Tell me about the Mesa Mark IV

  • Thread starter Thread starter Killcrop
  • Start date Start date
phil b said:
Yep. Mike did it before I even got it. I told Mark what I was looking for which was more gain that a stock 2c+ and he asked Mike if he would do it. Mark was kinda excited that Mike said yes and ordered 2. I couldnt afford 2 even at artist pricing cause I had also picked up diamond plate cabs and some custom switchers, but he wanted to keep one for himself anyway, which he did. I spoke to Mike about it when I sent it in for service about 10 years? ago. He said all it was just a resistor. Back then him and Mark called it the "Metallica mod". When I asked him he didnt even remember calling it that at all.. LOL
Click to expand...
Cool story man thx for sharing!
 
Catthan said:
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?
Click to expand...

marvcus said:
Good amp. Had a B for many years. Not touch sensitive; pretty compressed, if that’s your thing.

Very clean clean. If you like a gritty clean, you need to run gain on 10. Good loop. Lead is great and signature sound, but not dynamic. Again, lots of compression. A JCM 800 way less compressed and open sounding, for example.

But it does a lot of things well. You can tell I don’t like a lot of compression and I realized that with this amp.

The IIC+ is a better amp, IMO, since IV R2 is useless and IIC+ more dynamic
Click to expand...
Not as touch sensitive as a Wizard for sure, but I find if you roll your volume back a bit it gets plenty touch sensitive. Full on they are compressed, but really not much more than a III, which i've owned. I think some people exaggerate the amount of compression in these amps, just listen to Lamb Of God's killadelphia DVD and you'll hear that it's a little more open sounding than some think. The Mark V on the other hand is beyond compressed, just really flat sounding.

Oh and Lamb of God use the Rev B heads. In all the studio pics i've seen it's a newer Rev B that you see Mark Morton using.
 
peterc52 said:
LoG used A version. And that’s the more open one.
Click to expand...
Wrong, they use the Rev B's, the difference in compression between the two is very small. Some people can't tell the difference, especially if it's an older rev B compared to a rev A. They both sound great. I'd be more concerned about getting one in good working order, as there are a lot of things that can go wrong with these amps.
 
anomaly said:
Not as touch sensitive as a Wizard for sure, but I find if you roll your volume back a bit it gets plenty touch sensitive. Full on they are compressed, but really not much more than a III, which i've owned. I think some people exaggerate the amount of compression in these amps, just listen to Lamb Of God's killadelphia DVD and you'll hear that it's a little more open sounding than some think. The Mark V on the other hand is beyond compressed, just really flat sounding.

Oh and Lamb of God use the Rev B heads. In all the studio pics i've seen it's a newer Rev B that you see Mark Morton using.
Click to expand...
that’s what i was wondering- if the B is more compressed and gainy by any noticeable amount, then one could just dial the gain down a bit..
 
anomaly said:
Wrong, they use the Rev B's, the difference in compression between the two is very small. Some people can't tell the difference, especially if it's an older rev B compared to a rev A. They both sound great. I'd be more concerned about getting one in good working order, as there are a lot of things that can go wrong with these amps.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected.

I will say I’ve had both. And prefer the A version myself
 
Never played an A but I’d say my v early B (A/B?) isn’t massively compressed. It definitely has a liquid feel to it, but in a way that makes it fun to play rather than in a way that squashes the tone or loses dynamics. There’s plenty of harmonic content and you can dial it in to make it plenty tight and punchy, whilst keeping a bit of bounce.
 
Last edited:
anomaly said:
Not as touch sensitive as a Wizard for sure, but I find if you roll your volume back a bit it gets plenty touch sensitive. Full on they are compressed, but really not much more than a III, which i've owned. I think some people exaggerate the amount of compression in these amps, just listen to Lamb Of God's killadelphia DVD and you'll hear that it's a little more open sounding than some think. The Mark V on the other hand is beyond compressed, just really flat sounding.

Oh and Lamb of God use the Rev B heads. In all the studio pics i've seen it's a newer Rev B that you see Mark Morton using.
Click to expand...
Agree with all of this! You can easily dial in tones on either mkiv version that are great combination of punch, dynamics, clarity and saturation/ compression. That is one of the great things about the mkiv, you can really find that sweet spot!

Ya, compared to the mkiii range they are little more modern, a little more compressed and a little less wild in their top end. But they are more alike in feel, tone and response than different. The mkiv is much closer to the mkiii's and mkii's than the mkV.
 
Killcrop said:
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?
Click to expand...

For mid gain and sheer versitility I'd recommend a Mark V. Great cleans, great crunch and mid gain tones and it will rip your face off if you want it. I had a Mark IV for awhile, and it is a great amp, but I actually preferred the Mark IV mode on my Mark V 35 to the full Mark IV. I also preferred the Mark V (I owned one for a bit) to the Mark IV just due to how many things it does well, even great.
 
^^ agree. The V has the lonestar clean ch, a pleasing crunch that’s easy to dial and a very nice 3rd channel, albeit a departure from mk2-3 being a bit more modern and compressed- still a Mark tone though. I think it got a bad rep bc of the name of the modes in ch3 which got people comparing to the old ones. if i was looking for a Mark to gig, that’s what I’d get
 
Catthan said:
^^ agree. The V has the lonestar clean ch, a pleasing crunch that’s easy to dial and a very nice 3rd channel, albeit a departure from mk2-3 being a bit more modern and compressed- still a Mark tone though. I think it got a bad rep bc of the name of the modes in ch3 which got people comparing to the old ones. if i was looking for a Mark to gig, that’s what I’d get
Click to expand...
It’s a great amp. CH1 and 2 alone cover everything you could need, including Metal. I found every setting on each channel was useable. Also friendly to Fender, Gibson and any active monstrosity 🙂
 
There's a MkIV short head for sale locally, $1g. Tempting for the price, but I have a 50 Cal+ and Mk V25 in the house, and haven't played my other amps much since getting the GZ SS.
 
Damn that's a great price.

I've got a couple by me listed at $2k and the lowest few Reverb sales were $1600.
 
ultimatemetalguitartones said:
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
Click to expand...

I don't think tone gets any better than that. Bravo.
 
After much deliberation, a bit of enabling by the esteemed co-members here and a quick google search I found a bargain on a revB combo on it's way to me as soon as tomoz. To be rehoused into a nice blond head shell paid for by flogging the EVM..

I don't like the chuggy 'bro-tones' people tend to use them for, or Metallica, but having a machine capable of them does make the bro in me (not literally,,) feel somewhat nicer..
 
They'll never reissue the IV though. There's a lot of crap (rat's nest?) going on inside, probably too expensive to reproduce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top