Mark IIC+

[thiswaythatway]

I've had a IIB, III (red) and a V and the V has by far the best low volume tone out of any of them.

Low volumes or not, i could never get a V to sound as good as my old IIC+'s or III's. That 3rd channel on the V is really missing something IMHO.

 

[Superunknown]

I've had a IIB, III (red) and a V and the V has by far the best low volume tone out of any of them.

Low volumes or not, i could never get a V to sound as good as my old IIC+'s or III's. That 3rd channel on the V is really missing something IMHO.

I agree...the IIC+ has something special going on that the other Boogies are missing IMHO...it's got a perfect combo of saturation while staying clear and open. I know everyone loves to crank the gain on these, but I really dig the lower gain settings on the IIC+ as well.

 

[some dude]

Low volumes or not, i could never get a V to sound as good as my old IIC+'s or III's. That 3rd channel on the V is really missing something IMHO.

The 'Pull Deep' knob.

With the bright switch to "bright" it almost nails the Mark IV sound and gets into the ballpark of the Mark IIC+ with the Pull Deep pushed in. Additionally, you can't use identical settings since they improved the range on the knobs, and the graphic EQ range is a little different too. The trade off is that the knobs aren't hyper sensitive to positioning like they were on the IV.

Another thing to factor in is that the Mark V has a SimulClass power section... so if the version of the Mark tone that's in your head is the 60w or 100w class A/B version then you're not going to find it. And keep in mind that IIC+ were wired in Triode, so comparing them with the V in pentode isn't going to produce comparable results.

Long and short is that a Mark V is a Mark V and not a Mark IIC+ or a Mark IV, so if you focus on the differences you'll get hung up in the details. A number of dudes over on the Boogie forum have A/B'd them against their IIC+ or IV and their claim is that while their is differences they're not that different if you dial them in to sound the same. Most of the hang ups happen over the deleted features, like separate gain/drive knobs (the Mark V drive is internally fixed at 7.8) and the pull shift/deep functions since they allowed the IIC+/IV to be dialled in in ways the V can't. The trade off (and the reason a number of these same people are using the V over the IIC+ and/or IV) is that Boogie finally got R2 right, the clean channel is improved over previous iterations and the amp has a better FX loop and reverb.

To me, the improved R2 is important since it means I don't have to drag around a second amp to cover the middle ground between the clean and lead channel on previous Marks. That feature alone is worth it's weight in gold, and to me it's funny that the while R2 was the weak point on both the III and IV it's become the strong suit on the V. Talking to other Mark V users via the internet I'm always surprised when they tell me that they don't even use the LD channel and pretty much exclusively stick to R1 and 2. To me the Mark is the LD channel, so it seems a bit odd for someone to say they love the Mark V but aren't into the LD channel... but to each their own.

Anyway.... at the end of the day the Mark IIC+ doesn't sound like a Mark IIC, or a IIB, or a IIA. The Mark III doesn't sound like a II and a green stripe doesn't sound like a red stripe or a no stripe. The Mark IV doesn't sound like a III or a II and IVB doesn't sound like a IVA. So why is anyone surprised that a V doesn't sound exactly like their predecessors?

EDIT: I'm not trying to say the Mark V is the end all/be all of Marks. It's just another stepping stone on the road of Boogie history. If you're obsessed with a specific sound, common sense would dictate that you should buy the amp that produces that specific sound. If you're simply looking for a great sounding amp that does it's own thing then the V is yet another option in a sea of options.

 

[thiswaythatway]

I've had a IIB, III (red) and a V and the V has by far the best low volume tone out of any of them.

Low volumes or not, i could never get a V to sound as good as my old IIC+'s or III's. That 3rd channel on the V is really missing something IMHO.

I agree...the IIC+ has something special going on that the other Boogies are missing IMHO...it's got a perfect combo of saturation while staying clear and open. I know everyone loves to crank the gain on these, but I really dig the lower gain settings on the IIC+ as well.

BINGO. That's the PERFECT description for the IIC+ and it's what the V lacks bigtime.

 

[thiswaythatway]

Low volumes or not, i could never get a V to sound as good as my old IIC+'s or III's. That 3rd channel on the V is really missing something IMHO.

The 'Pull Deep' knob.

With the bright switch to "bright" it almost nails the Mark IV sound and gets into the ballpark of the Mark IIC+ with the Pull Deep pushed in. Additionally, you can't use identical settings since they improved the range on the knobs, and the graphic EQ range is a little different too. The trade off is that the knobs aren't hyper sensitive to positioning like they were on the IV.

Another thing to factor in is that the Mark V has a SimulClass power section... so if the version of the Mark tone that's in your head is the 60w or 100w class A/B version then you're not going to find it. And keep in mind that IIC+ were wired in Triode, so comparing them with the V in pentode isn't going to produce comparable results.

Long and short is that a Mark V is a Mark V and not a Mark IIC+ or a Mark IV, so if you focus on the differences you'll get hung up in the details. A number of dudes over on the Boogie forum have A/B'd them against their IIC+ or IV and their claim is that while their is differences they're not that different if you dial them in to sound the same. Most of the hang ups happen over the deleted features, like separate gain/drive knobs (the Mark V drive is internally fixed at 7.8) and the pull shift/deep functions since they allowed the IIC+/IV to be dialled in in ways the V can't. The trade off (and the reason a number of these same people are using the V over the IIC+ and/or IV) is that Boogie finally got R2 right, the clean channel is improved over previous iterations and the amp has a better FX loop and reverb.

To me, the improved R2 is important since it means I don't have to drag around a second amp to cover the middle ground between the clean and lead channel on previous Marks. That feature alone is worth it's weight in gold, and to me it's funny that the while R2 was the weak point on both the III and IV it's become the strong suit on the V. Talking to other Mark V users via the internet I'm always surprised when they tell me that they don't even use the LD channel and pretty much exclusively stick to R1 and 2. To me the Mark is the LD channel, so it seems a bit odd for someone to say they love the Mark V but aren't into the LD channel... but to each their own.

Anyway.... at the end of the day the Mark IIC+ doesn't sound like a Mark IIC, or a IIB, or a IIA. The Mark III doesn't sound like a II and a green stripe doesn't sound like a red stripe or a no stripe. The Mark IV doesn't sound like a III or a II and IVB doesn't sound like a IVA. So why is anyone surprised that a V doesn't sound exactly like their predecessors?

EDIT: I'm not trying to say the Mark V is the end all/be all of Marks. It's just another stepping stone on the road of Boogie history. If you're obsessed with a specific sound, common sense would dictate that you should buy the amp that produces that specific sound. If you're simply looking for a great sounding amp that does it's own thing then the V is yet another option in a sea of options.

I bought the Mark V when it first came out. It was probably my 10th Mark series amp that i owned. I had 2 IIC+ heads. With those IIC+ heads i knew i liked them the second i playing a few chords after simple tweaks. With the V i was tweaking, tweaking, tweaking, and i never reached that point where i just knew it had that sound i wanted. But the IIC+ is not the be-all-end-all for everyone. But it really has something that Mesa hasn't duplicated even though the III and IV can get close. And i disagree with the guys on the Grail forum since i don't feel the V got close to a IIC+.

But the V is versatile enough and if you judge it on it's own it will keep plenty of people happy. But i laugh at Mesa's hype machine especially when they write their manuals, they're full of soo much crap it's hysterical.

 

[some dude]

I bought the Mark V when it first came out. It was probably my 10th Mark series amp that i owned. I had 2 IIC+ heads. With those IIC+ heads i knew i liked them the second i playing a few chords after simple tweaks. With the V i was tweaking, tweaking, tweaking, and i never reached that point where i just knew it had that sound i wanted. But the IIC+ is not the be-all-end-all for everyone. But it really has something that Mesa hasn't duplicated even though the III and IV can get close. And i disagree with the guys on the Grail forum since i don't feel the V got close to a IIC+.

I agree. I don't think Mesa will ever fully duplicate the IIC+. I can only defer to others regarding direct comparisons... best I can go off is memory and mine isn't all that reliable. I'm more interested in the IV sound anyway, so my opinion of the V is skewed that way.

But the V is versatile enough and if you judge it on it's own it will keep plenty of people happy. But i laugh at Mesa's hype machine especially when they write their manuals, they're full of soo much crap it's hysterical.

I agree here too. Naming the individual modes after classic amplifiers invites comparison and when you break it down they don't compare simply because they're not the same amp. They should've stuck to calling them tight, vintage and modern or something like they did on other amps. For instance, I've found that ''Crunch" mode is basically the same as Mark IV mode with the gain dialled back, a shift in the mids and general V shaped EQ contour built into the voice.... and half the people that love it seem to praise it for it's "Marshall" like qualities....?

Anyway, I'm sounding like a fan boy and it's not really my intent.