Wizard Model Breakdown

  • Thread starter Thread starter FourT6and2
  • Start date Start date
FourT6and2

FourT6and2

Well-known member
Can one of you Wizard fanatics give me a breakdown of all their models? The last time I really paid any attention to them was when they had like two amps: the MTL and Modern Classic. Their website doesn't describe the amps' tonal differences at all, just basic features. I've tried listening to Wizard clips in the past but they never sounded that good. But I checked out some clips of the new Hell Razor and it's piqued my interest and found clips of the other models that were decent.

I'm trying to understand how the MC, MCII, MTL, MTL MKII, and Hell Razor all differ. Yes, I've listened to clips. But I know a couple of you here own all of these amps, so help a bruddah out man.
 
I’ve only had a 2016 MTL with V transformers and 1996 MC with C transformers, but they both have what I consider to be the Wizard sound where they are very open, clear/defined and punch hard in a way that only a 2 or 3 other amps I’ve tried can rival, but they also have that Hiwatt/Marshall in between sound where the midrange stays smooth/somewhat hollow/neutral and doesn’t growl or get as juicy or as interesting tone as a good Marshall in that region

The MTL had more low mid emphasis and sounded beefier overall, while the MC had more upper and center mids, but the quality/texture itself of the midrange was the same on both and to me that’s the Wizard sound. Not the amps for growl or richness, but killer for clarity, punch and openness. The punch and definition from their powersection is I think what gives wizards their big wow factor. The Hell Razor seems to have the same midrange quality in the clips I’ve heard, but seems more modern leaning. I’ll have to try one at some point
 
braintheory said:
I’ve only had a 2016 MTL with V transformers and 1996 MC with C transformers, but they both have what I consider to be the Wizard sound where they are very open, clear/defined and punch hard in a way that only a 2 or 3 other amps I’ve tried can rival, but they also have that Hiwatt/Marshall in between sound where the midrange stays smooth/somewhat hollow/neutral and doesn’t growl or get as juicy or as interesting tone as a good Marshall in that region

The MTL had more low mid emphasis and sounded beefier overall, while the MC had more upper and center mids, but the quality/texture itself of the midrange was the same on both and to me that’s the Wizard sound. Not the amps for growl or richness, but killer for clarity, punch and openness. The punch and definition from their powersection is I think what gives wizards their big wow factor. The Hell Razor seems to have the same midrange quality in the clips I’ve heard, but seems more modern leaning. I’ll have to try one at some point
Click to expand...
This.

This subject and the comment that the clips don’t sound all that great, is yet another example of proof that clips just can’t really be any way of judging. Wizards are killer sounding, feeling amps that have monster power sections. If one only goes by clips none would sell.
Thankfully we have opinions of others that actually own the amps and can give an honest opinion.

OP, the 2010 MC 100 I had did have very close to Marshall mids with the C transformers. It was a 2203 gain wise and punched extremely hard; took boosts well. The 2012 MTL 50 had a very hollow midrange by comparison. But punched like a 100w amp.
 
Racerxrated said:
This.

This subject and the comment that the clips don’t sound all that great, is yet another example of proof that clips just can’t really be any way of judging. Wizards are killer sounding, feeling amps that have monster power sections. If one only goes by clips none would sell.
Thankfully we have opinions of others that actually own the amps and can give an honest opinion.

OP, the 2010 MC 100 I had did have very close to Marshall mids with the C transformers. It was a 2203 gain wise and punched extremely hard; took boosts well. The 2012 MTL 50 had a very hollow midrange by comparison. But punched like a 100w amp.
Click to expand...
I haven’t tried other MC’s, but mine also had C transformers and I wouldn’t consider it’s mids anywhere close to Marshall’s in character of the growl and juice, only in how it would probably look on an eq profile graph. I think that’s where confusion could lie. How much frequencies are present and less present I don’t think matters as much as how the tone within the frequencies actually are. The MTL I had was definitely more scooped and the overall mid profile was a little strange in some ways, but the actual character of the mids itself I thought was basically the same. They both remain smooth/neutral in the midrange on powerchords sorta like how Fane speakers are in character, while Marshall’s (the good ones at least) growl and get juicy in that area. I get the sense that wizards are maybe trying to have a wider frequency range/more bandwidth than Marshall’s and in a way are I think successful there, but I think the mids maybe are getting traded off perhaps in tone. It’s like when I play chords I hear some good stuff in the lower and higher frequencies, but it doesn’t quench my thirst the way the midrange doesn’t really crunch/growl and stays I guess cleaner
 
Last edited:
braintheory said:
I haven’t tried other MC’s, but mine also had C transformers and I wouldn’t consider it’s mids anywhere close to Marshall’s in character of the growl and juice, only in how it would probably look on an eq profile graph. I think that’s where confusion could lie. How much frequencies are present and less present I don’t think matters as much as how the tone within the frequencies actually are. The MTL I had was definitely more scooped and the overall mid profile was a little strange in some ways, but the actual character of the mids itself I thought was basically the same. They both remain smooth/neutral in the midrange on powerchords sorta like how Fane speakers are in character, while Marshall’s (the good ones at least) growl and get juicy in that area. I get the sense that wizards are maybe trying to have a wider frequency range/more bandwidth than Marshall’s and in a way are I think successful there, but I think the mids maybe are getting traded off perhaps in tone. It’s like when I play chords I hear some good stuff in the lower and higher frequencies, but it doesn’t quench my thirst the way the midrange doesn’t really crunch/growl and stays I guess cleaner
Click to expand...
That pretty much encapsulates Marshall vs. HiWatt. Both sound British but go about it in different ways.
 
thegame said:
That pretty much encapsulates Marshall vs. HiWatt. Both sound British but go about it in different ways.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’ve found there are some gear products that excel most in great midrange growl like a good Marshall, 20w GB’s, Fortin TS’s, RFT tubes, Furman PQ3 and then products that are great in other ways, but bland in the mids like Hiwatt’s, Wizards, Hermansson’s, Fane and JBL speakers, Mullards. Both can put huge smiles on my face, but for different reasons in sound
 
Last edited:
I've had 11 Wizards, so can speak from experience as opposed clips.

4 different 100w MCIIs all with V tranny---great midrange, not as full spectrum as a Marshall, it's own thing for sure, but far from "hollow" in the mids. It's a great mix of all mid frequencies and the contour helps fine tune whether your hearing more low mids vs upper mids. Low end is ample and has a thwack to it, like a concrete hardness, no flub. Can be bright or dark and anything in between via the treble, presence, bright, contour, and mids knob.

It's own animal, but definitely some Marshall DNA. When boosted and depending on settings, also takes on a little Mesa Markish tone/feel to my ears. Takes boosts like they're part of the circuit and with the right one you can get some killer compression/grease for the heavy stuff. Articulation, clarity, crunch, punch is top notch. Of all the Wizards I've owned, the MCII has the most growl, snarl, whatever word you use to describe aggression. Chords just sound mean AF...very pissed.

MCII 50w---One I had was a tranny other than the V, not sure if it was C or what, but it was quite different than the 100w V MCIIs I've had. I actually didn't care for it near as much. It had a different gain structure (more vintage maybe) and the mids were shifted to a place I didn't really like as much. There was a problem with the line out on this amp and the seller was great in taking it back, so I can only assume something wasn't right with the tone as it just sounded off in addition to the line out not working.

2021 & 2016 MC25---VERY close to the 100W MCII tonewise and actually a tad better IMHO. The mids are in a slightly better place to my ears and it's my favorite WIzard amp tone, it just doesn't fuck you as hard because of the smaller power section. Despite it's size/wattage, it still punches and hits hard, just not like the 100w. Despite no contour knob, it still has tons of range in the standard eq knobs to find any sweet spot one could prefer...bright, cutting, dark, blah, blah, blah. I'm running one now with TAD redbase 6v6 through a 212/412/active sub setup and it's an absolute monster.

MTL---one I owned was 2016. It just had a very neutral midrange that I couldn't gel with. Tried speakers, cabs, guitars, pups, boosts, eqs, still had this hollowish/neutral midrange. Other than that killer, especially with the sat/depth knob for the added girth/gain/compression.

100w Hybrid V tranny--I thought this would be the perfect Wizard for me in that it might have had the mids of the MCII but the saturation of the MTL. It was close but still lacked a certain grind/attack in the mids that the MCII achieves. Still a great amp and close to the MCII, but voicing, gain structure were still more MTL than MCII to me.

KT150 MCI MKII---CLose to the 100w E34L MCII, but had a bigger rounder low end with less of the sharp attack. I tried it with the stock KT88, 6550, KT90 and it always had that slightly rounder low end without the thwack/attack the 100w MCII has. Very very nice eq response though and the mids, highs, and lows just filled the space really well. Needless to say could really fuck hard and shake the walls.

KT66 50w W800---This may have been the most unique voicing/feel of all the Wizards I've owned. Think it may have been the C tranny. It was very open and didn't compress near as much as the others, even when boosted. It had a great eq response, killer mids, similar to Marshal but not Marshall mids. Low end was ample and tight but even when boosted with a modern pedal playing thrashy stuff, still had a slightly vintage feel/tone...hard to describe. All the others have had a more modern vibe where as the W800 reminded me a tad of playing late 70s era JMP or something. Not that same sound, but the attck and overall feel reminded me of that era Marshall.
 
Last edited:
I like growl/aggression. All this talk of mids and differences between the amps, though... my gut tells me they probably have the same tone stack (Marshall stack). So they shouldn't differ all that much unless the NFB circuit was changed drastically between models. I'm pretty happy with my Bogner Helios 50 and Mako Dorado. Oh and the hot-rod 800 clone I built. So far, I haven't found an amp that sounds better than that one. But I checked out the clips from @mhenson42 and one other user and liked what I heard.

When I say I never heard decent clips in the past, it was because most of them were close mic'd or mic'd weirdly and just sounded like shrill fizz. I can get a better idea of an amp's sound from in-room vids/clips.

How about this: MTL vs MTL II vs MCII vs Hell Razor
 
mhenson42 said:
I guess my sarcasm doesn’t translate to text all that well. ?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing Rick isn't the talkative type...

I don't really wanna talk anybody's ear off. But the guy's website has ZERO information on how these models differ from one another.
 
FourT6and2 said:
I like growl/aggression. All this talk of mids and differences between the amps, though... my gut tells me they probably have the same tone stack (Marshall stack). So they shouldn't differ all that much unless the NFB circuit was changed drastically between models. I'm pretty happy with my Bogner Helios 50 and Mako Dorado. Oh and the hot-rod 800 clone I built. So far, I haven't found an amp that sounds better than that one. But I checked out the clips from @mhenson42 and one other user and liked what I heard.

When I say I never heard decent clips in the past, it was because most of them were close mic'd or mic'd weirdly and just sounded like shrill fizz. I can get a better idea of an amp's sound from in-room vids/clips.

How about this: MTL vs MTL II vs MCII vs Hell Razor
Click to expand...
Aggression can mean many different things to guys, but for growl at least, the Helios 50 I think is a great example of an amp that has the juicy midrange growl that Wizards can’t do IME. I find the Mako’s to be amps that also have a smooth/hollow midrange somewhat like the Fryette’s, but if you like both I’d think the wizards could be promising. Regardless of how it is technically on paper I find the 2 wizards I had to be a different in sound and feel than any Marshall’s I’ve played. They are what I’d imagine the old Hiwatt I had would’ve been like if it were hotrodded to be high gain with a hint of Marshall maybe from the overall eq shape (but not tone itself) of the MC’s
 
Last edited:
braintheory said:
I haven’t tried other MC’s, but mine also had C transformers and I wouldn’t consider it’s mids anywhere close to Marshall’s in character of the growl and juice, only in how it would probably look on an eq profile graph. I think that’s where confusion could lie. How much frequencies are present and less present I don’t think matters as much as how the tone within the frequencies actually are. The MTL I had was definitely more scooped and the overall mid profile was a little strange in some ways, but the actual character of the mids itself I thought was basically the same. They both remain smooth/neutral in the midrange on powerchords sorta like how Fane speakers are in character, while Marshall’s (the good ones at least) growl and get juicy in that area. I get the sense that wizards are maybe trying to have a wider frequency range/more bandwidth than Marshall’s and in a way are I think successful there, but I think the mids maybe are getting traded off perhaps in tone. It’s like when I play chords I hear some good stuff in the lower and higher frequencies, but it doesn’t quench my thirst the way the midrange doesn’t really crunch/growl and stays I guess cleaner
Click to expand...
Mine definitely had very close to my 2203 Marshall mids. Must’ve been different than yours in the eq circuit somehow. It was a 2010; had it right next to a good sounding 1983 2203. Not exact but darn close.
 
braintheory said:
Yeah I’ve found there are some gear products that excel most in great midrange growl like a good Marshall, 20w GB’s, Fortin TS’s, RFT tubes, Furman PQ3 and then products that are great in other ways, but bland in the mids like Hiwatt’s, Wizards, Hermansson’s, Fane and JBL speakers, Mullards. Both can puts huge smiles on my face, but for different reasons in sound
Click to expand...
Man, I have to disagree strongly here. Bland in the mids was not my experience.
I played a DR103 and 2 Hiwatt cabs with fanes for many years.
That amp with those cabs was perfect in the mids and punched through our Gorilla drummer without breaking a sweat.
 
FourT6and2 said:
I'm guessing Rick isn't the talkative type...

I don't really wanna talk anybody's ear off. But the guy's website has ZERO information on how these models differ from one another.
Click to expand...
I’m fairly certain the circuits between the various models are far more similar than different. We’re not talking about Ecstacy vs Uberschall vs Helios vs Shiva differences here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top