boogie guys pop in for a mo

Hootsmon

you know that voltage selector on the back of the European boogies?, where should that ideally be set in the uk, 220,230 or 240?

and question 2 folks....which do you prefer and why...mark 3s or 4s?

many thanks

Hootsmon

do I hear an advance on 230?

ta bro

sweepy

Mk3's for me , the Mk4 is a complicated heavy old beast with knobs not really suited to those with thick fingers, and I preferred the sound of the Mk3 tbh, which is all that it comes down to .

Hootsmon

are tha mark 3s cleans better ya think?

sweepy

I felt them a lot sweeter, the Mk4 always felt a bit "synthetic" for want of a better phrase, and my back didn't care for the chore of hefting the Mk4 about .

ICBM

240V if it has a setting for it, 230 if not, and not 220 unless the only other setting is 110/120V.

I preferred the sound of the MkIII but found it impossible to set up for more than one good sound at once (two just about possible, but not with the sounds I wanted). The MkIV is marginally easier to set up - although it still has the annoyance of partially shared EQ between R1 and R2 - but didn't sound as good… somehow too 'refined' or as sweepy said, 'synthetic'.

octatonic

In terms of preference: V IV II I III.

richardhomer

I had a MkIII and loved it (hardwood/wicker cab, Simulclass, graphic, reverb, EV, 'fully loaded' as the Americans would say). It still remains the bench-mark for clean sounds for me. It's true that only two decent sounds were available that could be foot switched between. The crunch 'channel' (it wasn't really a second channel as billed) sounded awful and was markedly louder than the clean channel. I loved the fat-sounding, vocal lead channel. In fact, apart from the fact that it weighed more than a family car, it's hard to think why I sold it....

ICBM

octatonic said:

In terms of preference: V IV II I III.

I haven't played the V yet, but going by your list I suspect I should avoid it like the plague despite its proper independent (finally!) EQ… since otherwise, my list would be the same but the other way round .

I did like the full-on lead tone on the III - the best 'Boogie' sound of any amp they've done - but the clean was never quite as good (at least at any settings which gave the best sounds on Lead) and R2 was awful… so I mostly agree with richardhomer .

But I much prefer the Rectifiers to any of them anyway .

ThePrettyDamned

I heard the clean tone was based on a blackface fender, is that true?

If so, it's a cool way to get that sound plus a bunch of other cool sounds. Though I don't like blackface clean sounds, from the boutique amps I've heard. It's just sterile...

EdGrip

240v if there's the option.

ICBM

ThePrettyDamned said:

I heard the clean tone was based on a blackface fender, is that true?

If so, it's a cool way to get that sound plus a bunch of other cool sounds. Though I don't like blackface clean sounds, from the boutique amps I've heard. It's just sterile…

The whole amp is based - initially at least - on a Blackface Fender, and it can get into the ballpark of that sort of clean sound… although stiffer and bolder, in my opinion. Don't buy one to get a good BF clean sound by itself - buy a Boogie for the Boogie lead sound - anything else you can get out of it is just a bonus.

The problem is that on the MkIII, to get the best clean sound you need the bass up and the middle down, which is the opposite of what you need for the best lead sound - in fact if you put too much bass on, the lead channel sounds horrible no matter what you do with the graphic EQ and the pull-switches. And you can't get a good R2 sound at the same time as either of the other channels, if at all.

The MkIV is similar in that although it has a separate lead channel, and R2 is better, R2 still shares its bass and middle EQ with R1, and these still need to be set oppositely to give the best sounds on both channels…

I'm sure they work for some people, but they're very much a love/hate amp.

ThePrettyDamned

Thanks, wisdom awarded.  

I heard the Mk 1 in my local being played by a pretty good player, and it sounded amazeballs.  Huge, quite open sounding crunch/lead (I'd always thought they were very compressed sounding).  Never heard the clean :P

So loud for such a teeny amp, too.

ICBM

ThePrettyDamned said:

Thanks, wisdom awarded.  

I heard the Mk 1 in my local being played by a pretty good player, and it sounded amazeballs.  Huge, quite open sounding crunch/lead (I'd always thought they were very compressed sounding).  Never heard the clean :P

So loud for such a teeny amp, too.

If you're in line in front of it, yes - they're also among the most directional amps, which is partly why they're so loud when you are in front.

The MkI is definitely the most open-sounding and least compressed of the Marks, and would be my favourite except that it doesn't quite have enough gain to get that 'Boogie lead' sound without being cranked to ridiculous volume levels… and the 'Boogie lead' sound is the only reason I would want one, although it's still far from my favourite sound.

koneguitarist

I preferred the MKII myself, the MKIII is a great amp, but can be hard to control at times.

sweepy

On a different tack, have you tried the Studio 22, a pair of EL84's, still glassy clean , a fair crunch and filth but it doesn't require a chiropractor

ThorpyFX

I've got a Mark V myself (combo) its probably the most versatile amp I've ever come across. With reference to the original post, 240V is what is supplied in the UK.

llew

I'v had a mkiii,mkiv and a dc 5 I really wanted to like boogies but just couldn't get on with them.The clean on the mkiii was just gorgeous but couldn't get a good sound out of the other channel's with those eq settings. The mkiv is a lot more versatile but quite bland, the dc5 was my favourite (and the cheapest) And I agree their very directional,if you're standing to the side you can't hear them stand in front of them and they take your head off!