Why does the Mark III get less respect than the IV or V?

[mightywarlock]

Just wondering, when people always have good things to say about the Mark III, why it always seems to be the one Mark amp that is now forgotten?

Everyone always says they are brutal amps, but it seems like they get skipped over. Just look at the V, it has Mark I, IIc+, and IV modes. nothing for III. Why? Was the tone really that different?

I remember playing with someone who had one many years ago, and his tone was always very heavy...but does the IV/V really outshine the III that much?

please try to give some insight into this...

thanks!

 

[cremona]

Good questian.

I think its because boogie think that the move from IIC+ to mk 3 was a move in the wrong direction, not that a mk3 dossent sound great but it seems that the guitar sound trendseters of the time chose the former design.

I have never played a mk4 , but it seems that it had alot of options and a really good layout for creating more sounds on tap then the mk3 and mk2 and there for a better choice then the mk3, if you didddent wanted the c+ sound.

The Quad pre with a 295 simul i had is a mk3 pre and a IIc in one , the sound is very diffrent , the IIc is more focused and less fuzzy , but more analog.


James hetfield have been quated in guitar player when the recorded the black album that the tried a whole world of different amps but like on the other formers albums the ended up using old Mk2c+ simul and is the main part of the sound, but the did use the mk4 for for some minor stuff.

But seriously if you pluck you guitar into a amp and it blows you away thats all that really matters.

SOme people think we C+ entusiasts are crazy and that the c+ really dossent sound that good at all, but when i play it and blows me away and puts a huge simle on my face away almost everytime i play it , thats all that matters for me.

 

[EleventhHour2139]

Good questian.

I think its because boogie think that the move from IIC+ to mk 3 was a move in the wrong direction, not that a mk3 dossent sound great but it seems that the guitar sound trendseters of the time chose the former design.

I have never played a mk4 , but it seems that it had alot of options and a really good layout for creating more sounds on tap then the mk3 and mk2 and there for a better choice then the mk3, if you didddent wanted the c+ sound.

The Quad pre with a 295 simul i had is a mk3 pre and a IIc in one , the sound is very diffrent , the IIc is more focused and less fuzzy , but more analog.


James hetfield have been quated in guitar player when the recorded the black album that the tried a whole world of different amps but like on the other formers albums the ended up using old Mk2c+ simul and is the main part of the sound, but the did use the mk4 for for some minor stuff.

But seriously if you pluck you guitar into a amp and it blows you away thats all that really matters.

SOme people think we C+ entusiasts are crazy and that the c+ really dossent sound that good at all, but when i play it and blows me away and puts a huge simle on my face away almost everytime i play it , thats all that matters for me.

Good points there, especially the one in bold. I think the III just had the unfortunate timing of being sandwiched between two of Mesa's most popular amps.

That being said, I like that about it. Keeps the prices down and the "sleeper effect" going. 8)

But I have never received any lack of respect from ANY guitarist I have jammed with, even though they may not know that it is a III. Now that I think about it, it's like looking down on someone for owning an older Ferrari or Lamborghini. It's still a freaking Ferrari or Lambo! :lol:

Publicity-wise it may be the underdog, but that isn't really a reason for it to be looked down upon.

Was the tone really that different?

Nope, same classic Mark tone. Of course it is different than the other Mark series as they are ALL at the very least slightly different from each other, but it's not as though it's from a different lineage of amps or something.

 

[Anonymous]

Post removed.

 

[Neptical]

Personally, I don't think it gets any less respect at all. Look around, even the Mark III is getting harder to come by on the market. There's something to be said for that. I've never really heard much degrading of the Mark III other then the shared EQ, but thats nothing new for the majority of the folks interested in the Mark tone. Don't kid yourself, the Mark III can hold it's own for the Mark series.

All the Best,
~Nep~

 

[MrMarkIII]

I've never understood why the Mark III got knocked for the so-called "shared EQ problem". Has anyone ever heard a similar complaint about the IIC+? Didn't think so. As a matter of fact, there's folks who prefer that model without the Graphic EQ, which means fewer EQ options.
I think the Mark III got a bad rap 'cause it was supposed to replace the IIC+, and in the opinion of many, didn't (or couldn't). Also, it was still being made when the Mark IV came out, so the "new and improved" model certainly took its toll. I'm finding it hard to remember when Mesa had the old model and the new model available concurrently. They didn't make that mistake with the IV and V.

 

[Tuna141]

I own a IIC, a III Blue, and aIVA. My III is right up there with the other 2 great amps. Tonewise, my preference is the IIC,then the III, and lthen the IV. However, the versatility of the IV makes up it's slightly inferior tone. I usually use my IV for live gigs because of this.

The III is a great amp and one of the best amp bargains out there right now.

 

[A_Ryder]

Just wondering, when people always have good things to say about the Mark III, why it always seems to be the one Mark amp that is now forgotten?

Everyone always says they are brutal amps, but it seems like they get skipped over. Just look at the V, it has Mark I, IIc+, and IV modes. nothing for III. Why? Was the tone really that different?

I remember playing with someone who had one many years ago, and his tone was always very heavy...but does the IV/V really outshine the III that much?

please try to give some insight into this...

thanks!

I think the V gets more respect because it's the "latest and greatest" which has tons of modes, knobs and dials and that seems to sell. Whether it's a lasting classic is another story and only time will tell but it has some wow factor now.

The Mark IV was the previous big wow, I heard a guy say "look at all those knobs, that amp just has to sound great". It's versatility and grandness was it's selling point. Some people like the hyper-clean tone as well.

The Mark III was suppose to be the next best thing after the IIC+ but as someone already pointed out the III was misunderstood.

I had, actually still have a IIC+, so when the Mark III came out I looked at it and thought, "hmm, it looks just like my amp ... oh wait it's got one more potentiometer 'pull for rhythm 2'', then I thought - "is that all?". First impressions based on knobs and dials weren't good. Worse still I then dialled it just like I did my IIC+ so when I did "pull for rhy2" it sounded like cr@p to me. Later I heard awesome sounding Mark IIIs but those guys dialed them very differently and treated the III with it's own due respect, some used rh2 for everything, dialling back guitar volume to get clean...

I don't think the tone of the Mark IIC and III is that different, different yes but still very similar and if you dial back on the III it's pretty close. Playing style and guitar type are much more important than any differences in those amps.

Why are the Mark I and IIC+ so popular? I think it just comes down to a couple of heros, I think Santana single handedly is keeping the Mark I thing going and bands like Metallica really put the IIC+ on the map and kept them there.

 

[Neptical]

I don't think the tone of the Mark IIC and III is that different, different yes but still very similar and if you dial back on the III it's pretty close. Playing style and guitar type are much more important than any differences in those amps.

A_Ryder,
All very well said my friend. I had to highlight this specific section because this is the same belief/feelings I have. I always thought that the IIC and the III were always pretty close. With my experience over several years, I've learned there's just so many variables in the way an amp reacts to the player whether it be new speakers,broken-in speakers, wood variations of the guitar, tubes,pick-ups,cords,strings...right down to the attack of the person playing the instrument. Everything counts.

All the Best,
~Nep~

 

[droptrd]

I think the III gets its rep because the time it came out, players were used to just plugging in and running their fingers over the knobs to get a great tone. The III is a bit goofy to run at first for some. I think players were afraid of the tweakin back then.

 

[mightywarlock]

I just bought, and sold, a Rivera KR7 that had unlimited tweakability, to the point that it was too much, hence selling it.

Tweak tweak tweak, and never happy with the tones, even though they were all useable. drove me nuts, so it had to go.

 

[MrMarkIII]

"Don't Fear The Tweaker" :lol:

 

[boogieslayer]

SOme people think we C+ entusiasts are crazy and that the c+ really dossent sound that good at all, but when i play it and blows me away and puts a huge simle on my face away almost everytime i play it , thats all that matters for me.

very well said

i owned a souped up III blue stripe before i got my IIc+ , the III is without a doubt a great amp

its all about what you want out of it and how it sounds to you

 

[Neptical]

SOme people think we C+ entusiasts are crazy and that the c+ really dossent sound that good at all

Never heard this much before.Who said this? I'd love to know!

All the Best,
~Nep~

 

[cremona]

SOme people think we C+ entusiasts are crazy and that the c+ really dossent sound that good at all

Never heard this much before.Who said this? I'd love to know!

All the Best,
~Nep~

Hi well i have seen some posts on other forums but everytime its from somone that hassent played one :lol:

I think that there will always be people knocking on others for loveing somthing , the fact that it basicly where the fundation for metallicas 4 best albums and was the soul inspiration for the guitar licks on MOP, or john patrucci using it , gives the the haters plenty of reasons to say it hyped up

Hyped up or not , just because people that could chose from eny amplifire in the world still chose the old mk2 dos not equal hyped up.

I think if the amp truly was hyped up and it diddent sound all that good, there woulden be a tendeci that ones you had one you always whant one around, or that the are so saught after on the used market.


the interresting part is that despide all that, its interresting that people that have played one respect it, or are flat out blown away by it.

 

[itsjonduhh]

Because it's misunderstood. I guess people expected three fully usable channels when in reality it sounds and functions its best when used in a clean/distortion or crunch/lead boost two channel fashion. But as far as I'm concerned, the Mark III has a sound of its own. It's as if they were aiming for a C+ "with just a little more". Harsh and spitty to some, the most aggressive and obnoxious Mark ever made to others. But then the 80's were over and they took it back a notch with the IV. So it definitely holds its own within the Mark universe and deserved a spot on the Mark V. "Extreme" mode? Hello, Mark III??

:shock: exactly! not a fan of the extreme mode on the lead channel. probably the most unusable setting for me.

 

[Fronzil]

Because it's misunderstood. I guess people expected three fully usable channels when in reality it sounds and functions its best when used in a clean/distortion or crunch/lead boost two channel fashion. But as far as I'm concerned, the Mark III has a sound of its own. It's as if they were aiming for a C+ "with just a little more". Harsh and spitty to some, the most aggressive and obnoxious Mark ever made to others. But then the 80's were over and they took it back a notch with the IV. So it definitely holds its own within the Mark universe and deserved a spot on the Mark V. "Extreme" mode? Hello, Mark III??

:shock: exactly! not a fan of the extreme mode on the lead channel. probably the most unusable setting for me.

extreme mode is mark IV with presence pushed in, mark IV mode with presence pulled out..both highly usable..took about 12 seconds for me to dial in a sick tone the other day at Long & Mcquade and I don't even own one.

 

[itsjonduhh]

Because it's misunderstood. I guess people expected three fully usable channels when in reality it sounds and functions its best when used in a clean/distortion or crunch/lead boost two channel fashion. But as far as I'm concerned, the Mark III has a sound of its own. It's as if they were aiming for a C+ "with just a little more". Harsh and spitty to some, the most aggressive and obnoxious Mark ever made to others. But then the 80's were over and they took it back a notch with the IV. So it definitely holds its own within the Mark universe and deserved a spot on the Mark V. "Extreme" mode? Hello, Mark III??

:shock: exactly! not a fan of the extreme mode on the lead channel. probably the most unusable setting for me.

extreme mode is mark IV with presence pushed in, mark IV mode with presence pulled out..both highly usable..took about 12 seconds for me to dial in a sick tone the other day at Long & Mcquade and I don't even own one.

sounds way too saturated for me. it's definitely meant to give off that impression, but i feel the design exaggerated it too much. like literally, it was too much.

 

[DirtyBoogieIII]

i picked up a III with no GEQ and i'm happy as a clam..amp can nail a lot of different styles..i haven't played a IIC+ but I have played my other guitarists V and I can't pick my favorite tone..marks just have something going on I can't find in any other amp I've played. I think I need to get a couple more

 

[igfraso]

Last but not least... Mark IIIs were the last Mesa amplifiers you could get with an export transformer.