Diezel Herbert Versions

  • Thread starter Thread starter journeyman73
  • Start date Start date
J

journeyman73

Active member
I have done some research into prior posts but wondering if there are any 'updated', additional thoughts on how the current MK3 compares to the prior MK2?

What makes me wonder if I should actually seek out the prior version vs the current is I am not into the heavier modern metal tones.

I actually became aware of the Herbert through Andy Wood and Eric Steckel using the amp and some of the tones they get - i don't know their settings per se but i would say there is quite a bit of character to the mids...

in loking at prior posts there were at least some people that described a 'thicker/denser' midrange to Mk2 vs Mk3, which sort of makes sense in light of above.

for people that have used both, are those fat, vocal mid qualities still achievable in Mk3? should i definitely pursue a used Mk2?

thanks!
 
Techdeth said:
My fav is mk 1 and then mk 3 . Mk 2 is the one I didn’t feel the need for . Whatever you choose they all are good though . But ya I kept a 1 and 3. The two are different enough.
Click to expand...
Could you expound on the differences between 1 and 3 in greater detail? I have owned a mark 1, and am considering acquiring a mark 3. Thank you!
 
angelspade said:
Could you expound on the differences between 1 and 3 in greater detail? I have owned a mark 1, and am considering acquiring a mark 3. Thank you!
Click to expand...
Mark 3 has lees gain and is tighter . It has different richness in the eq . You might like it more . I think 6l6s ate the only thing I like in diezels so instantly get rid of kt77s when I can . Mk 3 is a Herbert tightened up but super ricc harmonics . Different enough for me to keep both heads
 
Agree with @Techdeth on this for sure. They are more similar than different overall....both still Herbert's, but the differences are noticeable. Mk3 has less of the huge sub-lows, a bit tighter and brighter. More VH4 DNA you could say.

The Mk1 sounds a bit bigger and also feels more liquid/forgiving to play. Channel 3 on a mk1 is fantastic for leads, if that is your thing.
 
VHTStark said:
Agree with @Techdeth on this for sure. They are more similar than different overall....both still Herbert's, but the differences are noticeable. Mk3 has less of the huge sub-lows, a bit tighter and brighter. More VH4 DNA you could say.

The Mk1 sounds a bit bigger and also feels more liquid/forgiving to play. Channel 3 on a mk1 is fantastic for leads, if that is your thing.
Click to expand...
Channel 2 of mk1 boosted is my favorite . It hangs with my Hermansoms and wizards .I got it 2009 . I wonder what year it is . I got it used
 
I believe it! Some amps just respond so well to a boost and the Herbie falls into that camp; tightens things up just right and adds more punch without any weird frequencies....still stays huge! I don't boost the Herbert all the time, as it doesn't NEED it necessarily....but it does kick it up a notch if I am playing fast thrash/death metal type stuff with alot of staccato palm muting and trem picking!
 
Techdeth said:
My fav is mk 1 and then mk 3 . Mk 2 is the one I didn’t feel the need for . Whatever you choose they all are good though . But ya I kept a 1 and 3. The two are different enough.
Click to expand...

so, in the grand scheme things (particularly if you didn't have side-by-side) you think a MK3 would capably cover whatever one might be getting out of a Mk2?

put another way, there isn't anything in general that a Mk2 gives that a Mk3 couldn't?
 
journeyman73 said:
so, in the grand scheme things (particularly if you didn't have side-by-side) you think a MK3 would capably cover whatever one might be getting out of a Mk2?

put another way, there isn't anything in general that a Mk2 gives that a Mk3 couldn't?
Click to expand...
I think they are very different . You could maybe get them close but difference is big enough I kept both . Do you boost ? If you boost they can get get close
 
VHTStark said:
Agree with @Techdeth on this for sure. They are more similar than different overall....both still Herbert's, but the differences are noticeable. Mk3 has less of the huge sub-lows, a bit tighter and brighter. More VH4 DNA you could say.

The Mk1 sounds a bit bigger and also feels more liquid/forgiving to play. Channel 3 on a mk1 is fantastic for leads, if that is your thing.
Click to expand...
Leads are not really my thing...On the Mark I it seemed like channel three was only appropriate for leads. Does Channel 3 on the Mark III seem like a good metal rhythm channel? or same story, only suited to leads?
 
Techdeth said:
I think they are very different . You could maybe get them close but difference is big enough I kept both . Do you boost ? If you boost they can get get close
Click to expand...
Generally don’t boost…do you mean you’d have to boost MK2 to do what Mk3 can? Or the other way around? Or something totally else? Lol
 
VHTStark said:
I believe it! Some amps just respond so well to a boost and the Herbie falls into that camp; tightens things up just right and adds more punch without any weird frequencies....still stays huge! I don't boost the Herbert all the time, as it doesn't NEED it necessarily....but it does kick it up a notch if I am playing fast thrash/death metal type stuff with alot of staccato palm muting and trem picking!
Click to expand...
I love boosting channel 2 of mk1 . Even with a ts9 the low end becomes perfect
 
angelspade said:
Leads are not really my thing...On the Mark I it seemed like channel three was only appropriate for leads. Does Channel 3 on the Mark III seem like a good metal rhythm channel? or same story, only suited to leads?
Click to expand...
The 3rd channel on the mk3 is a great metal rhythm channel. It has more low end filtering than mk1 and is tighter, whereas the mk1 is big and saturated. If rhythm is what you're after, I would be after a mk3.
 
VHTStark said:
The 3rd channel on the mk3 is a great metal rhythm channel. It has more low end filtering than mk1 and is tighter, whereas the mk1 is big and saturated. If rhythm is what you're after, I would be after a mk3.
Click to expand...
Thanks, this is very helpful. I recall that I liked the Mark I on channel 2+ with the mid-cut engaged for a metal rhythm sound...But was frustrated that I couldn't get a get that out of the 3rd channel. I wanted to make use of the additional gain and attack but it just didn't "feel" right. Sound like this issue may have been resolved on the Mark III revision. I own a VH4 and Hagen presently and am seriously considering picking up a Herbert Mark III.
 
This is all personal preference.

I have a MKII and boosted the ch2+ is all I’d ever need for metal.

It’s sick and hifi, no other amp needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top