Mark III vs IV

[Vigo1999]

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

i think this pretty much summarize well what the III is capable of and their differences (and strongs and weaknesses). 8)

 

[rippingrudy]

People are saying "you can't go wrong with either amp" - I disagree. You can go VERY wrong if you buy a Mark III and think It'll get you Mark IV or Mark IIC+ "type" tones. My advice would be to try a Mark III before buying it because it has a very different voice.

Listen to "Diary of a Madman" by Ozzy - If you like that guitar tone buy a Mark III. It doesn't offer much flexability beyond that.

By the way, I owned a Mark III so I know of what I speak.

 

[user 2126]

People are saying "you can't go wrong with either amp" - I disagree. You can go VERY wrong if you buy a Mark III and think It'll get you Mark IV or Mark IIC+ "type" tones. My advice would be to try a Mark III before buying it because it has a very different voice.

Listen to "Diary of a Madman" by Ozzy - If you like that guitar tone buy a Mark III. It doesn't offer much flexability beyond that.

By the way, I owned a Mark III so I know of what I speak.

I can't believe what you write, I as can see you don't know how to tweek a amp the Mark III is more versatile than Diary tone, anyway forget it.

 

[Schmoog]

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 III has an awesome tone to it, but theres almost no compression in it anywhere. the mark IV is more compressed (not as much as say, the rectos, but still pretty compressed) so things like gain, presence, volume controls, and pick attack are a lot more forgiving. with the mark III you really need to play the amp to get the sound you want. I use R1 as both my clean and crunch tones, R2 (once I get the R2 mod for volume control) will be my main rhythm tone, and LD will be well, lead. a lot of times with my settings anyways, the difference between not enough gain, and plenty of gain is how hard I pick. and this applies even to the lead channel. as far as the IV goes, I actually prefer the lead of the III to the IV. the III is much less compressed, and less buzzy. if you have a fizzy mark III, turn down the presence and it can go away. the IV is much more likely to be fizzy/buzzy. also the lead of the III is less compressed, so it comes across punchier, bolder, and much more raw. when I play with my band, its basically straight raw hard rock. so I like the raw boldness of the III

 

[Vigo1999]

People are saying "you can't go wrong with either amp" - I disagree. You can go VERY wrong if you buy a Mark III and think It'll get you Mark IV or Mark IIC+ "type" tones. My advice would be to try a Mark III before buying it because it has a very different voice.

Listen to "Diary of a Madman" by Ozzy - If you like that guitar tone buy a Mark III. It doesn't offer much flexability beyond that.

By the way, I owned a Mark III so I know of what I speak.

thanks God we live in a democratic world (well, most of it) and each one can have your own opinion . . .

 

[6L6C]

Forgot to mention in my post a few above this one
Although I am an IV owner and have had my hands on an III a few times I think what does it for me is the III’s dynamics as Schmoog & vcamargo99, have basically said. I love the way an III respond’s to your picking! The IV is allot more forgiving which is one reason I believe allot of people seem to lean towards the IV. (Not meaning to piss anybody off) it’s not meant to be a shot towards anybody’s skills.

BTW thanks vcamargo99!

 

[JacksonUSA]

I forgot to mention but I play a Washburn Culprit guitar ... basswood/mahogany ... and I changed the bridge pickup for a Suhr SSH+ and Randall Warhead cab with vintage 30s. I've owned an ENGL Fireball, Mesa Dual rectifier 2 channel, JCM 800, Randall RH200 SC, Peavey 5150, XXX, ADA MP-1/Peavey Classic 60/60 and some other stuff

there's things I liked about all the amps and things I disliked also. I'm after something in the style of John Petrucci/Metallica/Symphony X/Satch

I'd like to have a clean channel that can take pedals so I can have some sort of Satch like lead tone from Super Colossal. Also a rythm/lead tone like Kiko in this vid

http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/JacksonRR5/?action=view&current=Kiko-1.flv

and if possible a heavy rythm like Metallica or Train of Thought kinda thing but if I can get pretty close to Kiko's tone in this vid I'd be mighty happy with just that hehe

 

[phyrexia]

I want to add that I for the price of a new IV, I could buy four IIIs for what I paid for them.

 

[Bullen]

I´ve had 2 Mark IV´s and now I have a fully loaded red stripe Mark III.

I don´t know why some people bash the III so much. It´s a great amp, and although the controls are shared and it´s not as instantly versatile as the Mark IV, the tones are definatly there. The lead ch has a great, sustaining and organic sound, that sounds really sweet and sustaining when the presence is set low. It´s a bit thinner in the mids than the IV, so I feel that the IV has more weight behind the notes, which makes it feel bigger. But for heavy, aggressive stuff the III is amazing, more highs and lows than the IV and a slightly more vintage high gain vibe.

Contrary to what some have said, I think my Mark III sounds closer to the IIC+ than my old IV´s did. At least that´s what I found when I had the chance to A/B my III with a 100w IIC+. There´s some differences, but they had the same aggressive yet sweet tone. My Mark IV´s were darker and smoother than either the IIC+ I tried or my III.

I really love the tones of both the III and IV. They do sound a bit different, I prefer the III for heavy, aggressive stuff and the IV for leads and clean. I´m getting a new Mark IV this summer, then I´ll be happy.

 

[rippingrudy]

I want to add that I for the price of a new IV, I could buy four IIIs for what I paid for them.

Wonder what the reason is for that?

 

[rippingrudy]

Glad to see that people love the Mark III so much that they take it as a personal attack when someone doesn't like it. LOL

I looooove the comment about the Mark IV being "fizzy and buzzy". The guy who said that must LOVE 5150s for their agressive, smooth tone

 

[visualrocker69]

Thats cuz SOME people aren't trying to be even remotely fair when comparing them. They're just bashing the Mark III. How does that help someone who's deciding between the two? REALLY?

 

[Bullen]

You must have played a really bad Mark III, since you seem to hate it so much.

I´ve played a my share of boogie amps through the years and my Mark III is one of the best I´ve tried or owned. Sure, there some things that the IIC+ and the IV does better, and the III can be a little buzzy and fizzy at some settings, but when cranked up a bit it goes away and with the presence set low it´s very smooth. The Mark III has it´s own tone and in my opinion it´s a good one. I love the raw, aggressive vibe the III has, that the Mark IV can´t really get, especially for rhythms.

I will never sell mine, it´s perfect for what it is.

 

[Buddy]

The mark III is one of the finest amps in the world . You would be hard pressed to find an amp as toneful and well made .
It screams , it purrs , it can damage your hearing .
It can attract police (and admirers ) from a mile away .
Try one with several different guitars if you can .
You may be glad you did .

As for the mk IV , it sounds great too , different and with more knobs than the space shuttle .
Its like comparing Ales and Lagers .

 

[Restless Rocks]

I've played (and loved) my mark III (modded to the max) on literally thousands of shows since I got it in 1986. And today I decided to break out my vintage 12AX7's. I put a telephunken smooth plate in V1 a british made GE in V2 an Amperex in the V3 lead spot and a NOS sylvania in the phase inverter and even with a set of ready to be changed Sovtec 5881's in the output I found again why this ole girl will never loose status as my main amp. Finally several people today have acknowledged the power of the presence control hidden on the back and let me tell those who have not found the glory of R2 that a really great tube in the V2 spot makes all the difference.
I saw Warren Haynes last night with Gov't Mule play thru a Soldono and a Tone Tubby cab and I grinned all thru the show wishing I could let him have the chance to plug into a really great amp My Mark III

 

[rippingrudy]

I'm writing this for the guy who said "how can this help me decide which one to buy". Here is my opinion of the Mark III and the Mark IV. Again, I own a Mark IV now and have owned the Mark III, F-100, Stiletto and the single Recto.

Mark III Tone:

R1 - Awesome clean sound - one of the best I've ever played with. If you play clean or blues this amp is the ****.

R2 - Nice crunch sound but not enough gain to hit the sweet spot. Less gain then the JCM 800 and somewhat thin. Could be designed this way to cut through the mix - I don't know. You can get it fatter by engaging the EQ. You need an overdrive to get a modern crunch sound.

R3 - I hated this channel. It reminded me of a 5150 I owned years ago. It doesn't sound like the 5150 but it has that fizzy/buzzy gain thing going on that you can't dial out. It kind of reminded me of a Mesa F-100 I used to own.

Mark IV Tone:

R1 - Again, awesome clean sound but more compressed then the Mark III. The III is more "open" but both are really nice. The Mark IV is very clean, very precise with less "bloom". I think the Mark III might win this one.

R2 - Enough gain on tap to do a "Modded Marshall" sound. Just enough to cover most recent mid gain sounds. Can be dialed in to be very smooth and fat or to be very cutting - you have a choice.

R3 - Amazing high-gain lead sound without the EQ. Kick in the EQ and it hits the moon. This is one of the best guitar sounds I've ever heard.

I hope you make the right choice but I HIGHLY suggest that you try the Mark III before buying. These amps are not for everyone especially considering the shared EQ which will drive you nuts and make you sell it!

 

[Shep]

Everyone that say's the III has a fizzy/buzzy sound to it..Needs to put it on full power and the master on 3 ...


in a nice venue it's SO big and sweet.. ONE of the nicest amp's Around..

 

[Shep]

and don't forget your mesa Quad that sits under it..a 4x12 and a 2x12 recto cab's sound the best.

 

[trem]

the III is much less compressed, and less buzzy.

the IV is much more likely to be fizzy/buzzy.

I don't mean to be harsh, but have you even tried playing a Mark IV? If you have, then I think this is just a case of you not spending enough time dialing.

~trem

 

[trem]

Everyone that say's the III has a fizzy/buzzy sound to it..Needs to put it on full power and the master on 3 ...

Yeah, I agree with you. Of course, the presence would still have to be at 0-1.

~trem