school is stealing all of my money so im probably gonna have to part ways with my mark iv. people are willing to pay so much for these things right now for no real reason. anyways, i cant live with out an amp so what mesa should i replace this guy with? im looking at mark iiis and dc5s but i also see some tverbs and other rec variations for pretty cheap. i love the lead channel and dont really use the eq, need an average clean and an ocd takes care of the r2 type stuff for me would prefer to stay away from parallel fx but its not too critical. what are some of your opinions?
downgrade
- Thread starter fatoni
- Start date
Help Support The Boogie Board:
sixtonoize
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2008
- Messages
- 205
- Reaction score
- 0
I'll trade you my F-100 combo + cash.
rvschulz
Well-known member
if you want to spend less than $500 and use pedals ... a .50+ is your answer. better amp would be Mark III. I can't imagine not having my Mark III - it replaced a .50+
fot a one-trick (at a time) pony - the .50 + is awesome.
fot a one-trick (at a time) pony - the .50 + is awesome.
I second the suggestion of a .50 Caliber +. I've just recently come across those amps and they are indeed quite killer. Very Mark-ish lead channel and can be had rather cheap.
By the way, how much are you wanting to get for your M4? PM me if you like.
By the way, how much are you wanting to get for your M4? PM me if you like.
fatoni said:
Yes, sweet cleans and superb lead tones ...no prob at all with shared tone stack so long as you get one WITH a GEQ. But these are still in the 6-800 range ...not much "in your pocket" after the MKIV sale if that's what you're really looking for.
Since you dig your pedals, I'd say look for one of the older Marks or Calibers, especially the MKI reissues or SOBs which don't enjoy much popularity, but offer solid Boogie tone. You can score once for under 5 bills ...maybe even under 4 in this economy.
Edward
people are offering 1500 to 1700 dollars. why...i dont know but its an offer i really cant refuse. id just figure id downsize for bigger gains. if all else fails i could just buy another mkiv but i do want to test the waters. thanks for all the input.
how important is the geq in the .50+? i dont use it on the mkiv so would i really need it?
how important is the geq in the .50+? i dont use it on the mkiv so would i really need it?
fatoni said:
On my Mk III, I use the eq to dial in the tone I desire on the lead channel, then set eq on "auto" which engages the eq only on the lead channel. That way, the eq is bypassed on the rhythm (clean) channels. While the cleans might not sound perfect, doing it that way, I find the tone acceptable at least...
tony777
Well-known member
I feel for you, and I really hope I never get into a situation that forces me to sell my mark amps.fatoni said:
A trick I use for the shared EQ thing, especially for my C+'s and MKIII, is I dial in the lead tone with the GEQ, and it's always in. When I switch to clean, I also switch the pickup selector on the guitar, so I don't play full humbucker sound at clean settings, and I wired my guitar so the tone knob only works in the positions 2,3 and 4 which I use for cleans. Then I roll back the tone knob to about three. And it gives a delicious sweet fender type clean. I play Ibanez superstrat type guitars, but it should be possible on most guitars I guess.
Good Luck,
You will absolutely need it.
My 200th post :lol:
Whoopysnorp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 505
- Reaction score
- 1
Personally, I feel like I could get away without the GEQ on my Mark III. I don't really use the amp in a traditional way--most of the time it serves as a power amp into which I run my Studio Preamp, but I can footswitch to the Mark III's preamp and get some different sounds that way. I have it set up so that my cleans and crunch tones come from the Studio Pre, but I can switch over to a burning lead tone on my III. I currently have the GEQ completely switched out of the III, because it just sounds better to me that way. I think having the bass shift engaged shapes the sound in such a way that it doesn't need any more tweaks to the mids. Also, although I don't use it this way, if I were using just the III on its own, I don't think I'd have any problem getting a nice clean and a great lead at the same time. When I do the R2 mod I'll even be able to get that happening with everything else as well!
You may want to seriously consider the DC-5 as another post mentioned earlier. While I love the MKIII, my DC-5 head was fairly inexpensive at the time ( $400.00US) and with some new 6L6's it was still under 500 bucks. I think the MKIII will come in close to a grand. BTW - there are 2 DC-5's on eBay right now.
The clean is incredible, the crunch ( although not switchable w/o a mod) is nice and bluesy and the lead channel.......****. You can also you the FS to kick in the EQ for more tonal variety. No shared tone controls is a beautiful thing and for the price, youwon't be disappointed. ( no, I'm not selling one on the bay. ;-)
Oh, did I say my DC-5 head is lighter to carry than my MKIII?
Check out the Harmony central reviews. With the extra cash, you could pick up a nice TC unit for effects.
Good luck.
The clean is incredible, the crunch ( although not switchable w/o a mod) is nice and bluesy and the lead channel.......****. You can also you the FS to kick in the EQ for more tonal variety. No shared tone controls is a beautiful thing and for the price, youwon't be disappointed. ( no, I'm not selling one on the bay. ;-)
Oh, did I say my DC-5 head is lighter to carry than my MKIII?
Check out the Harmony central reviews. With the extra cash, you could pick up a nice TC unit for effects.
Good luck.
