• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Little Mark III or GK MB500

F

funkysurfer

Apr 20, 2000
258
4
53
Coconut Creek, FL
www.myspace.com
#1
Hello everyone,

I am in the market for a new amp head. I have only played the Markbass SD1200 and Markbass Mini CMD 121P which I believe has the LMII head. I was very happy with the tones I was getting from both amps and started considering the CMD 121P.

Does LMIII sound like the LMII or is there something I'm missing?

Here's what I'm looking for:
Something that translates my MM Stingrays sound best.

Something that will tame its brightness. My Ray is a bit too bright. I want to add some warmth.

Something that when called upon, will give me a "tubey" sound.

I have read some good things about the MB 500 and love the GK tone. Just haven't come across one to try. Will I be able to achieve the aforementioned with this amp? My concern is that it may be too bright.

Thanks,
Shawn
 
#2
The only difference between the LMII and the III is the volume on the line out. I have played both the II and the III and can not tell a difference in sound. Personally, I use the LMIII and love it. As far as my expirence with GK goes I've only played on a GK1001II. Still, I wouldn't use anything other than my LMIII right now.
 
#3
funkysurfer said:
Something that will tame its brightness.
Click to expand...

This sentence leads me to recommend the LMIII over the GK in this instance. GKs tend to enhance brightness rather than tame it IME. The Markbass products are pretty popular with the EBMM crowd, so it is probably a good combination. I actually like both amps a lot, but if adding warmth and taming brightness were a concern of mine, I would definitely not look towards GK first.

Also, AFAIK, there is no difference in TONE between the LMII and the LMIII. The LMIII is supposedly designed to work better (i.e. more available output before hitting the limiter) with an 8-ohm load and the DI has more features than the one on the LMII. But, it is still essentially the same amp.
 
#5
I have a GK MB500 and just sold a Markbass LM II. I warm is what your looking for , I'd go with the Markbass.

The Markbass is a heavy hitter, with focus on the lower mids IMO.

I think the MB500 is voiced similar to the GK 700RBII, with more high end sizzle.

You really cant go wrong with either, but if you want to tame down a Stingray, I'd look at the Markbass real hard.
 
#7
Th LMIII is pure clean power. It essentially "amplifies" the sound of your bass.

The GK will "color" the sound -- which some people like. I don't.

I personally find GK's to be thin. They sound sweet when playing alone, but with the band, there's no balls. Step away from the stage and it's gone. The G string always sounds "weeny" and the low E, a bit muddy. The LM is a bit harsher and more midrangey -- but stronger and more cutting.

I switched from GK to Acoustic Image years ago and was amazed how much more "even" the sound was. The LMIII is like a beefed up AI.

At 6 pounds, 500 watts for $600 it was a no brainer.
 
#8
LMIII and LMII have the same tone and power. The DI section of the LMIII is upgraded with a seperate output volume control and a Pre vs. Post Gain button.

I have no experience with the GK, but I have been using the LM for the past year or so. Nothing but clean pure sound and power. It's uncanny. My bass sounds like my bass. If I need color, I have stomps for that.
 
#9
plangentmusic said:
Th LMIII is pure clean power. It essentially "amplifies" the sound of your bass.

The GK will "color" the sound -- which some people like. I don't.

I personally find GK's to be thin. They sound sweet when playing alone, but with the band, there's no balls. Step away from the stage and it's gone. The G string always sounds "weeny" and the low E, a bit muddy. The LM is a bit harsher and more midrangey -- but stronger and more cutting.

I switched from GK to Acoustic Image years ago and was amazed how much more "even" the sound was. The LMIII is like a beefed up AI.

At 6 pounds, 500 watts for $600 it was a no brainer.
Click to expand...

"Thin" ??? I have to disagree here. I played in an 11 piece blues band with a GK 700RB II running Avatar 212 and 210 NEO cabs @4homs. I cut through just fine.
 
#10
funkysurfer said:
I'm also considering the LM Tube. However, I have read that there isn't much of a difference in warmth compared to the LM III.

Has anyone found this to be the case?
Click to expand...

I A/B-ed a LMIII and a LM tube through a Markbass Traveler 210 cab and noticed a difference in warmth, but not a whole lot. Wasn't really impressed with the tube channel on its own, but did feel I could add a *little* something to the sound (and, it seemed, to the gain) by mixing in some tube with the solid state. Not a whole lot, though.

Bear in mind that this was a five minute test in a noisy Guitar Center, so hardly conclusive.
 
#11
My MB500(2) is voiced much thicker/warmer than my 400, 700, or 1001RBII. Mids and highs seem similar though. I have an R05, and I know they have tamed some of the stock bass EQ boosting in more recent releases, but honestly, I like it that way most of the time. All are loud and cut through.
 
#12
GK hands down.

The EQ is voiced really well and can go from aggro to mellow with very little work. I've run mine (MB2-500 A07) on acoustic duo & trio light jazz/folk/light rock dates and straight ahead rock dates.

I've run it with piezo basses (you wanna talk bright ?), my 75 RI J with rounds and an Audere and also passive P and J basses. Cab's wise it's been fEarful12.6 or Bag End S15X-D on top of another but darker 1x15. All cab setups with a pretty aggressive hi end ...

It's been an easy head to match up with a bass & cab.

When I played with the LM II I just found it not exciting at all. Certainly there are folks that like them - If I were after that sort of thing I'd be more inclined towards the Shuttle 6.0 personally. For me, I'm sticking with the GK as my micro and my old WT-800 as the ful sized rig ... YMMV and all that...

The other thought- given the condition of the used market - a used WT-500 - ain't as light but it's reasonably sized and a great amp ...
 
#13
I don't own a Markbass, so I can't comment there, but the MB2-500 is my gig amp. I will say that while it shares the same high quality construction and components that go into the more classic RBs and other non-Class D GK's, it is voiced a bit differently. One thing that you won't have to worry about is the MB being too bright. I dial in a thick, rounded more bassy tone easily enough. That thing pushes some serious air. I personally love my GK.

Question - what cab(s) are you planning on using with the head?
 
#14
Okay, for you GK owners, how do you feel the tone stacks up an OLD RB? I tried a beat-to-hell GK 2000RB (probably 15 years old -- maybe this is already what you meant by "older RB," gus) through an Ampeg 410 HE cab and LOVED the tone out of it. Not perfect, but still wonderful. Liked it more than a LMIII and a Genz 9.0 through the same cab. However, playing the newer 1001RBII head in Guitar Center, it just didn't feel the same. Couldn't dial the same tone (even through the same cab), and it felt somehow harsher and less authoritative at the same time.

I tried the beat up 2000rb (along with the Genz and the Markbass) both at home and at Guitar Center, the 1001RBII just at Guitar Center -- so maybe I didn't give myself an adequate chance to dial them in, but with the tone controls set the same as I had them on the 2000rb, the sound was definitely less pleasing to my ears. I was surprised/disappointed.

I've never played one of the GK micro heads, and worry about reliability, but if I thought I could get the same tone/feel out of one as out of the 2000RB, well... that'd go a long way!
 
#15
I love my Mark Bass LMK. I can dial in any tone I want quite easily, and this little guy has more than enough power. I usually gig with the pre amp at about 5, and the master at about 2. Being able to gig with my head and cables in a backpack is priceless. That said, one issue to consider with Markbass is that replacement parts are hard to come by in the U.S. And often need to be shipped from Italy.
 
#16
I currently have,and use, both a GK MB2-500 and a LM tube 800. I think that both do the job as a gigging amp w/full band great. I have noticed that the GK works better at 8 ohms then the Mark Bass does. When I use my 4 ohm cab, either one kills with no problem. I am working w/ a 5 piece band (2 guitars,keys, bass, drums) and have not had an issue w/ either one. Like others have said-try them both and decide what works for you. I also use these heads with a sterling 5 H.
Good luck on your quest. PM me for any questions.
 
#17
I had a MB2-500 for a while. I found that I had to "tame the brightness" of that amp. Great little head, but it has a very present top end. Manageable, but it has to be managed.

The LMII (and the LMIII I assume) has a much more polite top end. You can coax extra top end out of it, but you pretty much have to ask for it.

My Stringray through the GK could take your head off. Great sound, but if you are concerned about controlling the brightness of your 'Ray, then the GK is not something I'd recommend.

The LMII tone is a little boring, because it is very evenly balanced. It really does sound best (to my ears) pretty close to flat. For me, it is a better partner for a Stingray.
 
#18
I own three different Mesa amps and an LMIII which I aquired in a trade. I didn't want to like the LMIII as I am very partial to my Mesa amps but I have to admit, its a sweet little amp. The tone controls are so usable and the it sounds pretty much perfect with everything set at noon and the two enhance controls turned off. They add a lot of tonal variation and take some experimenting to maximize their potential but this amp is very well designed and there is a reason it has become an industry standard.

The LMIII does not have the complex "3d" quality of my Walkabout head but its tight, punchy, loud and clean with nothing to complain about tonewise. You can't go wrong with one, especially at the used prices here on TB!
 
#19
I don't own Little Mark 2 or 3 but i own Little Mark 250 which is same as Little Mark 2 but less power on the power amp section. I also own a Musicman Stingray bass.

I agree with you that the MM bass is abit too bright and the Markbass amp can tame the brightness. I really like the tone of the Markbass with my Stingray. I also play a Jazz and Peavey 6 String and the Little Mark handle all my bass very good as well.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back