Difference Between Aguilar Tone Hammer and MarkBass Little Mark?

[Linus27]

For anyone who's had or knows, what is the difference in tone between the Aguilar Tone Hammer heads and the Mark Bass Little Mark heads? I currently use a Little Mark IV and I generally find it clean, punchy, fairly versatile if perhaps a little sterile. I do like it though and have been happy with it if not perhaps finding it a little underwhelming. Lets say it does a solid job without too much fanfare.

 

I recently played two of my basses through an Aguilar Tone Hammer 350 and I was pleasantly surprised at how clean and dynamic my basses sounded. They had a lot of sparkle and definition, and one bass in particular, a passive Fender PJ with fretless Status graphite neck and flats really came alive. I'd read previously, comments saying that a graphite neck can really show up poor technique or be quite noisy as it's very clean and accurate but I'd never found this in the past until I played through the Aquilar head. I had to really focus on my technique but what I was rewarded with was a gorgeous tone that just sung. Both basses which are fretless sung beautifully.

 

My understanding was the Tone Hammer heads are generally warm sounding but the head I played through was super clean, punchy and sparkly. The head was connected to an Eich 1x10 so that may have also played a factor in the clean tone but either way, the tone was quite special and its piped my interest.

 

So I'm interested if anyone can comment on comparisons between the Aguilar Tone Hammer heads and the Mark Bass Little Mark heads.

[ghostwheel]

I haven't got any answer to your question, so please bear with me. I'm just curious whether you played the TH with AGS on or off. As far as I understand, the preamp of TH is super clean, so it's the AGS function which makes it sound warm. I've got a Tone Hammer preamp v1, and the AGS is always on with gain set somewhere before it gets some grit.

You've probably already seen this one, but if not, it might be helpful. Or not.

[Lozz196]

Well I found both to be a warm vintagey sound, but with the TH able to add in drive as required. Other than that the main difference I’d say were the highs, with the TH being at a much better eq point than the LM - this could be why your bass sounded so different.

[Linus27]

11 hours ago, ghostwheel said:

I haven't got any answer to your question, so please bear with me. I'm just curious whether you played the TH with AGS on or off. As far as I understand, the preamp of TH is super clean, so it's the AGS function which makes it sound warm. I've got a Tone Hammer preamp v1, and the AGS is always on with gain set somewhere before it gets some grit.

You've probably already seen this one, but if not, it might be helpful. Or not.

 

That was super helpful, I hadn't seen it so thank you. I'm actually liking the AG more than the TH after watching that video. As for the AGS on the TH, I have no idea but I think everything was flat and it sounded very bright.

[BassAdder60]

I’ve got the LM IV and had a TH 700 

 

The TH is more tube like and vintage / warm sounding or can be with its drive. Takes a lot of tweaking to get just right.

The LM IV is simpler and has different EQ points and totally clean although the old school control can darken it some. 
The LM IV is a loud amp and good head room and is in my opinion better and more flexible than the TH 

However I plan to sell mine as I need something with a bit of grunt and with a built in compressor. 
Although also a clean amp I’m waiting on the arrival of the TE1200 ( second time I’ve purchased one ) as it’s amazing in its tone and compressor. 
Not grind or snarl but great sounding 

[ASW]

On 20/12/2025 at 13:11, ghostwheel said:

I haven't got any answer to your question, so please bear with me. I'm just curious whether you played the TH with AGS on or off. As far as I understand, the preamp of TH is super clean, so it's the AGS function which makes it sound warm. I've got a Tone Hammer preamp v1, and the AGS is always on with gain set somewhere before it gets some grit.

You've probably already seen this one, but if not, it might be helpful. Or not.

 

Whatever "AGS" is, it's not on the Tone Hammer 500 I have and doesn't appear to be on the 350 either. There is a drive control. 

[SimonK]

I've got a TH350 which I bought following reading a lot of good things about the amp. I've also got a Genz Benz, Ashdown and a lot of old Trace heads. Truthfully the cabs make a bigger sound difference compared to switching between any of the heads, albeit the convenience of how tiny and light the TH350 is means I always have it with me. The gain control is quite nice to dial in a bit of dirt which is something some of my other amps do not have.

[chris_b]

I've used a Mark bass amp for a little while, but played through a TH500 for over 10 years. I also use an AG700 and TH700. IMO Aguilar amps and Barefaced cabs are made for each other.

[Dan Dare]

One is silver with black writing. The other is black with yellow writing.

[itu]

Remember that "settings at noon" is everything but flat. This is true with nearly every amp. For some reason people believe that the "noon" setting is really flat. You need to explore the possibilities as well as the limits of your amp by turning the pots bravely to their limits.

 

BEWARE: you may find new and interesting sounds from your machine. 

[SamPlaysBass]

I may be able to help - I've run an Aguilar Tone Hammer 500 and a Markbass AG1000 on rotation in my wedding band this year, over around 50 gigs. I've played them both through my TC RS112 cabs, RS210 cab, and Markbass Ninja 2x12 cabs in a variety of settings. They both do a great job of making your bass sound good live, but you can feel the different DNA when you use them.

 

The Aguilar is very smooth, with EQ points that are more in line with vintage or valve amps. The treble control doesn't get 'spiky' until you're nearly at 100%, and the bass doesn't get boomy until 80% or so. The bass EQ point carried with it some extra mids, so when you boosted the lows you felt a bit more girth to the sound as well as bottom end. The mid controls were something and nothing for me - sweepable mid frequency didn't really get me any extra mileage playing live with PA support, but in a studio setting I imagine it would be a lot more useful for dialling in a sound. In all, it's a very flattering EQ. Volume wise, it had plenty of poke, but the Markbass' supposed 1000 watts felt bigger and had more headroom. The Aguilar also had a better DI in my opinion - more airy and natural sounding. It's also a very light head.

 

The Markbass is a very good tool, but it can be razor sharp. The EQ points on the AG 1000 are different to other Markbass heads and I prefer the EQ points on the AG1000 over the LM3 I had years back. I'm also playing active 5 string basses and get a kick out of that 'zing' you hear lots of gospel players using (though my skills are very much lacking in comparison). The Markbass EQ was very much what you put in, you get out. Whereas the Aggie's was flattering, the Markbass did exactly what it said it would do, and I found that the bass sound out the front of the band was more 'in your face' and solid sounding. It gave all of my basses much more authority. The EQ points should be exercised with caution as there is more to give compared to the Aggie, but the overall sound pushed through a mix much better with the Markbass. The live-in bag is also much better designed than the Aggie's carry case, and the level knob for the DI is extremely useful on the Markbass which the Aggie was lacking. It's a very modern, forward sounding head that can take your eyebrows off with high end or induce earthquakes with lows. In my experience, the mids on the Markbass are more useable in a live context than the Aggie's, but I mainly used the mid controls for taming harsh/resonant rooms rather than overall tone shaping. 

 

I kept the Markbass and sold the Aguilar because I'm in a 4 piece wedding band with a full PA, click and backing track mixes, and I wanted to push through that mix. If I was playing more classic rock, used passive basses or wanted a studio tool, I'd probably have kept the Aguilar. Both do a great job, but I'd finish by saying the Aguilar is more classic and flattering to the low end, whereas the Markbass is more modern and uses it's more interesting mids to push through a full mix to allow the bass to be heard.