Mark V can't pull off. ...

You pretty much could make this case with all predecessor and successor models.

The successor model say a Mark V could do just about of every Mark Series. But there's some subtleness we prefer from the older Mark Series. Same could be said with the Rectos. Plenty of members prefer their 2-channel Dual Rectifier over the newer 3-channel Dual Rectifiers.

not really...the V is barely a mark amp...it just is not voiced like the vintage marks at all, despite what people may think. ive been playing my IV and my roomies III, and after 3 trips to test out the V (head version, into a recto 4x12, and a 1x12 imbuya combo) it just doesn't do it for me compared to the IV. not saying I wouldn't take a V, just different amps.

 

[RR]

Fronzil, I'd probably would agree with you but you know there will be a lot of members claiming their Mark so-so could do about anything of passed Mark Series and comes down to the tolerance of one's hearing and acceptability.

I could tell you, any Mark amp up to the Mark IIB (so basically Mark I, II, IIA, IIB not so sure of the Mark II-C), they were basically like a fat Fender with overdrive tone. Their tone controls were like Fender, very passive. But then comes the Mark III. Seems like the the circuity allow the tone controls to have more control of the overall general tone. The Fender tone was lost.

... well to me, since I am basically a Fender guy (BF, SF but not the modern stuff).