# Roadking II vs Mark V



## 7 Dying Trees (Jan 9, 2011)

Well, looking at them, and in the market, so, anyone compared the two? ANy tips? Going to be trying them out some point in the next week or two, but would like to hear people's opinions first


----------



## getaway_fromme (Jan 9, 2011)

7 Dying Trees said:


> Well, looking at them, and in the market, so, anyone compared the two? ANy tips? Going to be trying them out some point in the next week or two, but would like to hear people's opinions first



I can't say I've owned a Mark, but if the Axe fx sim of the Mark IV is close enough, then I can say, get the RK if you NEED all the speaker, tube, and loop combinations, let alone the hefty price tag. Having owned a dual Rec as well, the gain channels of the RK are near identical. The cleans are awesome on both. In any case, you want Dual Rec high gain Or Mark high gain, and do you actually want all of the options for the RK??? For me, it was too much moving switches in the back almost every other day because of diff. cabs in diff. rehearsal spaces... A little of a chore. But if you want it, it's damn cool.


----------



## Rook (Jan 9, 2011)

I'm afraid I don't really agree with the above:

There are fundamental differences between the Mark series and Road Series amps. It's first worth noting that the drive channels on the Road amps is not like your standard Rectifiers, its much darker and less fizzy, and can be made much tighter as the control work differently. There's also more difference between channels 3 and 4 on the RK than on 2 and 3 on a recto. Finally, the Road King and Roadster are identical except for the cab selection and progressive linkage (tube switching).

Th differences between the Mark and Road amps are as follows;
Mark amps EQ's act as gain stages over their frequency range. If you turn treble bass and mid all the way down, the amp makes no noise. This is why it has the 5 Band EQ; turning the treble knob up makes the gain tighter, bass sggier an mid somewhere in between, the 5 band is what you use to actually EQ the sound. Mark Series are generally known for a characteristic 'tight' sound that chugs at the low end but is dry saturated and clear for solos.
The Road amps (unlike rectifiers) has a semi-adaptable EQ. Turning the treble up makes it tighter, the bass saggier etc as before, but it doesnt have the same edgy low end tightness as the Marks are capable of, they do still track very well. Turning the EQ. Knobs off will still produce a sound, the gain isn't anywhere near as dependent on the EQ, but the three controls still very much shape the sound.

The most recognisable difference is that the Road amps are far more capable of sounding very big, full an clear, whereas the Mark amps always remain very focussed and never really boom. These effects also very much apply to cleans, Marks are very subtle and glassy, whereas the Road's are much bigger and clearer. Like the difference between a Fender Princeton and a Fender Twin. A good summary is that, as a result of the 5 band EQ, the Marks sound very modern and at times a little artificial, whereas the Road amps are much more traditional and organic(?) if that makes any sense.

You gotta try them, I always wanted a Mark IV and when I went to buy one left with a Roadster and haven't looked back. They're both great, but one will definitely suit you better than the other. I will add, the Road amps boosted get that right focus of the Marks but sound huge and are just phenomenal haha. 

Best of luck buddy


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Jan 9, 2011)

That pretty much is a good summary, excellent  I have been swaying towards the roadking due to liking rectifiers, still want to try both though.

What is the roadking like for lead?


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 9, 2011)

Marks "sing" a lot better and saturate a lot more, in my experience. Rectos are all about that low mid gut punch, even for leads.

I prefer the dynamic feel of the Recto, myself; but Marks are fantastic-sounding amps.


----------



## AeonSolus (Jan 10, 2011)

In my experience Marks are really tight, Mid-y, Nasal, somewhat Dark on the gain channels and Creamy while the recto line are Gritty, High mid scooped sounding but low mid growlers, sometimes brittle, and a bit saggy. and if it was up to me, i'd take the Mark V and boost the living crap out of that front end to gain back some attack


----------



## SSK0909 (Jan 10, 2011)

I would probably pick up a used Mark Iv 

Pros:

More flexible lead channel
Just as good clean channel
Price
Superior graphic eq

Cons:
Mark V has two more clean modes (Fat mode on the V is the clean on the IV)
Mark V has a superior crunch channel
Mark V has a IIc+ mode on lead (the other two modes are Mark IV based)

Mind you that the IIc+ modes sounds nothing like the original, but you still get a more vintage-y lead sound with this mode than you can on the IV.

The variac power (10,45 og 90w) on the V is pretty useless. It turns the tone to mush.

For the price I would choose the Iv and then you could save the rest of the cash for a used roadster and get the best of both worlds 

But all of this is just my opinion though.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 10, 2011)

AeonSolus said:


> In my experience Marks are really tight, Mid-y, Nasal, somewhat Dark on the gain channels and Creamy while the recto line are Gritty, High mid scooped sounding but low mid growlers, sometimes brittle, and a bit saggy. and if it was up to me, i'd take the Mark V and boost the living crap out of that front end to gain back some attack



I don't have much experience with rectos, but I will tell you this, the Mark V do not in the slightest lack attack. I run it in triode not pentode in the 3rd channel to try and battle the attack a bit (smoother), it also comes across a bit bright opposed to dark to me. Definitely creamy though and tight. Esp Ch2 crunch, tighter than >insert your favourite euphamism here<. I don't boost mine out front either. (Wouldn't mind a boost, but I want it to get my single coil on par with drive levels not to tighten er up).


----------



## phatfil (Jan 10, 2011)

holy shit! what a decision! i'd be going crazy. either is flat out awesome. i did see a good review on the RK II. here it is. hopefully it helps.

MusicPlayers.com: Reviews > Guitars > Mesa/Boogie Road King Series II


----------



## Larrikin666 (Jan 10, 2011)

I found the Mark V to be nothing short of amazing. The clean channel sparkles like no other high end amp I've owned. I almost kept mine around for that reason alone. The Mark series definitely has a more articulate response than the Road Kings IMO. I've never had the opportunity to to run a newer Road King for an extended period of time though. It's entirely possible that I could boost and tweak one to the point where it was just as tight at the Mark V. Either way...be prepared to a very large footswitch with either amp.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jan 10, 2011)

Larrikin666 said:


> Either way...be prepared to a very large footswitch with either amp.



No kidding 







Holy jesus, this is bigger than the Roadster one!


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 10, 2011)

^^

yeah the mark V footswitch is 13.5 by 5.5 give or take .5" The road king one... I don't even want to think about. Looks about 27x4 .


----------



## Rook (Jan 10, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> I don't have much experience with rectos, but I will tell you this, the Mark V do not in the slightest lack attack. I run it in triode not pentode in the 3rd channel to try and battle the attack a bit (smoother), it also comes across a bit bright opposed to dark to me. Definitely creamy though and tight. Esp Ch2 crunch, tighter than >insert your favourite euphamism here<. I don't boost mine out front either. (Wouldn't mind a boost, but I want it to get my single coil on par with drive levels not to tighten er up).



I definitely agree. I'd use to word gritty more to describe the Marks than the Rectos too. I will repeat, the Road Kind/Roadster is absolutely NOT the same as a 'Rectifier'.


----------



## Rook (Jan 10, 2011)

7 Dying Trees said:


> That pretty much is a good summary, excellent  I have been swaying towards the roadking due to liking rectifiers, still want to try both though.
> 
> What is the roadking like for lead?



Great, very versatile, and despite some of the responses here, the Road stuff really can sing. I find it saturates beautifully, nothing like a Recto which always remains fizzy.

Take it from John Petrucci - the guy released his solo album and chose the Road King to use for the entire album. EVERYTHING you hear on that album is Road King (1, not 2). I'd seriously look into the Roadster since your British and RK's cost a bloody bomb. If you did want a RK, consider importing one from the USA (used most likely), they allegedly sound better but I have no evidence of that. Something to do with the mains transformer.


----------



## pathos45 (Jan 10, 2011)

SSK0909 said:


> I would probably pick up a used Mark Iv
> 
> Pros:
> 
> ...


 
The clean channel on the mark iv to the mark v is apples to oranges...Other than a fender clean i have found the Mark v clean to be the cleanest sounding to my ears, yes the bold mode is basied off the mark iv but with HUGE upgrades. The Crunch channel on the mark iv is useless, it sounds like garbage wheres the crunch channel on the mark v u can go from fender tweed sound right to marshall jcm tone with the "crunch" setting then u get great santana tone with the mark i mode. Channel 3 i have found to be about the same, yes theres little diffrences here and there but if you really sit down and try to make the mark v sound like a mark iv's lead channel exspeically in the "extreem" mode they can get VERY close.

I had the same problem back when the mark vs came out to either get a mark v or the roadster/king and it came down to the mark having the on board eq that did it for me. Yes they both sound very diffrent between one another but i like both tones u can get from them. Plus the multi-watt isnt useless, when u switch down in wattage its changing the wiring of the entire amp, which means u gotta have diffrent settings from 90 watt-10 watt as dropping it down to 10 watts gives it a a class rating and has great early breakup in the tubes, you just gotta re do your settings. 

The only thing i disliked about my mark v when i had it was it couldent mix tubes like the iv did, some people said to do it as it wouldent hurt the amp unless you dropped down to 45-10 watts. But when i emailed mesa they said not to do this as it would void the warrenty. My only beef with the mark v.

Now with the suggestion of getting a mark iv and a roadster is actully a very good suggestion as you could either a/b the amps, or even slave one into the other (mark into the road's power amp section allowing to run el43s-6l6 at teh same time). 

I regret selling my mark v alot, just money was needed else where. When i do have enough again to buy another amp its def a toss up between the mark v and axe, yes the axe is amazing and has every sound u could want but the mark v just has that tone that i dont think any modeler could ever replecate.


----------



## grindgod (Jan 12, 2011)

I thought at first the MKV was gonna be a great amp, but when I sat down with it for a couple hours and several different guitars, I discovered I like 2 tones all together. The clean was great, and the MK2C simulator was also great. The entirety of channel 3 was lacking in substance and punch IMO. The MK4 setting sounded nothing like my MK4, and the extreme was mushy. Wasnt impressed.....I love my MKIV and MKIII, Thats all I need....

Now The roadking seemed a nice versitle amp easy to dial in tones quickly, without the fizz of other rectifiers. I only wish they would put the 5 band on it, then Id sell everything and get one....All 4 channels had good tight clean usable tones....

......And thats my 2 cents. Good luck on your search


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 12, 2011)

grindgod said:


> I thought at first the MKV was gonna be a great amp, but when I sat down with it for a couple hours and several different guitars, I discovered I like 2 tones all together. The clean was great, and the MK2C simulator was also great. The entirety of channel 3 was lacking in substance and punch IMO. The MK4 setting sounded nothing like my MK4, and the extreme was mushy. Wasnt impressed.....I love my MKIV and MKIII, Thats all I need....



Channel 3 is very hard to get a feel for, it takes time and practice, more than a few hours. Mk4 mode set up is my high gain tight rhythm and smooth lead all in one. It is definitely not mushy in the least, infact I put it on triode over pentode to help relieve some of the attack. The amp is a little more complicated than sit down and dial it in first try. It was the hardest channel to get what you want out of to boot.


----------



## Rook (Jan 13, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> Channel 3 is very hard to get a feel for, it takes time and practice, more than a few hours. Mk4 mode set up is my high gain tight rhythm and smooth lead all in one. It is definitely not mushy in the least, infact I put it on triode over pentode to help relieve some of the attack. The amp is a little more complicated than sit down and dial it in first try. It was the hardest channel to get what you want out of to boot.





Absolutely.


----------



## Rook (Jan 13, 2011)

EDIT: Repost; stupid iPhone...


----------



## grindgod (Jan 14, 2011)

Im sure I will mess with it more next time I see one. Im a Mark series fan to the bone, so next time I run into one Ill tweek more. 

Its hard to find an amp that competes with my old MKIII tho. Its got some magic there....


----------

