JacksonUSA
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 0
what are the most notable differences between the 2 amps ?
Mark III vs IV
- Thread starter JacksonUSA
- Start date
Help Support The Boogie Board:
rippingrudy
Well-known member
Mark III has more "buzzy/fizzy" distortion on the lead channel. The R2 is very bright with not enough gain and the clean channel is really nice.
The Mark IV lead channel can sound like Metallica/Dream Theater - it's one of the best sounds EVER. From what I understand, it can get a similar sound to the IIC+.
R2 is fucking awesome for everything from blues to 80's metal. The clean is really, really nice.
I've owned both and sold my Mark III two weeks after buying it. The Mark IV will NEVER leave.
The Mark IV lead channel can sound like Metallica/Dream Theater - it's one of the best sounds EVER. From what I understand, it can get a similar sound to the IIC+.
R2 is fucking awesome for everything from blues to 80's metal. The clean is really, really nice.
I've owned both and sold my Mark III two weeks after buying it. The Mark IV will NEVER leave.
JacksonUSA
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 0
good
I've been looking at Mark amps lately and I was wondering if there's was much of a difference between the 2
and btw, did you get yours in Canada ? I'd love to find a IV up here so I could save up on border fees and other crap
I've been looking at Mark amps lately and I was wondering if there's was much of a difference between the 2
and btw, did you get yours in Canada ? I'd love to find a IV up here so I could save up on border fees and other crap
jerseydrew
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2005
- Messages
- 352
- Reaction score
- 0
I used to have a MkIII. I sold it and now have a MkIV. Much, much better. 3 usable channels and better footswitch.
stevehollx
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2007
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 1
I've got a III and a IV is coming on the way. I expect to unload the III shortly after, as long as the IV does what I liked about the III.
Having the shared gain on the III is really frustrating. It also makes using something in the FX loop hard since the levels on clean and dirty are way different. Having a G-Major, it is really picky about the signal strength it receives. It wants a really hot signal in, and I can't provide that with the way this amp is designed unless I want the clean channel to clip. And R2 is virtually useless on that amp. But regardless, its got that Boogie Mark tone that just rips.
If you are just looking for a diry channel amp, go with the III. It can do cleans okay if you don't have hot pickups, and roll the volume down to around 6. If you want two GOOD tones on the fly, and a potentially usuable crunch channel, go with the IV. I think the loop being footswitchable on the IV is a big plus (since my G-Major runs the signal through the DACs even in bypass).
Having the shared gain on the III is really frustrating. It also makes using something in the FX loop hard since the levels on clean and dirty are way different. Having a G-Major, it is really picky about the signal strength it receives. It wants a really hot signal in, and I can't provide that with the way this amp is designed unless I want the clean channel to clip. And R2 is virtually useless on that amp. But regardless, its got that Boogie Mark tone that just rips.
If you are just looking for a diry channel amp, go with the III. It can do cleans okay if you don't have hot pickups, and roll the volume down to around 6. If you want two GOOD tones on the fly, and a potentially usuable crunch channel, go with the IV. I think the loop being footswitchable on the IV is a big plus (since my G-Major runs the signal through the DACs even in bypass).
phyrexia
Well-known member
Lot of III haters here.
The IV is more versatile but isn't necessarily better sounding. I can get a good sound out of all three channels on the III, but it's easier to get two really good sounds.
I have to disagree about the R2 comments too - I like it.
I played a IV a bunch and I own my III. If I got a IV I think I'd keep the III.
The IV is more versatile but isn't necessarily better sounding. I can get a good sound out of all three channels on the III, but it's easier to get two really good sounds.
I have to disagree about the R2 comments too - I like it.
I played a IV a bunch and I own my III. If I got a IV I think I'd keep the III.
How can you hate a mesa product anyway My Mark III is the ****, the best amps. I played with a lot of amps and my Mesa own all of them period. The only not so negative thing with the III is the sharing chanels. Anyway try one I am pretty shure that you would buy one.
Win what. We are talking about what are the most notable differences between the 2 amps and why you prefer one rather than the other a lot of people here like the III more than the complicated IV so it really a matter of taste.
Shep
Well-known member
the mk IV is smoother, but the mk III is bigger/tighter, mk IV has so many feature's for live playing, the mk III is a studio amp but will sound awsome good live for single channel settings..
rippingrudy
Well-known member
I just want to point out that the Mark III sounds VASTLY different from the Mark IV. They are two totally different animals except for the clean channel.
The Mark IV is what you want if you are after that Metallica IIC+ sound but don't have $3000 to buy a IIC+.
The Mark III is total over-the-top buzzy/fizzy distortion on the gain channel.
JP from Dream Theater can use any amp he wants. Why do you think he's using the Mark IV? Because it's the BEST - That is why no professionals use the Mark III... I think the III was an experiment on Mesa's part and the IV is the "masterpiece".
The Mark IV is what you want if you are after that Metallica IIC+ sound but don't have $3000 to buy a IIC+.
The Mark III is total over-the-top buzzy/fizzy distortion on the gain channel.
JP from Dream Theater can use any amp he wants. Why do you think he's using the Mark IV? Because it's the BEST - That is why no professionals use the Mark III... I think the III was an experiment on Mesa's part and the IV is the "masterpiece".
The Mark III an experiment what is that quote I can't beleive it the III is a killer don't sound fizzy at all if you know how to tweek it oh and the IV can sound very awefull if you don't know how to use it too. What the point with that quote. Between all the amps that i play with to date the III is the winner. IT A MATTER OF TASTE.rippingrudy said:
Just to mention that Marco Sfogli use a Mark III on Labrie's EoP and it sound awesome.
Zoner
Well-known member
[/quote]JP from Dream Theater can use any amp he wants. Why do you think he's using the Mark IV? Because it's the BEST - That is why no professionals use the Mark III... I think the III was an experiment on Mesa's part and the IV is the "masterpiece".[/quote]
Sorry, but lets amend that a bit shall we? JP can use whatever he wants but uses the MkIV (not necessarily a stocker either) because it works best for HIM. Plus, he has been using a Lonestar in tandem, so I assume there is something his MkIV doesn't do well enough for him that makes the Lonestar a part of his rig. I have played professionally, had a MkIII and MkIV, and went with my MKIII live because the MkIV was too complicated to dial in for most rooms - too many options. I always second guessed myself and wound up tying myself in knots thinking another tweak would get me there. Plus my green stripe MkIII had a much better, deeper, and more complex clean sound and seemed to have more clarity when playing complex chords with mucho distortion. R2 with a TS-10 was a KILLER chunky rythmn sound and I got it with one stomp of a button using a Radial Loopbone. The MkIV sounded sterile by comparison - lacking depth or something intangible but bothersome enough for me to dump it. I didn't want to work so hard when my MkIII got me there with minimal fuss. As a three channel amp, the MkIII missed the mark somewhat, and most of the compromises where addressed by the MkIV, but the MKIII stands proudly on its own merit and is seeming to rise in popularity if the used market is any indication. I admit the MkIV is generally smoother (or can be if desired) in high-gain modes, but it also doesn't have that percussive, brutal attack like the MkIII, at least not in my experience. The MkIII has a certain edgy, unrefined, and kinda scary/dangerous side that I don't think carried over to the somewhat more polite MkIV. Or maybe my MkIV was just a POS. I don't mean to sound crabby, but I tire of the "Nobody cool plays one so it sucks" mentality. Different flavors, man, that's all. Z
Sorry, but lets amend that a bit shall we? JP can use whatever he wants but uses the MkIV (not necessarily a stocker either) because it works best for HIM. Plus, he has been using a Lonestar in tandem, so I assume there is something his MkIV doesn't do well enough for him that makes the Lonestar a part of his rig. I have played professionally, had a MkIII and MkIV, and went with my MKIII live because the MkIV was too complicated to dial in for most rooms - too many options. I always second guessed myself and wound up tying myself in knots thinking another tweak would get me there. Plus my green stripe MkIII had a much better, deeper, and more complex clean sound and seemed to have more clarity when playing complex chords with mucho distortion. R2 with a TS-10 was a KILLER chunky rythmn sound and I got it with one stomp of a button using a Radial Loopbone. The MkIV sounded sterile by comparison - lacking depth or something intangible but bothersome enough for me to dump it. I didn't want to work so hard when my MkIII got me there with minimal fuss. As a three channel amp, the MkIII missed the mark somewhat, and most of the compromises where addressed by the MkIV, but the MKIII stands proudly on its own merit and is seeming to rise in popularity if the used market is any indication. I admit the MkIV is generally smoother (or can be if desired) in high-gain modes, but it also doesn't have that percussive, brutal attack like the MkIII, at least not in my experience. The MkIII has a certain edgy, unrefined, and kinda scary/dangerous side that I don't think carried over to the somewhat more polite MkIV. Or maybe my MkIV was just a POS. I don't mean to sound crabby, but I tire of the "Nobody cool plays one so it sucks" mentality. Different flavors, man, that's all. Z
boogietone
Well-known member
I love my MKIII. I can get an awesome clean and killer lead! Just not at the same time. I will be getting another amp soon. Possibly a MKIV or another MKIII and use it for cleans. If I do get a IV, I can almost guarantee the MKIII will be used for leads and heavy rythym. It sounds amazing! That said, the only Mesa I've ever played through is my MKIII so I can't speak for other Mesa amps. The III's shared EQ is my biggest complaint.
Shep said:
I have to somewhat agree with this. A mark IV is more compressed than a mark III, but not in a bad way at all. A mark III has this top end edge (fizz/buzz to some), but it can be dialed out using the presence control (which is VERY powerful). I think tonally both amps are similar. Although I prefer the mark IV, I think both amps are great.
Mark III has a so-so reverb and shared controls. Mark IV has a better clean channel, and much better versatility for live playing. Plus, it has a better resale value.
I brought up this topic ages ago, and you can find it here:
http://forum.grailtone.com/viewtopic.php?t=6130
My suggestion, try both. Again, I love my mark IV, but you really can't go wrong with either.
~trem
Zoner
Well-known member
trem A mark III has this top end edge (fizz/buzz to some) said:
6L6C
Well-known member
I agree with darkirish completely matter of taste! If either amp is sitting in front of me I’m happy. I’m a Mark IV B owner but have had my hands on a Mark III from time to time. Both great sounding! And at times running through my head “I wish the III had some of the properties of the IV” and also “I wish the IV had some of the properties of the III”darkirish said:
I find the shared controls with the III a little frustrating I don’t even like the two shared controls on the IV (bass/mid for R1 & R2) I’m picky I like full control!
But at the end of the day it’s what is coming out the speakers and they both win
vcamargo99
Well-known member
Well put 6l6C. How can you lose with either one. I chose the III over the IV. I had a IV for a week (to test out) and loved it. I was ready to buy it. Then tested the III and knew (tonally) right away that it was the amp for me. It suited MY style of playing more. The IV was easier to get that beautiful chuga-chuga compressed/tight tone. And did it have some sweet clean and semi clean tones. It did everything wonderfully. If I could've bought both I would have. With the III, I was able to get closer to the hot rodded classic Marshall tones of EVH and Randy Rhodes, and with Vol1 dialed up, get a pushed Bassman tone too. That's what I was looking for. For me the III is a TWO channel amp with capabilities (if you're willing to compromise tone a little) of adding a third. I use 2-3 OD pedals with the clean channel for varieties of OD tones (SRV, Stones, Thin Lizzy, etc). The IV can do these things too. I just liked the "openness" and "sag" of the III better. The III's presence control is essentially an EDGE control. If you like your distortion on the edgy side, dial the presence up, down for smooth. It also adds nice sparkle to the clean channel. By itself the IV is more versatile to me, but with good stompboxes, the III is more than capable. You really can't go wrong with either amp. They both sell quickly and retain their value, so picking one up and selling it if you don't like it shouldn't be too hard. Good luck in your quest!!
That's my $.02
That's my $.02
