Bogner 101b and Mesa Triple Crown

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

journeyman73

Well-known member
does anyone have direct experience with these two amp?

wondering which you preferred and why?

curious about the tone and feel across the 3 channels for each amp...versatility, etc..

I don't need, specifically, the Fender-Marshall-High Gain thing per se, (or at least not looking to nail any particular amp brand's tone vs just getting varying levels of clean and drive with the whatever the signature sound of each amp is).
 
I had a 101B for a while and I'm familiar with Mesa Mark and Rectifier tones.
Never played a TC but have heard they are along the lines of the classic
three channel Fender/Marshall/Hi-Gain thing.

The 101B green channel is basically a Fender blackface type circuit.
The blue and red are crunch and lead but with the classic Bogner lower mid
chewy thing happening.

This was mine.
 

Attachments

  • XTC.jpg
    XTC.jpg
    238.1 KB · Views: 64
journeyman73 said:
does anyone have direct experience with these two amp?

wondering which you preferred and why?

curious about the tone and feel across the 3 channels for each amp...versatility, etc..

I don't need, specifically, the Fender-Marshall-High Gain thing per se, (or at least not looking to nail any particular amp brand's tone vs just getting varying levels of clean and drive with the whatever the signature sound of each amp is).
Click to expand...
Pretty different amps, as I'm sure you know. Bogner all the way for me for tone and feel - but I'm not much of a Mesa fan in general.

I think the Lamb of God guy uses a TC, sounds great for his style.
 
I think for lighter gain stuff a lead amp, the feel of the XTC is amazing. However after getting to play the TC100 I’d say it does remind me of a more modern sounding XTC in my opinion. It has that little something sweet in the mid range which I like and has a great feel to it. Both have great clean tones as well as drive. The Mesa with the independent eqs is a little more versatile and with the tight option brings you into more modern territory. The XTC is probably one of the best lead channel amps out there, and it has a lot going on with the tone of the amp. If I had to pick one I’d lean more on the side of the TC because I’m into more modern tones and drop tunings where I think the TC takes the cake.
 
I have both and enjoy both. I honestly don't feel you could go wrong with either one. If you are going to get the TC, make sure you get the 100. It has the attenuator in it etc and I feel it is more versatile than the 50 watt version. The Bogner isn't quite as tight and is a bit more smooth. Cleans on both are great if you know how to dial them in. To do the modern metal riff thing on the Bogner you will most likely need a boost where you could get away without it on the Mesa. The mid gain tones pleasantly surprised me on the TC. I found them to be quite useful. The lead tones I would lean a little to the Bogner. I am comparing apples to apples as much as I can here. By that I mean a fully loaded Bogner with all the options on back with the TC 100.
 
I’ve had the TC50 and I’m now playing a Bogner 3534. ( not a 101b but I imagine it not to be too far off). To me the Mesa is far more immediate and harder sounding. I struggled with the clean, it didn’t feel right, again very hard, not complete fender and not really anything else. I like the second channel of the Mesa, had a kind of jcm800 thing going on with some distinct high mids, I couldn’t get the 3rd channel to really work for me, couldn’t dial in enough low mids. Overall, to me, the tc50 felt like a very honest amp, very immediate, not much sag/sponge and any mistakes were very well broadcast.

The Bogner feels softer, more forgiving. The clean channel feels nicer, more fender although cranking the volume and using the gain to control overall levels fattens the sound up to be more bassman like. The blue channel also has the Marshall thing going on, this is a great versatile channel, a bit light on bass but very playable and enjoyable. The red channel has the Bogner signature sound, thick, chewy, lo mids, a very fat sounding channel that can seem a bit dark compared to the blue channel. The Bogner has more versatility due to the b1/2 switching and the excursion settings but both are good, versatile amps. I came down on the Bogner side of the fence because it suited the music I play better but they’re both pretty handy amps.
 
headlessdeadguy said:
That’s one of my bucket list amps.
Click to expand...
I was going to sell mine until I stopped tuning it with my eyes and started tuning with my ears. The presence is absolutely key to getting aggressiveness out of them. Jack the mids and lows, keep the presence high, and treble close to off to taste. Hit it with an SD-1 and it’s just absolutely jaw dropping - it’s completely different and not smooth at all - very complex and 3D - extended lows and extended mids/highs.

With the 525V plate voltage it’s also louder than my refreshed 6550 loaded Marshall. By far the loudest amp I own. It’s just brutal :rock:
 
glpg80 said:
I was going to sell mine until I stopped tuning it with my eyes and started tuning with my ears. The presence is absolutely key to getting aggressiveness out of them. Jack the mids and lows, keep the presence high, and treble close to off to taste. Hit it with an SD-1 and it’s just absolutely jaw dropping - it’s completely different and not smooth at all - very complex and 3D - extended lows and extended mids/highs.

With the 525V plate voltage it’s also louder than my refreshed 6550 loaded Marshall. By far the loudest amp I own. It’s just brutal :rock:
Click to expand...
I think I need to move both of my Splawns to make room for one of these.
 
The big appeal of the TC100 for me is that all the channels feel like a natural progression in the amount of gain while having a consistent overall tone. The Ecstasy is intended to sound like 3 different amps which may or may not work for you.
 
Marykelly said:
The big appeal of the TC100 for me is that all the channels feel like a natural progression in the amount of gain while having a consistent overall tone. The Ecstasy is intended to sound like 3 different amps which may or may not work for you.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is correct - It’s advertised as a 3 channel, but channel 2 and channel 3 are intended to be chosen as an either or preference and not a gradual increase in gain as say a 5150 III. To make up for this there’s a plexi mode you can assign to channel 2 or channel 3 to make it a crunch channel, but when assigned to your unused channel it does affect your used preferred channel slightly in doing so. Not badly, but it’s noticeable. A good tool for someone to take some gain out without losing detail by adjusting the gain itself.

The advantage of the Bogner over the TC, IMO, is that it’s a library of different tones in one amplifier. It can do crunch, clean, high gain, takes pedals well (provides more tonal variety with pedals, as in the tone doesn’t stay the same when they’re used), and there’s also a class A option.

I find it covers a lot of ground but can take a while to dial in to your preferred tonal tastes. It shows that the amp doesn’t have a predefined tone dialed in by design that you can’t change which is the reason I love it.
 
Yeah the Ecstasy definitely does more sounds and is a tweaker's dream. The Mesa is like a Bogner amp for someone who doesn't like to deal with a ton of options.
 
glpg80 said:
Yeah this is correct - It’s advertised as a 3 channel, but channel 2 and channel 3 are intended to be chosen as an either or preference and not a gradual increase in gain as say a 5150 III. To make up for this there’s a plexi mode you can assign to channel 2 or channel 3 to make it a crunch channel, but when assigned to your unused channel it does affect your used preferred channel slightly in doing so. Not badly, but it’s noticeable. A good tool for someone to take some gain out without losing detail by adjusting the gain itself.

The advantage of the Bogner over the TC, IMO, is that it’s a library of different tones in one amplifier. It can do crunch, clean, high gain, takes pedals well (provides more tonal variety with pedals, as in the tone doesn’t stay the same when they’re used), and there’s also a class A option.

I find it covers a lot of ground but can take a while to dial in to your preferred tonal tastes. It shows that the amp doesn’t have a predefined tone dialed in by design that you can’t change which is the reason I love it.
Click to expand...
Marykelly said:
Yeah the Ecstasy definitely does more sounds and is a tweaker's dream. The Mesa is like a Bogner amp for someone who doesn't like to deal with a ton of options.
Click to expand...

interesting - almost sounds kind of similar to how you need to work the Mark V (though much simpler than the Mesa, still, I would think).

I am surprised to hear this about the 101b, as I was thinking/hoping it wild fall more in the true clean-crunch-high gain lead realm.
 
journeyman73 said:
interesting - almost sounds kind of similar to how you need to work the Mark V (though much simpler than the Mesa, still, I would think).

I am surprised to hear this about the 101b, as I was thinking/hoping it wild fall more in the true clean-crunch-high gain lead realm.
Click to expand...

I mean you can dial it in that way - the red channel adds another gain stage and revoices the amp to be focused for lead playing. It’s mushy sounding at reasonable volume levels and really has too much gain for anything less than full on band practice where it opens up and shines.

You’ll find though, and as others have stated before me, that you’ll hate one channel or love another channel, rarely do people like both or hate both. I prefer channel 2 over channel 3 and keep a boost on at all times for rhythm as it’s more aggressive and cuts like a knife in the mids. I use a simple level increase using a flat EQ in the loop for solos. I could use channel 3 itself for solos but it’s got the caveats mentioned prior from my experience. Unless you’ve got the amp jacked into an attenuator or are running a lot of effects in series, channel 3 has a lot to be desired. As always, YMMV.
 
Last edited:
glpg80 said:
I mean you can dial it in that way - the red channel adds another gain stage and revoices the amp to be focused for lead playing. It’s mushy sounding at reasonable volume levels and really has too much gain for anything less than full on band practice where it opens up and shines.

You’ll find though, and as others have stated before me, that you’ll hate one channel or love another channel, rarely do people like both or hate both. I prefer channel 2 over channel 3 and keep a boost on at all times for rhythm as it’s more aggressive and cuts like a knife in the mids. I use a simple level increase using a flat EQ in the loop for solos. I could use channel 3 itself for solos but it’s got the caveats mentioned prior from my experience. Unless you’ve got the amp jacked into an attenuator or are running a lot of effects in series, channel 3 has a lot to be desired. As always, YMMV.
Click to expand...

hmm, so you’re almost suggesting that not only is the transition between channels not great - but that it may be probable one of the 3 channels may not even strike me as that great, regardless of switching constraints…

I’m gonna need to somehow try one, without obligation
 
journeyman73 said:
hmm, so you’re almost suggesting that not only is the transition between channels not great - but that it may be probable one of the 3 channels may not even strike me as that great, regardless of switching constraints…

I’m gonna need to somehow try one, without obligation
Click to expand...
Well it gets better!

There’s different revisions. Post 2004 is the modern version with even more gain in channel 3. The ones that have less gain in channel 3 are prior to 2004 and can only be found used. Bogner didn’t want to make it default but it’s feedback from customers that drove the change.

There was a mods topic in the Bogner forum outlining what components to change or add for pre or post 2004 changes, but it’s no longer found.

If you’re thinking you want a pre 2004 version, get in line. Not many come up for sale and when they do they command a pretty fair used price.

Additionally, if you go old enough in years, say mid to late 90’s, Bogner used mercury magnetics output transformers stock custom to his specs. They’re more aggressive than later models.

You’re right - it’s an amp you need to try! As mentioned prior it’s a tweakers paradise but once you find what works for you, you’ll find literally nothing else will come close. Completely customizable.
 
OP, I replied to this thread on TGP.
I'll add here that the Mesa is way easier to use as a 3 channel amp. You can make all 3 channels work together with no problem. Definitely a bit harder on the XTC amps.
When I had the 20th Anniversary EL34 XTC I often felt it was a bit congested and lacking the magic I was expecting. That was until I did a large outdoor gig and opened it up and holy balls was that thing ever glorious that night. One of my favorite experiences playing electric guitar right there.
Not very practical though. My opportunities to get to that sort of volume even when I was gigging a lot were few and far between.
The Mesa wins for being consistent and easy to dial up at any volume.
 
I have a pre 2004 with mercury magnetics and I love the lead channel but holy shit that thing is a monster. Loudest amp I own by a fair margin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top