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

[screamingdaisy]

So it definitely holds its own within the Mark universe and deserved a spot on the Mark V. "Extreme" mode? Hello, Mark III??

Personally, I think they should've called it MkV mode.

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.

The 'shared EQ problem' has to do with getting R1, R2 and LD to all play together nicely. Most people could get two of the three to place nice, but getting all three to jive together was a headache, and usually involved compromising the tone of either R2 or LD to achieve.

The IIC+ didn't have a third channel, so there was no three way shared EQ problem.

 

[Anonymous]

Post removed.

 

[>Photi G<]

I have no idea why so many people are complaining about the 3's "volume imbalance" or the "shared EQ compromises." My 3 has no problems with any of these whatsoever. It doesn't have any mods done to it either. No R2 volume mod, but my R2 channel balances just fine with R1 and Lead. I found some EQ settings that work across all 3 channels very well, and if I don't like them, then the Graphic makes up for it.

I do have one gripe, however. The III's Lead channel isn't as "liquid," or "singing" as any other Marks I've heard. While the IIC+ and IV have a very smooth, liquid lead, the III has an excessively bright and fizzly lead. Granted, the III has more gain than any other Mark series amp (I can't speak for the MKV tho), and this is probably why. And for me to get enough gain for R2 to sound good, I have to turn up the Volume knob so much (around 6.5-8) that R1 starts to clip ever so subtly. Subtle, but noticeable to me.

 

[Neptical]

I have no idea why so many people are complaining about the 3's "volume imbalance" or the "shared EQ compromises." My 3 has no problems with any of these whatsoever. It doesn't have any mods done to it either. No R2 volume mod, but my R2 channel balances just fine with R1 and Lead. I found some EQ settings that work across all 3 channels very well, and if I don't like them, then the Graphic makes up for it.

It's all really in the preference of the player my friend. If your happy with it, more power to ya. 1 out 2 of my Mark IIIs has the R2 mod which does wonders compared to the other III that's not. If the mod isn't done, there's no way I can get the balance of clean and dirty for the style of music I play. It just isn't happening.

I do have one gripe, however. The III's Lead channel isn't as "liquid," or "singing" as any other Marks I've heard. While the IIC+ and IV have a very smooth, liquid lead, the III has an excessively bright and fizzly lead. Granted, the III has more gain than any other Mark series amp (I can't speak for the MKV tho), and this is probably why. And for me to get enough gain for R2 to sound good, I have to turn up the Volume knob so much (around 6.5-8) that R1 starts to clip ever so subtly. Subtle, but noticeable to me.

Out of my purple and red stripe, the difference in the lead is quite drastic..and I've swapped 'em both out using the same tubes in both pre and power sections. My purple stripe all around has a smoother character to the amp in all the channels. The lead channel in my purple sings very nice..smooth as butter, while the red still sings very nicely, it has more modern-ish sound to it, which I'm sure has to do with the hotter circuit. Quite honest, while they both retain that great Mark sound, their both different amps. I've read many times that people could only hear subtle differences in the variations. Not quite sure if we're on the same planet.

~Nep~

 

[Anonymous]

Post removed.

 

[Tuna141]

I do have one gripe, however. The III's Lead channel isn't as "liquid," or "singing" as any other Marks I've heard. While the IIC+ and IV have a very smooth, liquid lead, the III has an excessively bright and fizzly lead.

To dial-out the fizz and make the III's lead smoother, turn the Presence down to 2 or below, then just boost the Treble.

Works for me :wink:

 

[ToneAddictJon]

I always prefered the III's to the IV or V. I've tried to start something with the V, but it has always left me wanting something more and the IV was absolutely amazing, I'll get another if I have the need for another amp at some point, but every III I've owned has had a unique mojo to it that really played well with my style of playing. I know guys that can coax the sweetest sounds from the IV and V, but I could always pull those from the III - although if given the choice of a III or IV at the same price, I'd probably take the IV (unless the III was a blue stripe simul colliseum).

 

[>Photi G<]

To dial-out the fizz and make the III's lead smoother, turn the Presence down to 2 or below, then just boost the Treble.

Works for me :wink:

Not so much for me. I've fiddled with the presence a bit, and here are my experiences: Presence 4+ is unusable. 3 is moderately fizzy. 2 lacks the aggressive bite I want from the power amp, and 1 and below are just muddy and restrictive.

 

[Neptical]

Not so much for me. I've fiddled with the presence a bit, and here are my experiences: Presence 4+ is unusable. 3 is moderately fizzy. 2 lacks the aggressive bite I want from the power amp, and 1 and below are just muddy and restrictive.

That's when the GEQ comes into play! :wink:

~Nep~

p.s. I don't use a drop of presence either.

 

[rabies]

I had a III green with 105 tranny (yes, one of the "good" ones) which I used to run 2xEL34+2x6L6. One of the meanest & tightest sounding amps in the lead mode I've ever heard. Nice blooming harmonics and endless sustain when you crank the power section between 3-10 on the masters. I would run master and output at noon, that's loud enough to make your body shake. The V shapes on GEQ really had the ghetto sound of the "Thing that should not be" from MOP going on. **** heavy sound.

Anyways, R2 sucked. Clean was ok and lead was badass. I had a IV for a while as well. Don't like too many knobs but I didn't like the shared EQ on the III either. I think the amps with too many features have tone sucking going on (ahem, Diezel, Road King, etc.)

I think FNM used a III on Angel Dust (one of the best alternative rock ablums of the 90's!)

You can get a very raw distortion sound out of the III w/o a boost and still get tonal integrity with jazz chords with pinched harmonics simultaneously. Most amps suffer with too much gain/compression when you play jazz chords with distortion.

I'm looking to mod a III to handle 4xEL34 with hotter bias than boogie's average on most older amps.

I agree that if you're interested in a decent clean channel and a tight/heavy lead channel, then the III's are a great deal. Perhaps the touch sensitivity is not as good as the Stiletto or IIC+?

 

[Vigo1999]

I have no idea why so many people are complaining about the 3's "volume imbalance" or the "shared EQ compromises." My 3 has no problems with any of these whatsoever. It doesn't have any mods done to it either. No R2 volume mod, but my R2 channel balances just fine with R1 and Lead. I found some EQ settings that work across all 3 channels very well, and if I don't like them, then the Graphic makes up for it.

i was going to say something about the shared EQ issues, but i'll make those mine words also. perfect. 8)