Whats the deal w/ mark 3s?

[ChrisRocksUSA]

Do they have less gain than the II and IV? Less mojo?

I see people go nuts over the others, never see a big deal made over the 3. Also petrucci never used a 3, yet he's used just about all the other Mesa amps. They sell considerably cheaper than the others too.

I was thinking I picking one up bc they're so cheap compared to the others, but I also wonder what the reason behind that is. Can someone set me straight? Can I get those classic petrucci rhythm tones, as well as other hard rock sounds?

Thanks!

 

[MrMarkIII]

On this board, there are over 1854 pages containing 27, 810 posts on the Mark III, the great majority quite favorable, and some making a big deal, indeed.
Every Mesa model has its fans and detractors. There's lots of so-called "facts" on the interwebs, such as "Mesa amps are difficult to dial in".
Nearly any Mesa model will garner such real or imaginary complaints, and, when two random people agree on anything, well, it must be true, because you read it on the interwebs.
I've personally owned LoneStars, Mavericks, Stilettos, Mark IVs, and Mark IIIs.
The Mark III works for me. For nearly 30 years.
Might not work for you.
By the way, Hendrix never used a Mark III, either.
I don't hold it against him.

 

[GD_NC]

Mark III is a killer amp. It's key weakness is the abililty to balance the voulme between three channels. (Easily fixed with the "volume" mod.) and shared tone controls. It requires you to make tradeoffs between channels. The IV was the evolution that largely resolved these two issue and tossed in all the MKIII options just for fun.

...and the V takes it to the next level.

 

[ChrisRocksUSA]

wait, no independent eq for each channel?

 

[Whoopysnorp]

Yeah, all three channels share a tone stack. Of course, on models with the graphic EQ, you can set it to only engage on the lead mode, and thereby achieve a different sound for your lead mode. And of course you have bright switches for the rhythm and lead modes. Overall though, I would say the balancing act involved in dialing in a good sound in all three modes is the main reason IIIs tend to go for cheaper than their siblings. As far as build quality and tone go, though, they are up there with any other Mark series amp. In terms of gain, the IIIs have more than the IIs did, and are probably about on par with the IVs (I can't comment on that personally). They are generally agreed to be the most aggressive and raw of all the Mark series amps, with the possible exception of the extreme mode on the V.

 

[mesaboogie6L6]

Mesa Mark III Coliseum is the king of the Mark's, IMO...........

 

[topalchohol]

III's are supposed to have the most gain of the Mark series. The only amp I've played with more is the 5150 II I used to own. Just like that amp, I don't use all the available gain as it starts to lose definition. I like my Mark III best of these amps I've owned: Marshall Vintage Modern, Peavey XXX and 5150 II, Carvin X100b (original fuzzy carpet el34 and my 2nd favorite to the Mk III), Fender Blues Jr., Jet City JCA100, Randall Rg100ES, and last and certainly least, Crate Blue Doodoo. The only other amps I desire are Splawn Quickrod, which my bud has and is amazing when cranked, and a Rockstah Mod5. The MkIII when paired with my Radial Hot british can cover every tone of the Amps I have owned. Mine is a purple stripe. :twisted:

 

[SonicProvocateur]

Rumors to easily dispell:
a) Petrucci did in fact use a Mark III. It was during the Majesty years. There are a few pics laying around here and there, but I didn't save them when I had a chance. He switched to IIC+'s for recording and live for "his sound." He also played BC Rich guitars too before Ibanez during that time.
b) Metallica used Mark III's too: most infamously on the Black album - the one many metal artists clamor to recreate (mainly because of the fact they used pretty much every high gain Mesa Mark on hand and the triaxis and used the "throwing spaghetti at the wall" recording technique.) There are many very other noteworthy Mark III users including Soundgarden, Sonic Youth, NOFX, Jennifer Batten (ex Michael Jackson), and tons of others...
c) No, the Mark III doesn't have independant EQ. Neither does the IIC+. The Mark V really was the first mark to have independant EVERYTHING mainly because 1) Randall Smith himself who is a next level perfectionist and 2) all of us here who are next level perfectionists.
d) The balancing act isn't terribly difficult, but for "point and shoot" amp enthusiasts coming off Marshalls and Fenders, Boogies are a new beast and a new tone world.
e) The III barely has more gain than the other amps, and by barely I mean it can get rough around the edges and engage complete beast mode. It's been compared to a Ferrari versus a top fuel drag car. All the Marks are very extremely versatile amps with similar tonal ranges. Less mojo?? Nooo, not at all!

 

[Neptical]

What everyone else said. The Mark III is extremely versatile and can do all the sweet smooth sustain,chunk, and crystal cleans you want. The R2 mod helps to better balance the channels so I'd recommend it. And yes, Petrucci did at one point in his earlier years (before DT) use a Mark III. I've also seen the 'basement sessions' picture myself with the BC Rich as Sonic mentioned. Also- the Mark III is a popular discussion around here, and I'd say even more then the IV..and probably just as much as the IIC+. So, that should tell you something about the amp from the get-go.

 

[MrMarkIII]

... No, the Mark III doesn't have independent EQ. Neither does the IIC+...

+1.
If the "shared tone stack" is such a drawback, then why is the Mark IIC+, with the same disadvantages, considered the Holy Grail by many?
Separate EQs and separate channel volumes gives more versatility, but also means more complexity, more knobs to dial in, more volume controls to balance.
There are many more posts about these problems than the bummer of shared tone controls.

 

[gts]

... No, the Mark III doesn't have independent EQ. Neither does the IIC+...

+1.
If the "shared tone stack" is such a drawback, then why is the Mark IIC+, with the same disadvantages, considered the Holy Grail by many?

The main difference between the IIC+ and MkIII is not tone.
It's in the way the C+ responds to your playing.
You can lighten up your pick attack and the amp will clean up. You can dig in and it'll start to breakup and growl.
It's also more dynamic and responsive to changes in your guitars volume settings.
In my experience a MkIII does not respond this way.

For some the difference isn't an issue.
And for the price differential (MkIII ~$900-1100 vs a C+ ~$2500-3500) it's not worth putting out that much cash to experience the C+'s dynamics.

All Mark series amps have similar tonal qualities.

Steve Kimock worked at Mesa for a few years during the IIC+ era and for a few years of the Mark III era.
He played ALL the Mesa amps coming out of production before they got shipped off to the new owner.
(Fwiw [imho] he's a monster player.)
He has stated the best amp they ever put out was the fully loaded IIC+ with the Export tranny.
A similar statement has come from other notable employees at Mesa including Mike B.

But again it's not about tone as much as playing dynamics.

My story:
I have owned a Simul MkIII for 27+ years, bought it new direct from Mesa in 1985,
While a good amp something always felt missing.
I took a chance and bought a C+ based on the many reviews and comments I read here.
It was a huge risk to take.
But after getting it I stopped using the MKIII.
I'm lucky I had the cash to try one out.

You can't go wrong with either one. But you wont know til you try one out.
Mesa Mark series amps aren't for everyone. They have a voicing which is kind of strong in the lower mids.

 

[Whoopysnorp]

You can't go wrong with either one. But you wont know til you try one out.
Mesa Mark series amps aren't for everyone. They have a voicing which is kind of strong in the lower mids.

That's for sure. I like the voicing though--it keeps you from sounding like everybody else with their Marshalls (not that Marshalls aren't awesome too).

 

[JOEY B.]

... No, the Mark III doesn't have independent EQ. Neither does the IIC+...

+1.
If the "shared tone stack" is such a drawback, then why is the Mark IIC+, with the same disadvantages, considered the Holy Grail by many?
Separate EQs and separate channel volumes gives more versatility, but also means more complexity, more knobs to dial in, more volume controls to balance.
There are many more posts about these problems than the bummer of shared tone controls.

In my experiences, it is easier to deal with the shared tone controls when you only have a 2 channel amp. The more channels, the more compromises. That is where the Mark IV comes in. Less compromises, but MUCH more complexity in terms of tweaking your tone. So much complexity that it is really easy to "paint yourself into a corner" when dialing in a Mark IV.

 

[Rhoads]

+1 to all above :lol:

 

[Trey Blue]

The main difference between the IIC+ and MkIII is not tone.
It's in the way the C+ responds to your playing.
You can lighten up your pick attack and the amp will clean up. You can dig in and it'll start to breakup and growl.
It's also more dynamic and responsive to changes in your guitars volume settings.
In my experience a MkIII does not respond this way.

Interesting. The fact that my MkIII does respond this way is exactly why I love it so. I have only played through a friends IIC+ one time, but it was also amazing. I think I would be happy with either one.

 

[BrownieD2W]

Rumors to easily dispell:
b) Metallica used Mark III's too: most infamously on the Black album - the one many metal artists clamor to recreate (mainly because of the fact they used pretty much every high gain Mesa Mark on hand and the triaxis and used the "throwing spaghetti at the wall" recording technique.)

Never heard this before, Metallica using the Mark III for the Black Album.

All the research I have done always points to the IIC+ and an early version of the IV Mesa sent to them while recording the Black Album. I guess it must have been a prototype or one of the first models, seeing as how it was before the public release of the Amp. You can actually see the IV in the "Year and a Half in the Life Of" video, their tech Zack Harmon is carrying it and setting it up for a brief moment at some point in the film.

Anyway if they did use the Mark III that's an interesting bit of info.

 

[OamrG]

I like the III a lot more than I like the other Marks. Just the R2 mod is the only thing I could ask for.

 

[SonicProvocateur]

Never heard this before, Metallica using the Mark III for the Black Album.

I misspoke. They used IIC+'s and quads earlier on and Triaxis and IV's on the black album, you're right. They did the Master of Puppets tour with Mark III coliseums. Probably one of the most brutal amps on earth. Still; a whole lot of Mesa flying around the Metallica paddocks.

 

[-[NN]-forest89]

I misspoke. They used IIC+'s and quads earlier on and Triaxis and IV's on the black album, you're right. They did the Master of Puppets tour with Mark III coliseums. Probably one of the most brutal amps on earth. Still; a whole lot of Mesa flying around the Metallica paddocks.

The information on the Mark III's on the Master Tour is actually incorect. If you study pictures of the Master Of Puppets racks of James and Kirk, you will notice no pull function on the mid knob. Also, these IIC+ were not Colusium models, they were the rare wide-chasi models with a presence knob in place of the reverb knob. These wideheads are the famed Crunchberries. As you may have noticed, I do way to much research.

 

[dearlpitts]

-forest89"]

I misspoke. They used IIC+'s and quads earlier on and Triaxis and IV's on the black album, you're right. They did the Master of Puppets tour with Mark III coliseums. Probably one of the most brutal amps on earth. Still; a whole lot of Mesa flying around the Metallica paddocks.

The information on the Mark III's on the Master Tour is actually incorect. If you study pictures of the Master Of Puppets racks of James and Kirk, you will notice no pull function on the mid knob. Also, these IIC+ were not Colusium models, they were the rare wide-chasi models with a presence knob in place of the reverb knob. These wideheads are the famed Crunchberries. As you may have noticed, I do way to much research.

hey mine has the presence instead of the reverb knob is it a crunchberry?