Blue Stripe Mark III: Common Ancestor to Mark V/Rectifier?

[dlpasco]

Sorry, this is a *long* post. I've been doing some research and I wanted to share some thoughts and observations, if anyone is interested.

I've had a blue stripe Mark III for a long time, but I'd never really been very happy with it. After about ten years focusing on my business I recently started getting serious about guitar again and dragged the Mark III out of storage.

After doing some research, referring to the Mark III manual (which I'd never had, I got this amp used), and listening to some samples from other people, I concluded that there was an issue with my Mark III's lead channel. I took it into a local shop, where they confirmed the issue and eventually got it fixed.

Since then I'd been noodling around with it in the morning and evenings at work. My wife wants me to play at home, too, and offered to let me buy a second amplifier for home, because she's amazing.

I ended up really having a hard time figuring out if I wanted to get a Dual Rectifier or a Mark V. Fortunately the folks at Guitar Center were really great. I ended up getting a Dual Rectifier, returning it after 3 weeks for the Mark V and, after about another week, finally deciding that I'd been right the first time and returning the Mark V for the Dual Rectifier I'd originally purchased.

Throughout all of this I'd heard a lot of people championing the blue stripe Mark III as an incredibly high gain, aggressive amplifier, but I really wasn't seeing the same thing. To me, both the Mark V and the Dual Rectifier had much higher gain.

I eventually decided that I should probably sell the Mark III, save up my money, and get a Mark V.

Last week, after hearing a really great sample of someone playing their Mark III, I decided that there must still be something going on with mine, or how I was playing it.

I replaced my preamp tubes. Better, but still not great. After doing some additional research, I finally found these quotes:

'My Mark IIIs are pretty useless at bedroom volume; it's basically not worth trying.'
'ya my mark III doesn't even begin to sound boogie excellent until the master is over 2.5. Today at band practice i was at 1.5 and it didn't blow me away.'

I put a THD Hot Plate between the Mark III and my speaker cabinet and cranked the volume up past 2 so that I could use the Ultra Brutality settings without getting evicted.

That was the final piece in the puzzle. My Mark III blew me away. It has an incredible, snarling gain and an incredible tone. It sounds far more aggressive than the Mark V did, and when I switched back to my Dual Rectifier, I found that I was pretty indifferent to it now that the Mark III was refurbished and dialed in correctly.

The Mark III sounds amazing, but it definitely has it's issues. The same tone stack is shared between all three channels. Mesa moved forward with addressing that on the Mark IV, but I think that they also realized that the Mark series was getting seriously overloaded in terms of tone, and decided to split the line out into the rectifier series in 1989.

At that point, Mesa started refining the gain on the Mark III series, and started internal discussions about creating the Rectifier as a dedicated high-gain line of amplifiers.

Here are the notes on the Mark III evolution I've found from other posters, along with the serial number range for each stripe:

- black ('85): 15000 to 16715
#1 - No mark or a little dot. Only a few hundred then some black marks or "+"'s .
Lean and powerful amp with more output power than a IIC+

- purple ('86): 16657 to 19120
R2 was shaped to be more "rounded" and less gain, with improved level

- red ('87): 19100 to 21863
R2 further developed and very hot. Lead mode is also tweaked to close in on the IIC+ sound

- blue ('88~'89): 21825 to 25000
More aggressive preamp gain - reshaping of R1, Power section made akin to IIC+

green ('89~'98): 24940 to 28384
Cleaner R1, Lead channel reshaping, and unlike other Simul amps, these Mark III's were wired in Pentode - NOT triode in the Class A sockets for more power. Power section is same as Blue otherwise.

In 1989 the green stripe Mark III came out, which had a smoother gain than the blue stripe:
'The Blue Stripe to my ears has more gain, aggressive, looser. The green is aggressive too but starts sounding more like a Mark IV, bolder and punchier.'

At the same time, it sounds this is where Mesa started focusing on the Rectifier, with a Soldano-based gain circuit to take over the aggressiveness they'd introduced in the red and blue stripe Mark IIIs:

'1989 was the fork in the road here at Mesa/Boogie'. It was the year we embarked on a mission to Rectify high gain guitar and reintroduce MESA Engineering' to the world.

When the Mark IV was released, it continued with the smoother lead gain and introduced dedicated tone controls for each channel, defining the direction for the Mark series and pretty much signaling the end of the road for the Mark IIIs

'I think the lead channel of a Mark III is the best high-gain sound Mesa has come up with to date. The Mark IV's lead channel is very similar, but not quite as raw or aggressive to my ears.'

'Mark III Red stripe - open, raw great lead channel.

Mark IV - More compressed, but smoother lead channel.

It sounds like this got further refined with the Mark V, which matches my own experience with it (I've never played a Mark IV myself)

'As others have stated above, the IV sounds a little bit more raw compared to the V which is slightly more refined and a bit smoother. But the V's Mark IV mode is very sweet and to me slightly better sounding.'

Based on what I've seen and read, it sounds like Mesa pushed out the blue stripe Mark III, and internal discussions started about forking into two different product lines: the rectifier series as a raw, high gain monster and the Mark line as a more polished, smoother, versatile offering.

So I'm guessing that the family tree for the entire family looks something like this:

As far as I can tell, despite having a Mark-style circuit, the blue stripe Mark III is essentially the common ancestor of the Mark V and the contemporary Rectifier.

If I'm wrong, I'd love to be educated. If this is totally obvious to everyone, I apologize. It was fascinating to me

At the present, I am extremely happy with my blue stripe Mark III. After playing with it using the Ultra Brutality setting I went back and played my multi-channel Dual Rectifier for awhile. It sounded great but my overall response was just kind of 'meh'.

The current Mark and Rectifier lineups have radically different tones. I feel like there's enough overlap between my Mark III and the late model dual rectifier that I'd be better off with having the Mark V as my versatile, multichannel amp, and my Mark III as another versatile amplifier that I can use when I want to really cut loose with something aggressive and high gain.

I've since unplugged my dual rectifier and have decided to shelve it for a few weeks and just focus on the Mark III. I plan on coming back to the dual rectifier afterwards, and if I'm still feeling lukewarm about it, I think I'm going to sell it and go buy a Mark V.

If I didn't already own a blue stripe Mark III, then having the Dual Rectifier and the Mark V would probably be the way I'd go.

 

[swbo101]

Very interesting post. You obviously put a lot of thought into this subject. I haven't played a Mark III in just over 20 years so I really can't comment on those aspects, but find your lineage interesting. The last time I played a III it was most likely a green stripe, since it was new and the Mark IV's were out. I ended up going with the IV b/c of separate tone controls and the tone stack just fit what I was looking for. I've played a Mark V and must say that the lead channel on the IV is much more diverse than the V and I actually like the IV better. However, the V's R2 is much more usable (& better) than the IV and the clean on the V seems to have more gain and a bit more bottom end.

Still just my .02 and thanks for sharing.

 

[kramerxxx]

I have a Dual Rec, a Mark V and a Mark III - all completely different animals.

the Mark V gets great tones at about any volume, but definitely sounds better as you turn it up.

the Mark III doesn't sound as good at low volume, but it passable with an OD pedal

the Dual Rec doesn't sound good at all at low volume but is glorious LOUD and Proud.

 

[Neptical]

Cool post...enjoyed the read.

The Mark III is a crazy versatile amp no matter the stripe. There's so many tones to discover inside that amp that I'm still finding them..and thats not including mixing up the different cabs,guitars,etc. I've never had ANY problem getting great tones at bedroom levels..never really understood that, especially if you have Class A. As far as the Rectifier goes, I think these amps blow them out of the water as far as tone and versatility. The Mark V is great amp and definitely a **** load of options,but as far as tone, in my opinion it's certainly not any miles ahead of the III. The advantages are the seperate channels and extra features which indeed are completely useful. I still dig the V alot and may even become an owner some day, but I've gotten to know my amps good enough to make them able to do the same thing with less.

About the Mark IV, I use to play one back in the 90's along with a DC-5. Both completely sick amps..amazing tone. They both do the liquid leads to a "T". Both really nice cleans also. Maybe a little compressed for my taste these days as I really enjoy the rawness of the III..but really like how the III can still get into that smooth lead territory but still cut in the mix extremely well. I could go on and on...

 

[fretout]

This is an interesting theory. As the current owner of 2 Mark III Blue Stripes, 2 Mark IVs, and 2 Rectos (one Pre-500, one Rev.G), I've always thought the Blue Stripes have a ton of gain (more than any other amp I own, or any other Mark III I've tried).

I can dial in my Mark III to approach the type of low end roundness, and emphasis on the low-mids where the Rectifiers shine. The Mark III can't replicate the type of "3D" type tone my Recto has (I'm not quite sure how to explain this, it's almost as if the Rectifier has a different set of overtones that sound much more "stereo").

The Mark IV is much rounder, less aggressive than the Mark III Blue Stripe, which IMHO, represents a departure in the Mark Series because each model was more aggressive than the last. What's also interesting is that the early Rectifiers contain the same transformers as many of the Mark IIIs, which were somehow not used in the Mark IV designs, which could also support the OPs point.

The one argument against the idea that the Rectos were a descendent on the Mark III Blue Stripe is that it's fairly common knowledge that the Rectifier line was developed to be it's own stand alone model. It wasn't a continuation of the Mark lineage, it was developed to be Mesas take on the Soldano SLO. Many other amplifier companies also saw what the SLO was doing in the terms of tone, and tried to put their own spin on it. The SLO inspired Mesa's Rectifier line, Peavey's 5150, and Bogner's Uberschall. You won't find many similarities in the Mark's circuit layout as you would in SLO's layout.

So, my theory is that Mesa started the Recto line around the same time the Mark III Blue Stripes started being made, which explains the components the originals share, but Mesa was trying to invent something new that they've never done before, which was why the Mark Series soldiered on, and the Rectos became a new animal embraced by thousands of players that wanted more low end and more gain than the Marshalls of the day.

 

[Elpelotero]

The one argument against the idea that the Rectos were a descendent on the Mark III Blue Stripe is that it's fairly common knowledge that the Rectifier line was developed to be it's own stand alone model. It wasn't a continuation of the Mark lineage, it was developed to be Mesas take on the Soldano SLO. Many other amplifier companies also saw what the SLO was doing in the terms of tone, and tried to put their own spin on it. The SLO inspired Mesa's Rectifier line, Peavey's 5150, and Bogner's Uberschall. You won't find many similarities in the Mark's circuit layout as you would in SLO's layout.

So, my theory is that Mesa started the Recto line around the same time the Mark III Blue Stripes started being made, which explains the components the originals share, but Mesa was trying to invent something new that they've never done before, which was why the Mark Series soldiered on, and the Rectos became a new animal embraced by thousands of players that wanted more low end and more gain than the Marshalls of the day.

This is a great thread, and some great responses. I agree with fretout, however. From stuff I read years ago, they were chasing the SLO. Early rectifiers sound like a SLO, with a bit of a darker, more compressed gain. Later in the 90's the rectifier slowly started to evolved into what we have today.

dlpasco, if this kind of stuff fascinates you, then you owe it to yourself to try a 1992-1993 rectifier. It is very raw, in your face. I'm curious to see how you think it differs from your Mark 3. The rectifiers you get in stores now are light years away from what was going on in 1989.

 

[dlpasco]

Fretout and Elpelotero: I agree with both of you.

I think maybe "spiritual ancestor" might be a better way to describe the Blue stripe Mark III's relationship to the Rectifier series. What I meant was that 1989 looks like the point where Mesa decided to stop pursuing extreme high gain in the Mark series and branched out into the Rectifier instead.

In that frame of reference, the blue stripe Mark III would be the final, really extreme-gain Mark that Mesa produced, shifting their focus to a smoother gain in the Mark III and IV series while simultaneously branching out into a radically different circuit architecture for the Rectifier series.

As an iPhone app developer this makes total sense to me: sometimes we realize that we really have two or more applications on our hands instead of just one and split them up accordingly. Maybe Randall & Co realized that they had two completely different amps on their hands and decided it was time to produce two separate specialized amplifier lines - the competing goals might have resulted in something too compromised for either ideal if they stayed the course of making one amp that could do everything.

Continuing the high-gain path might have really required the circuitry changes if they were to go any further, which might have been at direct odds with the goals inherent in the Mark series.

All that I meant was that the Blue stripe seems like the last point at which they tried to carry everything forward in one amp before deciding to split the lineup.

 

[Elpelotero]

Well said!

 

[fretout]

Fretout and Elpelotero: I agree with both of you.

I think maybe "spiritual ancestor" might be a better way to describe the Blue stripe Mark III's relationship to the Rectifier series. What I meant was that 1989 looks like the point where Mesa decided to stop pursuing extreme high gain in the Mark series and branched out into the Rectifier instead.

In that frame of reference, the blue stripe Mark III would be the final, really extreme-gain Mark that Mesa produced, shifting their focus to a smoother gain in the Mark III and IV series while simultaneously branching out into a radically different circuit architecture for the Rectifier series.

As an iPhone app developer this makes total sense to me: sometimes we realize that we really have two or more applications on our hands instead of just one and split them up accordingly. Maybe Randall & Co realized that they had two completely different amps on their hands and decided it was time to produce two separate specialized amplifier lines - the competing goals might have resulted in something too compromised for either ideal if they stayed the course of making one amp that could do everything.

Continuing the high-gain path might have really required the circuitry changes if they were to go any further, which might have been at direct odds with the goals inherent in the Mark series.

All that I meant was that the Blue stripe seems like the last point at which they tried to carry everything forward in one amp before deciding to split the lineup.

I agree. The Blue Stripes were the last of the "aggressive and raw" sound of the Mark series. Afterwards, the mark series definitely sounds much "smoother". Randall and Mike don't seem to be heading back towards the aggressive tones found in the Marks up to the Blue Stripe, and instead have been focusing on "refining" what the Mark series is.

I find the Rectos to be a completely different animal all together. Comparing my early 92 Recto to my Blue Stripe, it's amazing how I can seem to pull the low mids out of the Blue Stripe, but while the Blue Stripe seems to struggle slightly with the low mids, the Recto pulls it off effortlessly. The gain structure between the two is night and day IMO, and my 92 Recto is much brighter and much more gain oriented than the Rev.G I own. I can't say if I agree or disagree with your hypothesis, but I can certainly second your thoughts that there was a definite shift in thinking over at Mesa, and the Mark series was never the same since.