Mesa Mark III Black Dot / No Stripe vs Green Stripe?

J

jbru91

Active member
Hey everyone,

This is a bit of a niche question, but for anyone out there who has tried / owned both, what did you prefer and why? Curious to see if the differences are significant or not between these two models. Pricing premium seems to go towards the Black Dot / No Stripe from what I can see. Harder to come by or seen as the "better" model? FWIW, my only experience with a Mark series is the V and I found myself tweaking too much it and didn't excel at any one thing but was decent across the various channels.

Cheers,
Jesse
 
Last edited:
jbru91 said:
Hey everyone,

This is a bit of a niche question, but for anyone out there who has tried / owned both, what did you prefer and why? Curious to see if the differences are significant or not between these two models. Pricing premium seems to go towards the Black Stripe from what I can see. Harder to come by or seen as the "better" model? FWIW, my only experience with a Mark series is the V and I found myself tweaking too much it and didn't excel at any one thing but was decent across the various channels.

Cheers,
Jesse
Click to expand...
IMO ... you'll tweak a Mark III even more ....
I have a Mark III purple stripe ........ and the balance between the channels can be tricky to where you are happy with both ...
now if you're looking to just go dirty ..... it'll be a little easier .... but " the tone stack puzzle " is definitely prevalent on the III's and probably more so than the V
 
I had a green stripe for about 4-5 years, tried some no stripes and owned a no stripe coliseum. I believe a black stripe should be like a no stripe if I’m not mistaken. If that’s the case I’d say the no stripe/black stripe should have more growl, warmth and thickness, while the green should sound brighter (more intense high end), tighter, harder and a bit harsher

The no stripe IME sounds closest of the bunch to a c+, but they all sound like mark iii’s overall and will have that sound where vs a iic+ they have a less musical/somewhat messy quality to the high end, notably less overall detail/tonal complexity, especially in the mids and upper mids, but they still are to me the next best alternative to a c+. Some will say mark iv, but I find them a bit smooth/bland for my taste. Disclaimer, I actually haven’t tried a mark 7 yet, so not sure how it stacks up vs other marks
 
Last edited:
I have a no stripe but have yet to play a green stripe. From what I know the green stripe is mostly a blue stripe with small improvements and an extra 10 watts of output.
I think the black stripe premium tends to be because people think they all come with the 105 power transformer, and because they were the first model introduced after the iic. I don’t think you can go wrong with any stripe, and your preamp tube choice will probably play a larger factor in brightness, feel, ect than any small revision mesa did.
 
Green stripe is the best ever for imo. Better agression and just perfect mark time imo
 
Last edited:
braintheory said:
I had a green stripe for about 4-5 years, tried some no stripes and owned a no stripe coliseum. I believe a black stripe should be like a no stripe if I’m not mistaken. If that’s the case I’d say the no stripe/black stripe should have more growl, warmth and thickness, while the green should sound brighter (more intense high end), tighter, harder and a bit harsher

The no stripe IME sounds closest of the bunch to a c+, but they all sound like mark iii’s overall and will have that sound where vs a iic+ where they have a less musical/somewhat messy quality to the high end, notably less overall detail/tonal complexity, especially in the mids and upper mids, but they still are to me the next best alternative to a c+. Some will say mark iv, but I find them a bit smooth/bland for my taste. Disclaimer, actually, haven’t tried a mark 7 yet, so not sure how it stacks up vs other marks
Click to expand...
But IIC+'s are smooth sounding amps as well. Actually, there's no lack of aggression in a Mark IVb, and the gain is a bit more refined sounding vs a III . When I got my IV, I immediately sold my III red stripe, which in III's supposedly has the closest pre-amp to the IIC+. The IV sounded better in every respect IMO, angrier sounding, more modern sounding (meaning it doesn't sound dated like a III kinda does), more clarity, a lot punchier, especially in the palm mutes. A better more musical top end, meaning it doesn't sound harsh at all.

If you want that IIC+ sound I'd recommend a Mark IVa. When you pull the presence and put it in triode mode the circuit is supposedly very similar to a IIC+ DRG. But the Mark III red stripe has a very similar pre-amp circuit as well.
 
anomaly said:
But IIC+'s are smooth sounding amps as well. Actually, there's no lack of aggression in a Mark IVb, and the gain is a bit more refined sounding vs a III . When I got my IV, I immediately sold my III red stripe, which in III's supposedly has the closest pre-amp to the IIC+. The IV sounded better in every respect IMO, angrier sounding, more modern sounding (meaning it doesn't sound dated like a III kinda does), more clarity, a lot punchier, especially in the palm mutes. A better more musical top end, meaning it doesn't sound harsh at all.

If you want that IIC+ sound I'd recommend a Mark IVa. When you pull the presence and put it in triode mode the circuit is supposedly very similar to a IIC+ DRG. But the Mark III red stripe has a very similar pre-amp circuit as well.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree. I’ve done my AB‘ing homework many times now and my IIC+ HRG (as well as my non-simul colis) made the various mark IV’s come off very smooth and bland tonally (lacking detail and less responsiveness to picking nuances). Vs most other amps out there yes, very aggressive and great, but vs a non-simul c+ hell no IMHE (key word NOT simul, which are smoother sounding and I don’t like as much)

I also feel guys don’t use the term “refined” in a good way. Refined to me is what a c+ is where the tone is more 3D/complex and nuanced, more details/information going on around each individual note vs more homogenized amps. I don’t consider amps like Friedman’s refined for example. They to me come off just smooth, bland, polite and homogenous (lacking detail/nuance). I don’t consider that refined. I can certainly see why many prefer IV over 3’s. They do have more low mid punch vs other marks like you mentioned. I just myself prefer the more raw, rough around the edges sound of the 3’s vs 4’s, which I interpret to be a more aggressive sound, although admittedly sometimes unpleasant in the case of mark 3’s

I also think this whole thing about the Mark 3 or other amps sounding dated is extremely dependent on context. For example, if you use a 3 to cover white snake or other music of that era and also add obnoxious delay and other modulation then yes absolutely it sounds incredibly dated, but imo if used in modern music in a context where it fits in well with the music I don’t feel the sound comes off dated or pigeon holed as “that sound”. If anything it can come off unique in that context. Context is key imo. To other art forms as well
 
Last edited:
braintheory said:
I respectfully disagree. I’ve done my AB‘ing homework many times now and my IIC+ HRG (as well as my non-simul colis) made the various mark IV’s come off very smooth and bland tonally (lacking detail and less responsiveness to picking nuances). Vs most other amps out there yes, very aggressive and great, but vs a non-simul c+ hell no IMHE (key word NOT simul, which are smoother sounding and I don’t like as much)

I also feel guys don’t use the term “refined” in a good way. Refined to me is what a c+ is where the tone is more 3D/complex and nuanced, more details/information going on around each individual note vs more homogenized amps. I don’t consider amps like Friedman’s refined for example. They to me come off just smooth, bland, polite and homogenous (lacking detail/nuance). I don’t consider that refined. I can certainly see why many prefer IV over 3’s. They do have more low mid punch vs other marks like you mentioned. I just myself prefer the more raw, rough around the edges sound of the 3’s vs 4’s, which I interpret to be a more aggressive sound
Click to expand...
Well i've done some A/B'ing myself and I respectfully disagree with you as well, lol. I don't think IV's sound homogenous at all, in fact I find them some of the most unique sounding amps ever made. Nothing sounds like a Mark IV's lead channel, with that almost glassy kinda gain you can get out of them... there are certain settings you need to use to get that sound though. What I mean by refined is the grain of the distortion seems more compacted or something? where as the III it is rougher sounding, looser, not as pleasant to the ears, not as much even order harmonic content. The pitch of the notes being played on the III are not as pronounced because of this. I find the IV has that harmonic content but also has the ability to get downright mean sounding as well, especially the Rev B. It's funny how people see things or hear things differently, hey?
 
anomaly said:
Well i've done some A/B'ing myself and I respectfully disagree with you as well, lol. I don't think IV's sound homogenous at all, in fact I find them some of the most unique sounding amps ever made. Nothing sounds like a Mark IV's lead channel, with that almost glassy kinda gain you can get out of them... there are certain settings you need to use to get that sound though. What I mean by refined is the grain of the distortion seems more compacted or something? where as the III it is rougher sounding, looser, not as pleasant to the ears, not as much even order harmonic content. The pitch of the notes being played on the III are not as pronounced because of this. I find the IV has that harmonic content but also has the ability to get downright mean sounding as well, especially the Rev B. It's funny how people see things or hear things differently, hey?
Click to expand...
What I meant was it depends what amp it’s compared to. Vs the vast majority of amps I’d totally agree, but vs a non-simul iic+, a Naylor, good boosted stock old Marshall and a few others I find the 4 not as receptive to nuances in playing and right hand picking details. I understand some of those amps you don’t like the sound of and that’s all good, but they are more raw (minus the Naylor maybe) and I find more responsive to certain aspects in playing

The mark iii definitely can get harsh or unpleasant, I agree there. I’m not saying 4’s don’t sound killer and mean in their own right, I’m just saying vs my c+ hrg, I found the overall tone lacked 3D detail (not sure the best way to word it) and sounded smoother/less growl on powerchords, less lively or what I consider to be not as far down on the more raw, organic side of the spectrum. I’m though admittedly a stickler for growl (most important part for me) and really all marks fall short for me in that department vs the early Revision Recto’s

That tonal complexity or 3D detail (as I like to put it) is I think the main thing that distinguishes levels, not only in guitar gear, but I think in pretty much most musical instruments like a Stradivarius for violins, a Hauser, Bouchet or Romanillos for classical guitars, etc. As far as high gain amps go the IIC+ is among the best I’ve tried so far in that department. The best I’ve tried ever is the one ‘70’s Dumble I got to try. No amp I’ve tried I’d consider anywhere near as good in tone quality
 
Last edited:
braintheory said:
What I meant was it depends what amp it’s compared to. Vs the vast majority of amps I’d totally agree, but vs a non-simul iic+, a Naylor, good boosted stock old Marshall and a few others I find the 4 not as receptive to nuances in playing and right hand picking details. I understand some of those amps you don’t like the sound of and that’s all good, but they are more raw (minus the Naylor maybe) and I find more responsive to certain aspects in playing

The mark iii definitely can get harsh or unpleasant, I agree there. I’m not saying 4’s don’t sound killer and mean in their own right, I’m just saying vs my c+ hrg, I found the overall tone lacked 3D detail (not sure the best way to put it) and sounded smoother/less growl on powerchords, less lively or what I consider to be on the more raw, organic side of the spectrum. I’m though admittedly a stickler for growl (most important part for me) and really all marks fall short for me in that department vs the earl Rev Recto’s
Click to expand...
Ya, I'm not saying it's a better amp than a IIC+, it's definitely not as legendary as the IIC+. I'm just saying that I think a IV is a better choice than a III. That's just my opinion though, and based on what my ears like to hear. I find the IV to be the perfect amp for me, which is why I've been using one as my main amp for10 years now. It agrees with my playiing style better than any other amp I've used. I even like R2 (with a tube screamer) if you can believe that??
 
anomaly said:
Ya, I'm not saying it's a better amp than a IIC+, it's definitely not as legendary as the IIC+. I'm just saying that I think a IV is a better choice than a III. That's just my opinion though, and based on what my ears like to hear. I find the IV to be the perfect amp for me, which is why I've been using one as my main amp for10 years now. It agrees with my playiing style better than any other amp I've used. I even like R2 (with a tube screamer) if you can believe that??
Click to expand...
I can believe all that. The IV is a fantastic amp and I definitely see how it can be much better than the 3 for many guys, depending on like you said playing, taste, etc. Some amps that are less nuanced or complex than my c+ also can work better for my playing like my Hermansson’s despite how hollow, compressed and distant they can sound, they work for me very well due to their unusual tightness and fast response. They make me play better. I’m not actually crazy about them tonally in many ways, but overall they are very enjoyable for me

I don’t care about how legendary the c+ is or who used it. Same goes for any gear I try. I just judge the tone that’s in front of me and the c+ is among my personal top 4 or 5 favorites there for me
 
braintheory said:
I can believe all that. The IV is a fantastic amp and I definitely see how it can be much better than the 3 for many guys, depending on like you said playing, taste, etc. Some amps that are less nuanced or complex than my c+ also can work better for my playing like my Hermansson’s despite how hollow, compressed and distant they can sound, they work for me very well due to their unusual tightness and fast response. They make me play better. I’m not actually crazy about them tonally in many ways, but overall they are very enjoyable for me

I don’t care about how legendary the c+ is or who used it. Same goes for any gear I try. I just judge the tone that’s in front of me and the c+ is among my personal top 4 or 5 favorites there for me
Click to expand...
You know, I don't really think a IIC+ is the amp to get if you're looking for nuance, I think they're for people looking to rip it up. Old Plexi's and non-master volume amps like Fender bassman's and such are for people looking for nuance.
 
anomaly said:
You know, I don't really think a IIC+ is the amp to get if you're looking for nuance, I think they're for people looking to rip it up. Old Plexi's and non-master volume amps like Fender bassman's and such are for people looking for nuance.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Of course they do a great job at ripping it up too, but as far as compressed high gain amps go it has lots of nuance and it’s very special in the way each note connects on lead-work in a human-like way like a singer would shape melody’s. Very liquid/legato. The other marks don’t quite have that. No it doesn’t have it to the level of a Jim Kelley, but still damn good for a compressed high gain metal amp

I’ve had those amps you mentioned too and of course they are amazing, but besides not working for metal, I don’t think they have the same type of tonal nuances as my c+. They have for sure have some nuances and responsiveness that the c+ doesn’t simply by being way less compressed and lower gain, but that’s a different thing I’d say
 
Last edited:
I have a IIC+/++ and Green Stripe and a Mk V 90
The Green is the most aggressive and can be the brightest
IIC+/++ does the thing the best, ++ mode is pretty close to the Green but less high end
The V 90 kinda covers everything but isnt quite as tonally pleasing as the OGs. But is much more functional or useful for live use - wider tonal range and does channel switching properly whereas the II and III are only really best when setting up one channel at a time.
 
braintheory said:
I disagree. Of course they do a great job at ripping it up too, but as far as compressed high gain amps go it has lots of nuance and it’s very special in the way each note connects on lead-work in a human-like way like a singer would shape melody’s. Very liquid/legato. The other marks don’t have that. I’ve had those amps you mentioned too and of course they are amazing, but besides not working for metal, I don’t think they have the same type of tonal nuances as my c+. They have for sure have some nuances and responsiveness that the c+ doesn’t simply by being way less compressed and lower gain, but that’s a different thing I’d say
Click to expand...
OK then. By the way, the best lead tone I've ever heard came from Petrucci using a Mark IVb, just sounded amazing IMO. The notes definitely connected in a very liquidy, singing way.
 
anomaly said:
OK then. By the way, the best lead tone I've ever heard came from Petrucci using a Mark IVb, just sounded amazing IMO. The notes definitely connected in a very liquidy, singing way.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah absolutely, the IV’s are amazing at that as well, it’s just that when ab’ed I found the c+‘s to just be on another level (or even 2 lol honestly) for that. I also like I said before don’t care what other guys are doing with their gear. I just judge what is in front of me with the gear I’m playing at the time and to me the difference was very obvious. Can’t say what others would think
 
braintheory said:
What I meant was it depends what amp it’s compared to. Vs the vast majority of amps I’d totally agree, but vs a non-simul iic+, a Naylor, good boosted stock old Marshall and a few others I find the 4 not as receptive to nuances in playing and right hand picking details. I understand some of those amps you don’t like the sound of and that’s all good, but they are more raw (minus the Naylor maybe) and I find more responsive to certain aspects in playing

The mark iii definitely can get harsh or unpleasant, I agree there. I’m not saying 4’s don’t sound killer and mean in their own right, I’m just saying vs my c+ hrg, I found the overall tone lacked 3D detail (not sure the best way to word it) and sounded smoother/less growl on powerchords, less lively or what I consider to be not as far down on the more raw, organic side of the spectrum. I’m though admittedly a stickler for growl (most important part for me) and really all marks fall short for me in that department vs the early Revision Recto’s

That tonal complexity or 3D detail (as I like to put it) is I think the main thing that distinguishes levels, not only in guitar gear, but I think in pretty much most musical instruments like a Stradivarius for violins, a Hauser, Bouchet or Romanillos for classical guitars, etc. As far as high gain amps go the IIC+ is among the best I’ve tried so far in that department. The best I’ve tried ever is the one ‘70’s Dumble I got to try. No amp I’ve tried I’d consider anywhere near as good in tone quality
Click to expand...

@GJgo in his a/b test said that the ammount of the clean channel’s bleed into lead channel is what produces that difference in amps. Have you seen his comparison?
 
CrystalSky said:
@GJgo in his a/b test said that the ammount of the clean channel’s bleed into lead channel is what produces that difference in amps. Have you seen his comparison?
Click to expand...
I’ll have to check out the video. I’m not a tech guy and don’t know what does or doesn’t produce the results. I just judge the tones that are in front of me and for that I didn’t feel any of the other marks were in the same league to my ears, some may disagree
 
Last edited:
owned IIB series 300 coli, III no stripe no eq, currently a III simul blue
and long time borrowed a III green combo, IV combo, and have played zach’s III coli no stripe a billion times and his IIB with fetron tube combo way back. aldo played several other blues IIIs and a C+ combo.

IV had my favorite clean, followed by the green combo

coli III was the most ferocious followed by the blue IIIs

green was my fave for fat fusiony lead retaining some III hair followed by the fetron IIB. IV has a smooth lead thing but lacked II and III’s fury.

my IIB coli was very good clean and had a fatness to it but a little too loose and touchy to balance. zach’s IIB was closer to the C/C+ and a legato monster.
 
Having owned several mark III amps , the green is more brutal sounding / pentode thing maybe and closer sounding to the mark IV while the no stripe I had was closer to the mark iic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top