Mesa Mark III/IV questions

[etepbbb]

I hadn't really heard of people putting pedals in front of Mesas, but thought I'd ask anyway. It just occured to me, I didn't look at the wattage switch, so if it where set to high power I would've had to really cranked it up to get were I want to be. Maybe I'll again this weekend.

[Endrik]

You can use an OD pedal in front of a Mark but I don't see it adding anything special unlike with most other amps... unless you want to use that OD with clean channel.
That being said I think most of these amps sound good at low volume levels. My 180W M300 sounds good at any volume level. But they all come to live somewhere around 3 and up.

[emperor_black]

Endrik's guiding you in the right direction.

Adding a pedal will help, but not necessary as with say a Marshall to reach metal territory. Adding a pedal tightens up the sound a bit. Playing it LOUD, again like the Marshalls is not really necessary. They should sound great at low volumes. In fact, many consider the MK IV as the best bedroom amp. At low volumes, it still sounds nice and fat with all the gain that you could ever want.

The MK III you demo'd did it have a GEQ? If not, then that's probably the most the amp can do by itself. You'd need to try it with a EQ in the loop and scoop the sound a bit. A boss GE-7 is good enough.

Lastly, mesa's controls dont work quite the same way as other amps do. First off, dial the bass to zero or close to it. Then try eq'ing. If it has a GEQ start off with a V shape.

[etepbbb]

The M III did not have an EQ, of course the M IV I played did. I set the EQ in a V and got the MIV sounding pretty cool. Tweed/Triode/Class A, on the M IV. I have played around with IVs before, and read the manual at Mesa website. I was just surprised I couldn't get more of what I was after out of the M III, like you say, I probably need to mess with it more and figure out the right settings. Do ya think not having the EQ on these monsters really affects them that much?

[Grandturk]

Yeah - I think it because of the preamp gain structure - you don't get much of a boost on the lead channels with an OD. At least I don't with a variety of pedals in front of my Mk II.

[emperor_black]

Do ya think not having the EQ on these monsters really affects them that much?

I seriously do. I've messed with my MK IV's setting without engaging the GEQ, sort of trying to use the GEQ as a third channel, but I have not been able to get good tones on the LEAD channel without it. Any MK IV player will attest to the fact that without the GEQ, the Mark is not itself.

but again, if you can snatch a MK III for a good price, all it should take is a EQ pedal to get the tones you want. how much do they want for the MK III? ...if the iv is out of your reach.

[Endrik]

yep, you need to EQ the heck out of the preamp section as it has just too much mids (specially low mids), it's basically a Fender on alien steroids.

[themisfit138]

I love a Mark III for metal. I can get a good thrash tone from it. I have a black dot which is suppose to be the most similar to the IIC+. I like the III's metal tones better than the IV's. I like my tones to be a little more open and less compressed sounding but still have thick crunch.

[etepbbb]

I seriously do. I've messed with my MK IV's setting without engaging the GEQ, sort of trying to use the GEQ as a third channel, but I have not been able to get good tones on the LEAD channel without it. Any MK IV player will attest to the fact that without the GEQ, the Mark is not itself.

but again, if you can snatch a MK III for a good price, all it should take is a EQ pedal to get the tones you want. how much do they want for the MK III? ...if the iv is out of your reach.

I wasn't really interested in buying this one, they were asking about $1300. That about twice the asking price from what I've seen on fleabay or CL. Not to mention it was pretty beat. When the store starts out that high, it tough to beat down to where the price belongs. After trying this, the M IV looks alittle more attractive, however I'd like to find another one and try and tweak it into shape, just this one wasn't right for me.

[Endrik]

1.3K is pretty fuggin high, specially for one which doesn't have a graphic EQ.

I personally don't see any reason buying MKIII without the EQ in the first place.

[Grandturk]

You need the EQ on the Boogies to suck the midrange down to reasonable, Santana-less levels.

Now honestly, I've played Mk III's, and besides the extra Rhythm channel, I didn't really get anything more out of it than I can get out of my Mk IIA.

[MakeAJazzNoiseHere]

My friend has a Mark II of some sort... I'm not sure exactly which (he has no idea what it is, and I have never looked at the back panel). Anyway, it used to belong to someone famous.

It's a good-sounding amp and it does 80's metal well enough. But, it playing it at levels that won't get the cops at your door, it's not what I would call high gain. If the III is similar, I don't think it would suit me, at least. :dunno:

[Endrik]

Marks don't have the voicing of 90's amps, they are basically fenders but they have more than enough gain... it largely depends what settings you use, the treble knob for example gives shit loads of oomph but the actual hi freqs are controlled with the EQ

[Grandturk]

That's true. You get all of that crackly, crunchy gain from the Treble and Presence control (and a lot of noise, too - I know the IIB and IIC were mostly designed to be less noisey than the IIA). The gain knobs really just pour on the sustain - so you can get very smooth, clean, thick sustain. To me, that sound is like a metal solo without a distortion sound. Its not a clean sound, its gainy, but its so thick and sweet.

And the Pull Gain Boost control is absolutely useless unless you're playing single coils and want to sound like Santana.

Anyway, you ramp up the Treble and Presence and then shape the tone with the GEQ.

I recently sat with a Mark III (unknown stripe) for about an hour. To me, the clean channel was the same as mine (MK IIA), the Rhythm channel was an in-between sound that was more Marshally than the MK IIA can produce - think AC/DC. The lead channel sounded just like the lead channel on my Mk IIA. The Pull Deep function was definately different - but I mean, these things are pretty deep already - I couldn't see using it.

[Endrik]

Most of the time I keep the presence down at 0 as I love to have ridiculously thick tone but when I want some more crunch and whatnot then I'd might add a bit.
And I pull out all the knobs (except for those that change the channels) to get the lead tone I like the most and the chords sound really big that way. But for trash metal rhythms I think it's better to keep some of them in, like the deep function.

Anyway this is my current setting: