Tonal differences between the MK III and IV

[dave-o]

Im a mesa noob, I have a single recto but Im looking for a tighter dist sound. Im just looking for a good clean and bone crushing lead channel. Id like a mk IV but they might be out of my price range a bit. How does the III stack up to the IV? Can I get a good clean and dist out of a III? Im in a very rural area and wont have a chance to try one before I buy.
Thanks!

 

[Nick_cor]

Hey Dave, The lead sound on the mark IV will blow the lead tone on the mark III away hands down. In comparison the mark IV is worth every penny, but the mark III can be bought fairly cheap right now. The mark III isn't a bad choice, it doesn't have as much gain as the recto does and there will be a learning curve to dialing in tones. Are you going to be buying a new amp head ? or selling your recto and buying a new one?

 

[trem]

Hi....

I disagree with Nick here. Tonewise, I think a Mark III can be every bit as good as a Mark IV, both clean and dirty. Although more or less similar, Mark III sounds rawer, which to some might be perceived as more gain. The powerful presence knob can be used to tame this.

The downside is that, due to the shared control, you can't dial in the three channel of the Mark III to sound good at the same time. I think most guys are using them as a two channel amp, which is what you're after anyway. That said, I have yet to find a sound that I like from channel 2 of my Mark IV, so it's practically a 2 channel amp right now.

Mark IV has a separate eq, better reverb, even more switches, and higher resale value. That's it. If you decide to get a Mark III, look for the red or green stripe, with simul-class and graphic eq. Nevermind the reverb. Good luck.

~trem

 

[vcamargo99]

Funny...I preferred the III's lead channel better (blue stripe). Both were very similar (as in Outstanding!), but the III's "bigger/fatter/more open" and rawer sound are what made me buy it. EQ on the III is essential IMO. I get what I feel are a great clean and lead channel. I can also get a great R2 channel, but I sacrifice it for sake of versatility and use a pedal to add the missing "crunch" channel. Lead channel is simply wonderful if you play lead guitar. I don't come close to using the III's maximum gain either.

TONAL differences "I" noticed:
IV had a tighter sound (lead).
III had slightly more gain and bass and messing with the presence knob added brightness and edginess.

My background is more "Marshall" than anything else and I think the III got me closer to what I feel more comfortable/confident with, but WAY BETTER!!

Try the III out if you can and see if you like it more than the Recto. You just might stick with what you have now...after all, it's another excellent Mesa amp.
Your mileage may vary. Peace.

 

[Nick_cor]

Hey, I owned both ampsat one time and for me, i liked the mk iv somewhat better because the cleans were cleaner and the lead channel was better IMO. the lead channel has tons of gain, enough for metal players and it made a great blues tone. The rhythm 2 on the mark IV is useless IMO, the only thing you cna use it for is an alternate clean, or a bluesy tone. It doesnt' have enough gain to pull off a decent rhythm tone. So if you feed something in the signal and tap on the fx loop then you can have an alternate to having a useles ryhtm 2. Same goes for the mark III , it's all shared , have fun finding a great clean , lead and rhythm tone with the same settings. and unlike the mk IV with the fx loop you cannot feed somethign into and tap off the fx loop this, anyways, the mark III s presence knob like stated, is very strong, it's the bridge from a harsh sound to a smooth sound... The only way for you to decide which one you'll like is to try them or ask someone to do an unbiased report for ya!

 

[screamingdaisy]

Im a mesa noob, I have a single recto but Im looking for a tighter dist sound. Im just looking for a good clean and bone crushing lead channel. Id like a mk IV but they might be out of my price range a bit. How does the III stack up to the IV? Can I get a good clean and dist out of a III? Im in a very rural area and wont have a chance to try one before I buy.
Thanks!

The Mark III has a much better clean sound than the Recto but I wouldn't call it's dirt any tighter. I actually find it to be fatter and looser sounding than the Recto unless you're willing to scoop your mids.

Unlike the others I seem to be able to use all three channels in mine, but I don't use mine in a conventional fashion.....I tend to run the master up and leave the gain low, so my clean channel is more of an overdrive channel which makes R2 sound more like a Marshall than it would if used more conventionally (gain higher than master).

The lead channel is sweet. I always found my Recto's lead tone to feel pretty stiff.....the Mark III has more 'butter' to it and you can tailor it's smoothness quite a bit with the presence knob.

One complaint I have for both the Mark III and IV is that they would really benefit from a second lead channel. I mean, hardly anyone uses R2 anyway, but alot of people use a scooped LD for for their rhythm tone.....it sure would be nice to have a second LD channel to use for leads.

 

[musicman10_1]

It is not funny how much time I have spent trying to dial in a good rhythm tone on R2 of my MKIV. That channel is just a mystery to me. R1 and R3 are awesome - R2 . . .

 

[jamme61]

It is not funny how much time I have spent trying to dial in a good rhythm tone on R2 of my MKIV. That channel is just a mystery to me. R1 and R3 are awesome - R2 . . .

I have the same problem, with R2. I'm new, only two gigs, butr2 drove me crazy, most of the night. I found as the night went on, r2 got more ok, but I realy think it was my ears just getting use to the sound. If the amp didn't have 1 and 3, I would have sold it already.

 

[Nick_cor]

That's why I wanna get a studio to substitute for my rhythm 2! but I'm broke ***!

 

[Melodyman]

My Mark IV is way tighter than the 2 and 3 channel Dual Rectifiers I used to have. The Mark IV won't get in your way if you play fast runs and need a quick response time.

Like most others experience with R2 I hated it at first. But in the 6 years I've had the Mark IV it kind of grew on me.

I was trying to force R2 to be something it wasn't (Marshallesque crunch). It's a great dirty blues tone, sort of an extension of the clean channel with some dirt added.

Lately at jams I've used R2 for sections of songs where just a light overdrive was needed but still sounding clear on complex chords and it worked well for this purpose.

Using a clean boost pedal on R2 can help to make it more of an alternative dirty rhythm that alot of players want out of it.

 

[jamme61]

that's my problem with R2, I wanted a Marshall type crunch for most of my rythm stuf. The best I got was going low on the gain setting. To my ear there's something really nasty about R2. Does mesa use diodes to create the crunch on R2? That's what it sounds like to me. If they do, I'll never get what I want from R2 IMHO.