Mark IV vs C+ DRG : Clip

[Bxlxaxkxe]

Id like to do a more extensive comparison at some point. I recorded this a couple weeks ago and never posted as I want to do something more in depth but throwing this out there for now.

Gotta pull everything on the IV, simul class, mid gain. It’s very C+ish set up this way.

Both amps have the same preamp tubes. Syl 6L6 x4 in the IV. Syl 6L6 in the middle and RFT EL34s in the C+

 

[jharpersj]

cool post!!! I miss my mark IV and sure would love a c+

 

[Exo-metal]

Did u have this amp ++? It doesn't sound compressed like its pulled back a bit.

 

[Tone Monster]

Both sound good but the Mark IV is missing those beautiful upper mids and harmonics the IIC+ excels at

 

[SpiderWars]

Both sound great and as I was listening I was surprised how different they sounded but then I saw you have EL34s in the outer sockets on the IIC+. That totally changes the whole ballgame imo, to me Simuls sound totally different when you swap those outer tubes. For clean I like 4x 6L6 but for dirty tones...it depends.

 

[RaceU4her]

cool vid! did i see a C+ without an eq in one of your vids?? id like to hear a C+ with eq compared to a non with the 5 band in the loop

 

[LP Freak]

Both sound good but the Mark IV is missing those beautiful upper mids and harmonics the IIC+ excels at

Definitely

 

[TX6Strings]

Killer clip. Could you post the full range of the settings you used on the MKIV?

 

[GJgo]

cool vid! did i see a C+ without an eq in one of your vids?? id like to hear a C+ with eq compared to a non with the 5 band in the loop

Not an exact science but here's a few I've done with a C+ SR & a Mesa 5 band in the loop compared to other Marks. TBH the Mesa 5 band is not as good as an onboard GEQ. It's a little fizzy and doesn't scoop as deep. But it's better than nothing. I'm trading mine out for an Empress ParaEQ, hope to see if it's more transparent.

That said, no-EQ Marks have better harmonics & sustain!

 

[RaceU4her]

this is what i was looking for, thanks! i thought they would be a little closer sounding. is the feel the same?

 

[GJgo]

this is what i was looking for, thanks! i thought they would be a little closer sounding. is the feel the same?

It doesn't change the feel, just the tone in this case. When A/Bing vs. originals it's not as satisfying. Personally I've never met a Mesa pedal I've gelled with.

I still highly recommend no-EQ models to save money, and because the harmonics & sustain are better, but I'm looking for a better EQ to loop in.

 

[Racerxrated]

^^^^I would add to Jeremy's post that the no EQ C+ have a noticeably FASTER attack/response than the GEQ versions. It's very fun to play and really adds to the experience. If only the mids on the non EQ C+ were sitting in a lower spot...or much higher like a Marshall...I would search one out for that cool response.
I think if I ever found one again, cheap enough I'd send it to Mike B for a going over plus have him mod that mid frequency to sit in a different spot than the stock amp...or maybe a switchable 'scoop' or similar...might be a cool mod.

 

[skullfxr]

Both sound great and as I was listening I was surprised how different they sounded but then I saw you have EL34s in the outer sockets on the IIC+. That totally changes the whole ballgame imo, to me Simuls sound totally different when you swap those outer tubes. For clean I like 4x 6L6 but for dirty tones...it depends.

I gotta agree on that. Definitely changes the bite on my MKIV. and I don't have any EL34's that I use that compare to an RFT. I would like to see this with the same power tubes, tbh.

The C+ is just flat out MEAN!

Nice demo, but I honestly credit part of the bite of the C+ with the RFT's.

Haveing said that, I REALLY want to dig out and clean up my MKIV. I have to do a little bit of work to it. Just mainly cleaning jacks/sockets/pots, etc. I also need to retention a tube socket or two.

 

[cardinal]

I was really surprised at the difference the EL34s made when I had one.

The GEQ pedal in the loop isn't going to be exactly the same because the FX return is before the last gain stage, so boosting or cutting at that spot is going to impact the levels going into that gain stage. The built-in GEQ is after that stage. But it's probably doable to just add an insert loop after that gain stage for the GEQ pedal and use the pedal's output control to get the level correct to the phase inverter.

 

[SpiderWars]

I think if I ever found one again, cheap enough I'd send it to Mike B for a going over plus have him mod that mid frequency to sit in a different spot than the stock amp...or maybe a switchable 'scoop' or similar...might be a cool mod.

I always wondered if by adding a Depth control and maybe tweeking the Presence control you could sort of scoop the power section just right.

 

[Racerxrated]

Both sound great and as I was listening I was surprised how different they sounded but then I saw you have EL34s in the outer sockets on the IIC+. That totally changes the whole ballgame imo, to me Simuls sound totally different when you swap those outer tubes. For clean I like 4x 6L6 but for dirty tones...it depends.

I gotta agree on that. Definitely changes the bite on my MKIV. and I don't have any EL34's that I use that compare to an RFT. I would like to see this with the same power tubes, tbh.

The C+ is just flat out MEAN!

Nice demo, but I honestly credit part of the bite of the C+ with the RFT's.

Haveing said that, I REALLY want to dig out and clean up my MKIV. I have to do a little bit of work to it. Just mainly cleaning jacks/sockets/pots, etc. I also need to retention a tube socket or two.

Gonna disagree on the 'bite' being the result of the RFTs. The amp will still have that character; regardless of which type of 34 you put in. In my experience anyway. Maybe a touch more '3D' with say the Sylvania 6L6(Mesa 415s) than other Mesas, like 440s but tube changes really don't make a big difference in the C+ circuit vs a vintage Marshall. Kinda like an SLO...tube changes affect the tone but minimally IMO.

 

[Racerxrated]

I think if I ever found one again, cheap enough I'd send it to Mike B for a going over plus have him mod that mid frequency to sit in a different spot than the stock amp...or maybe a switchable 'scoop' or similar...might be a cool mod.

I always wondered if by adding a Depth control and maybe tweeking the Presence control you could sort of scoop the power section just right.

I think it's worth a phone call to Mike B to discuss any mods he can do short of adding the EQ. That super fast response is very cool and super fun to play, just gotta get rid of that mid 'honk' that the non eq models have.

 

[Bxlxaxkxe]

Did u have this amp ++? It doesn't sound compressed like its pulled back a bit.

Not ++. Both gains on 7 or so here, which is where I like em 90% of the time. I do go for more gain when I'm in the mood.

 

[Bxlxaxkxe]

Killer clip. Could you post the full range of the settings you used on the MKIV?

Yeah man. Both gains pulled, presence pulled. Simul, triode, mid gain on back. Treble 6, bass 0, mids 4.5. Presence...3 or so?

Am I missing anything?

 

[GJgo]

Personally I think there's no better lead tone than a IIC+ (specifically without GEQ). But, over the years I've spoken to a number of guys who really prefer the lead tone on their IV. Where do you stand on it?

In the live band mix I think I'd rather have the IV, but in the bedroom & recording studio the IIC+ (with GEQ) can't be beat. IMO.