Boogie Mark IV and Mark 3 ...

[Techdeth]

So you can make your Mark III sound more Mark IVish than LOG’s Mark IV’s?

No but I can the same log tone they get . It’s not hard to do . How they use they mark 4 to get their tone I can use my mark 3 to get same results. It’s not drastic even .i sold my 4 because i felt no need for it . I’m not saying it’s bad , it’s great , but no need for it . 3 did all the mark tones I needed . Especially with ++ mod

 

[Beyond Black]

No but I can the same log tone they get . It’s not hard to do . How they use they mark 4 to get their tone I can use my mark 3 to get same results. It’s not drastic even .i sold my 4 because i felt no need for it . I’m not saying it’s bad , it’s great , but no need for it . 3 did all the mark tones I needed . Especially with ++ mod

I feel ya man, same reason I’m down to my C++, it’s all the Mark I need.

 

[Techdeth]

I feel ya man, same reason I’m down to my C++, it’s all the Mark I need.

We all like a different mark I notice . And that’s awesome.

 

[Sermo Lupi]

This all makes total sense and supports my personal opinion having not owned one.

I do agree III are sonically fatiguing and that’s still the case with a + or ++. I don’t get the same sonic fatigue from my 101B but the KRG can wear you out sonically and physically since they’re not easy to solo on at all and very stiff on high registers but super fun to riff on at lower registers (the stiffness goes away for riffs but is very prominent at higher registers)

I’m between a 5150 iii stealth, mark V, or a mark VII. It will be a while before I make a decision. I know the IV isn’t my jam though. I like the classic mark aggressiveness in the III and the additional gain over a IIC+. I’ve never liked a IIC++. Ruins what makes a IIC+ a IIC+

The amp I bought before selling my Mark IVa was an Ecstasy 20th, which I still own. I can't attest to 'sonic fatigue' for one amp over the other, but the Mark amps have a very different sound than the modded Marshall tone that Bogner, Friedman, and others use, which not everyone likes. If I was more settled with my living arrangements at the time, I likely would've kept both. However, the Mark sound wasn't as versatile a soundstage for me, and the Bogner is the overall better amp for my purposes.

Having said all that, the Mark IV was the pinnacle of the Mark sound to my ears, which I preferred over all the older Mark amps I'd heard or played. It's a very influential amp in terms of endorsed artists and seems second behind only the IIC+ in terms of tones that modern Mesa Boogie tries to emulate. I think it is a more feature-complete amp than any of the Mark I-IIIs as well, but of course to each their own.

In terms of the modern amps, the VII and JP2C seem like more attractive options to me than the V; all have that big plus of not having to deal with aging vintage gear. I think those amps are a lot closer to the originals than most people give credit. However, I also subscribe to the idea of simply buying what you like, which for some people means having 'the real deal'.

 

[retrorack]

I had a simulclass Mark III red stripe and Mark IVb at the same time. I wish I could’ve kept them both. I kept the Mark III because it just sounded a touch bolder. Also the Mark IV had a midrange tone that sounded great when I wanted it, but couldn’t dial it out if I didn’t.

 

[jdel77]

Ya Gassing me up lol but the closest to a Mark IIC+ will be the JP2C series right?

Hmm, I've played a couple JP2C's, and they're killer amps but they're way quicker and stiffer in the feel than an actual IIC+, which has more bounce and squish going on, but still impossibly tight and angry.
The MKIV setting on the MKV is pretty damn good.
The demos of the MKVII sound really good too.

 

[jdel77]

What are your thoughts on the Mark VII and JP2C? You seem to hear it both ways, that the feel isn't exactly the same, or more commonly that the IIC+ modes can be tweaked until they're nearly identical to the original. I've never played a IIC+, so I can't really weigh in here, but the demos I've heard online are very convincing.

My only reservation is that I never found the Mark IV mode on the Mark V very close to my Mark IVa, despite demos making them sound similar as well.

I haven't played a MKVII but the demos sound really good. Ola did a great one and he gets them sounding killer.
The JP2C I thought was really dry and quick sounding. I didn't really gel with the couple I played.

 

[psychodave]

I’ve had all Mark series amp from 2C+ to the mark IV. My last Mark series amp was the IVa. There is something about the IV I liked the most.

 

[kmanick]

I had a III Red Stripe and a Mark IV A at the same time years ago. I preferred the III (I had KT-77's in the outer spots)
over the "A' but then I got a "B" and all 3 channels were suddenly usable all at once. and the "B" was much more usable at lower volume so the II and "A" got sold. I kind of wish I had kept the III so I could A/B it against my current "B" and see what I think now years later.
I had to run a hot plate with my III, to get "the juice: it had to be insanely loud.

 

[Sermo Lupi]

I had a III Red Stripe and a Mark IV A at the same time years ago. I preferred the III (I had KT-77's in the outer spots)
over the "A' but then I got a "B" and all 3 channels were suddenly usable all at once. and the "B" was much more usable at lower volume so the II and "A" got sold.

Are you certain there wasn't something wrong with one of the channels on the IVa? The B revision altered the voicings slightly, but the amps aren't drastically different. Both versions of the Mark IV came with compromises if you wanted to use all three channels, due to the shared controls. I never had much of an issue with it, but obviously I wouldn't say the Mark IV is a 3-channel amp in the same was as an Ecstasy is, for example.

 

[kmanick]

Are you certain there wasn't something wrong with one of the channels on the IVa? The B revision altered the voicings slightly, but the amps aren't drastically different. Both versions of the Mark IV came with compromises if you wanted to use all three channels, due to the shared controls. I never had much of an issue with it, but obviously I wouldn't say the Mark IV is a 3-channel amp in the same was as an Ecstasy is, for example.

No it was fine the gain level on R2 in the "A" is considerably less than on a "B" so having a good clean /rhythm/lead on the "A" was more difficult than it is on the "B" I currently have.

 

[GJgo]

I know I'll get arguments, and IMO R2 on the IVs is an embarrassment to the Mesa name. The IVb is a little better than the IVa, but that's not an endorsement. Fortunately the lead channel more than makes up for it.

R2 on the IIIs, especially boosted, can be pretty darn good.

 

[psychodave]

I know I'll get arguments, and IMO R2 on the IVs is an embarrassment to the Mesa name. The IVb is a little better than the IVa, but that's not an endorsement. Fortunately the lead channel more than makes up for it.

R2 on the IIIs, especially boosted, can be pretty darn good.

R2 on the IV boosted with a Timmy pedal is killer. It sucks without a pedal. lol

 

[Sermo Lupi]

I know I'll get arguments, and IMO R2 on the IVs is an embarrassment to the Mesa name. The IVb is a little better than the IVa, but that's not an endorsement. Fortunately the lead channel more than makes up for it.

R2 on the IIIs, especially boosted, can be pretty darn good.

Nah, there's no argument from me, anyway. Channel 2 on the Mark IV is a mid-gain channel, not a replacement for Channel 3. I always set mine like a two channel amp (clean and high-gain on 1 and 3) and could boost for leads if necessary. Channel 2 was fine for mid-gain stuff (lighter rock, etc.), but it's not intended to be a heavy metal rhythm sound. Boosted, maybe.

I mostly ran my Mark IV to the Petrucci spec. Altered to taste and for my gear and playing, obviously, but with that same priority on channels 1 and 3 when tweaking.

 

[VHTStark]

Nah, there's no argument from me, anyway. Channel 2 on the Mark IV is a mid-gain channel, not a replacement for Channel 3. I always set mine like a two channel amp (clean and high-gain on 1 and 3) and could boost for leads if necessary. Channel 2 was fine for mid-gain stuff (lighter rock, etc.), but it's not intended to be a heavy metal rhythm sound. Boosted, maybe.

I mostly ran my Mark IV to the Petrucci spec. Altered to taste and for my gear and playing, obviously, but with that same priority on channels 1 and 3 when tweaking.

This is exactly how I ran my mkiv when I had one: 2 channel amp, optimized for the clean and lead channel.

The hallmark of any Mark amp is really that lead channel....everything else is icing on the cake, so if someone really loved say, a Mark 2B or a Mark 3 Bluestripe, I would not let lack of features or switching be a deterrent. That said, the MKIV is my favorite Mark in feel and tone after the 2C+.

With the Mark 5 I owned, the switching and options were great and channel 2 "crunch" was absolutely killer....but the lead channel, they key on any Mark amp, lacked the thump and aggression of older Marks and felt very very compressed.

 

[GJgo]

Something else that I've been saying for years that I feel is overlooked- my loop modded RP9C preamp IIB is voiced VERY similar to a MkIV, except that it has the full open rawness of the II. IMO it's the best standard-ish tuning rhythm amp Mesa made.

The late IIB and the IV both got the mids right, where the C+ and III have more of a nasal thing going on (for better or worse).

 

[hopkinWFG]

Nah, there's no argument from me, anyway. Channel 2 on the Mark IV is a mid-gain channel, not a replacement for Channel 3. I always set mine like a two channel amp (clean and high-gain on 1 and 3) and could boost for leads if necessary. Channel 2 was fine for mid-gain stuff (lighter rock, etc.), but it's not intended to be a heavy metal rhythm sound. Boosted, maybe.

I mostly ran my Mark IV to the Petrucci spec. Altered to taste and for my gear and playing, obviously, but with that same priority on channels 1 and 3 when tweaking.

Agrees ... Mark VIB channel 2 is in my opinion is just so so.... just like Diezel VH4s channel 2 and Herbert channel 2 on minus toggle .... unusable for me

 

[Sermo Lupi]

Those ESPs are where it's at! Both amps sound great in the clip, though the long Mark IV heads always look odd to me, haha.

 

[Beyond Black]

Something else that I've been saying for years that I feel is overlooked- my loop modded RP9C preamp IIB is voiced VERY similar to a MkIV, except that it has the full open rawness of the II. IMO it's the best standard-ish tuning rhythm amp Mesa made.

The late IIB and the IV both got the mids right, where the C+ and III have more of a nasal thing going on (for better or worse).

Man that IV really sounds great.

 

[Wizard of Ozz]

III's are more raw, gritty, intense in the highs (can be harsh for some guy's taste) and more scooped. IV's are generally smoother, more polished, and fatter, more low mids.

+1

MKIII all day everyday over the MKIV (A or B).

MKIV is darker, smoother, squashed, more compressed. It just doesn't scream like a MKIII.