The Mark VII actually has more saturated gain and is more compressed, the older mark amps have plenty of gain but less gain, but have a bigger open sound and more SUSTAIN and power, you get that from the volume knob he is talking about. Guitarist always think they need more gain, but it's not gain they actually are wanting, it's big open power and SUSTAIN. Mike bendanelli at Boogie said it best, more gain is more treble response, thats the basis behind his mods over the years for more gain. There is a difference between treble and presence, older mark amps are brighter ( presence ) newer mark amps have more saturated gain, (Treble ).
The input gain was used in the Mark IV...the last true Mark amp...the Mark IV had pull fat on the input gain...pull bright on the lead drive, shift presence on the presence knob and Harmonics/mid gain mode for tone manipulators besides the normal pre gain tone stack and post gain eq (also the class A mode/ simulclass, and pentode/triode for output tube manipulation).
It may be worth to note that the old IIC+ power sections were hardwired in triode, making the amp feel more fluid. The Mark V had an option on Channel 3 to switch from triode to pentode, getting perhaps a little closer to the original sound and feel of the IIC+
They both have a tiny bit of that cocked wah thing going on but its so much more pleasant on the iic+ to me. But both sound great and i imagine they voiced the 7 with extended range in mind which would explain why its voiced like that. As far as the input i feel like mesa is idiotproofing their amps but losing some versatility as a tradeoff.
I own a Mark IV. It does indeed have a separate drive & gain control. It was the last Mark series to have that. The Mark V went to a preset drive you can’t control. The upside is it has ridiculous amounts of gain so it’s arguable you don’t need it. The Mark IV is an amazing amp though & they include instructions for getting the circuit to the Mark IIc+ settings. A fantastic demo of the sound is Theocracy Matt’s Mark IV vs JP2C video here. He also does a video where he plays songs from every Metallica album with it.
What a great explanation and demo. Happy to subscribe. Any idea why one couldn't just add a transparent boost before the Mark VII to get the initial gain stage flexibility in the IIC+?
Yea if you desire that cascading gain control a Mk III is definitely your best, cost effective option. A IIC+ does offer a myriad of tones but getting a good compromise live between clean/heavy rhythm/lead is not that easy. Maybe to a specific user it's not that important. You covered it well the VII is just more versatile with, as you pointed out, those welcomed modern features. The JP2C, a great amp, is certainly more targeted to the original IIC+ vibe.
Mark IV has it too on the lead channel. The fixed gain level started with the 5. I'm a fan of the Mark VII but honestly, you really can't beat the older amps.
I like them both. The Mesa Mark series distortion is 'the' sound for me, always. And I'd gladly sacrifice the warmth of the OG ii c+ for the feature set of the mark VII all day. That's just me.
Youre the first one to admit that, finally brother, its UNDENIABLE the difference the newer amps from the vintage ones, and its tied to the old Transformers! Thats why i made sure i had vintage amps. The only ''reissues'' ive seen nailed is the Bogner Fish preamp (since they dont carry transformers) (i own one). But i had the dilemma with regarding the Marshall Plexi, since a vintage 1969 goes for like 6 or 7k i could get a 1959hw for a fraction of that price.
Sadly, it is true. Older transformers have "that sound," especially in Marshalls and old Mesa Mark series amps. That's not to say there's not a lot of GREAT modern amps being produced. Anything from Friedman, Headfirst, Carstens, Ground Zero, etc. sound absolutely insane. But if you want the 100% authentic vintage sound, the old amps are where it's at.
On the JP-2C you can manipulate the Volume one with the pull gain option (on channel 2 it's kinda 6 and 7.75, on channel 3 kinda 7.25 and 9, afaik that's the only difference between channel 2 and 3), you get 4 different settings. But i get it, i played a MArk III with leftover IIC+ transformers, and that thing was insane. Another thing that's different , too i guess, on the old mark II and IIIs you could use mixed tubes, like 6ca7/6l6 or kt77/6l6 or el34/6l6, if you have simul (D). I guess that mixing option for simulclass went away with the mark IV. Cool amp collection, rock on!
The tube mixing thing...I used to think that was something..AND THEN..I got a Mark IVB...when you mix tubes you get the sound of the EL34....it is the same thing as the newer amps (My Mark V does this)...they have a switch to go from 6l6 to el34...and I can tell l you it is THE SAME THING>.to put the outer tubes into el34 or have all 4 el34 you get the exact same sound and performance..trust me...the newer way is better......to have all 4 is just better than mixing (not to mention the older way was to so far under power the outer tubes used for tone that it didnt matter WHAT tube you put in there..this greatly stressed the life of the inner hotter tubes)..the newer power sections actually kinda handle power differently (better..the newer ones are better, I think the pre amp sections of the older Marks are cleaner and less crapped up and better , but the power amp sections on the newer amps are better, they seem to put a ton of effort in that direction )
@@TL-angzarr WHAT I WAS SAYING is there is no difference between the tone of 4 el34 and the simul of the IV with two inner 6l6 and outer el34...(my wording was confusing and I get where you would read what you did...read it again for comprehension...lol )
Honestly, Mesa Boogie Mark amps intrigue me until I have to share a live show time slot with a band that uses them. Then I cringe from the excessive amounts of treble, volume, and gain... That or I can't hear them at all. Either way if I see a Boogie pulled out I go grab my ear plugs immediately. Those are the only two scenarios I've ever seen. Them seem like cool studio amps if anyone can actually dial in anything that is usable.
Where do you take your amps to get serviced? I have a Mark II A that I accidently left on with the speaker cab cable disengaged. Need to get it looked at.
GIANT transformers do not make the sound...they only make the amp HEAVY....MY Mark IV has a small Transformer and sounds AWESOME...my Mark V has a MASSIVE classic tone transformer and mehhh (I prefer the squishyness of the smaller transformer for the Mark sound...SORRY...you do get more headroom and attack...less squish with larger transformers...they do make a difference...just not the one HE thinks)
The Mark III Red stripe sounded exactly the same as a IIC+. I have them both. They are the exact same in sound. You want that sound, spend way less and get a mark III Red stripe.
I sold my 2c+ 60w because it had worse cleans than my 100w 2b loop moded and it was only because it had the smaller transformer - swaping tubes didn’t help
2:05 WRONG! mark IV got a smaller Transformer on the revision B. The first Rev A have all the same Transformer like the IIc+. Got this information from a guy that worked 25 years für mesa and even developed stuff for them.
Or buy the VII, and put an inexpensive transparent volume boost in front of it, that you can adjust as desired, and turn on/off as desired. Even better, one with some tone controls. Also, the mark overdrives also greatly benefit from transparent overdrives in front of them, and those might also reduce the need for this extra volume knob. Also keep in mind that many vintage amps appear to be in good condition, but all it takes is one tiny part gone bad to throw the sound off, and if you don't have access to the same or similar models for comparison, you may never even know. So be careful!
Wrong! Putting a boost pedal in front of Mk VII won't give the same effect tone wise as just putting Volume 1 on 10 on a C+. Why? High voltage on the first gain stage of the C+, it makes all the difference
@coldbastard6859 Interesting, I didn't know that. Also, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I used to own a mesa quad preamp, and I found that a transparent boost in front of it did help improve the tone, but thanks for clarifying that this isn't the same.
It is not the same thing..I owned a Mark V and tried what you are talking about...you eventually cave to the need for a true mark and get the one YOU prefer (I am a ivb guy)
The Quad Pre amp is a true 2c+ and 3 in one amp (the pre sections, but a true 2c+AND 3 BOTH)...so you had the HOLY GRAIL>>just no power section, so they had the input gain in them(what you are saying is putting an boost in front of the MArk VII is the same thing as turning up the first gain on the quad pre...you wont ever get the same effect...your VII works NOTHING L'IKE your QUAD>>>the Quad is the KILL!!!!@@robmcewen4621
If I designed the Mark VII (and the Mark V for that matter), I would have kept the first gain control for all channels and went with preset Lead Drive levels. The Volume 1 and Treble controls are the 2 knobs I use most to adjust for different guitars and my loud and lower volume sounds. The Lead Drive is more like a set it and forget it control, I only ever use it to keep the lead channel stable and what of Pull Bright? It's a lifesaver if you're playing a dull sounding guitar. I'd like to be shocked about stupid stuff Mesa Boogie does but I've seen them do it over and over again over the past 20+ years so I'm not surprised Also this whole claim about the type of transformer used in the Mark IIC being illegal to reproduce or whatever is a bunch of crap. It's copper and steel, what could possibly be illegal about that? The transformer technology of the 1980s is largely still the same they do it now in terms of the materials and construction methods. What the problem is in reality I think is that Mesa Boogie don't want to spend the extra money getting custom transformers made. Everything else in the amp aside from the LDRs are still being made; the importance of the LDRs has been way overhyped anyways. It's a switch, it's no different in function than that of a relay. The problem with the earlier Mark II relay switching scheme was that it popped when changing channels, the LDRs were meant to be a quieter replacement. In the years since relay switching schemes have evolved considerably and are entirely silent in operation so the need for LDRs is no longer necessary. When an LDR in it's active state the DC ohms are at zero so it's not altering the signal path of the Lead Channel at all. An aspect that often goes underappreciated is the differences in the Graphic EQ circuits of the IIC. The operating voltage of a IIC GEQ I measured was at like -60v and used a different transistor set. On the Mark III and IV GEQ the voltage was much lower which translates into lower headroom. I felt the IIC+ GEQ had more 'power' to it and by that I mean I could literally feel it in the foundations with the insane amount of bass from the 60Hz slider. I've had far more Mark IIIs and Mark IVs in my day and neither of those amps ever rattled the place like that. The conclusion I've come to with the Mesa Boogie Mark series is that a large part of the sound is in the Graphic EQ and where it's placed in the signal path. In the IIC to Mark IV it was at the very end of the signal chain before the poweramp. In the Mark V Mesa Boogie changed everything around putting it before the effects loop send as well as changing the GEQ circuit itself with an even lower voltage design (as well as swapping the polarity from a V- to V+). I'm wondering if they reverted to the original GEQ scheme in the Mark VII. Trying to do it any other way simply cannot be an accurate reproduction regardless of it's inconvenience.
If I designed the Mark VII (and the Mark V for that matter), I would have simply perfected the Mark IV B, because that amp (and the "A" edition as well) is arguably the greatest amp ever made, and better than any Mesa since.
@@worldline7147I agree or at least in principle. The front panel layout on the IV is everything you'd wish a III or IIC+ to be, no more compromising settings in favor of one sound at the expense of the others. I loved that part about it, unfortunately though it wasn't just simply a separation of independent channel controls, Boogie changed the circuit trying to stuff in as many features as possible at the cost of the baseline sound of the III or IIC+ I think. The IV definitely sounds closer to the earlier marks than the V but that's because how much the signal path changed especially with the placement of the GEQ being earlier in the chain rather than being right at the end where it was with the IV and prior. I believe the IV can be modded to get that earlier sound, it won't be easy but it's possible: Item #1 is changing the output transformer, an 80s era Mark III Simulclass OT would be ideal. Next is rewiring the outer sockets for triode mode only. This would require changing the screen-grid resistors from 2.2k/5w back to 470R/5w and refixing the bias voltage divider resistors to the class-A pair. #2 is increasing the voltage going to graphic EQ from the -35v or so volts in the IV to closer to -50v to -60v it was in II series. This will give the GEQ more clean headroom and make each Hz band more effective. Boogie used the same transistor set from the late II series in everything they made after with a GEQ so the voltage ratings are good there but Boogie changed the filter caps from the 2x 220uF/80v used in the original C+ to filter caps with lower voltage ratings @63v (probably the real reason Boogie changed it, they're cheaper), so they'd need to be changed out. The other necessary change is the output coupling cap from the GEQ from 1uF to 10uF. Why I use the word necessary is because that's where a big part of the 'hugeness' of the 2C+ comes from. It's quite impressive on it's own but it sometimes gets to be too much mixed in playing with a band so it makes sense why Boogie changed it. They designed the IV with the idea of a highly versatile workhorse with a world of sounds for the professional guitarist, not a Metallica machine.
Mark II is more versatile with different tones, but if you go for that "special tight mark distortion alá Metallica or Dream Theater" you wont hear a difference in a mix between the two.
Thanks for the very informative video explaining the differences. That IIC+ sounds absolutely massive. They both do really. IMO the VII had kind of a cocked wah thing going on in the mids if I really had to pick something out about it. I'm sure with all the controls it could be dialed out. Listening on Focal monitors. They both sound ace though. Great job
oh..and for the sound of the 2c+ being tied up in massive transformers...I can PROVE that aint so...STUDIO PRE AMP..MASSIVE 2C+ sound..TINY LITTLE TRANSFORMER(I owned one and it IS true...now I own a Mark IVB and i prefer this sound...it is the ultimate evolution of the 2c sound...more bass...harmonics and mid gain)(tiny transformer and way more bass than my Mark V 90 watt...MASSIVE transformer and has issue putting out bass...really lacks in this area...also no INPUT GAIN...and that is JUST NOT MARK)..anyone want to buy an excellent condition MArk V 90 watt...no icepick highs (that is ALL output tubes...my MArk IV will do it with the wrong tubes in the output section)
I agree. I like the Mark VII. It records exceptionally well. But the IIC+ DRGX is just an absolute monster. In the room it sounds huge, raw, aggressive, punchy, and tight. It will rattle your skull.
I agree that they sound different…but I have to say, I think the VII sounds better. The IIC+ sounds muddy and boxy in comparison. And you didn’t compare the clean channels, where the VII is much better. Aside from high gain lead, the IIC+ really isn’t very good. People just have Metallica burned in their heads, but the tones and audio quality of Master Of Puppets really aren’t very good. It’s the songs and the playing that did it. I guess if you want something that deliberately sounds old and nasty, the IIC+ is better. I would also say that on the Mark V, all of the circuits they added ended up making it possible to sound over-processed and thin. But they really hit the sweet spot on the Mark VII. It’s got fewer options, but a bigger, more dynamic and aggressive sound. But still more refined than the old ones. Ultimately though, you can make all of them sound basically the same, especially in a mix. The same DNA is in all of them.
This is true. In a mix, it would be harder to decipher the difference between the two. If you had an A/B box, you could probably get them pretty close. I like the Mark VII. I think it records very well. It sits in a mix nicely with minimal tweaking and it has a lot of great options. But in the room, the IIC+ absolutely mows it down. Raw, aggressive, punchy, dynamic, gnarly, and wild. It just has "that" sound.
@@eldoradoguitars6456Some if it is a matter of taste, for sure. Depends what you’re looking for. I think the work they did on the JP-2C influenced them to go in a more pure direction with less complications for the Mark VII and it really worked.
Categorically disagree. I've owned every Mark from IIb onward. The IIc+ has more rich harmonics than any of the more modern ones, and does not have the weird EQ spikes that the III (upper mid) and V and VII have (high freq.). The IIC+'s sing way more for leads, and have the most full and round rhythm sound. They make every chord you play sound good, and they round out any harsh frequencies and harmonics. Nothing compares to their sweetness and fullness. That's still to say, I love my Mark V. It's a great amp. But the IIc+ is lightning in a bottle.
I totally agree with you. The corksniffery surrounding the Mark IIC+ is pretty ridiculous. I think both the JP-2C and Mark VII both be made to sound better than the 2C+. Hell, I actually think my III green stripe sounds better than most Mark IIC+'s. And the newer amps won't have failing components or require you to make huge compromises in the other channels just to get "that" tone out of the lead channel
I sold my 2c+ 60w because it had worse cleans than my 100w 2b loop moded and it was only because it had the smaller transformer - swaping tubes didn’t help
The Mark VII actually has more saturated gain and is more compressed, the older mark amps have plenty of gain but less gain, but have a bigger open sound and more SUSTAIN and power, you get that from the volume knob he is talking about. Guitarist always think they need more gain, but it's not gain they actually are wanting, it's big open power and SUSTAIN. Mike bendanelli at Boogie said it best, more gain is more treble response, thats the basis behind his mods over the years for more gain. There is a difference between treble and presence, older mark amps are brighter ( presence ) newer mark amps have more saturated gain, (Treble ).
100% spot on
Man, what an improvement they made on that Mark II. The VII sounds like an updated beast.
The input gain was used in the Mark IV...the last true Mark amp...the Mark IV had pull fat on the input gain...pull bright on the lead drive, shift presence on the presence knob and Harmonics/mid gain mode for tone manipulators besides the normal pre gain tone stack and post gain eq (also the class A mode/ simulclass, and pentode/triode for output tube manipulation).
Great demo of these two special amps! Thank You... 👍👍 🎸🎶😎 🇺🇸.
It may be worth to note that the old IIC+ power sections were hardwired in triode, making the amp feel more fluid. The Mark V had an option on Channel 3 to switch from triode to pentode, getting perhaps a little closer to the original sound and feel of the IIC+
Super informative, love the breakdown of the differences!
They both have a tiny bit of that cocked wah thing going on but its so much more pleasant on the iic+ to me. But both sound great and i imagine they voiced the 7 with extended range in mind which would explain why its voiced like that. As far as the input i feel like mesa is idiotproofing their amps but losing some versatility as a tradeoff.
I own a Mark IV. It does indeed have a separate drive & gain control. It was the last Mark series to have that. The Mark V went to a preset drive you can’t control. The upside is it has ridiculous amounts of gain so it’s arguable you don’t need it.
The Mark IV is an amazing amp though & they include instructions for getting the circuit to the Mark IIc+ settings. A fantastic demo of the sound is Theocracy Matt’s Mark IV vs JP2C video here. He also does a video where he plays songs from every Metallica album with it.
What a great explanation and demo. Happy to subscribe.
Any idea why one couldn't just add a transparent boost before the Mark VII to get the initial gain stage flexibility in the IIC+?
Yea if you desire that cascading gain control a Mk III is definitely your best, cost effective option. A IIC+ does offer a myriad of tones but getting a good compromise live between clean/heavy rhythm/lead is not that easy. Maybe to a specific user it's not that important.
You covered it well the VII is just more versatile with, as you pointed out, those welcomed modern features. The JP2C, a great amp, is certainly more targeted to the original IIC+ vibe.
Mark IV has it too on the lead channel. The fixed gain level started with the 5.
I'm a fan of the Mark VII but honestly, you really can't beat the older amps.
I like them both. The Mesa Mark series distortion is 'the' sound for me, always. And I'd gladly sacrifice the warmth of the OG ii c+ for the feature set of the mark VII all day. That's just me.
Great demo.
Always goosebumps when you rip some Alice in Chains through your gear haha.
Youre the first one to admit that, finally brother, its UNDENIABLE the difference the newer amps from the vintage ones, and its tied to the old Transformers! Thats why i made sure i had vintage amps. The only ''reissues'' ive seen nailed is the Bogner Fish preamp (since they dont carry transformers) (i own one). But i had the dilemma with regarding the Marshall Plexi, since a vintage 1969 goes for like 6 or 7k i could get a 1959hw for a fraction of that price.
Sadly, it is true. Older transformers have "that sound," especially in Marshalls and old Mesa Mark series amps.
That's not to say there's not a lot of GREAT modern amps being produced. Anything from Friedman, Headfirst, Carstens, Ground Zero, etc. sound absolutely insane.
But if you want the 100% authentic vintage sound, the old amps are where it's at.
wtf cant they just remake the old transformers i dont get it ...they know they would fly off the shelves
On the JP-2C you can manipulate the Volume one with the pull gain option (on channel 2 it's kinda 6 and 7.75, on channel 3 kinda 7.25 and 9, afaik that's the only difference between channel 2 and 3), you get 4 different settings. But i get it, i played a MArk III with leftover IIC+ transformers, and that thing was insane. Another thing that's different , too i guess, on the old mark II and IIIs you could use mixed tubes, like 6ca7/6l6 or kt77/6l6 or el34/6l6, if you have simul (D). I guess that mixing option for simulclass went away with the mark IV. Cool amp collection, rock on!
The tube mixing thing...I used to think that was something..AND THEN..I got a Mark IVB...when you mix tubes you get the sound of the EL34....it is the same thing as the newer amps (My Mark V does this)...they have a switch to go from 6l6 to el34...and I can tell l you it is THE SAME THING>.to put the outer tubes into el34 or have all 4 el34 you get the exact same sound and performance..trust me...the newer way is better......to have all 4 is just better than mixing (not to mention the older way was to so far under power the outer tubes used for tone that it didnt matter WHAT tube you put in there..this greatly stressed the life of the inner hotter tubes)..the newer power sections actually kinda handle power differently (better..the newer ones are better, I think the pre amp sections of the older Marks are cleaner and less crapped up and better , but the power amp sections on the newer amps are better, they seem to put a ton of effort in that direction )
@@timothymartin2137 You lie, you cannot put 4 EL34s in a mkiv. They will go in the outer sockets ONLY
@@TL-angzarr NO>>>YOU CANNOT READ>>>THE THE EL34's ARE IN THE V>>>the IV HAS INNER 6L6 AND OUTER EL34
@@TL-angzarr WHAT I WAS SAYING is there is no difference between the tone of 4 el34 and the simul of the IV with two inner 6l6 and outer el34...(my wording was confusing and I get where you would read what you did...read it again for comprehension...lol
)
Should have zoomed in a little closer
Honestly, Mesa Boogie Mark amps intrigue me until I have to share a live show time slot with a band that uses them. Then I cringe from the excessive amounts of treble, volume, and gain... That or I can't hear them at all. Either way if I see a Boogie pulled out I go grab my ear plugs immediately. Those are the only two scenarios I've ever seen. Them seem like cool studio amps if anyone can actually dial in anything that is usable.
Where do you take your amps to get serviced? I have a Mark II A that I accidently left on with the speaker cab cable disengaged. Need to get it looked at.
Dave Friedman maintains most of my amps. However, Mesa amps I still send back to Mike Bendinelli at Mesa HQ.
@@eldoradoguitars6456 any idea how I can get in contact with Mike Bendinelli?
@@tonym5715 mesaboogie.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests/new
@@eldoradoguitars6456 nice! Thanks
GIANT transformers do not make the sound...they only make the amp HEAVY....MY
Mark IV has a small Transformer and sounds AWESOME...my Mark V has a MASSIVE classic tone transformer and mehhh (I prefer the squishyness of the smaller transformer for the Mark sound...SORRY...you do get more headroom and attack...less squish with larger transformers...they do make a difference...just not the one HE thinks)
You have no clue what the hell you're talking about.
The Mark III Red stripe sounded exactly the same as a IIC+. I have them both. They are the exact same in sound. You want that sound, spend way less and get a mark III Red stripe.
I sold my 2c+ 60w because it had worse cleans than my 100w 2b loop moded and it was only because it had the smaller transformer - swaping tubes didn’t help
2:05 WRONG! mark IV got a smaller Transformer on the revision B. The first Rev A have all the same Transformer like the IIc+. Got this information from a guy that worked 25 years für mesa and even developed stuff for them.
Hi. Whats the year of your amps ? Thanks
1983 IIC+ DRGX
Or buy the VII, and put an inexpensive transparent volume boost in front of it, that you can adjust as desired, and turn on/off as desired. Even better, one with some tone controls. Also, the mark overdrives also greatly benefit from transparent overdrives in front of them, and those might also reduce the need for this extra volume knob. Also keep in mind that many vintage amps appear to be in good condition, but all it takes is one tiny part gone bad to throw the sound off, and if you don't have access to the same or similar models for comparison, you may never even know. So be careful!
Wrong! Putting a boost pedal in front of Mk VII won't give the same effect tone wise as just putting Volume 1 on 10 on a C+. Why? High voltage on the first gain stage of the C+, it makes all the difference
@coldbastard6859 Interesting, I didn't know that. Also, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I used to own a mesa quad preamp, and I found that a transparent boost in front of it did help improve the tone, but thanks for clarifying that this isn't the same.
It is not the same thing..I owned a Mark V and tried what you are talking about...you eventually cave to the need for a true mark and get the one YOU prefer (I am a ivb guy)
AMEN BROTHER!!!!!@@coldbastard6859
The Quad Pre amp is a true 2c+ and 3 in one amp (the pre sections, but a true 2c+AND 3 BOTH)...so you had the HOLY GRAIL>>just no power section, so they had the input gain in them(what you are saying is putting an boost in front of the MArk VII is the same thing as turning up the first gain on the quad pre...you wont ever get the same effect...your VII works NOTHING L'IKE your QUAD>>>the Quad is the KILL!!!!@@robmcewen4621
If I designed the Mark VII (and the Mark V for that matter), I would have kept the first gain control for all channels and went with preset Lead Drive levels. The Volume 1 and Treble controls are the 2 knobs I use most to adjust for different guitars and my loud and lower volume sounds. The Lead Drive is more like a set it and forget it control, I only ever use it to keep the lead channel stable and what of Pull Bright? It's a lifesaver if you're playing a dull sounding guitar. I'd like to be shocked about stupid stuff Mesa Boogie does but I've seen them do it over and over again over the past 20+ years so I'm not surprised
Also this whole claim about the type of transformer used in the Mark IIC being illegal to reproduce or whatever is a bunch of crap. It's copper and steel, what could possibly be illegal about that? The transformer technology of the 1980s is largely still the same they do it now in terms of the materials and construction methods. What the problem is in reality I think is that Mesa Boogie don't want to spend the extra money getting custom transformers made. Everything else in the amp aside from the LDRs are still being made; the importance of the LDRs has been way overhyped anyways. It's a switch, it's no different in function than that of a relay. The problem with the earlier Mark II relay switching scheme was that it popped when changing channels, the LDRs were meant to be a quieter replacement. In the years since relay switching schemes have evolved considerably and are entirely silent in operation so the need for LDRs is no longer necessary. When an LDR in it's active state the DC ohms are at zero so it's not altering the signal path of the Lead Channel at all.
An aspect that often goes underappreciated is the differences in the Graphic EQ circuits of the IIC. The operating voltage of a IIC GEQ I measured was at like -60v and used a different transistor set. On the Mark III and IV GEQ the voltage was much lower which translates into lower headroom. I felt the IIC+ GEQ had more 'power' to it and by that I mean I could literally feel it in the foundations with the insane amount of bass from the 60Hz slider. I've had far more Mark IIIs and Mark IVs in my day and neither of those amps ever rattled the place like that. The conclusion I've come to with the Mesa Boogie Mark series is that a large part of the sound is in the Graphic EQ and where it's placed in the signal path. In the IIC to Mark IV it was at the very end of the signal chain before the poweramp. In the Mark V Mesa Boogie changed everything around putting it before the effects loop send as well as changing the GEQ circuit itself with an even lower voltage design (as well as swapping the polarity from a V- to V+). I'm wondering if they reverted to the original GEQ scheme in the Mark VII. Trying to do it any other way simply cannot be an accurate reproduction regardless of it's inconvenience.
If I designed the Mark VII (and the Mark V for that matter), I would have simply perfected the Mark IV B, because that amp (and the "A" edition as well) is arguably the greatest amp ever made, and better than any Mesa since.
@@worldline7147I agree or at least in principle. The front panel layout on the IV is everything you'd wish a III or IIC+ to be, no more compromising settings in favor of one sound at the expense of the others. I loved that part about it, unfortunately though it wasn't just simply a separation of independent channel controls, Boogie changed the circuit trying to stuff in as many features as possible at the cost of the baseline sound of the III or IIC+ I think. The IV definitely sounds closer to the earlier marks than the V but that's because how much the signal path changed especially with the placement of the GEQ being earlier in the chain rather than being right at the end where it was with the IV and prior.
I believe the IV can be modded to get that earlier sound, it won't be easy but it's possible:
Item #1 is changing the output transformer, an 80s era Mark III Simulclass OT would be ideal. Next is rewiring the outer sockets for triode mode only. This would require changing the screen-grid resistors from 2.2k/5w back to 470R/5w and refixing the bias voltage divider resistors to the class-A pair.
#2 is increasing the voltage going to graphic EQ from the -35v or so volts in the IV to closer to -50v to -60v it was in II series. This will give the GEQ more clean headroom and make each Hz band more effective. Boogie used the same transistor set from the late II series in everything they made after with a GEQ so the voltage ratings are good there but Boogie changed the filter caps from the 2x 220uF/80v used in the original C+ to filter caps with lower voltage ratings @63v (probably the real reason Boogie changed it, they're cheaper), so they'd need to be changed out. The other necessary change is the output coupling cap from the GEQ from 1uF to 10uF. Why I use the word necessary is because that's where a big part of the 'hugeness' of the 2C+ comes from. It's quite impressive on it's own but it sometimes gets to be too much mixed in playing with a band so it makes sense why Boogie changed it. They designed the IV with the idea of a highly versatile workhorse with a world of sounds for the professional guitarist, not a Metallica machine.
Mark II is more versatile with different tones, but if you go for that "special tight mark distortion alá Metallica or Dream Theater" you wont hear a difference in a mix between the two.
Thanks for the very informative video explaining the differences. That IIC+ sounds absolutely massive. They both do really. IMO the VII had kind of a cocked wah thing going on in the mids if I really had to pick something out about it. I'm sure with all the controls it could be dialed out. Listening on Focal monitors. They both sound ace though. Great job
Why would u want it to sound like something that's already been done
Because the thing that has been done is selling for $10,000
Because it sounds amazing.
If you have to ask, you don’t understand.
oh..and for the sound of the 2c+ being tied up in massive transformers...I can PROVE that aint so...STUDIO PRE AMP..MASSIVE 2C+ sound..TINY LITTLE TRANSFORMER(I owned one and it IS true...now I own a Mark IVB and i prefer this sound...it is the ultimate evolution of the 2c sound...more bass...harmonics and mid gain)(tiny transformer and way more bass than my Mark V 90 watt...MASSIVE transformer and has issue putting out bass...really lacks in this area...also no INPUT GAIN...and that is JUST NOT MARK)..anyone want to buy an excellent condition MArk V 90 watt...no icepick highs (that is ALL output tubes...my MArk IV will do it with the wrong tubes in the output section)
My Mark V90 has a shitload of bass. This is all nonsense that you just posted.
iiC+ all the way....
I agree. I like the Mark VII. It records exceptionally well. But the IIC+ DRGX is just an absolute monster. In the room it sounds huge, raw, aggressive, punchy, and tight. It will rattle your skull.
I agree that they sound different…but I have to say, I think the VII sounds better. The IIC+ sounds muddy and boxy in comparison. And you didn’t compare the clean channels, where the VII is much better. Aside from high gain lead, the IIC+ really isn’t very good. People just have Metallica burned in their heads, but the tones and audio quality of Master Of Puppets really aren’t very good. It’s the songs and the playing that did it.
I guess if you want something that deliberately sounds old and nasty, the IIC+ is better. I would also say that on the Mark V, all of the circuits they added ended up making it possible to sound over-processed and thin. But they really hit the sweet spot on the Mark VII. It’s got fewer options, but a bigger, more dynamic and aggressive sound. But still more refined than the old ones.
Ultimately though, you can make all of them sound basically the same, especially in a mix. The same DNA is in all of them.
This is true. In a mix, it would be harder to decipher the difference between the two. If you had an A/B box, you could probably get them pretty close.
I like the Mark VII. I think it records very well. It sits in a mix nicely with minimal tweaking and it has a lot of great options.
But in the room, the IIC+ absolutely mows it down. Raw, aggressive, punchy, dynamic, gnarly, and wild. It just has "that" sound.
@@eldoradoguitars6456Some if it is a matter of taste, for sure. Depends what you’re looking for. I think the work they did on the JP-2C influenced them to go in a more pure direction with less complications for the Mark VII and it really worked.
Categorically disagree. I've owned every Mark from IIb onward. The IIc+ has more rich harmonics than any of the more modern ones, and does not have the weird EQ spikes that the III (upper mid) and V and VII have (high freq.). The IIC+'s sing way more for leads, and have the most full and round rhythm sound. They make every chord you play sound good, and they round out any harsh frequencies and harmonics. Nothing compares to their sweetness and fullness.
That's still to say, I love my Mark V. It's a great amp. But the IIc+ is lightning in a bottle.
@@guitaristcomposer7395 And I think it sounds like mud. It makes sense that leads high up on the neck are the only thing that sounds good to me on it.
I totally agree with you. The corksniffery surrounding the Mark IIC+ is pretty ridiculous. I think both the JP-2C and Mark VII both be made to sound better than the 2C+. Hell, I actually think my III green stripe sounds better than most Mark IIC+'s. And the newer amps won't have failing components or require you to make huge compromises in the other channels just to get "that" tone out of the lead channel
I sold my 2c+ 60w because it had worse cleans than my 100w 2b loop moded and it was only because it had the smaller transformer - swaping tubes didn’t help