Petrucci attempts to sell you on the Mark V's "IIC+" Mode

[Metlupass2]

I love JP but looks like he's wearing a wig.

 

[rabies]

first of all: if you like that shitty nasal lead sound (good for you). I have owned III, IV, V and the V was overall the best, great clean channel by far.

They sounded very similar (with different cabs? how's that apples to apples comparison?) but how do they feel different? pick attack and sensitivity are important as well. I've never played a IIC+ and don't care to. Diezel wins.

 

[tnourse]

Neither of those tones is for me, but to each their own.

I played through a Mark IV for a bit and I liked it once I figured out how to dial it in.

I more of an Engl guy I guess. I like modified Marshall tones as well.

 

[blackba]

I didn't really care for the tone of either. But what can't be captured in a clip is how the amp feels and responds when playing through it. The motivation for the video is clearly to silence those of us who want a IIC+ reissue, and I don't buy mesa's line that it can't be done. They say they aren't into reissues, yet they had the mark i reissue in the he past and now have the king snake amp out.

 

[steve_k]

FWIW, I have owned several IIC+ amps and a MkV. There is no way in hell that the MkV in IIC+ mode comes anywhere close to a real IIC+, especially sitting in the room with them and playing through both. The V just doesn't have the gain structure and topology needed to recreate the original IIC+. I can get much closer to a real IIC+ using an early v.2 Triaxis and 2:90, which is what I have racked up now. With that out of the way, the MkV is a great amp in its own right and can get by with its selection of modes/channels and can stand its own ground - especially considering the price and the functionality you get with the amp.

 

[Little B]

I wish Mesa would just get on with it and do the IIC+ reissue.For cryin out loud, theyd make a killin in profit(provided it is the real deal in every way).Instead they seem to be stuck in this "make more and more pedals, load boxes,etc" deal.I love what Mesa was and all they contributed to the scene over the years.I have quite a bit mesa gear, but never owned a IIC+.

 

[steve_k]

I wish Mesa would just get on with it and do the IIC+ reissue.For cryin out loud, theyd make a killin in profit(provided it is the real deal in every way).Instead they seem to be stuck in this "make more and more pedals, load boxes,etc" deal.I love what Mesa was and all they contributed to the scene over the years.I have quite a bit mesa gear, but never owned a IIC+.

Yup. Marketing strategy, I guess. There is absolutely no reason why they cannot release a full on IIC+ replica with all the current bells and whistles. There's nothing special in them that cannot be obtained today, including custom making this 105PT and Schenker OT.

Steve

 

[jsp]

Branding. Having that elusive, collectable amp out there helps their brand.

 

[JJGray]

All JP needs to do is grow out his beard, and he could be be Zakk's brother...

 

[RJF]

BOth of them sounded muddy/fizzy with that 7 string. To me, a boost would have made a huge difference for the better.

 

[tech21man]

FWIW, I have owned several IIC+ amps and a MkV. There is no way in hell that the MkV in IIC+ mode comes anywhere close to a real IIC+, especially sitting in the room with them and playing through both. The V just doesn't have the gain structure and topology needed to recreate the original IIC+. I can get much closer to a real IIC+ using an early v.2 Triaxis and 2:90, which is what I have racked up now. With that out of the way, the MkV is a great amp in its own right and can get by with its selection of modes/channels and can stand its own ground - especially considering the price and the functionality you get with the amp.

That is interesting.

Gain topology and circuit should be REALLY close based on the circuits...Most remember the story about the eq coupling cap. In the mark V the IIC+ mode was modelled/based after their holy grail IIC+ which doesn't have the graphic and has a different smaller value cap in its place vs the ones with the graphic. This makes it less bassy, more urgent.

The other big cap value is available on the mark IV mode on the V. But the combo of big value/IIC+ (which the real IIC+ with the graphic also have) isn't. Some mod it to, any gain was described as "negligible" though.


The other difference is more of importance to me, there isn't a way to have input volume and lead drive balance. It was a great way to match any pickup and get more "timbres" on the same theme. But it was a steady complaint as it made the clean channel volume depended with the gain all the time. Anyway, on the V it it hardwired to 7/10 as a value (good all around). The extreme mode just defeats the negative feedback, same with the modern mode on the recto or pull volume out on the IV. Boogie loves marketing terms.

The triode mode is of more importance in the power amp as the IIC+ run the power stage that way but, I see less people reffering to the inability of mixing EL34/6L6 and more of them preffering straight EL34 on the mark V.


If you anal-ize it enough, all of the marks with simulclass were really about 65-70 watts amp top. The EL34s run at a pseudo class A mode for what, 18-20 watts or something? This power stage was in parallel to the normal class A/B 6L6 of around 50 watts pair. We are talking 5% THD RMS power here with medium sized transformers and good voltage so, ok about 60-70 watts for both pairs. BUT they both are fed from the same transformer. The IIC+ simulclass transformer (and others) got dissected (can't find the thread) and there isn't nothing special vs a normal transformer other than the connections to accomodate this topology can't allow all of the taps of normal transformers (there is/was an interesting thread about in I think amp garage but I can't find it). Even boogie recomended a fender transformer in case the IIC+ broke down on the road. Anyway the EL34s see almost what they would see in a vintage marshall (cool) and the 6L6's run normally. This combo makes for a smoother sound overall also according to amp builders on that thread.



But think about it. As you push the amp, it is the EL34s that will first come into play (power tube sound) aren't they? It's exactly like running a small power section in parallel with a large one. The 6L6's will be pushed the more you raise the volume the EL34w will run out of juice earlier as they produce significantly less wattage. That as you push the amp in reasonably loud levels though. The EL34 IS for me an integral part of the mark sound even more so vs the 6L6, at least for what I like it to be. Many people tend to prefer EL34s on the V as well.


The mark V has a different transformer alltogether to accomodate the small wattage modes, the different wattage per channel etc. It is a "less pure" amp in a sense but as it manages to sound so close and have indepedent clean and good crunch channels and eq presets and all that, it is a "miracle" take on the mark II and on sound.


Randall smith and mike bendinelli more elaborate on the fact that sylvania tubes aren't available anymore than other minor details. Guitar players tend to focus on these fine details and they have a right to as they are the ones paying and playing, but, pragmatically, these aren't of great importance. The mark V IS the modern version of the IIC+ as much as a JVM is the modern multichannel marshall in a sense. It ll be close enough for many, certainly, amp builders or as far as it can be for some guitar players based on feel. I don't like the JVM for the same reasons!



Also, weird how much oppinions differ on the same aspect. If the triaxis/2:90 is as close the IIC+ you had as it can be, I'd hate those amps you had. I had that combo and sounded so lifeless. Good in gigs but I never cared as a player. I liked the red mode instead of its main selling point, the lead 2 yellow...I especially liked the triaxis with an EL34 brunetti power amp, a bit more hi-fi but it brought the best qualities of the preamp out there. Mike bendinelli (the mark designer) also thinks that sound wise, the closest match is a studio preamp with the old 50/50 power amp.


The studio preamp and other marks sounded to me (never found a IIC+ though...) as a MUCH better variation on the same theme than the triaxis, (also early version) but not if you want what boogie should have though from the beginning: a multi channel MARK with clean channel, a crunch channel (not necessary for me at all) and at least TWO mark II/III/IV type lead channels with eq. It can only be done with the triaxis.

If they made a 4 channel mark (clean crunch, lead, lead) it'd have the best mark amp and please make a damn big headshell and de cramp it. The mark V looks a bit oh S@@@ from inside in case something gives, even if it never breaks!!!


Now if you really want a mark II rythm sound and set it up accordingly, you are stuck to use the same configuration for the lead part of it in a gig. If you see petrucci describing his live rig the solution to have a more fluid more suitable lead sound out of the mark V for solos is either a tube screamer (which he does especially for legato parts) or dual amp or ...a triaxis!

 

[aftec]

Pretty scooped sound, both, quite useless in a band situation especially with other guitars. V is a tighter and faster.
They sound like a broken 5150
Would not take any of them.

 

[Luca79]

I wish Mesa would just get on with it and do the IIC+ reissue.

I wonder WHY a small builder/boutique maker not done it yet!


Anyway i love the tone Petrucci had in SFAM, and in that video don't get even close to me.

 

[steve_k]

Pretty scooped sound, both, quite useless in a band situation especially with other guitars. V is a tighter and faster.
They sound like a broken 5150
Would not take any of them.

Great contribution to the thread. Your opinion is important to people.

 

[steve_k]

FWIW, I have owned several IIC+ amps and a MkV. There is no way in hell that the MkV in IIC+ mode comes anywhere close to a real IIC+, especially sitting in the room with them and playing through both. The V just doesn't have the gain structure and topology needed to recreate the original IIC+. I can get much closer to a real IIC+ using an early v.2 Triaxis and 2:90, which is what I have racked up now. With that out of the way, the MkV is a great amp in its own right and can get by with its selection of modes/channels and can stand its own ground - especially considering the price and the functionality you get with the amp.

That is interesting.

Gain topology and circuit should be REALLY close based on the circuits...Most remember the story about the eq coupling cap. In the mark V the IIC+ mode was modelled/based after their holy grail IIC+ which doesn't have the graphic and has a different smaller value cap in its place vs the ones with the graphic. This makes it less bassy, more urgent.

The other big cap value is available on the mark IV mode on the V. But the combo of big value/IIC+ (which the real IIC+ with the graphic also have) isn't. Some mod it to, any gain was described as "negligible" though.


The other difference is more of importance to me, there isn't a way to have input volume and lead drive balance. It was a great way to match any pickup and get more "timbres" on the same theme. But it was a steady complaint as it made the clean channel volume depended with the gain all the time. Anyway, on the V it it hardwired to 7/10 as a value (good all around). The extreme mode just defeats the negative feedback, same with the modern mode on the recto or pull volume out on the IV. Boogie loves marketing terms.

The triode mode is of more importance in the power amp as the IIC+ run the power stage that way but, I see less people reffering to the inability of mixing EL34/6L6 and more of them preffering straight EL34 on the mark V.


If you anal-ize it enough, all of the marks with simulclass were really about 65-70 watts amp top. The EL34s run at a pseudo class A mode for what, 18-20 watts or something? This power stage was in parallel to the normal class A/B 6L6 of around 50 watts pair. We are talking 5% THD RMS power here with medium sized transformers and good voltage so, ok about 60-70 watts for both pairs. BUT they both are fed from the same transformer. The IIC+ simulclass transformer (and others) got dissected (can't find the thread) and there isn't nothing special vs a normal transformer other than the connections to accomodate this topology can't allow all of the taps of normal transformers (there is/was an interesting thread about in I think amp garage but I can't find it). Even boogie recomended a fender transformer in case the IIC+ broke down on the road. Anyway the EL34s see almost what they would see in a vintage marshall (cool) and the 6L6's run normally. This combo makes for a smoother sound overall also according to amp builders on that thread.



But think about it. As you push the amp, it is the EL34s that will first come into play (power tube sound) aren't they? It's exactly like running a small power section in parallel with a large one. The 6L6's will be pushed the more you raise the volume the EL34w will run out of juice earlier as they produce significantly less wattage. That as you push the amp in reasonably loud levels though. The EL34 IS for me an integral part of the mark sound even more so vs the 6L6, at least for what I like it to be. Many people tend to prefer EL34s on the V as well.


The mark V has a different transformer alltogether to accomodate the small wattage modes, the different wattage per channel etc. It is a "less pure" amp in a sense but as it manages to sound so close and have indepedent clean and good crunch channels and eq presets and all that, it is a "miracle" take on the mark II and on sound.


Randall smith and mike bendinelli more elaborate on the fact that sylvania tubes aren't available anymore than other minor details. Guitar players tend to focus on these fine details and they have a right to as they are the ones paying and playing, but, pragmatically, these aren't of great importance. The mark V IS the modern version of the IIC+ as much as a JVM is the modern multichannel marshall in a sense. It ll be close enough for many, certainly, amp builders or as far as it can be for some guitar players based on feel. I don't like the JVM for the same reasons!



Also, weird how much oppinions differ on the same aspect. If the triaxis/2:90 is as close the IIC+ you had as it can be, I'd hate those amps you had. I had that combo and sounded so lifeless. Good in gigs but I never cared as a player. I liked the red mode instead of its main selling point, the lead 2 yellow...I especially liked the triaxis with an EL34 brunetti power amp, a bit more hi-fi but it brought the best qualities of the preamp out there. Mike bendinelli (the mark designer) also thinks that sound wise, the closest match is a studio preamp with the old 50/50 power amp.


The studio preamp and other marks sounded to me (never found a IIC+ though...) as a MUCH better variation on the same theme than the triaxis, (also early version) but not if you want what boogie should have though from the beginning: a multi channel MARK with clean channel, a crunch channel (not necessary for me at all) and at least TWO mark II/III/IV type lead channels with eq. It can only be done with the triaxis.

If they made a 4 channel mark (clean crunch, lead, lead) it'd have the best mark amp and please make a damn big headshell and de cramp it. The mark V looks a bit oh S@@@ from inside in case something gives, even if it never breaks!!!


Now if you really want a mark II rythm sound and set it up accordingly, you are stuck to use the same configuration for the lead part of it in a gig. If you see petrucci describing his live rig the solution to have a more fluid more suitable lead sound out of the mark V for solos is either a tube screamer (which he does especially for legato parts) or dual amp or ...a triaxis!

Good points. A couple things of note that you mentioned:

1) yes, the IIC+ is pretty much a one trick pony.

2) the multi-tasking duties built into the MkV tries to cover too much ground, preventing it from getting close to any of the originals.

On the Triaxis, the secret is to bypass the Op amp in the mixer circuit and that god awful master in the output circuit. What I have been doing is going direct from the FX send into a Mesa 5 band GEQ pedal and straight to the input of the 2:90. Use the dynamic control to open the amp up a bit with the rest of the control set up similar to the IIC+ recommendations. A Tungsram ECC83 in V1 and V4 (LD2Y assignment) will greatly improve results. This, I find works damn well and gets close.

 

[Stealthtastic]

FWIW, I have owned several IIC+ amps and a MkV. There is no way in hell that the MkV in IIC+ mode comes anywhere close to a real IIC+, especially sitting in the room with them and playing through both. The V just doesn't have the gain structure and topology needed to recreate the original IIC+. I can get much closer to a real IIC+ using an early v.2 Triaxis and 2:90, which is what I have racked up now. With that out of the way, the MkV is a great amp in its own right and can get by with its selection of modes/channels and can stand its own ground - especially considering the price and the functionality you get with the amp.

That is interesting.

Gain topology and circuit should be REALLY close based on the circuits...Most remember the story about the eq coupling cap. In the mark V the IIC+ mode was modelled/based after their holy grail IIC+ which doesn't have the graphic and has a different smaller value cap in its place vs the ones with the graphic. This makes it less bassy, more urgent.

The other big cap value is available on the mark IV mode on the V. But the combo of big value/IIC+ (which the real IIC+ with the graphic also have) isn't. Some mod it to, any gain was described as "negligible" though.


The other difference is more of importance to me, there isn't a way to have input volume and lead drive balance. It was a great way to match any pickup and get more "timbres" on the same theme. But it was a steady complaint as it made the clean channel volume depended with the gain all the time. Anyway, on the V it it hardwired to 7/10 as a value (good all around). The extreme mode just defeats the negative feedback, same with the modern mode on the recto or pull volume out on the IV. Boogie loves marketing terms.

The triode mode is of more importance in the power amp as the IIC+ run the power stage that way but, I see less people reffering to the inability of mixing EL34/6L6 and more of them preffering straight EL34 on the mark V.


If you anal-ize it enough, all of the marks with simulclass were really about 65-70 watts amp top. The EL34s run at a pseudo class A mode for what, 18-20 watts or something? This power stage was in parallel to the normal class A/B 6L6 of around 50 watts pair. We are talking 5% THD RMS power here with medium sized transformers and good voltage so, ok about 60-70 watts for both pairs. BUT they both are fed from the same transformer. The IIC+ simulclass transformer (and others) got dissected (can't find the thread) and there isn't nothing special vs a normal transformer other than the connections to accomodate this topology can't allow all of the taps of normal transformers (there is/was an interesting thread about in I think amp garage but I can't find it). Even boogie recomended a fender transformer in case the IIC+ broke down on the road. Anyway the EL34s see almost what they would see in a vintage marshall (cool) and the 6L6's run normally. This combo makes for a smoother sound overall also according to amp builders on that thread.



But think about it. As you push the amp, it is the EL34s that will first come into play (power tube sound) aren't they? It's exactly like running a small power section in parallel with a large one. The 6L6's will be pushed the more you raise the volume the EL34w will run out of juice earlier as they produce significantly less wattage. That as you push the amp in reasonably loud levels though. The EL34 IS for me an integral part of the mark sound even more so vs the 6L6, at least for what I like it to be. Many people tend to prefer EL34s on the V as well.


The mark V has a different transformer alltogether to accomodate the small wattage modes, the different wattage per channel etc. It is a "less pure" amp in a sense but as it manages to sound so close and have indepedent clean and good crunch channels and eq presets and all that, it is a "miracle" take on the mark II and on sound.


Randall smith and mike bendinelli more elaborate on the fact that sylvania tubes aren't available anymore than other minor details. Guitar players tend to focus on these fine details and they have a right to as they are the ones paying and playing, but, pragmatically, these aren't of great importance. The mark V IS the modern version of the IIC+ as much as a JVM is the modern multichannel marshall in a sense. It ll be close enough for many, certainly, amp builders or as far as it can be for some guitar players based on feel. I don't like the JVM for the same reasons!



Also, weird how much oppinions differ on the same aspect. If the triaxis/2:90 is as close the IIC+ you had as it can be, I'd hate those amps you had. I had that combo and sounded so lifeless. Good in gigs but I never cared as a player. I liked the red mode instead of its main selling point, the lead 2 yellow...I especially liked the triaxis with an EL34 brunetti power amp, a bit more hi-fi but it brought the best qualities of the preamp out there. Mike bendinelli (the mark designer) also thinks that sound wise, the closest match is a studio preamp with the old 50/50 power amp.


The studio preamp and other marks sounded to me (never found a IIC+ though...) as a MUCH better variation on the same theme than the triaxis, (also early version) but not if you want what boogie should have though from the beginning: a multi channel MARK with clean channel, a crunch channel (not necessary for me at all) and at least TWO mark II/III/IV type lead channels with eq. It can only be done with the triaxis.

If they made a 4 channel mark (clean crunch, lead, lead) it'd have the best mark amp and please make a damn big headshell and de cramp it. The mark V looks a bit oh S@@@ from inside in case something gives, even if it never breaks!!!


Now if you really want a mark II rythm sound and set it up accordingly, you are stuck to use the same configuration for the lead part of it in a gig. If you see petrucci describing his live rig the solution to have a more fluid more suitable lead sound out of the mark V for solos is either a tube screamer (which he does especially for legato parts) or dual amp or ...a triaxis!

A good read, thanks.

 

[midnightlaundry]

Who cares? The IV mode in the V sounds bigger and meatier anyways. Lol

 

[tech21man]

Good points. A couple things of note that you mentioned:

1) yes, the IIC+ is pretty much a one trick pony.

2) the multi-tasking duties built into the MkV tries to cover too much ground, preventing it from getting close to any of the originals.

On the Triaxis, the secret is to bypass the Op amp in the mixer circuit and that god awful master in the output circuit. What I have been doing is going direct from the FX send into a Mesa 5 band GEQ pedal and straight to the input of the 2:90. Use the dynamic control to open the amp up a bit with the rest of the control set up similar to the IIC+ recommendations. A Tungsram ECC83 in V1 and V4 (LD2Y assignment) will greatly improve results. This, I find works damn well and gets close.

Ι usually did the same thing in the studio preamp. The studio preamp I think used to breath more. It's not easy to describe it. It just had a more aggresive sound and filled the room better. Triaxis was, in comparison like it was compressed and gotten through a straw or something. But as I said, with volume things were more marginal between the two. I think you can't actually bypass any opamp in the triaxis path. People tried upgrading them also. Even when they are off, they are in the circuit. Are you reffering to the DI circuit?

 

[jlb32]

I wish Mesa would just get on with it and do the IIC+ reissue.For cryin out loud, theyd make a killin in profit(provided it is the real deal in every way).Instead they seem to be stuck in this "make more and more pedals, load boxes,etc" deal.I love what Mesa was and all they contributed to the scene over the years.I have quite a bit mesa gear, but never owned a IIC+.

If Mesa did a true Mark IIC+ Reissue they would want to do it right IMO. From what I have heard that's not possible since several of the components used in the original Mark IIC+'s are not available now. That's my guess why Mesa hasn't and probably won't do a true Mark IIC+ Reissue.

 

[Kelly]

Petrucci has a nice recorded tone, but every video Ive ever seen with him sounds like a big muff running through a metal zone.