Tell me about the Mesa Mark IV

  • Thread starter Thread starter Killcrop
  • Start date Start date
K

Killcrop

Active member
I was considering getting a Mesa amp for ultra hi gain stuff but that can also do mid gain tones. I was going to get a Single rec to keep things on the cheap side. I played a VII in a store and it was just ok. But what about the IV? They seem reasonably priced compared to the Mark III silliness going on. Pros and cons?
 
Some of the best cleans ever.
Some of the best high gain 'liquid' lead tone ever.
Some of the best high gain, tight metal rhythm tones.
Very meh 'R2' crunch/med gain. Don't expect to get 'Marshally' tones from that.

Other key-words:
Tight. Heavy (physically). Tweaker's delight. Annoying fan (for studio/home use...live you won't notice it on stage volumes).

Had a Mark IV Rev A, sold it. Got a small Mark V:25...love that Crunch mode for medium/high gain tones. Replaced the fan for a silent one. Missing the fullness of the big iron/big glass of the IV though.
 
Whoever said Mesa Marks can't do Marshall style crunch was, I think, mistaken. I just recorded these clips side by side. The chain is identical except for the amps, which are on a switcher. I could probably dial them in closer but I only spent maybe a minute or two dialing them up. You just need to know how to ask the amp to do what you want and it can pretty much do it.

Suhr SL68 - Crunch


Mesa Mark IV Lead Channel - Crunch


Here's the Mark IV doing a more preamp centric, less master volume cranked, Crunch tone

(apologies for being out of tune on the low notes there, good lord that was rough :D )

Just for kicks, I used the same Mark IV here for a Master of Puppets cover



It's a pretty versatile amp.
 
Last edited:
TheGreatGreen said:
Whoever said Mesa Marks can't do Marshall style crunch was, I think, mistaken.
Click to expand...
Read my post carefully; I'm saying that R2 is the channel that doesn't really do the great classic or hotrodded Marshall tones that most of us have in our head, and since the Mark IV was intended as a 3 channel amp (R1/R2/Lead), you're not going to be able to switch from pure clean to say early Ratt or AC/DC and then on to Metallica.
R2 has a different 'grain' than what the Marshall-derived tones are all about. Technically, yes, it can range from low crunch to medium gain...but whether it's a useful pleasing stand-alone tone (not counting boosted!), my experience was...not that much.
 
Speeddemon said:
Read my post carefully; I'm saying that R2 is the channel that doesn't really do the great classic or hotrodded Marshall tones that most of us have in our head, and since the Mark IV was intended as a 3 channel amp (R1/R2/Lead), you're not going to be able to switch from pure clean to say early Ratt or AC/DC and then on to Metallica.
R2 has a different 'grain' than what the Marshall-derived tones are all about. Technically, yes, it can range from low crunch to medium gain...but whether it's a useful pleasing stand-alone tone (not counting boosted!), my experience was...not that much.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah man, I wasn't referring to your post in particular. I've just heard the overall sentiment lately in a few of the IIC+ Reissue threads around here and on other forums that Mark amps in general can't do Marshall tones at all no matter what you do, and I wanted to address that.

Totally agree with your post that you're not going to be able to instantly flip between Fender / Marshall / Mesa on the Mark IV, though.
 
Last edited:
I have never played the vii, but I absolutely love the mkiv! The lead channel has a great combination of saturation, punch and give that feels great to play, but stays tight and aggressive. With the push/pull options, 2 gain controls and graphic eq you can really fine tune the response.

Agree that the R2 is the weak link on an amp with a great clean and killer lead channel. The "crunch" mode on the mkv and mkvii is much better (actually, my favorite mode on the mkv!), but I never felt the mkv's lead mode....the money maker of all mark amps...matched the punch, aggressiveness or feel of my mkiv's, even though tonally, like all Marks, they can be dialed in to sound close.
 
Great amps! The Mark IVs were my introduction to the Mark series ( and partially my IIIs ) when they first came out. I've heard/seen so many of these amps on a stage from DM, sludge, jam, jazz fusion, etc and they always sound great. I was also associated with a band that had one player using a IV and one with a DC-5. They complimented each other really well.
 
Which version is better A or B?
 
Last edited:
MrWoodchuck said:
When version is better A or B?
Click to expand...
The answer to this will depend on who you ask. I predict the discussion that’s going to follow will include the following:

1) There’s no material difference.

2) The A is way better.

3) The B is way better.

4) The rare transitional A/B is the best of the best.

5) There’s no such thing as an A/B - Mike B suggested as much below.

I

Thread 'Questions about Mesa MKIV AB (transitional model)'

Hey All,

Apologies if this post is in the wrong spot. I am aware there is a Mesa MK IV A version and a MK IV B version. There is a transitional period sometimes referred to as an AB version (where I assume mesa was using whatever parts were leftover), in the transition from A to B. Supposedly this was relatively limited to serials 6k-roughly 6200. My B is 6206 and appears at first glance to be one of these transitional models.

I was always under the impression the transitional models had no difference from a normal B (minus, essentially, cosmetics), but wanted to confirm that is the...

6) But I have an A/B and I can hear a difference…..

For what it’s worth I have an A/B (or a very early B, depending on who you ask) with chassis number 5860. I’ve no idea how it compares to an early A or a later B. All I know is that you’ve so many tonal options that you can get a huge range of sounds out of it and it’s an amp I plug into and always smile. It’s great. I don’t think you can go wrong with an A or a B or whatever is in between (if anything).
 
TheGreatGreen said:
Whoever said Mesa Marks can't do Marshall style crunch was, I think, mistaken. I just recorded these clips side by side. The chain is identical except for the amps, which are on a switcher. I could probably dial them in closer but I only spent maybe a minute or two dialing them up. You just need to know how to ask the amp to do what you want and it can pretty much do it.

Suhr SL68 - Crunch


Mesa Mark IV Lead Channel - Crunch


Here's the Mark IV doing a more preamp centric, less master volume cranked, Crunch tone

(apologies for being out of tune on the low notes there, good lord that was rough :D )

Just for kicks, I used the same Mark IV here for a Master of Puppets cover



It's a pretty versatile amp.
Click to expand...


Great tones, man!! 😎

Yes, MarkIV sounds killer and is versatile. 👌
 
I've had more than 5 mark IVs - Great amps - more polished than the earlier marks - really articulate and percussive - I dont play cleans so I wouldn't know - never cared for the 2nd channel - the lead one is to die for and really versatile - so many options like mid gain / harmonics / triode / pentode
To me the RevA models I had were more raw and in your face while the Rev B models had a bit more gain and were more compressed sounding. I also preferred them to the Mark IIIs I had when it comes to recording
If you are into heavier tones watch and listen to this
 
Last edited:
also on the hunt for a IV to sit next to my Wizard MC1. I've spent some of this morning (GMT) hearing A/B comparisons and concluded that I'd be happy with either; Instead of paying attention to A/B clips with both amps dialled for tones and music I don't like, I listened to dedicated rev A or B vids and found equally good tones in both with subtle differences that could be done to anything.

My only comment on getting Marshall-style crunch tones out of them is that whilst you can do so convincingly, they feel a bit different under the fingers - Boogie feels somewhat stiffer but that's just an observation, not critique, and wouldn't deter me from using a IV like this in a recording.
Same as the crunch channel on a Tremoverb recto.

@TheGreatGreen, we are effectively hearing the influence of the recording chain being greater than the amp circuitry?- presumably some type of brit cab w. G12s etc?
 
stephen sawall said:
A is brighter. The difference between the two is not enough I would care.
Click to expand...
According to Mike B the Rev B is the brighter of the two. The differences are very subtle whatever they are, as they can both be dialed in to sound almost exactly the same. Most say the rev B is a bit more modern sounding and has a slight bit more compression to it, but no where near the levels of compression that a Mark V has. Also, the Rev A is less scooped, so if you want that AJFA tone you gotta drop that 750 slider down a touch more.
 
anomaly said:
Most say the rev B is a bit more modern sounding and has a slight bit more compression to it, but no where near the levels of compression that a Mark V has. Also, the Rev A is less scooped, so if you want that AJFA tone you gotta drop that 750 slider down a touch more.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
JimAnsell said:
its RHY 2 for a reason. otherwise it would have been RHY1, LEAD 1, LEAD 2
I just think of it as the clean channel with a built in od pedal.
Click to expand...
I tend to think of RHY2 as an extension of channel 1. It seems to pick up where channel 1 leaves off.

FWIW: My SG feels at home on channel 2, yet my LP prefers channel 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top