Paging Danyeo and Other IIC+ Experts....

[thegame]

Mesa stands to make more money selling GEQ pedals than retrofitting GEQs into a handful of amps. Bendinelli is a super nice guy but gives contradictory info sometimes.

 

[Larks' Tongue]

Mesa stands to make more money selling GEQ pedals than retrofitting GEQs into a handful of amps. Bendinelli is a super nice guy but gives contradictory info sometimes.

I get what you're saying, and I really don't have a dog in the fight, but I've spoken to Mike no less than three times on this issue and he was steadfast on not altering. I think Mike is a straight shooter, and if the pedal sounded noticeably worse than the retrofit, he would take the extra $200.00 and add it on. Heck, most companies/people would recommend the more expensive option regardless - but not Mike/Mesa. Is there a dark underlying motive? I doubt it, I think he honest believes the two options as being largely spot on (although not exact). That all said, if I found even a Mark IIC or early III faceplate I'd likely have it done in a second - in fact, hoping I can find one while it's still with him.

As to your point, on whether recommending the retrofit would impair the perceived value of the Mesa 5-band pedal? No, I'm mean even the posts here indicate a general disbelief that the pedal can be as good as the onboard even despite the fact that it uses the same parts, runs at the same voltage, etc. I believe a Mesa rep came on here and made the same point, and that's not something they can lie about...

 

[Larks' Tongue]

Yeah, I guess the only way to really know is to get identical 2 MKIIC+, one with eq one without and try it. Have to have same power section though.

Yep, that's totally the thing - but then you have claims that each amp is different, etc. etc. I guess at the end of the day, I was wondering if we're talking about 1%, 10%, or 99% difference in these options. Coming from Marshals, I guess I was wondering if it's like comparing a 2550 v. 2555 or a 2204 v. 2203 - some people will swear up and down that the differences are huge, to the point that if you listen to them you might avoid some absolutely stellar amps (like the 2204 or the 2550). Again, hyperbole versus reality.

Also, I made mention of Danyeo since he has a post saying that for the price that these are running at, he would have no hesitation taking a 60W and adding an EQ in the loop. I know he has since bought a DRG, so would be great to hear if he still feels that way.

 

[blackba]

Confused as to the purpose of this thread. Larks tongue, it sounds like you already pretty much had your mind made up when you posted this thread and were just looking for confirmation. When you got differing opinions you kept sticking to what Mesa said.

If it were me I would not mod the mark Iic+ you have and just be on the lookout for one with an onboard graphic eq to compare for yourself. Or you can always get a mark III and compare that as well. Best of luck, please report back if you do find an amp to do a head to head....

 

[Larks' Tongue]

Confused as to the purpose of this thread. Larks tongue, it sounds like you already pretty much had your mind made up when you posted this thread and were just looking for confirmation. When you got differing opinions you kept sticking to what Mesa said.

If it were me I would not mod the mark Iic+ you have and just be on the lookout for one with an onboard graphic eq to compare for yourself. Or you can always get a mark III and compare that as well. Best of luck, please report back if you do find an amp to do a head to head....

Thanks, Blackba, I should clarify since I don't want to come across as argumentative but I am confused and do want to clear up some perceived "BS." Ultimately, the purpose of the thread was to collect some thoughts from a cross-section of players that have tried the various IIC+ models and can provide an assessment based on their experiences. Not trying to disparage anyone or their opinions, but I've read Danyeo's posts and generally found them very even-handed and accurate (as to my own experiences with other amps). In particular, I was hoping he would chime in since he has experience w/ the 60W and non-GEQ amps and subsequently picked up a DRG - hence, the title of my post.

As to my own experience, I've researched the IIC+ primarily from past posts, and no personal experience since these are so rare and generally hard to come by (even in No. Cal). What I've found is a lot of conflicting information generally and strident gear recommendations from Metallica/Petrucci fans. Again, lots of what's written is internally-contradictory and also contradictory to what Mike B. has advised.

For instance, a lot of potential myth/hype surrounding Simulclass. First, operationally, I'm baffled as to how a SC IIC+ can concurrently be "smoother" than a 60 or 100/60 but also have a much more pronounced presence/brightness (to the point that some are running theirs with presence at 0). Secondly, one poster even intimated that anything other than a SC simply wouldn't get you to a passable metal tone - which is frankly ridiculous since the 60W is said to have the highest level of gain and from personal experience (and IMHO) it outdoes numerous metal amps that I've personally owned (Tremoverb, MK V, SLO & Jubilee). Are the IIC+ Coliseums also unable to get metal tones, since those (purportedly) were never SC amps? Btw, and for what it's worth, I've read that Petrucci's favorite IIC+ for lead tones was in fact a 60W (I'm still trying to find that link).

Then there's the issue of the EQ. From personal experience, I'm 100% on board with the fact that the lead channel needs an EQ to cut out the mids. And, I'm not even going to get into Doug West's comments about preferring the non-GEQ models. Accordingly, I was willing to get this added on and still might. But to do so would basically be tantamount to having to tell Mike that his recommendation is wrong and that the onboard is leagues better than running an EQ in the loop as per the "internet." I don't know, but when the lowly SR with the Mesa 5-band in the loop sounds better than a SLO, I have a tendency to believe Mike B. and to be weary about those claiming that the amp couldn't do hard rock or sounds noticeably worse than an onboard IIC+.

So, yes, ultimately it would be great to lineup DRG(X) and to test it for myself. However, I don't have the luxury at the moment to spend an additional $2500 to $3500 to get a DRG only to realize the difference was minimal if not nonexistent - particularly if it meant selling an amp that I really, really love. I've been through that song and dance before... But of course, if Danyeo advises that the difference are truly pronounced and favorable to the DRG, well then I guess another 60W will be on the market.

Ultimately, IIC+s rock and I'm enjoying talking about them. I hope I'm not ruffling anyone's feathers.

 

[thiswaythatway]

I've tried an MXR EQ in the loop and compared it to the onboard EQ on a few amps, III and a IIC+. There was a difference but really not much. Close enough that nobody would know. I think the MXR 5 band is better because it has that 800 khz slider which is closer to the 750khz slider found on the amps.

I think if you grabbed a non-EQ Mark series amp and ran an EQ in the loop you're really not missing much tone wise, but the amp will never be worth as much as one loaded with the onboard EQ.



As far as non-simul vs loaded. I had a 60 watt IIC+ and compared it in the same room, on the cab, same guitar with Ralph's, Gainfreak, IIC+. His was a loaded model. We dialed them in to sound identical and low to medium volumes. The only difference was the 60 watt model had it presence on about 2-3 while the loaded simul-class amp had it almost off.

I bought a IIC+ from GC, a loaded one that they thought was a Mark III. Got it for $1100. But I sold it for $2600. The guy who bought it from me just sold it for $4800 Good for him, but I won't be shelling out that much for a IIC+.

I had a Mark IV and got that pretty damm close to a IIC+, not exact but close. And I think I'd rather grab a red stripe Mark III, they are actually more aggressive if metal is your thing.

 

[Larks' Tongue]

I've tried an MXR EQ in the loop and compared it to the onboard EQ on a few amps, III and a IIC+. There was a difference but really not much. Close enough that nobody would know. I think the MXR 5 band is better because it has that 800 khz slider which is closer to the 750khz slider found on the amps.

I think if you grabbed a non-EQ Mark series amp and ran an EQ in the loop you're really not missing much tone wise, but the amp will never be worth as much as one loaded with the onboard EQ.



As far as non-simul vs loaded. I had a 60 watt IIC+ and compared it in the same room, on the cab, same guitar with Ralph's, Gainfreak, IIC+. His was a loaded model. We dialed them in to sound identical and low to medium volumes. The only difference was the 60 watt model had it presence on about 2-3 while the loaded simul-class amp had it almost off.

I bought a IIC+ from GC, a loaded one that they thought was a Mark III. Got it for $1100. But I sold it for $2600. The guy who bought it from me just sold it for $4800 Good for him, but I won't be shelling out that much for a IIC+.

I had a Mark IV and got that pretty damm close to a IIC+, not exact but close. And I think I'd rather grab a red stripe Mark III, they are actually more aggressive if metal is your thing.

Thanks a ton for your response, Danyeo! I think I'm good on this topic now - thanks again everyone.

 

[thiswaythatway]

Mesa stands to make more money selling GEQ pedals than retrofitting GEQs into a handful of amps. Bendinelli is a super nice guy but gives contradictory info sometimes.

I spoke to Mike years ago before they were making the EQ pedals and he told me I could add an EQ to an amp but he advised trying EQ pedals.

One thing I will note, I've played and owned several IIC+ and damm, some really sounded better than others. Tubes? I don't know, maybe.

 

[thiswaythatway]

I've tried an MXR EQ in the loop and compared it to the onboard EQ on a few amps, III and a IIC+. There was a difference but really not much. Close enough that nobody would know. I think the MXR 5 band is better because it has that 800 khz slider which is closer to the 750khz slider found on the amps.

I think if you grabbed a non-EQ Mark series amp and ran an EQ in the loop you're really not missing much tone wise, but the amp will never be worth as much as one loaded with the onboard EQ.



As far as non-simul vs loaded. I had a 60 watt IIC+ and compared it in the same room, on the cab, same guitar with Ralph's, Gainfreak, IIC+. His was a loaded model. We dialed them in to sound identical and low to medium volumes. The only difference was the 60 watt model had it presence on about 2-3 while the loaded simul-class amp had it almost off.

I bought a IIC+ from GC, a loaded one that they thought was a Mark III. Got it for $1100. But I sold it for $2600. The guy who bought it from me just sold it for $4800 Good for him, but I won't be shelling out that much for a IIC+.

I had a Mark IV and got that pretty damm close to a IIC+, not exact but close. And I think I'd rather grab a red stripe Mark III, they are actually more aggressive if metal is your thing.

Thanks a ton for your response, Danyeo! I think I'm good on this topic now - thanks again everyone.

Cool I think though with some volume is where the simulclass would shine. What I do want to do is compare the Mini Mark to a Mark V. Mesa swears till they're blue in the face that the Mark V can easily duplicate the IIC+. Yet Mark V's are selling for $1500 and IIC+'s selling for close to $5,000.

 

[Racerxrated]

Confused as to the purpose of this thread. Larks tongue, it sounds like you already pretty much had your mind made up when you posted this thread and were just looking for confirmation. When you got differing opinions you kept sticking to what Mesa said.

If it were me I would not mod the mark Iic+ you have and just be on the lookout for one with an onboard graphic eq to compare for yourself. Or you can always get a mark III and compare that as well. Best of luck, please report back if you do find an amp to do a head to head....

Thanks, Blackba, I should clarify since I don't want to come across as argumentative but I am confused and do want to clear up some perceived "BS." Ultimately, the purpose of the thread was to collect some thoughts from a cross-section of players that have tried the various IIC+ models and can provide an assessment based on their experiences. Not trying to disparage anyone or their opinions, but I've read Danyeo's posts and generally found them very even-handed and accurate (as to my own experiences with other amps). In particular, I was hoping he would chime in since he has experience w/ the 60W and non-GEQ amps and subsequently picked up a DRG - hence, the title of my post.

As to my own experience, I've researched the IIC+ primarily from past posts, and no personal experience since these are so rare and generally hard to come by (even in No. Cal). What I've found is a lot of conflicting information generally and strident gear recommendations from Metallica/Petrucci fans. Again, lots of what's written is internally-contradictory and also contradictory to what Mike B. has advised.

For instance, a lot of potential myth/hype surrounding Simulclass. First, operationally, I'm baffled as to how a SC IIC+ can concurrently be "smoother" than a 60 or 100/60 but also have a much more pronounced presence/brightness (to the point that some are running theirs with presence at 0). Secondly, one poster even intimated that anything other than a SC simply wouldn't get you to a passable metal tone - which is frankly ridiculous since the 60W is said to have the highest level of gain and from personal experience (and IMHO) it outdoes numerous metal amps that I've personally owned (Tremoverb, MK V, SLO & Jubilee). Are the IIC+ Coliseums also unable to get metal tones, since those (purportedly) were never SC amps? Btw, and for what it's worth, I've read that Petrucci's favorite IIC+ for lead tones was in fact a 60W (I'm still trying to find that link).

Then there's the issue of the EQ. From personal experience, I'm 100% on board with the fact that the lead channel needs an EQ to cut out the mids. And, I'm not even going to get into Doug West's comments about preferring the non-GEQ models. Accordingly, I was willing to get this added on and still might. But to do so would basically be tantamount to having to tell Mike that his recommendation is wrong and that the onboard is leagues better than running an EQ in the loop as per the "internet." I don't know, but when the lowly SR with the Mesa 5-band in the loop sounds better than a SLO, I have a tendency to believe Mike B. and to be weary about those claiming that the amp couldn't do hard rock or sounds noticeably worse than an onboard IIC+.

So, yes, ultimately it would be great to lineup DRG(X) and to test it for myself. However, I don't have the luxury at the moment to spend an additional $2500 to $3500 to get a DRG only to realize the difference was minimal if not nonexistent - particularly if it meant selling an amp that I really, really love. I've been through that song and dance before... But of course, if Danyeo advises that the difference are truly pronounced and favorable to the DRG, well then I guess another 60W will be on the market.

Ultimately, IIC+s rock and I'm enjoying talking about them. I hope I'm not ruffling anyone's feathers.

What 'lowly SR +eq' sounds better than an SLO? If you mean a single Rec you must be joking. Must be.....if that is a certain model of MKIIC+ then OK. I guess. I've owned a single rec and boosted/stock/whatever it ain't no SLO. I've not had the opportunity to own a MKIIC yet...yet. BTW....can Mesa convert a IIB to a C+? There is one available for cheap..

 

[Larks' Tongue]

Confused as to the purpose of this thread. Larks tongue, it sounds like you already pretty much had your mind made up when you posted this thread and were just looking for confirmation. When you got differing opinions you kept sticking to what Mesa said.

If it were me I would not mod the mark Iic+ you have and just be on the lookout for one with an onboard graphic eq to compare for yourself. Or you can always get a mark III and compare that as well. Best of luck, please report back if you do find an amp to do a head to head....

Thanks, Blackba, I should clarify since I don't want to come across as argumentative but I am confused and do want to clear up some perceived "BS." Ultimately, the purpose of the thread was to collect some thoughts from a cross-section of players that have tried the various IIC+ models and can provide an assessment based on their experiences. Not trying to disparage anyone or their opinions, but I've read Danyeo's posts and generally found them very even-handed and accurate (as to my own experiences with other amps). In particular, I was hoping he would chime in since he has experience w/ the 60W and non-GEQ amps and subsequently picked up a DRG - hence, the title of my post.

As to my own experience, I've researched the IIC+ primarily from past posts, and no personal experience since these are so rare and generally hard to come by (even in No. Cal). What I've found is a lot of conflicting information generally and strident gear recommendations from Metallica/Petrucci fans. Again, lots of what's written is internally-contradictory and also contradictory to what Mike B. has advised.

For instance, a lot of potential myth/hype surrounding Simulclass. First, operationally, I'm baffled as to how a SC IIC+ can concurrently be "smoother" than a 60 or 100/60 but also have a much more pronounced presence/brightness (to the point that some are running theirs with presence at 0). Secondly, one poster even intimated that anything other than a SC simply wouldn't get you to a passable metal tone - which is frankly ridiculous since the 60W is said to have the highest level of gain and from personal experience (and IMHO) it outdoes numerous metal amps that I've personally owned (Tremoverb, MK V, SLO & Jubilee). Are the IIC+ Coliseums also unable to get metal tones, since those (purportedly) were never SC amps? Btw, and for what it's worth, I've read that Petrucci's favorite IIC+ for lead tones was in fact a 60W (I'm still trying to find that link).

Then there's the issue of the EQ. From personal experience, I'm 100% on board with the fact that the lead channel needs an EQ to cut out the mids. And, I'm not even going to get into Doug West's comments about preferring the non-GEQ models. Accordingly, I was willing to get this added on and still might. But to do so would basically be tantamount to having to tell Mike that his recommendation is wrong and that the onboard is leagues better than running an EQ in the loop as per the "internet." I don't know, but when the lowly SR with the Mesa 5-band in the loop sounds better than a SLO, I have a tendency to believe Mike B. and to be weary about those claiming that the amp couldn't do hard rock or sounds noticeably worse than an onboard IIC+.

So, yes, ultimately it would be great to lineup DRG(X) and to test it for myself. However, I don't have the luxury at the moment to spend an additional $2500 to $3500 to get a DRG only to realize the difference was minimal if not nonexistent - particularly if it meant selling an amp that I really, really love. I've been through that song and dance before... But of course, if Danyeo advises that the difference are truly pronounced and favorable to the DRG, well then I guess another 60W will be on the market.

Ultimately, IIC+s rock and I'm enjoying talking about them. I hope I'm not ruffling anyone's feathers.

What 'lowly SR +eq' sounds better than an SLO? If you mean a single Rec you must be joking. Must be.....if that is a certain model of MKIIC+ then OK. I guess. I've owned a single rec and boosted/stock/whatever it ain't no SLO. I've not had the opportunity to own a MKIIC yet...yet. BTW....can Mesa convert a IIB to a C+? There is one available for cheap..

Sorry, SR is Mesa's internal nomenclature for the IIC+ (S)ixty watt (R)erverb. The Tremoverb is the only Rectifier amp I've owned, although I have tried others. While the Tremoverb was versatile in terms of the tones it offered, I am predominantly a lead player and always have found Dual Recs to be more suited for rhythm. I don't know if I would agree with others calling it grainy, but they just lack that effortless sustain that amps like the IIC+ or SLO have.

Mesa no longer converts IIBs to IICs since the boards are totally different. Even if you convert a IIC to a IIC+ you'll likely have a different (though highly related) board and a different transformer in the 100/60 and SC. Not sure about the 60W transformer though.

 

[Larks' Tongue]

I've tried an MXR EQ in the loop and compared it to the onboard EQ on a few amps, III and a IIC+. There was a difference but really not much. Close enough that nobody would know. I think the MXR 5 band is better because it has that 800 khz slider which is closer to the 750khz slider found on the amps.

I think if you grabbed a non-EQ Mark series amp and ran an EQ in the loop you're really not missing much tone wise, but the amp will never be worth as much as one loaded with the onboard EQ.



As far as non-simul vs loaded. I had a 60 watt IIC+ and compared it in the same room, on the cab, same guitar with Ralph's, Gainfreak, IIC+. His was a loaded model. We dialed them in to sound identical and low to medium volumes. The only difference was the 60 watt model had it presence on about 2-3 while the loaded simul-class amp had it almost off.

I bought a IIC+ from GC, a loaded one that they thought was a Mark III. Got it for $1100. But I sold it for $2600. The guy who bought it from me just sold it for $4800 Good for him, but I won't be shelling out that much for a IIC+.

I had a Mark IV and got that pretty damm close to a IIC+, not exact but close. And I think I'd rather grab a red stripe Mark III, they are actually more aggressive if metal is your thing.

Thanks a ton for your response, Danyeo! I think I'm good on this topic now - thanks again everyone.

Cool I think though with some volume is where the simulclass would shine. What I do want to do is compare the Mini Mark to a Mark V. Mesa swears till they're blue in the face that the Mark V can easily duplicate the IIC+. Yet Mark V's are selling for $1500 and IIC+'s selling for close to $5,000.

I gotta admit, I liked the MK V that I had. I didn't stick with it long since I moved it to pick up my old Jubilee (since sold). At the time, I recall thinking the Mark IIC+ mode was very thin and distant and that I preferred the MK IV and Extreme settings (which I did generally like). That being said, I was more impressed by Channels 1 and 2, and recall being disappointed when I eventually picked up the Jubilee comparative to what Channel 2 offered. Not sure how the MK V would do if directly compared to a IIC+, however, since I've been totally floored with the latter's tones (more so than any other amp aside from my old Hiwatt and it's cleans).

The MK V/25 looks and sounds very cool (from the clips I've heard) and it's definitely priced right. Gotta try it though since I've not really been a huge fan of 84s in the past.

 

[steve_k]

A IIC+ without the GEQ and using a 5 band EQ in the loop will never sound near the same as one with the GEQ. This is because the GEQ is in the mixer circuit of V2 prior to the tone stack. In the loop, you EQ is coming after the tone stack.

A 100 watt SC will sound bigger right off the bat than the 60 watt. Soon as you turn the amp on you will notice the difference. The SC amps are class A/B on the inner pair and the outers are class A triode.

There is a bit of difference in the 100w and the 105 transformers. The 105 of course puts out more plate voltage which will make it harder hitting and a little more head room. The 100 is a bit smoother and I think a little more gain than the 105. But, the difference is not much.

MB cannot make your amp a GEQ model because there are no more face plates for the conversion.

The IIC+ is an amazing amp, especially if you have a loaded one. If you like the amp, I would suggest you look around and get one fully loaded. The difference in it and what you have now is astounding. I know, because I own 4 of them and one is a 60 watt, one 100 and 2 are 105's.

Hope this answers some of your questions.

Thanks for your reply, but some of your points are not at all accurate. First of all, Mesa can still add the GEQ, that is if you want a late Mark III faceplate. Second of all, an EQ through the loop is 100% after the tone stack. The difference being that the EQ through the loop is at a point before the master volume, with the latter being after the master volume (itself being a parallel route starting at the end of V2). The biggest practical difference between them is how they feed the reverb circuit, with the EQs in the loop being able to push them a bit harder for a wetter tone. Also, to be clear, Mesa themselves advised that the two would be essentially indistinguishable sonically when using the 5-band outboard pedal.

OK. if you say so.

 

[fretout]

Confused as to the purpose of this thread. Larks tongue, it sounds like you already pretty much had your mind made up when you posted this thread and were just looking for confirmation. When you got differing opinions you kept sticking to what Mesa said.

If it were me I would not mod the mark Iic+ you have and just be on the lookout for one with an onboard graphic eq to compare for yourself. Or you can always get a mark III and compare that as well. Best of luck, please report back if you do find an amp to do a head to head....

Thanks, Blackba, I should clarify since I don't want to come across as argumentative but I am confused and do want to clear up some perceived "BS." Ultimately, the purpose of the thread was to collect some thoughts from a cross-section of players that have tried the various IIC+ models and can provide an assessment based on their experiences. Not trying to disparage anyone or their opinions, but I've read Danyeo's posts and generally found them very even-handed and accurate (as to my own experiences with other amps). In particular, I was hoping he would chime in since he has experience w/ the 60W and non-GEQ amps and subsequently picked up a DRG - hence, the title of my post.

As to my own experience, I've researched the IIC+ primarily from past posts, and no personal experience since these are so rare and generally hard to come by (even in No. Cal). What I've found is a lot of conflicting information generally and strident gear recommendations from Metallica/Petrucci fans. Again, lots of what's written is internally-contradictory and also contradictory to what Mike B. has advised.

For instance, a lot of potential myth/hype surrounding Simulclass. First, operationally, I'm baffled as to how a SC IIC+ can concurrently be "smoother" than a 60 or 100/60 but also have a much more pronounced presence/brightness (to the point that some are running theirs with presence at 0). Secondly, one poster even intimated that anything other than a SC simply wouldn't get you to a passable metal tone - which is frankly ridiculous since the 60W is said to have the highest level of gain and from personal experience (and IMHO) it outdoes numerous metal amps that I've personally owned (Tremoverb, MK V, SLO & Jubilee). Are the IIC+ Coliseums also unable to get metal tones, since those (purportedly) were never SC amps? Btw, and for what it's worth, I've read that Petrucci's favorite IIC+ for lead tones was in fact a 60W (I'm still trying to find that link).

Then there's the issue of the EQ. From personal experience, I'm 100% on board with the fact that the lead channel needs an EQ to cut out the mids. And, I'm not even going to get into Doug West's comments about preferring the non-GEQ models. Accordingly, I was willing to get this added on and still might. But to do so would basically be tantamount to having to tell Mike that his recommendation is wrong and that the onboard is leagues better than running an EQ in the loop as per the "internet." I don't know, but when the lowly SR with the Mesa 5-band in the loop sounds better than a SLO, I have a tendency to believe Mike B. and to be weary about those claiming that the amp couldn't do hard rock or sounds noticeably worse than an onboard IIC+.

So, yes, ultimately it would be great to lineup DRG(X) and to test it for myself. However, I don't have the luxury at the moment to spend an additional $2500 to $3500 to get a DRG only to realize the difference was minimal if not nonexistent - particularly if it meant selling an amp that I really, really love. I've been through that song and dance before... But of course, if Danyeo advises that the difference are truly pronounced and favorable to the DRG, well then I guess another 60W will be on the market.

Ultimately, IIC+s rock and I'm enjoying talking about them. I hope I'm not ruffling anyone's feathers.

While I own several Mark IIIs and Mark IVs, I've played many IIC+s (this was back when everyone was clamoring for the Rectos and Marks were a little easier to pick up).

First off, the 60 watters are more raw than the Simul-Class IIC+s, but this can easily be corrected with the presence knob, which no one pushes about 7 or so (at least I've ever seen). The rawness of the 60 watter may make it seem brighter, but the way I like to describe them as missing a layer of tone, in this comparison, it's most likely the Class A and Class A/B power section that the Simul-Class amps run, so the "smoother" description above I don't think is meant to imply "lower gain", but a thicker tone, but that's my interpretation.

Now, on to the GEQ issue. There's a lot of good info above, so I'll just add my $.02 for what it's worth. Does a non-GEQ suck compared to a fully loaded IIC+? No! If it were my amp, and I had some extra cash laying around, I'd get the GEQ added by Mike immediately. The reason why? Simple, it sits in the tone stack like it's supposed to, and it has the correct EQ parameters, and the big thing people miss is the capacitor from the GEQ loaded Mark IIC+ (If you want to hear what a non-GEQ Mark IIC+ sounds like, the Mark V's channel 3 was based on Doug West's non-GEQ Mark IIC+...and had the non-GEQ's smaller capacitor). Last time I spoke to Mike, they were out of Mark III faceplates, so he was refusing to mod them, so double check if this option is available.

Is a stand-alone GEQ a good alternative? Absolutely! It's not a perfect solution, but it improves an already great amp. It's not identical to the on-board GEQ or a fully loaded Mark IIC+, but it gets closer than an other option. Back when I tried them, all we had was an MXR/Dunlop 10 Band to try, but the Mesa pedal (while more expensive), has the closest Hz parameters like the stock HDRGs.

And for the record, all my Coliseums are Simul-Class, and use the same transformers as the Mark IIC+ Coliseums. The Coliseums are so much more brutal than the hundred/simul/sixty watters. Right now, I own a Mark III Blue Stripe Coliseum (probably the heaviest amp Mesa ever made), and a "100 watt" Simul-Class Blue Stripe, and the Coliseum (in addition to the horsepower) has a better "feel", that's the closest to the Mark IIC+s I've played. Also, the Colis have more thickness and tighter bass that's able to be dialed in and out, that I never play my "100 watter" anymore, even when playing quieter.

So, since that was a long response, and I have tons I could tell you about the Mark series, I'll just say that the 60 watters are cool, scrappy amps that don't require the GEQ, but the GEQ provides more options to further tweak and close in on tones. Unless you're trying to copy a particular artist, you don't NEED an onboard GEQ, but it will sound a little more "complete" than an outboard EQ pedal not due to the GEQ itself, but how the amp's circuit inserts the GEQ into the tone stack.

And to end, any Mark IIC+ has enough gain to play metal. If it doesn't have gain, either your settings need to be revised, or there is something wrong inside the amp. And, before I forget, the Mark amp's tone stack goes gain -> treble -> mids -> bass. This is the order you should dial in your settings, and garnish with the presence. These amps EQs are global, so you don't dial them in like a Marshall. I think of the tone as a waterfall...you more treble you dial in, the less powerful the mids and bass controls have on the tone because the treble takes up so much of the EQ.

 

[Larks' Tongue]

Confused as to the purpose of this thread. Larks tongue, it sounds like you already pretty much had your mind made up when you posted this thread and were just looking for confirmation. When you got differing opinions you kept sticking to what Mesa said.

If it were me I would not mod the mark Iic+ you have and just be on the lookout for one with an onboard graphic eq to compare for yourself. Or you can always get a mark III and compare that as well. Best of luck, please report back if you do find an amp to do a head to head....

Thanks, Blackba, I should clarify since I don't want to come across as argumentative but I am confused and do want to clear up some perceived "BS." Ultimately, the purpose of the thread was to collect some thoughts from a cross-section of players that have tried the various IIC+ models and can provide an assessment based on their experiences. Not trying to disparage anyone or their opinions, but I've read Danyeo's posts and generally found them very even-handed and accurate (as to my own experiences with other amps). In particular, I was hoping he would chime in since he has experience w/ the 60W and non-GEQ amps and subsequently picked up a DRG - hence, the title of my post.

As to my own experience, I've researched the IIC+ primarily from past posts, and no personal experience since these are so rare and generally hard to come by (even in No. Cal). What I've found is a lot of conflicting information generally and strident gear recommendations from Metallica/Petrucci fans. Again, lots of what's written is internally-contradictory and also contradictory to what Mike B. has advised.

For instance, a lot of potential myth/hype surrounding Simulclass. First, operationally, I'm baffled as to how a SC IIC+ can concurrently be "smoother" than a 60 or 100/60 but also have a much more pronounced presence/brightness (to the point that some are running theirs with presence at 0). Secondly, one poster even intimated that anything other than a SC simply wouldn't get you to a passable metal tone - which is frankly ridiculous since the 60W is said to have the highest level of gain and from personal experience (and IMHO) it outdoes numerous metal amps that I've personally owned (Tremoverb, MK V, SLO & Jubilee). Are the IIC+ Coliseums also unable to get metal tones, since those (purportedly) were never SC amps? Btw, and for what it's worth, I've read that Petrucci's favorite IIC+ for lead tones was in fact a 60W (I'm still trying to find that link).

Then there's the issue of the EQ. From personal experience, I'm 100% on board with the fact that the lead channel needs an EQ to cut out the mids. And, I'm not even going to get into Doug West's comments about preferring the non-GEQ models. Accordingly, I was willing to get this added on and still might. But to do so would basically be tantamount to having to tell Mike that his recommendation is wrong and that the onboard is leagues better than running an EQ in the loop as per the "internet." I don't know, but when the lowly SR with the Mesa 5-band in the loop sounds better than a SLO, I have a tendency to believe Mike B. and to be weary about those claiming that the amp couldn't do hard rock or sounds noticeably worse than an onboard IIC+.

So, yes, ultimately it would be great to lineup DRG(X) and to test it for myself. However, I don't have the luxury at the moment to spend an additional $2500 to $3500 to get a DRG only to realize the difference was minimal if not nonexistent - particularly if it meant selling an amp that I really, really love. I've been through that song and dance before... But of course, if Danyeo advises that the difference are truly pronounced and favorable to the DRG, well then I guess another 60W will be on the market.

Ultimately, IIC+s rock and I'm enjoying talking about them. I hope I'm not ruffling anyone's feathers.

While I own several Mark IIIs and Mark IVs, I've played many IIC+s (this was back when everyone was clamoring for the Rectos and Marks were a little easier to pick up).

First off, the 60 watters are more raw than the Simul-Class IIC+s, but this can easily be corrected with the presence knob, which no one pushes about 7 or so (at least I've ever seen). The rawness of the 60 watter may make it seem brighter, but the way I like to describe them as missing a layer of tone, in this comparison, it's most likely the Class A and Class A/B power section that the Simul-Class amps run, so the "smoother" description above I don't think is meant to imply "lower gain", but a thicker tone, but that's my interpretation.

Now, on to the GEQ issue. There's a lot of good info above, so I'll just add my $.02 for what it's worth. Does a non-GEQ suck compared to a fully loaded IIC+? No! If it were my amp, and I had some extra cash laying around, I'd get the GEQ added by Mike immediately. The reason why? Simple, it sits in the tone stack like it's supposed to, and it has the correct EQ parameters, and the big thing people miss is the capacitor from the GEQ loaded Mark IIC+ (If you want to hear what a non-GEQ Mark IIC+ sounds like, the Mark V's channel 3 was based on Doug West's non-GEQ Mark IIC+...and had the non-GEQ's smaller capacitor). Last time I spoke to Mike, they were out of Mark III faceplates, so he was refusing to mod them, so double check if this option is available.

Is a stand-alone GEQ a good alternative? Absolutely! It's not a perfect solution, but it improves an already great amp. It's not identical to the on-board GEQ or a fully loaded Mark IIC+, but it gets closer than an other option. Back when I tried them, all we had was an MXR/Dunlop 10 Band to try, but the Mesa pedal (while more expensive), has the closest Hz parameters like the stock HDRGs.

And for the record, all my Coliseums are Simul-Class, and use the same transformers as the Mark IIC+ Coliseums. The Coliseums are so much more brutal than the hundred/simul/sixty watters. Right now, I own a Mark III Blue Stripe Coliseum (probably the heaviest amp Mesa ever made), and a "100 watt" Simul-Class Blue Stripe, and the Coliseum (in addition to the horsepower) has a better "feel", that's the closest to the Mark IIC+s I've played. Also, the Colis have more thickness and tighter bass that's able to be dialed in and out, that I never play my "100 watter" anymore, even when playing quieter.

So, since that was a long response, and I have tons I could tell you about the Mark series, I'll just say that the 60 watters are cool, scrappy amps that don't require the GEQ, but the GEQ provides more options to further tweak and close in on tones. Unless you're trying to copy a particular artist, you don't NEED an onboard GEQ, but it will sound a little more "complete" than an outboard EQ pedal not due to the GEQ itself, but how the amp's circuit inserts the GEQ into the tone stack.

Hey, thanks for your thoughts. I can tell you have a lot of experience with these amps and really appreciate the time you took to write this all out - very cool of you.

 

[fretout]

Confused as to the purpose of this thread. Larks tongue, it sounds like you already pretty much had your mind made up when you posted this thread and were just looking for confirmation. When you got differing opinions you kept sticking to what Mesa said.

If it were me I would not mod the mark Iic+ you have and just be on the lookout for one with an onboard graphic eq to compare for yourself. Or you can always get a mark III and compare that as well. Best of luck, please report back if you do find an amp to do a head to head....

Thanks, Blackba, I should clarify since I don't want to come across as argumentative but I am confused and do want to clear up some perceived "BS." Ultimately, the purpose of the thread was to collect some thoughts from a cross-section of players that have tried the various IIC+ models and can provide an assessment based on their experiences. Not trying to disparage anyone or their opinions, but I've read Danyeo's posts and generally found them very even-handed and accurate (as to my own experiences with other amps). In particular, I was hoping he would chime in since he has experience w/ the 60W and non-GEQ amps and subsequently picked up a DRG - hence, the title of my post.

As to my own experience, I've researched the IIC+ primarily from past posts, and no personal experience since these are so rare and generally hard to come by (even in No. Cal). What I've found is a lot of conflicting information generally and strident gear recommendations from Metallica/Petrucci fans. Again, lots of what's written is internally-contradictory and also contradictory to what Mike B. has advised.

For instance, a lot of potential myth/hype surrounding Simulclass. First, operationally, I'm baffled as to how a SC IIC+ can concurrently be "smoother" than a 60 or 100/60 but also have a much more pronounced presence/brightness (to the point that some are running theirs with presence at 0). Secondly, one poster even intimated that anything other than a SC simply wouldn't get you to a passable metal tone - which is frankly ridiculous since the 60W is said to have the highest level of gain and from personal experience (and IMHO) it outdoes numerous metal amps that I've personally owned (Tremoverb, MK V, SLO & Jubilee). Are the IIC+ Coliseums also unable to get metal tones, since those (purportedly) were never SC amps? Btw, and for what it's worth, I've read that Petrucci's favorite IIC+ for lead tones was in fact a 60W (I'm still trying to find that link).

Then there's the issue of the EQ. From personal experience, I'm 100% on board with the fact that the lead channel needs an EQ to cut out the mids. And, I'm not even going to get into Doug West's comments about preferring the non-GEQ models. Accordingly, I was willing to get this added on and still might. But to do so would basically be tantamount to having to tell Mike that his recommendation is wrong and that the onboard is leagues better than running an EQ in the loop as per the "internet." I don't know, but when the lowly SR with the Mesa 5-band in the loop sounds better than a SLO, I have a tendency to believe Mike B. and to be weary about those claiming that the amp couldn't do hard rock or sounds noticeably worse than an onboard IIC+.

So, yes, ultimately it would be great to lineup DRG(X) and to test it for myself. However, I don't have the luxury at the moment to spend an additional $2500 to $3500 to get a DRG only to realize the difference was minimal if not nonexistent - particularly if it meant selling an amp that I really, really love. I've been through that song and dance before... But of course, if Danyeo advises that the difference are truly pronounced and favorable to the DRG, well then I guess another 60W will be on the market.

Ultimately, IIC+s rock and I'm enjoying talking about them. I hope I'm not ruffling anyone's feathers.

While I own several Mark IIIs and Mark IVs, I've played many IIC+s (this was back when everyone was clamoring for the Rectos and Marks were a little easier to pick up).

First off, the 60 watters are more raw than the Simul-Class IIC+s, but this can easily be corrected with the presence knob, which no one pushes about 7 or so (at least I've ever seen). The rawness of the 60 watter may make it seem brighter, but the way I like to describe them as missing a layer of tone, in this comparison, it's most likely the Class A and Class A/B power section that the Simul-Class amps run, so the "smoother" description above I don't think is meant to imply "lower gain", but a thicker tone, but that's my interpretation.

Now, on to the GEQ issue. There's a lot of good info above, so I'll just add my $.02 for what it's worth. Does a non-GEQ suck compared to a fully loaded IIC+? No! If it were my amp, and I had some extra cash laying around, I'd get the GEQ added by Mike immediately. The reason why? Simple, it sits in the tone stack like it's supposed to, and it has the correct EQ parameters, and the big thing people miss is the capacitor from the GEQ loaded Mark IIC+ (If you want to hear what a non-GEQ Mark IIC+ sounds like, the Mark V's channel 3 was based on Doug West's non-GEQ Mark IIC+...and had the non-GEQ's smaller capacitor). Last time I spoke to Mike, they were out of Mark III faceplates, so he was refusing to mod them, so double check if this option is available.

Is a stand-alone GEQ a good alternative? Absolutely! It's not a perfect solution, but it improves an already great amp. It's not identical to the on-board GEQ or a fully loaded Mark IIC+, but it gets closer than an other option. Back when I tried them, all we had was an MXR/Dunlop 10 Band to try, but the Mesa pedal (while more expensive), has the closest Hz parameters like the stock HDRGs.

And for the record, all my Coliseums are Simul-Class, and use the same transformers as the Mark IIC+ Coliseums. The Coliseums are so much more brutal than the hundred/simul/sixty watters. Right now, I own a Mark III Blue Stripe Coliseum (probably the heaviest amp Mesa ever made), and a "100 watt" Simul-Class Blue Stripe, and the Coliseum (in addition to the horsepower) has a better "feel", that's the closest to the Mark IIC+s I've played. Also, the Colis have more thickness and tighter bass that's able to be dialed in and out, that I never play my "100 watter" anymore, even when playing quieter.

So, since that was a long response, and I have tons I could tell you about the Mark series, I'll just say that the 60 watters are cool, scrappy amps that don't require the GEQ, but the GEQ provides more options to further tweak and close in on tones. Unless you're trying to copy a particular artist, you don't NEED an onboard GEQ, but it will sound a little more "complete" than an outboard EQ pedal not due to the GEQ itself, but how the amp's circuit inserts the GEQ into the tone stack.

Hey, thanks for your thoughts. I can tell you have a lot of experience with these amps and really appreciate the time you took to write this all out - very cool of you.

Anytime man! I found my voice with these amps, and I ended up going the Mark III route because I loved the tone and the feel of them! If you get a chance to play the Mark IIC+ and the Mark III side by side, do it and see what you think. The Mark IIIs were Mesa's best-kept secret up until around 2007, and then they all got bought up and the Metal guys found an amp that had more gain than a 5150.

If you have any questions, whether it be technical or basic, feel free to PM me. I've helped quite a few members on this board.

 

[tech21man]

So what did larks tongue do in the end?


I maybe some of the few that have no problem using marks in a band mix even without the eq. I used presence to compensate and really, the extra mids and "absence" of "graphic eq bass" is not a problem to dial in your territory in the mix even for heavier sounds. But, I am talking loud levels not medium low where I do hear and get irritated from the mid heavy boxy sound. I think it opens up a bit if you push.


Also the graphic eq was somewhat of a dissapointment to me in the end.

I got some amazing results slaving the preamps (and in the end either a triaxis or studio preamp) to other power amps which had presence and depth controls, probably different in configuration than mesa's own. Without the graphic eq. With the graphic on as expected it wasn't good (like mid scooping twice).

Anyway I didn't get the exact mesa tone but I got all the mark qualities I liked but in a bigger more complex package and even more punchy. I tried it at first because the dynamic voice on the triaxis got on my nerves. Going back to mesa with the graphic eq gave me their standard tone but personally in direct comparison I didn't like it as much. Maybe it wasn't as suitable for the style we aimed for then. And the sliders being overly sensitive in their last mms of travel was also a thing of frustration in the band mix.


To each his own of course but I'd only add the graphic to raise possible resale value if this is possible. But for having a mark, I'd like one with the eq. As I said, it's their standard tone and you can always take it out anyway. I'd never hesitate buying one without also.

 

[SBlue]

I have a 2c+ (EQ, Simul-class, Reverb, 100 transformer...)that my first impression was "not gain enough" for something more extreme.
After getting used to the amp settings and choosing a favorite speaker for it(V30s first and EVM12L close second) I was able to do with it everything my 5150, my Dual Rectifier, my SLO and any other high amp I have does. Without the need to boost it with a pedal.
Its a rescued amp, and was completely trashed when I bought it. In fact, I had no idea if if could be restored or not.
But after I've got it, sent it to Mike B so he could restore the electronics and tune it up and to Mesa so they could ad the Reverb tank and the wood box(the chassis was held up by 4 pieces of wood put tohgeter underneath it... told you it was a rescue!!!) and the thing came back a very pissed off amp!
It is one of the best amps I've heard to this date.
How it was:

[/url]

And how it turned out:

[/url]

 

[tech21man]

Awesome story and amp!

 

[midnightlaundry]

Serious question: what is so great about this amp that makes it different from modern high gainer?