# 5150 Vs Mark IV?



## AeonSolus (Jan 19, 2011)

After Hearing Ola Englund's Amp Shootout i just Jawdropped when i heard the tone, initially because i thought the amp was only good for petrucci stuff, but i was horribly wrong



And the video inspired this thread.

I've played them both, but i can't seem to A/B them in my head, I'm just trying to settle on which head to aim to in a near future for my own project but i'm worried about the Mark IV's Lead channel lacking on the Trendy -Core stuff I play, because i know the 5150 will deliver, but Lacks all the versatility of the Mark series, which is what i'm looking for, Balance between Versatility and a tone that will deliver

So bottom Line, Convince me either way: Should i get the 5150 just for a killer Metal tone but clean tones that are not to die for, or the Mark IV Which Will work for pretty much every gig But -maybe- won't deliver for the trendy stuff that i play?


----------



## Wookieslayer (Jan 19, 2011)

I think it would deliver... I'd rather take a Mark tbh!


----------



## Chickenhawk (Jan 19, 2011)

The Mark WILL deliver.


----------



## Mordacain (Jan 19, 2011)

The mark will deliver...if you need more evidence consider Lamb of God as the Mark IV was a mainstay (though Morton and Adler both now use the V)

The Mark series are musical chameleons (to good effect). The onboard graphic EQ opens up worlds of possibilities.


----------



## K-Roll (Jan 19, 2011)

Ok first of all I think all his videos sound the same, i dunno why, but they do, period. No matter if diezel, engl, mesa, as if he was using an impulse with all of these and created a sound that is almost alike but with just slightly different eqs, but no major difference.

I owned a 5150 till now and I own a mark 4 version A atm (2 months or so) What I can definitely tell you is the following:

5150 is supposed to be 120W, mark 4 is supposed to be around 85W, the mark is definitely louder and more present and in your face, actually, it does not play quiet on any setting, it just needs to be driven loud and sounds the best when being loud.

5150 pros: with a TS808, probably the most aggresive sound I ever had, tight fast response and good note clarity even with lower tunings, still a modern sound even now in 2011 , weight less than a mark 4

5150 cons: it tends to sound fizzy and not as 3D as the mark, the clean is almost unusable, only 2 channels in total (with either clean or crunch engaged), it fuckin eats TUBES for breakfast! 

mark 4 pros:

- huuuuuge huge tone and growl on lead channel i mean.. really mcculayculfuckin huge
-3 separate channels and assignable loops
- mother of all amps, pentode/triode, dozens of settings (which may be the con too)  
-IT CUTS through the mix no matter what! the harmonical content especially its mids are unbelievable
- there are more board revisions available so either you pick the ole mark 4 A which is not so far away from the MARK III and, or you pick the no A no B which was a transition towards the newer, or you pick the Bversion which is the one used by most guys like JP and so on (is a bit darker)
- it is really tube/sensitive so that you can really push it more towards modern or towards vintage sound (el34/6l6 vs pure 6L6 and epxerimenting with pre tubes)




mark 4 cons: 

-rather trickier to EQ when you dont know how it works
- it may tend to get muddy quite easily when not set properly (the lower the tuning the more probable)
- it may tend to sound fizzy for someone (ear piercing at times) but thats what you've got your post EQs and presence for - to set it 
-someone may say its not modern sounding
- it is quite picky related to cabinets - it does not sound overwhelming with just every cab and you really have to pick what you prefer in order to find your tone (sometimes changing the cab with the mark is easier than EQing it to your taste and thats what i did, i picked a traditional/stiletto cab)
- it is quite sensitive to current drops or how to call it (if your current is not stable at the place where you usually play, you may get buzz, some time even gain drops so I definitely recommend a stabilizer)

sry for such a long novel, just wanted to cover as many aspects as possible, cheers.


----------



## newfinator (Jan 19, 2011)

I have both an don't often play the 5150. For my taste, the Mark IV does just about everything better.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jan 19, 2011)

Wow. That's the first Mark IV tone I've heard that I've liked. All the Mark IV/V videos and clips I've heard before sounded like Master of Puppets. Maybe that's because the majority of people that buy Mark IV/Vs are Metallica fanboys perhaps?


----------



## AeonSolus (Jan 19, 2011)

K-Roll said:


> Ok first of all I think all his videos sound the same, i dunno why, but they do, period. No matter if diezel, engl, mesa, as if he was using an impulse with all of these and created a sound that is almost alike but with just slightly different eqs, but no major difference.
> 
> I owned a 5150 till now and I own a mark 4 version A atm (2 months or so) What I can definitely tell you is the following:
> 
> ...



Wow man, thanks for that! you should totally put up some vids with Modern type tones and i'd be your eternal worshipper!


----------



## Dylan S (Jan 19, 2011)

I haven't played a Mark IV but my band mate uses a Mark V and we play death metal. It holds up fine and I assume that you would be able to get the same kind of gain out of a Mark V.

Even just at band practice the other day I was using my 6505+ and he had the Mark V and they sounded great together. Don't be worried about it sounding heavy AT ALL.

It comes down to personal preference though, as they're both completely different sounding amps. If you're after a little more versatility from a 5150 you could always get the II or the + version so you've got an extra EQ in there for some of the channels. I like to use the green channel for heavy rhythms and the red channel for leads.

Spend a lot of time with a Mark IV before you make your mind up.


----------



## Pyramid Gallery (Jan 20, 2011)

I've got both too, (IV rev A too) and like K-roll says, it's *FUCKIN LOUD*. 
Nothing quite palm mute chunks the same as the Marks, it's like Metalli Justice in a box - without the comb filtering. But it's not modern sounding at all, no grit, it's too smooth. BUT, I add grit with an eq pedal with a slight mid boost and passive PUs. Notice how Ola boosts with an 808 in that vid. Emg81s add the grit but I hate the bass reduction. I think the B version might be a tad more modern sounding. If you want both amps, they will deliver, but it sounds like you just want one amp, so I recommend a good clean and modern dirty, maybe a roadster, or a 5150III if you don't mind less bass. Skip a gas step. Get what you _really_ want.


----------



## AeonSolus (Jan 20, 2011)

Pyramid Gallery said:


> I've got both too, (IV rev A too) and like K-roll says, it's *FUCKIN LOUD*.
> Nothing quite palm mute chunks the same as the Marks, it's like Metalli Justice in a box - without the comb filtering. But it's not modern sounding at all, no grit, it's too smooth. BUT, I add grit with an eq pedal with a slight mid boost and passive PUs. Notice how Ola boosts with an 808 in that vid. Emg81s add the grit but I hate the bass reduction. I think the B version might be a tad more modern sounding. If you want both amps, they will deliver, but it sounds like you just want one amp, so I recommend a good clean and modern dirty, maybe a roadster, or a 5150III if you don't mind less bass. Skip a gas step. Get what you _really_ want.



Wouldn't upping both last faders on the graph EQ and boosting the shit out of that front end work? because i normally set the EQ on my Small Mesa combo Bass 0 - Treble 10 - Mid -10 for the same purpose, but my little mesa doesn't have a graphic EQ and i just never tried it out with a boost, yet.


----------



## BryanFTWL (Jan 20, 2011)

Someone just posted a thread over on HCAF with some videos of both. Hope they can be of some help to you.

Some 6505+, Mark V and misc. video content..


----------



## kmanick (Jan 20, 2011)

I've also got both (mark IVA and a 5150 II)
and here's why I've still got both.
5150 II
great thick metal rhythm sound, these things are beasts (but we already know that ).
I use a 10 band EQ in the loop and a clean boost in front.
the II (+) is quite a bit moe flexible than the original 5150, it's got more upper mids to it and a bit of a smoother lead tone. 
The 10 band lets me smooth it out even more (which I like to do, makes it sound more like a really really pissed off thick sounding Marshall)
the clean is also a lot more usable than the clean on the 5150.
If all I did was play metal this would be my main amp.
it loves my 7's, has great note definition, boosted it's nice and tight.
really no complaints for metal.
Crunch channel:
great for rock, boosted I can use it as a metal rhythm channel and set the lead channel just for lead if I wnat.
Cons:
no matter what I do I cannot get a nice smooth "fusion" sound out of this amp, it's just not voiced for it, it's a Rock/metal amp..........period.

Mark IV A
I used to have a Red Stripe III that I loved , and I found this IV and it sounded very close to my III, but had all the additional goodies of a IV so I bought it.
When I use it for metal, I use a 10 band EQ in the loop of this amp too , plus a modded SD-1 up front when.
These amps can get plenty heavy for metal and they stay nice and tight.
Boosted and really dialed in with the 10 band I can almost get a Recto-ish heavy type of sound, but tighter.
the real reason I love this amp though is for it's lead sound, I play a lot of Greg Howe "fusiony" type of stuff and this amp kills for that style.
the R2 channel boosted kills too (don't let people fool you that complain about it being useless) 
With the 10 band in the loop and boosted I can set this channel up to sound completely different from my lead channel and use it 
for "rock" or for more Lower gain styles where I don't want it to sound as thick and tight as my lead channel is set up.
I was on the hunt for a IV for quite a while and I got lucky when I found this one.
If you play more styles than metal and rock I'd look at the IV (or V).
if all you play is metal and hard rock the 5150 (or II) will serve you well (and a lot cheaper)
if cash is not a problem I'd also look at a Roadster.
I love those and seriously think about swapping the 5150II for one all the time.
But every time I plug into the 5150 I say "nah, this is staying".
if you can, play all 3 (the Roadster too) and try to decide for yourself which one will fill your needs the best.
they are all good at what they do.


----------



## AeonSolus (Jan 21, 2011)

kmanick said:


> I've also got both (mark IVA and a 5150 II)
> and here's why I've still got both.
> 5150 II
> great thick metal rhythm sound, these things are beasts (but we already know that ).
> ...



I think the Mark IV will serve me alot better because i play Funk and fusion ironicly on the lines of Howe's stuff  which is why you just hit gold with me there, if i can get an almost recto-ish tone with a 10-band EQ i'm all set man, Plus, the guitar player in my band has the new Peavey 6534+ so i was always looking for something different than his.

Thanks alot man  this really set my mind


----------



## kmanick (Jan 21, 2011)

Cool!
R2 boosted with the on board EQ Off can get you a good "Parallax" tone
which is the type fusion lead tone I go for.
the IV and the 6534+ together should sound great!




AeonSolus said:


> I think the Mark IV will serve me alot better because i play Funk and fusion ironicly on the lines of Howe's stuff  which is why you just hit gold with me there, if i can get an almost recto-ish tone with a 10-band EQ i'm all set man, Plus, the guitar player in my band has the new Peavey 6534+ so i was always looking for something different than his.
> 
> Thanks alot man  this really set my mind


----------



## pylyo (Jan 21, 2011)

K-Roll said:


> Ok first of all I think all his videos sound the same, i dunno why, but they do, period. No matter if diezel, engl, mesa, as if he was using an impulse with all of these and created a sound that is almost alike but with just slightly different eqs, but no major difference.


 
That's what I wanted to say.


----------



## kmanick (Jan 21, 2011)

pylyo said:


> That's what I wanted to say.


 
They all sound the same to me too.
They all sound killer, he's got great recording skills (and playing skills)
but he's one of these guys that gets "his" sound out of whatever gear he plugs into.


----------



## Pyramid Gallery (Jan 21, 2011)

AeonSolus said:


> Wouldn't upping both last faders on the graph EQ and boosting the shit out of that front end work? because i normally set the EQ on my Small Mesa combo Bass 0 - Treble 10 - Mid -10 for the same purpose, but my little mesa doesn't have a graphic EQ and i just never tried it out with a boost, yet.


 
Not for a modern 5150/recto tone, you'll never get it, not with a boost, not with a graphic. Close, but not the same. It's not necessarily better or worse for metal, just different. It's much more noticable for feel than recorded sound.

The tight saturated gain feels and sounds different than a boosted 5150, almost opposite in some ways, like tighter but more open and loose at the same time, like your favorite palm mute spot (say for instance 2nd string 5th fret) on the neck is tighter and more chunky on the IV, but a different spot is more so on the 5150 (like open 2nd and 3rd), it's really hard to explain, also the lowend is in a different place and not as wide more laser like. 

Which is why I really think you should try a roadster/newdual, because your criteria is good clean and modern.


----------



## AeonSolus (Jan 22, 2011)

thing is i can barely reach the Mark IV, i'll do some sacrifices to get it, because as much as i don't want to admit it, my Pod + Power Amp is not cutting it anymore, i need tubes again


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jan 22, 2011)

I would take all of Ola's videos with a grain of salt. He uses a lot of post EQ and other studio tricks, which is why a lot of his tones sound very similar.


----------



## AeonSolus (Jan 22, 2011)

Surprisingly enough i was talking to a friend of mine earlier who studies Electronics Engineering and i finally talked him on building a custom amp for me when he finishes his major, which happens to be this semester , and since he's a guitar geek like me, he was way ahead of me on the plan: he has the SLO100 and Mark IIC+'s/IV's schematics with PCB Layouts and all! So maaaybe, Around April/June we'll start building The Soldano/Mark IIC+/IV Chimera  Just imagine that a SimulClass Soldano SLO100 with the mark IIC+ and IV's Clean channel and Lead? Or the other way around  If it comes to fruition i'll talk him into maybe doing a small batch for you guys? or well, i'm not going to get ahead of time and wait for the damn thing


----------



## Wookieslayer (Jan 22, 2011)

lol shit... that would be insane


----------



## Larrikin666 (Jan 22, 2011)

Stealthtastic said:


> I would take all of Ola's videos with a grain of salt. He uses a lot of post EQ and other studio tricks, which is why a lot of his tones sound very similar.



Agreed. Generally, the point of demoing an amp is to give straight forward recorded tones without any tricks, compressions, EQ'ing, etc. I've owned almost every amp he's demoed, and a lot of them sound vastly different in person. It's still cool that he posts that stuff though.


----------



## technomancer (Jan 22, 2011)

Larrikin666 said:


> Agreed. Generally, the point of demoing an amp is to give straight forward recorded tones without any tricks, compressions, EQ'ing, etc. I've owned almost every amp he's demoed, and a lot of them sound vastly different in person. It's still cool that he posts that stuff though.



Yup. If you want to see just how much his post-processing changes all his samples, look for the video he has of an Einstein where he plays some of it without the processing. It sounds like a completely different amp.


----------



## Pyramid Gallery (Jan 22, 2011)

He says he mainly only uses low pass around 7k for eq, and a little compression for the lows to even it out with rung out chords. That's really not that much post at all. Perhaps it's what he _doesn't_ say that counts. Or he just records everything the same, that's why it sounds the same. ???


----------



## AeonSolus (Jan 23, 2011)

Same mic, and mic position, same Speaker cabinet, same EQ on each amp and same low pass filter for every song wouldn't sound similar?


----------

