Question: Mesa Mark Five vs. XTC / Alchemist

  • Thread starter Thread starter shogun
  • Start date Start date
shogun

shogun

New member
How would you compare these amps, in terms of tone, quality, reliability, versatility, etc..

I have heard that the alchemist is very much similar to the ecstasy, so I figured I'd inquire about that as well..
Which amp would you prefer for Rhythm? Cleans? Lead? Allen Hinds type fusion tone?

Any info would be useful!

Steve
 
Hello Steve,
i can`t help you with that. But i know Adam owned both the Mesa Mark IIc, Mark IV,
Bogner XTC, Alchemist and a lot of other amps. His username on Rig talk is:

Random Hero

Here is a link to his You tube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/user/RandomHero12

He is a really nice guy and knows to play a guitar. If i where you i would send him a PM he surely will help you.

Best Andy
 
shogun":25pi4zl7 said:
How would you compare these amps, in terms of tone, quality, reliability, versatility, etc..

I have heard that the alchemist is very much similar to the ecstasy, so I figured I'd inquire about that as well..
Which amp would you prefer for Rhythm? Cleans? Lead? Allen Hinds type fusion tone?

Any info would be useful!

Steve
Click to expand...
I wouldn't put the Alchemist too close to the Ecstasy. For one, the Alchemist is manufactured and distributed by Line 6 and is only designed by Bogner. Aside from that, they have a much different feel to them and thought the Alchemist is a great amp, the Ecstasy is more versatile. The Ecstasy - since it's built with higher end parts - is higher quality and in theory, more reliable.

I owned a Mark V for about a week before returning it. It's a cool amp for sure, but the tones just weren't there. I've heard many times that simple circuitry sounds better than bells and whistles galore, and I can't help but believe it. After all, look at the Mark IIC+, the holy grail of the Mark series. Anyway, I specifically didn't like the feel of the amp. It sounded decent enough, but was nowhere near as good as my Ecstasy.
 
i've had a Mark V since June but my Ecstasy only a month. so i can't give a definitive comparison, but i can give some impressions.

i dig the Mark V. the cleans are gorgeous--better than the Ecstasy IMO, although with bright preamp tubes i can get the Ecstasy close. the Mark V has more clean versatility with its three modes, one of which is a nice SRV sorta "pushed" clean tone.

the Mark V gain channels all have that dark thick Boogie sound. the Crunch channel i find really balanced, good lows and highs, and gets up to medium-high gain. the Mk IIC+ mode has less lows and not super-high amounts of gain but has that 80s LA metal bite to it. the Mk IV mode is darker with more lows and more gain. the Extreme mode is like two-thirds Mark plus one-third Recto--mean and tight. the Mk I mode can be boomy but dialed in right is very thick and creamy--classic Boogie lead.

in my time with the Ecstasy gain channels so far, it sounds more snarly, more EL34 mids sorta sound, than the V. it's still plenty thick but a slightly different sort of thick, a bit more open and less dark. i think it's somewhere between the dark Boogie sound and the raspy higher-mid snarl of the classic Marshall sound--snarly but a bit dark, if that makes sense.

the Ecstasy is less tight for me in the low-end on high-gain sounds, and has a bit less low end than i'm getting from my V, but that may be because i haven't dialed the Ecstasy in great yet. (it's also part of the reason i want to try KT77s in my Ecstasy, to get a tiny bit more of that 6L6 sorta sound, slightly tighter and bigger low-end.)

they both have lots of switches and options for tweaking, which is cool. they both have half-power options. the V took me 8 months to dial in right, preamp tubes and settings. but i've heard the Ecstasy can take a while too. i haven't yet gotten a great smooth lead sound out of the Ecstasy, but Steve Vai has, so i'm pretty sure it's in there. :)
 
thanks guys.. this is exactly what i wanted for feedback.. i have a mark v, very curious about the bogner.. i was really impressed with the alchemist when i played it, but it was quite a while ago, when i was still using a lonestar special.. i should get to try some amps this month, maybe this week.. i am also very excited to try the port city sahana, though its quite different
 
shogun":1bxkvfph said:
thanks guys.. this is exactly what i wanted for feedback.. i have a mark v, very curious about the bogner..
Click to expand...
ah, then you already know all the stuff i said about the Mark V! :)

so far with my 101B, to me it sounds in-between Mark dark tone and Marshall mid-range rasp. if you wanted an Ecstasy that sounds less dark and more open, you might look at the XTC Classic or 20th Anniversary. i've never played those, but that's how they're said to sound compared to the 101B.
 
The Alchemist is nowhere near as versatile or as good sounding IMO as either of the other two amps mentioned. They do sound good for what they are, but the V and XTC are in another league (and price range). I've also heard of reliability issues with the Alchemist, but Bogner's USA stuff and Boogie's stuff are top notch for build quality and reliability.

The XTC is a very smooth and compressed amp whereas the Mark can be dialed in to sound smooth for leads, but it is much "harder" and more focused sound that cuts more. That's not say the XTC has trouble cutting through a mix; it doesn't at all. It is just voiced more classic Marshall than razory-boogie. The XTC's clean channel is better than the V IMO. Warmer and more bell-like. The blue channel is one of the best classic rock sounds I've ever heard and the red ch can be dialed in for that "white hot" marshally sound, but smoother.

The Boogie is harder to describe, so I'll let someone else do it! ;)
 
Although my main amp is a Mesa/Boogie MarkIV, in this case I would choose the XTC!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top