Mark 2C+ SRGX through 2 different cabs

  • Thread starter Thread starter ultimatemetalguitartones
  • Start date Start date
And yet another one - I promise this is the last one I am uploading lol
This time my friend is playing his Ibanez Rg 2550 with DiMarzio Evolution
 
Killer. Even though the Mark 3’s have the same general vibe, none I’ve ever tried or heard have the body and richness of the C+. I just think the 3s are objectionably thin. Also huge props for the Venom poster lol
 
So, since you own a quad and a studio preamp, do they come close the the actual 2c+, I’ve played through every one but never together to do a direct comparison.
 
boogieman1187 said:
So, since you own a quad and a studio preamp, do they come close the the actual 2c+, I’ve played through every one but never together to do a direct comparison.
Click to expand...
Actually I sold them both! I think the quad sounds more vintage and raw. The studio is more scooped for some reason! Also the quad has the push pull options . Both are similar but not identical to the 2C+ preamp
 
thegame said:
Killer. Even though the Mark 3’s have the same general vibe, none I’ve ever tried or heard have the body and richness of the C+. I just think the 3s are objectionably thin. Also huge props for the Venom poster lol
Click to expand...
Exactly! I had a mark 3 blue stripe and boy that was an aggressive little bastard, but it didn't have those rich harmonics. The mark iv on the other hand is far more versatile and has tons of options. IMO the mark IV is the most complete / amazing sounding mark ever.
 
ultimatemetalguitartones said:
Exactly! I had a mark 3 blue stripe and boy that was an aggressive little bastard, but it didn't have those rich harmonics. The mark iv on the other hand is far more versatile and has tons of options. IMO the mark IV is the most complete / amazing sounding mark ever.
Click to expand...
Well, though my experience with the Mark IV is very limited, I thought it got closer to the C+ in terms of warmth and thickness. Not all the way, but better than the 3 in that regard. What I didn't like is it seemed less raw than either the C+ or 3. To me that was the first Boogie where the circuit got too complex and the amp got less organic.
 
thegame said:
Well, though my experience with the Mark IV is very limited, I thought it got closer to the C+ in terms of warmth and thickness. Not all the way, but better than the 3 in that regard. What I didn't like is it seemed less raw than either the C+ or 3. To me that was the first Boogie where the circuit got too complex and the amp got less organic.
Click to expand...
When I had both the III (red stripe, simulclass) and my very early Mark IVb and I compared the lead channels, the main difference I noticed was that the III would get a bit harsh at high volumes, while the IV sounds really warm in the mids... there is no harsh frequencies to be heard in the IV at band volumes, at least from my experience.
The IV is a touch more modern, while the III is more vintage sounding. Also, recording... The IV records beautifully, while the III was a bit of a hassle and hard to take the blanket off the speaker without getting harsh. The III is definitely a more raw sounding amp, so if that is what you need then go for a Mark III. Both are very compressed sounding, but I found that palm mutes on a IV kinda pop out a bit more, while chords sound more open on the III.

Cleans, the IVb has a better clean channel to my ears, R2 is kind of a draw IMO, they both can be dialed in nice, especially with a overdrive in front.

These are my experiences with the III's and IVb. I have not had that much experience with the Mark IVa (i've only briefly played one), but they seem to have more of that vintage flavor to them, a little less scooped than the IVb. More similar than different though.
 
anomaly said:
When I had both the III (red stripe, simulclass) and my very early Mark IVb and I compared the lead channels, the main difference I noticed was that the III would get a bit harsh at high volumes, while the IV sounds really warm in the mids... there is no harsh frequencies to be heard in the IV at band volumes, at least from my experience.
The IV is a touch more modern, while the III is more vintage sounding. Also, recording... The IV records beautifully, while the III was a bit of a hassle and hard to take the blanket off the speaker without getting harsh. The III is definitely a more raw sounding amp, so if that is what you need then go for a Mark III. Both are very compressed sounding, but I found that palm mutes on a IV kinda pop out a bit more, while chords sound more open on the III.

Cleans, the IVb has a better clean channel to my ears, R2 is kind of a draw IMO, they both can be dialed in nice, especially with a overdrive in front.

These are my experiences with the III's and IVb. I have not had that much experience with the Mark IVa (i've only briefly played one), but they seem to have more of that vintage flavor to them, a little less scooped than the IVb. More similar than different though.
Click to expand...
Exactly! The rev A is more in your face and more vintage sounding while the revB is more scooped and has more gain -compression. I feel the Mark IV has all the right frequencies to excel at recording. The Mark III that I had was a bit too hairy for me
 
Texhex said:
Sounds awesome. Great little jam space there.
Click to expand...
Thx man! I wish it was mine... It's a local studio and this room is the coziest I've ever seen. Damn I need to find a basement or sth hahaha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top