Help ! Should I buy a Mk III or a Mk IV ?

The Boogie Board

Help Support The Boogie Board:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Apologies if this has been asked before but I'm considering getting either a MkIII or a MkIV but can't decide between them. It seems to me that the MkIIIs are more revered for their tone while the MkIVs have a more Hi-Fi tone but are more versatile in terms of switching, control, etc.

Is this a fair assessment ? Can any MkIII tone be coaxed from a MkIV ?

It's interesting that on YouTube most of the MkIII videos are by guys playing blues, rock, pop, etc. with killer tones ranging from clean through edgey to fluid, while the MkIV videos are mostly by metal guys playing full-on distortion stuff. I don't really understand why this is.

What do the folks out there think ?

I should say I've been playing for 26-odd years and am playing covers ranging from country through funk, soul, pop to rock so I want this amp to cover a lot of ground. Thanks.
 
Hi! Well, i have a mark IV, and i just tell you that you can play ALL types of music...Pop, blues, jazz, rock, metal, and also death metal! (lamb of god use this amp :roll: ). Anyway, i don't like the mk III, it is less versatile...IMHO, you must buy the mk IV :D
 
I think for everything except really, really smooth ultra-high-gain soloing (the MkIII seems to always have a bit of aggressive bite unless you do crazy things with the EQ that will limit the overall usefulness of the tone) , the MkIII has better tones available and can probably do a better job of imitating other amps or giving you its own really great tones.

BUT... dialing in more than one killer and one okay tone at the same time on the MkIII is really hard. The MkIV just has more options that way. That's basically why it was created, AFAIK.

I would say that if you have to pull out a lot of different sounds in the same set, the MkIV is probably a better bet. I think the III can probably do any one sound as well or better than the IV but it can only do 'em one or *maybe* two at a time.
 
I tend to think the Mark III sounds better than the IV, but in a live situation, the IV is more versatile. The control layout on either isn't ideal, but the Mark III has a single shared tone control for all 3 channels, so if you need to dial in a few tones ahead of time, with a Mark III you'll have to sacrifice something. It can probably get all the sounds a Mark IV will get (and better sounding, IMO), but it's just not as flexible on the fly. If it's for live use, I'd say Mark IV, for everything else, Mark III.
 
i prefer the mark 2 sound over both the mark 3 and the mark 4.

there are lots of opinions here...
 
gonzo said:
i prefer the mark 2 sound over both the mark 3 and the mark 4.

there are lots of opinions here...

And I prefer the sound of my Diezel. So what? The OP asked what people thought when comparing the Mark III and IV and most of us have offered something constructive.
 
and most of us have offered something constructive.

And so have i.

just because you don't agree with my opinion, does not make you the one in charge of judgement of worthy posts, now does it?

what a nazi you must be in real life!
LOL
 
gonzo said:
And so have i.

just because you don't agree with my opinion, does not make you the one in charge of judgement of worthy posts, now does it?

what a nazi you must be in real life!
LOL

Well, seeing as though the OP would have to spend probably twice as much on a II and didn't ask about it, it doesn't seem to be constructive. Frankly, I do agree with your opinion, never said I didn't, just said it wasn't constructive to the point, which it wasn't since the OP said absolutely nothing about a II. If stating my opnion makes me a nazi, I guess that would fall on you as well, since that's all you claim you did. I also didn't make an assumption on your post as you did on mine (that I didn't agree with you, when I actually do). Granted, I never stated that clearly, but you assumed I thought you were wrong when I said no such thing. I just said it wasn't constructive to the point.
 
You're really going to have to try them yourself. I used to have a MKIII, but I sold it for a MKIV. IMO, the MKIV can do everything that a MKIII can do. Not only that, but I couldn't stand the shared EQ on the MKIII. That's one of the places that the MKIV shines. In addition, the MKIV pedalboard can't be beat.

MKIV all the way!
 
You really, really need to try them both out. They both have their plusses and minuses (like every amp). I tested both out and found the III to give ME the sounds *I* was looking for. I loved the IV for all it's switching, modes, and beautiful compressed sound. But I didn't need that much versatility, so all of that stuff was pretty much useless for me. The tone I got out of the Blue Stripe III was exactly what I was searching for (glassy, open, vibrant cleans, and less compressed, more classic, brownish lead). For *ME*, I just kept liking the III's tone more every time I plugged into it. I could not duplicate on the IV. You might be after something totally different than I was. It's really up to what sounds good to your ears and what feels good while you're playing. Good luck in your search...both are superb!!
 
Thanks everyone for their opinions. This is really interesting, but I guess it just proves that opinions are diverse and I'll need to find out for myself. I have actually just this evening taken the plunge and bought a MkIV here in the UK as it was on at a good price so I figure I'll see how I get on with that for a while. I will need to try a MkIII when I get the chance though. Maybe I can save up for one of those and sell the amp I love least !
 

Latest posts

Back
Top