Cornford RK100 vs MK50?

  • Thread starter Thread starter braintheory
  • Start date Start date
B

braintheory

Well-known member
For those who’ve played both what do you think? I’ve played MK50’s several times and thought they were good, but not amazing top tier amps, but like what I’m hearing in some of the RK100 clips. How do these amps compare to those that have played both in person?
 
I have heard both in-person but they were years apart - pretty unreliable comparison. The MK was ages ago, the RK recently after a client got me interested. I don't recall them being radically different.

I think the RK is little more open and Marshally than the more modern Bogner-type vibe of the MK. Both have plenty of gain for rock, not sure they can be boosted into metal territory though.

If I had to guess I would say if you didn't dig the MK then the RK probably isn't for you.
 
I believe the RK is an amp similar to an old Plexi where it has to get LOUD to do its thing...even though it has a Master V. Vs the MK which has a more agreeable MV taper.
 
ZEN Amps said:
I have heard both in-person but they were years apart - pretty unreliable comparison. The MK was ages ago, the RK recently after a client got me interested. I don't recall them being radically different.

I think the RK is little more open and Marshally than the more modern Bogner-type vibe of the MK. Both have plenty of gain for rock, not sure they can be boosted into metal territory though.

If I had to guess I would say if you didn't dig the MK then the RK probably isn't for you.
Click to expand...
I’ve got some experience with my buddy’s MK50 and it can definitely be boosted into metal territory and get pretty damn nasty. They’re fairly thick straight in so they take to a boost similarly to a Recto, but not as thick in the lows and with higher mids.
 
I had both years ago at the same time when I was big into Cornfords and from memory the MK 50 and the MK 50 II were both stiffer and more percussive sounding but also much thinner sounding than the RK 100. The RK 100 was much thicker in it's voicing and moved alot of air and with a slightly slower attack and a warmer voicing . They really are night and day different from each other.
 
RK100 is my dream amp

From clips it always sounded brighter and more Marshally to me while the MK sounded vaguely Bogner-ish, but I've never had the chance to play either
 
The MK 50 has more in common with an SLO than a Bogner but even so the lows on the MK are tighter than an SLO but also the Cornford MK amp is brighter and the excessive treble can be a bit fatiguing so you really have to dial it down and the 50 watt power section of the MK sounds smaller compared to the SLO's 100 watt power section as the SLO smokes it for headroom which is too be expected, and with all that said I much prefer an SLO over any Cornford MK 50 version .
 
I'd pick a RK 100 any day of the week over the MK 50 and for me personally they really need a boost to get them where I wanted them to be.

I am also a gain freak so take that for what it's worth as some may find them fine as is.
 
braintheory said:
For those who’ve played both what do you think? I’ve played MK50’s several times and thought they were good, but not amazing top tier amps, but like what I’m hearing in some of the RK100 clips. How do these amps compare to those that have played both in person?
Click to expand...
I have an RK 100 soo good a guitarist friend used it
live and didnt want to give it back.I had to go to the gig and get it after the show and he worked in a vintage music store.LOL cant blame him tho LOL
 
The RK I played was like a mid gain Marshall, but tone was good. But, I didn’t crank it.
 
RK100 seems clearer, and MK50 has more punch but less clarity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top