More Rectifier-ish - Mark III or IV?

[Anonymous]

Here's the thing, I love my Mark III but I'm gassing over a Rectifier right now. I love that certain crunch that they give and they aren't such an immediate explosion of sound that the Mark III is. But still, I'm not completely ready to give away my Mark III because it has something that the tons of albums you hear everyday (DR's) don't have. What would you say comes closer to the Rectifier crunch, the Mark III or Mark IV? I'm looking for the closest thing to a Rectifier that isn't a Rectifier itself, as I'm not really interested in sounding like everyone else (no offense rectifier users ). I play metal and I've listened to Lamb of God and never really dug their tone, but that's probably due to their settings. So really, which amp is more modern metal sounding, the Mark III or IV? By the way, I've always hated Metallica's tone and I believe they used Mark III's in the past, so don't mistake that sound with modern metal.

 

[scottcrud]

MKIV is more modern sounding and has less gain than a MKIII, and the MKIII's gain is more aggressive. In fact I think the whole MKIII is a more aggressive amp period. Just my opinion though.

 

[ToneAddictJon]

The Mark III is closer to the DR than the IV. IMO the Mark III is also more modern sounding than the IV. I've always thought of the III as a good middle ground between the IV and DR.

 

[Anonymous]

MKIV is more modern sounding and has less gain than a MKIII, and the MKIII's gain is more aggressive. In fact I think the whole MKIII is a more aggressive amp period. Just my opinion though.

I always hear that the Mark III is aggressive sounding, which it is, but aren't Rectifiers even more aggresive? If it is, then wouldn't that would put the Mark III closer to the Rectifier than the Mark IV?

 

[Anonymous]

The Mark III is closer to the DR than the IV. IMO the Mark III is also more modern sounding than the IV. I've always thought of the III as a good middle ground between the IV and DR.

Judging by the amps you've owned, I'd think you know what you're talking about as you've owned all 3 of them. So would you say that the Mark III does metal better (maybe not better, but you know what I mean) than the IV?

 

[ToneAddictJon]

Yes, I would say the III does "better" metal than the IV. I know exactly what you're asking, it's just hard to word it, something about the III that's much more in your face, where the IV is smoother.

 

[scottcrud]

I've owned 3 MKIII's I keep coming back to them. I've owned a 94 dual recto and a 2004 tri recto which sounded like ***. As well as a MKIV, DC-10, 3 Studio Pre's...and a .50 Cal+

I don't think a MKIII or MKIV sound anything like a Recto at all. The MKIV had a great clean channel and that was it but I only kept it for a week. I liked my 94 recto for a short period, but then went back to my .50 Cal+ which sounds amazing, but I don't like to gig with it anymore. Guess I'm not much help. The only amp setup I like more than my .50Cal+ or MKIII is a Studio Pre/2:90 set-up.

 

[MetalMatt]

I don't know if this will help but what the hell.

I don't own a Mark III, but the closest thing I have to it is my Quad pre. Which is based off of Mark IIc+ and Mark III. I have been playing the Quad pre through my Road Kings power section (2x6L6/2xEL34) for some time now and got to know its potential. Anyhoo, I compared them with the classic V scoop to both the Road King and Quad pre... Channel 3 Vintage with a OD in front and the presence turned up has a "Mark III" vibe to it. The Road King is not as tight as the Quad, but they both sound aggressive as hell. IMO there are similarities in the sound structure for sure. I have a feeling the Road Kings power section might be making the Quad sound more aggressive. Either way, The Quad ("Mark III") keeps up with the recto... I love them both.

 

[Anonymous]

So would you guys agree that the only thing that the Mark IV and Rectifiers have in common is the amount of compression? The Mark IV clips I hear sound like it's a more compressed amp than the Mark III, which has little to no compression at all. But the general structure to the Mark III, such as the aggressiveness, makes it closer to the Rectifier than the Mark IV, correct?

 

[scottcrud]

I'd agree with that, but believe it or not, the MKIII does have compression on the lead channel, not as much as a rectifier...

 

[bpm91]

Am I the only one who thinks some recto tones can be had through the GEQ on the Mark IV? Because I can. I would assume the Mark III would be close, but mine sadly does not have GEQ.

 

[Nick_cor]

Okay, well I'll tell you from experience because I've had both a mark III and a mark IV TWICE in my life and a recto only once. The mark III was aggressive and had lots of gain, but from a certain point on, it would turn real fizzy, but it became very very saturated and I think that's what you're looking for, because the rectos are known for that total saturated tone. The mark IV has lots of gain too but doesn't become fizzy, just more focused and therefore I think the mark III would be a step in the right direction, but than again, why don't you go try them out and see for yourself.

 

[Shep]

The best recto sound is....


Mk IV Lead

tweed ( loosen it up abit)
pull fat
pentode (more punch )
A class ( to keep it loose )
Big V
Sounds spot on...

 

[bpm91]

The best recto sound is....


Mk IV Lead

tweed ( loosen it up abit)
pull fat
pentode (more punch )
A class ( to keep it loose )
Big V
Sounds spot on...

+1. This is what I do. It has the presence and huge punch of a recto with the clarity and tight sound of the Mark IV.

 

[phyrexia]

Am I the only one who thinks some recto tones can be had through the GEQ on the Mark IV? Because I can. I would assume the Mark III would be close, but mine sadly does not have GEQ.

Marks are too tight. You can EQ more bass but you can't EQ the looseness that a Recto has IMO.

Even if you try the settings listed, I think it still sounds like a Mark.

 

[mrd]

If you're just going for "recto-ish" as in similar to a recto, then yeah, what has been posted will get you in recto territory in terms of, perhaps, the sound. However, like phyrexia mentioned, the feel will be different. Recto's have that signature sag and thundering low-end that somehow just isn't there on a Mark.

But, if you are happy with "close-enough", you should be able to get there.

 

[Anonymous]

I know that the Mark will always sound different than a Rectifier, that's the point. I don't want to sound like a Rectifier, I just wanted to know which sounded more modern like the Rectifier, the Mark III or Mark IV. I'm in love with the Mark sound, I was just trying to figure out which one would fit my genre of music better (alternative metal), which you guys have already answered is the Mark III. I guess I really should try a Rectifier some day just to see how versatile they are (not a one trick pony).

 

[ramalam]

Neither is very close at all to my ears.

 

[JOEY B.]

This is as thundering as it gets from a MkIII .

 

[Dr. Tweedbucket]

The only DR that I thought was any good was the original 2 ch early heads. The pre 500 92 thing IMO is hyped .... I had one and I had a later 2 channel that sounded every bit as good. The problem came with the 3 channel DR. That fizzy ch 3 modern made me want to stab the amp with my guitar .... I just put up with it until I sold it.

The MK III IMO has a way better sounding overdrive than any DR ever had. Much smoother and lots of sustain without being buzzy. Something went wrong with the DR series .... and the fizz continues to this day with the ultra thin sounding Stiletto series amps :shock: .... but that's a whole other can of worms. :evil: