I have a decision to make. C -> C+ or C++?

[GJgo]

@GJgo, is your DRG Mk.III a III+ or a "stock" III? (you've mentioned alot now i'm confused) if so i'm very interested. I've been in the market for Mk.IIIs for a month or two now. all the ones i'm looking at will require a cap job i'm almost 100% on that one. so i'm very interested how a fresh modded C++ will sound compared. Did you mention which stripe your MK.III is/was?

My III blue stripe is not a +. In hindsight I wish I would have had Mike B. do that when he went through it last year but that's what it is. I have it up on eBay right now, it's a fantastic amp, only because I need to recover some funds from the C+ onslaught.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/232315167682?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

 

[Racerxrated]

440s are a significant improvement over the 430s to my ears atleast. I've not heard 415s in over a decade myself so i shouldn't comment on those as i can't bloody remember them anymore.

@GJgo, is your DRG Mk.III a III+ or a "stock" III? (you've mentioned alot now i'm confused) if so i'm very interested.

I've been in the market for Mk.IIIs for a month or two now. all the ones i'm looking at will require a cap job i'm almost 100% on that one. so i'm very interested how a fresh modded C++ will sound compared. Did you mention which stripe your MK.III is/was?

Does stripe have bearing AFTER? a + mod?

My ears aren't that sensitive, but I could totally tell a difference when I upgraded to 415s in my C+. It just sounded more 3D, more organic, etc.

Yup. Big difference to me as well. If you are spending the coin on a C+, spend a little more to get the 415/387s. Definitely worth it.

 

[sg guy]

-so its been awhile, former MARK IV owner, and from reading this forum 2 things, #!-i have FUCKN MESA gas!!!!.... #2-so the verdict on the JP amp is that its not IIC+

 

[eternal_idol]

-so its been awhile, former MARK IV owner, and from reading this forum 2 things, #!-i have FUCKN MESA gas!!!!.... #2-so the verdict on the JP amp is that its not IIC+

I'm reserving judgment, until someone opens it up and give us access to all the Mark push/pull goodness while leaving the new pull pres and shred mod enabled.
ditch the reverb and cab clone, and gimmie back Variable Vol.1

it sounded Close enough to me to want to consider doing ^^that^^ to a used one.

 

[sg guy]

-true!!^^^^^^im more interested in how it feels next to a 2C+

 

[GJgo]

If you're playing live the JP2C is really hard to argue with. Tonally it's right there with my IIC+, but with 3 channels & 2 GEQs it's way more versatile. Really the only place it falls short of my IIC+ is in the 3D / feel / feedback & sustain department. This I think is why the original is so magic.

If you can pick up a IIC or a + you won't be disappointed. Honestly, in hindsight if I never would have had Mike make the IIC a + I would have still been 100% happy- the feel in the standard C when I first got it still whoops up on any other amp I've ever played. Really, with my poll if "what should I do", having experienced all 3 now (4 with the JP) you honestly can't go wrong with any of them.

 

[Racerxrated]

^^But it's those small but important differences that make a true C+ that much better than the JP. It's a cool amp but when guys have A/B'd the JP to the real deal, the JP gets returned or put up for sale.

 

[psychodave]

^^But it's those small but important differences that make a true C+ that much better than the JP. It's a cool amp but when guys have A/B'd the JP to the real deal, the JP gets returned or put up for sale.

My JP2C lasted a few days. It's a great amp on its own, but not like the 2C+ IMO.

 

[braintheory]

^^But it's those small but important differences that make a true C+ that much better than the JP. It's a cool amp but when guys have A/B'd the JP to the real deal, the JP gets returned or put up for sale.

My JP2C lasted a few days. It's a great amp on its own, but not like the 2C+ IMO.

Agreed. I'd still choose over most high gainers out there though

 

[GJgo]

OOOOHHH YYYEAAAAAHHHH BIIIITTCCHHHEESSSSSSSS!!!

Guess what Daddy got in the mail yesterday.

 

[psychodave]

Awesome. I love my 2C++. Pisses on most old and new high gain amp. lol

 

[glip22]

OOOOHHH YYYEAAAAAHHHH BIIIITTCCHHHEESSSSSSSS!!!

Guess what Daddy got in the mail yesterday.

I agree. Not sure why know one posted congrats. I for one, would like to know your thoughts? I think many are in a state of uncertainty with our current power and didn't want to humor you.
I am happy for you. I hope your IIC++ is a great as mine is since Mike did his magic on it
And, yes it blew away the JP2c. Sorry to anyone who feels different. It's only my opinion. I had a new JP side by side with an early MArk III++ with the 105 PT and the III stomped the shit out of it. Made it sound tiny and I like my IIC++ more than the III++. Mine had some weird values Mesa put in that were affecting the low end but Mike sorted it and it thumps. Killer, raw, pure tone, with that great feel.

 

[Dror520]

Awesome!!

Please do share your thoughts on how it compares to your other amps.

 

[Racerxrated]

Congrats! Killer killer amp. Very much an unobtanium monster of an amp.

 

[sg guy]

-sweet!!!-

-rock that bitch!!!...

 

[GJgo]

I just had a chance to plug in for the first time to the ++ & play for a few minutes. I didn't have a ton of time so I just went to the traditional settings to try it out.

HOLY MARY MOTHER OF GOD. I can't even imagine another high gain amp that can come close to this. It's going to make me re-evaluate every other amp I have. I'm lost for words right now. The ++ was absolutely the right choice for me.

Did I mention that 105 PT is running 515v in the Class A sockets?

I recorded a quick iPhone clip just because I was so pumped on what I was hearing. I will definitely be micing up & comparing tone against the others later.

https://youtu.be/9W_9wGaK_a8

 

[sg guy]

-congrats man, now your forever doomed to measure every amp against the IIC++, get another and run a stereo rig!!

-so for those that know, is the "MAGIC-IN-GREED-IANT" that makes the IIC++ magic... the 105 PT? i run a stereo rig, i have a WIZARD MC 1 up graded to a MC 2, having a hard time finding something that can hang with the WIZARD,

 

[glip22]

-congrats man, now your forever doomed to measure every amp against the IIC++, get another and run a stereo rig!!

-so for those that know, is the "MAGIC-IN-GREED-IANT" that makes the IIC++ magic... the 105 PT? i run a stereo rig, i have a WIZARD MC 1 up graded to a MC 2, having a hard time finding something that can hang with the WIZARD,

Not at all. The 105 gives more headroom where the 100 gives a greasier feel. Both are great

 

[Racerxrated]

-congrats man, now your forever doomed to measure every amp against the IIC++, get another and run a stereo rig!!

-so for those that know, is the "MAGIC-IN-GREED-IANT" that makes the IIC++ magic... the 105 PT? i run a stereo rig, i have a WIZARD MC 1 up graded to a MC 2, having a hard time finding something that can hang with the WIZARD,

Not at all. The 105 gives more headroom where the 100 gives a greasier feel. Both are great

And I have a 60, that sent a 100 packing. They all sound great and have small differences that set them apart. But the 3D high gain vintage yet modern tonal assault is there with any of the 3 variations. I played a Mark 3 with the 105 trans, wasn't even close in ANY way to my C+. It's the sum of all that goes in to a C+.

 

[psychodave]

-congrats man, now your forever doomed to measure every amp against the IIC++, get another and run a stereo rig!!

-so for those that know, is the "MAGIC-IN-GREED-IANT" that makes the IIC++ magic... the 105 PT? i run a stereo rig, i have a WIZARD MC 1 up graded to a MC 2, having a hard time finding something that can hang with the WIZARD,

Not at all. The 105 gives more headroom where the 100 gives a greasier feel. Both are great

Being nitty gritty, I've had a 2C++ with a 100 non-simul and 105 simul. I prefer the 100 non simul. Sounds bigger and more aggressive. I felt the 105 simul was too smooth sounding. FWIW, I run 415's in both simul and non-simul.