I a/b'd my Mark III vs a Mark IV today

[edgecrusher]

A local shop has a Mark IV combo for $1250, and I very interested in picking it up, so I brought in my red stripe Mark III head to compare against it through a Marshall 1960 cab.

I think the IV must have had bad tubes, because it did not sound good at all. It had very little gain and saturation with the gain and drive knobs at 10, and it had this weird squonk to it. Plus it was super loud with the master volume at 0 (I turned it up a bit, but was was retarded loud, and bad sounding at that). I also noticed when I pulled the presence knob, the volume dropped significantly? Either way, I was very dissapointed. I've heard the III is more aggressive, but I didn't think the IV was weak sounding in comparison? Bad tubes I guess?

 

[EirikBrandal]

In fact, no Mark IV amp I've tried, sounded good the very first time. Don't know why, but my mark used several months to get good, and now it's better than ever.

It is however normal to get lower volume by pulling the prescense. But just be sure that the settings are: pentode, simul-class, harmonic, gain 8, drive 10, treble 7,5 area, bass 2, mids 3, and your pretty much good to go with a descent tone.

 

[SeasonOfPain]

I've found that the IV does sound more nasally than the III by its nature; I was in a band where I had a IV and the other guitarist had a III. I found it actually helps cut in a band situation. The IV also sounds smoother for leads.

However, the basic character between the III and IV shouldn't have differed that much. This is assuming you were auditioning them both through the same guitar and 1960 cab (the combo speaker will sound a lot more nasally). A V30 closed-back cab would sound even better... cab choice makes a big difference.

Another thing to check is whether the tubes on both amps are the same (EL-34's sound tighter but have less headroom than 6L6s).

Pulling the presence knob on the IV engages "pull shift", which removes a lot of the bass. It pretty much requires a complete re-EQ when you do this.

My settings are usually: pentode, simul-class, mid-gain; gain 8 (pulled), treble 8, bass 1, mids 4, drive 8, presence 6 (pushed), ch volume 3, master volume 2.5. EQ in a V-shape to taste (don't be afraid to scoop if that's the tone you want... the beast has plenty-o-mids).

 

[kiff]

It had very little gain and saturation with the gain and drive knobs at 10... it was super loud with the master volume at 0

both of those descriptions sound way off from what should happen. you should have a lot of gain w/ both on 10 (or even both on 7) and it shouldnt be very loud at all w/ master on 0...

 

[edgecrusher]

Yeah, compared to the III, the IV had about 1/3 less gain, but that must have been the combination of bad preamp tubes and the fact that I had to keep the master volume very low (though my III sounds great and plenty saturated at low volume levels, just not near as loud as this IV).

The combo also had a MC-90 speaker which I didn't think paired very well with the amp, but I only tried it briefly before plugging it into the Marshall cab.

How would you compare your IV to your III Kiff? I was thinking the portability of the IV combo as well as the ability to shape the sound of R2 would be nice, but after this comparison I more than happy with my III!

 

[CoG]

holy crap, man, maybe you should just try getting a smaller cab for your mkiii :lol:

a 4x12 with 4 EVMs? How much does that weigh?

I use a 2x12 and am totally happy with that...

 

[angelo]

There is no way a HEALTHY Mark IV with the gain on 10 has little saturation. Sickly little amp and not worth 1250 unless they retube it to show it is ok --- in my opinion.

Also, the master knob should work well. Pretty smooth transition of volume up to about 4 or 5 which is when it will start compressing more (in tweed and triode, anyway).

 

[kiff]

How would you compare your IV to your III Kiff?

Well, the m3 has been at the rehearsal place since the day I got it, and I only had about 1/2 hr to tweak it before we practiced. Also the m3 has the IIIC+ mod and is running simul w/ el34's + 6l6's while my m4 is pure 6l6's. I was focused on getting the tightest crunchy metal sound possible...

for both amps, the Low tone control needs to be set really low (I use 0) or they get muddy. moreso on the m3 I would say offhand. both have eq's so I dial it back in there...

The m3 has less gain/crunch, but I didn't max the m3's gain since it seemed to mud just a little.. but around 7 or so, it was super tight, more agressive and had a little more bite than the m4. It (m3) also has more of an open "airy" presence to it. Not sure if thats from the el34's or just the preamp viocing. Overall I like its tone a little more.

The m4, again, has more gain and seems a tad tighter with the gain set high (8's on drive&gain). the m4's compressed crunch really grabs single notes a lot better and it seems to have overall better dynamics for lead playing. The way I had the m3, it fell a bit short with the dynamics and grabbing ahold of single notes. I plan on trying a compressor with it, that should really make it shine for leads.

I really love both amps but I really need more time to learn the m3. Right now I'm more comfortable w/ the m4, but I'm sure I'll adapt to the m3 soon...

HTH's...

 

[edgecrusher]

holy crap, man, maybe you should just try getting a smaller cab for your mkiii :lol:

a 4x12 with 4 EVMs? How much does that weigh?

Well the EVM's are 25 each, plus the metal grill fully closed back cab, so around 150+ lbs. It's a friggin behemoth! I did pick up an Orange 212 cab last month so I could have a portable rig though, and it rocks! The EVM loaded cab does have earth shaking bass response though!