Herbert mk2 or Herbert mk3 - Which one should I buy?

[Econ]

I play blues, metal and fusion. Which one should I get?

 

[Econ]

Anyone?

 

[rickenbacker198]

If the changing the +/- mode with MIDI is important to how you perform live, then the MK3.
If not the MK1/2 is fine IMO.

They’re all amazing amps.

 

[peterc52]

You want the switchable -/+. Trust me

 

[fishbeiner]

Recently purchased a new Herbert Mk3. Amazing amp. Definitely enough of a difference between the + and - modes on channel 2 to warrant being able to switch between the two via MIDI.

 

[Econ]

Herbert MK3 it is. Just chatted today with Eric Steckel and he is using the MK3, mostly the third channel. I think his tone is glorious. He is setting the volume fairly high (between 4 and 7 depending on the venue), but I think I can get it up to 4 in my studio room without getting the police called.

 

[Chupa.Cabra]

I play blues, metal and fusion. Which one should I get?

There's no difference between the MK2 and the MK3 other than the color. The transformers and circuitry are identical.

Try not to get sucked into the "Placebo Effect" a.k.a. the "Carbonaro Effect".

 

[MourningEngine]

I play blues, metal and fusion. Which one should I get?

There's no difference between the MK2 and the MK3 other than the color. The transformers and circuitry are identical.

Try not to get sucked into the "Placebo Effect" a.k.a. the "Carbonaro Effect".

Well, that's not true. The MK3 is voiced differently. It's not as dense and thick in the mid range compared to the MK2 and it's tighter. It's also considerably more dynamic.

 

[Chupa.Cabra]

It's not as dense and thick in the mid range compared to the MK2 and it's tighter. It's also considerably more dynamic.

"Well, that's not true.", too Mr. (or Mrs. or Miss). Rationalizations can be a bitch, sometimes. To each their own.

I've played both the MK2 and MK3 ad nauseum through all V30 RL V30 Diezel cabs. ME Don't know where you come up with this theory about having thicker mids, and or being tighter (whatever that means) + being "considerably more dynamic". We playing the same Electronic Arts video game?

If you're at all familiar with crossover distortion and setting the bias current on a Diezel amp (either in millivolts or milliamps) particularly a Diezel Herbert, then you know that Herbert sounds more compressed if you set the bias too high and then you will lose some of what you're calling dynamics. For a little more headroom and more balanced dynamics set the bias at ~60 mA. Don't believe me? Experiment with a bias current progressing through 50 to 80 mA with each pair of KT77s, 1&6,2&5,3&4. If you've got good tuned ears then the difference in tone, feel and articulation will be obvious to you.

I've only had my MK1 since 2003 (16 years), one of the original Herbert's hand crafted by Papa. I have both, my MK1 & MK2 together now and they love each other, unconditionally. The only slight difference between the two is that the schematics are a bit different. I found the MK2 to be "considerably" clearer on CHNL1 than MK3's CHNL1 and in my opinion the MK1 takes the overall prize. The MK1 is the master in my stereo Herbert rig to my MK2 slave.

And BTW, my slave is most certainly worth its salt!

 

[MourningEngine]

Well, it's not a theory. I had both amps in the same room through the same cab. The differences are very obvious.

And of course both heads were biased correctly at the same settings.

Btw, the circuits are also not the same. You can easily see the changes comparing both boards. Just ask Peter

 

[Chupa.Cabra]

Btw, the circuits are also not the same. You can easily see the changes comparing both boards. Just ask Peter

To you, the other Peter; I agree with you about the circuit differentiation - my mistake.

Peter emailed me this comment below a while ago when I queried him about the differences between the MK2 and MK3 when I was ready to pull the trigger on a second Herbert, among other things.

Mr. Papa:

"Hello David,

the MK2 Herbert has different transformers.
The MK3 has a different circuit and a black faceplate.
Channel 2 + and channel 2 - is midi switchable.

No concerns, your MK1 is good as it is.

Best regards,
Peter."

Finally, I can exhale . . .

 

[Ventura]

It's not as dense and thick in the mid range compared to the MK2 and it's tighter. It's also considerably more dynamic.

"Well, that's not true.", too Mr. (or Mrs. or Miss). Rationalizations can be a bitch, sometimes. To each their own....

David...

Back again with yet ANOTHER new RT handle, eh?? Nov.11, 2018 - how long ya gonna last this time around??

I knew it was you before even seeing the receipt - your pseudo-omnipresence and style of prose is detectable a mile away. Kinda like the scent of fresh dung.

But I'll keep it civil here.

And the Mk.3 is indeed different than the Mk.2 - and yes, I'm saying that just because I want to.

 

[born_hard]

It's not as dense and thick in the mid range compared to the MK2 and it's tighter. It's also considerably more dynamic.

"Well, that's not true.", too Mr. (or Mrs. or Miss). Rationalizations can be a bitch, sometimes. To each their own.

I've played both the MK2 and MK3 ad nauseum through all V30 RL V30 Diezel cabs. ME Don't know where you come up with this theory about having thicker mids, and or being tighter (whatever that means) + being "considerably more dynamic". We playing the same Electronic Arts video game?

If you're at all familiar with crossover distortion and setting the bias current on a Diezel amp (either in millivolts or milliamps) particularly a Diezel Herbert, then you know that Herbert sounds more compressed if you set the bias too high and then you will lose some of what you're calling dynamics. For a little more headroom and more balanced dynamics set the bias at ~60 mA. Don't believe me? Experiment with a bias current progressing through 50 to 80 mA with each pair of KT77s, 1&6,2&5,3&4. If you've got good tuned ears then the difference in tone, feel and articulation will be obvious to you.

I've only had my MK1 since 2003 (16 years), one of the original Herbert's hand crafted by Papa. I have both, my MK1 & MK2 together now and they love each other, unconditionally. The only slight difference between the two is that the schematics are a bit different. I found the MK2 to be "considerably" clearer on CHNL1 than MK3's CHNL1 and in my opinion the MK1 takes the overall prize. The MK1 is the master in my stereo Herbert rig to my MK2 slave.

And BTW, my slave is most certainly worth its salt!

I am interested in the Herbert since months, but cant decide to buy a Mk1 or MK2. Can you describe the difference between both? Is the old Langer transformer in the MK1 which brings the magic in tone, or is the newer in the MK2 the one to go for? The external BIAS is convinient for sure, but i`m interested more in the Crunch and Gain sounds of Ch2 and Ch3. Clean is not that important. And soundwise, i`m more into lead playing like Eric Steckel, Marty Friedman, this type of sound is what i`m after. Complex, pronounced mids moreso than chug in the lows. Thanks

 

[Ventura]

I am interested in the Herbert since months, but cant decide to buy a Mk1 or MK2. Can you describe the difference between both? Is the old Langer transformer in the MK1 which brings the magic in tone, or is the newer in the MK2 the one to go for? The external BIAS is convinient for sure, but i`m interested more in the Crunch and Gain sounds of Ch2 and Ch3. Clean is not that important. And soundwise, i`m more into lead playing like Eric Steckel, Marty Friedman, this type of sound is what i`m after. Complex, pronounced mids moreso than chug in the lows. Thanks

I'd opt for the Mk.3 - it's dropping jaws left, right and centre for those who've previously owned earlier revisions, and those coming in fresh to the Diezel camp.
2 cents.

 

[Tone_Master]

There's no difference between the MK2 and the MK3 other than the color. The transformers and circuitry are identical.

Try not to get sucked into the "Placebo Effect" a.k.a. the "Carbonaro Effect".

Old thread I know but I have finally got the mark 3 and owned several older ones so I'm well equipped to give a factual insight...

They are definitely different!! It's not just the colour and the chanel 2 plus minus business.
I did not like the old one that much at all I prefered the dmoll and Hagen and even my recto with a boost. The mark 3 herbert however is a monster. It has more mids it's more present while still being thick dark and evil.
The tone and the feel is a little tighter. The low end is a little less bloated and out of control but still massive and earth shattering and the whole thing is just more usable all-round.
I could be wrong but I swear the transformers are bigger too I had the dmoll at the same time as the old herb and the trannies looked comparable these one seem sooo huge biggest have seen bigger than wizard trannies.
Its probably the best metal amp out there and I have had them all. sure it doesn't tear your face of with marshally mids like a wizard but it's got the same huge feel that can stay as tight or you can let it get a little out of control like the uberschall but it's still tighter more focussed and more evil yet more refined and pleasant never spikey harsh or fatiguing like wizards can be when you crank them.
I would go the mk3 over mk1 or mk2 even if it was twice the price. It doesn't get much better highly recommend the herbert mk3 it's a lot of bang (and earthquake) for your buck.

 

[the other John Browne]

I am interested in the Herbert since months, but cant decide to buy a Mk1 or MK2. Can you describe the difference between both? Is the old Langer transformer in the MK1 which brings the magic in tone, or is the newer in the MK2 the one to go for? The external BIAS is convinient for sure, but i`m interested more in the Crunch and Gain sounds of Ch2 and Ch3. Clean is not that important. And soundwise, i`m more into lead playing like Eric Steckel, Marty Friedman, this type of sound is what i`m after. Complex, pronounced mids moreso than chug in the lows. Thanks

As you mentioned the mk 1 and 2 use different transformers, the bias points moved inside on the mk 2, the mk 2 has the Columbus footswitch connection, and the clean channel got more headroom on the mk 2.
Channels 2 and 3 are pretty much the same. I shot them out against each other and for all intents and purposes, they are the same tonally

 

[blacksun]

As you mentioned the mk 1 and 2 use different transformers, the bias points moved inside on the mk 2, the mk 2 has the Columbus footswitch connection, and the clean channel got more headroom on the mk 2.
Channels 2 and 3 are pretty much the same. I shot them out against each other and for all intents and purposes, they are the same tonally

I agree completely. If one mostly cares about the CH2+ and CH3 (both are amazing IMO, especially CH2+) which is were the Herbert shines the most, you are good with any version. Personally I really like the option of actually being able to change tubes myself without having to either hand it to a tech or open it up myself. There are potentially lethal voltages inside the amp, so external bias points and adjustments are such a great bonus IMO

 

[blacksun]

Also, to most players the clean is not that different in the early versions either, it doesn't distort very easily. I could argue that it lends itself to be a bit more versatile.