Wizard MC

[gtr31]

Curious about this amp
On the surface it looks like a hot Silver Jubilee
Is it 3 gain stage and then diode clipping or are there 4 stage then the diodes add addl clipping
How is it with boosting
They sound killer in most clips
Did not love the MTL as I am more a modern rock AIC Shinedown fan
Would it work well for that
Only complaints I have seen are maybe a bit bright and tight and percussive like a VHT fryette although not as dry

Thanks

 

[braintheory]

I had a 1996 MC with C Transformer. Haven’t tried later versions MC’s. FWIW it didn’t really sound anything like a jubilee to me (whether it is or isn’t like a Jubilee on paper I wouldn’t know). It took to boosts very well. Like the MTL that I still have it was very open and hard hitting, and although it had more mid and uppermid presence than the MTL, it was still imo equally hollow or off in its midrange voicing and if you directly compare it to a good vintage Marshall you should be able to hear it pretty clearly. I personally didn’t find it too bright, tight or percussive, but what it has in common with the Fryette’s (besides being uncompressed) is that hollow quality that I’ve never been a fan of. That being said I still kept my MTL for 5 years now. My MC was a great amp and imo it could work for the styles you mentioned, but there’s other amps I would reach for before a MC for those styles personally like my Naylor

 

[Racerxrated]

I had a 2010 MC100 with the C transformers; supposedly the most Marshall of Ricks sets. It can do most any tone you want; without getting the exact Marshall mids but it’s close. Tight, deep lows are there if needed. It’s a powerhouse in the thump category. Only amp that pushes harder is a vintage Superlead..and not by much. Boosting-the MTL I had (50w) hated any boost pedal I tried. The MC, as long as I ran it like a 2203 (pull/push saturation/boost off) loved boost pedals…and a pedal will add just enough ‘grease’ to make it less dry…though VHT stuff is drier. It loved any speakers that my Marshalls love-65s, GBs etc.
Killer amp.

 

[cardinal]

I've read is similar to a Juliblee with an extra gain stage and very high plate voltage.

I'd love to try one, but the high plate voltage and reviews about its super clarity and what not make me think it might not be my thing.

 

[Greazygeo]

A Modern Classic sounds like what you would want if after a Wizard. It is setup similar to a Jubilee as far as the knobs go. Doesn’t sound like one.
My main amp forever was a 69 Plexi Superlead 100. My Wizard can nail that tone if I want. Its alot more versatile, can dial it up bright /dark etc. Mine is setup to get me the old ACDC tone on the Rhythm channel with the pull boost. The Lead channel is Back in Black voiced, but can dial up alot more gain if I want.

 

[Greazygeo]

I've read is similar to a Juliblee with an extra gain stage and very high plate voltage.

I'd love to try one, but the high plate voltage and reviews about its super clarity and what not make me think it might not be my thing.

Mine isn’t high plate voltage. 480 range.

 

[braintheory]

I had a 2010 MC100 with the C transformers; supposedly the most Marshall of Ricks sets. It can do most any tone you want; without getting the exact Marshall mids but it’s close. Tight, deep lows are there if needed. It’s a powerhouse in the thump category. Only amp that pushes harder is a vintage Superlead..and not by much. Boosting-the MTL I had (50w) hated any boost pedal I tried. The MC, as long as I ran it like a 2203 (pull/push saturation/boost off) loved boost pedals…and a pedal will add just enough ‘grease’ to make it less dry…though VHT stuff is drier. It loved any speakers that my Marshalls love-65s, GBs etc.
Killer amp.

With the ‘96 MC 100 watt I had (also C transformer) I thought it was close to the Marshall mids… until having them side by side. To my ears not really that close honestly when compared. My 2016 MTL 100 was the hardest punching amp I’ve had all these 5 years until my 72 showed up. Side by side the 72 punches much harder. Doesn’t have nearly as heavy low end, but in just actual hardness and directness of punch itself and tightness it’s the 72 no contest. My Beta can punch pretty hard too just not quite as much as my MTL. Maybe I’m being overly picky here, but when mids (or other desirable qualities) are close but a little off it’s very unsatisfying to my ears, that whole close but no cigar thing, like a dissonance in music that never fully resolved or almost like the blue balls equivalent to the ears. Like almost there, but why can’t the damn thing get all the way there. Agreed on the MTL hating boosts

It’s strange because I find with my MTL it can almost sound Hiwatt-ish or Marshall-ish, but really not quite the same as either when compared. Of course I love the amp despite what I’m willing to openly complain about it and have kept it for 5 years. Not many amps I’ve kept that long

 

[Racerxrated]

With the ‘96 MC 100 watt I had (also C transformer) I thought it was close to the Marshall mids… until having them side by side. To my ears not really that close honestly when compared. My 2016 MTL 100 was the hardest punching amp I’ve had all these 5 years until my 72 showed up. Side by side the 72 punches much harder. Doesn’t have nearly as heavy low end, but in just actual hardness and directness of punch itself and tightness it’s the 72 no contest. My Beta can punch pretty hard too just not quite as much as my MTL. Maybe I’m being overly picky here, but when mids (or other desirable qualities) are close but a little off it’s very unsatisfying to my ears, that whole close but no cigar thing, like a dissonance in music that never fully resolved or almost like the blue balls equivalent to the ears. Like almost there, but why can’t the damn thing get all the way there. Agreed on the MTL hating boosts

It’s strange because I find with my MTL it can almost sound Hiwatt-ish or Marshall-ish, but really not quite the same as either when compared. Of course I love the amp despite what I’m willing to openly complain about it and have kept it for 5 years. Not many amps I’ve kept that long

At the time I had the MC, I don’t think I had a Marshall…I did have an HRG C++. So I couldn’t do a direct comparison. But for me being a Marshall guy first and foremost, any Wizard GAS went away with my 72.

 

[braintheory]

At the time I had the MC, I don’t think I had a Marshall…I did have an HRG C++. So I couldn’t do a direct comparison. But for me being a Marshall guy first and foremost, any Wizard GAS went away with my 72.

Yeah for a while I think the HRG C+ and MC were the only high gain amps I kept (years before my collection got out of hand lol) and at the time were both sending lots of stuff packing and they seemed so vastly different, but equally great. They sent packing a 2001 SLO I had at the time between the 2, but not the case with my ‘89 one

Yes you’ve cured you Wizard gas lol, but for bottom end power imo maybe worth hearing a blueface, beta or Rev 1 Uber. Probably won’t be your cup tea, but still something to experience in the room imo. They’ve got of other cool, unique qualities about them too, but the bottom end is the most obvious part with those amps. Rev 1 might have for my taste the best feel and shredability

 

[Racerxrated]

The Uber is the one and only experience I had with a Bogner. It was at a GC, and I had crazy eq settings to make it sound even ok. Seemed to be light in gain too…but maybe needed new tubes. And, I have no clue which version it was.

 

[MetalHeadMike]

Yeah for a while I think the HRG C+ and MC were the only high gain amps I kept (years before my collection got out of hand lol) and at the time were both sending lots of stuff packing and they seemed so vastly different, but equally great. They sent packing a 2001 SLO I had at the time between the 2, but not the case with my ‘89 one

Yes you’ve cured you Wizard gas lol, but for bottom end power imo maybe worth hearing a blueface, beta or Rev 1 Uber. Probably won’t be your cup tea, but still something to experience in the room imo. They’ve got of other cool, unique qualities about them too, but the bottom end is the most obvious part with those amps. Rev 1 might have for my taste the best feel and shredability

I think I felt your Beta out here the other day. Plates and shit were rattling around in the kitchen cupboards.

The Morris Perplexed had a surprisingly deep/huge low end response. Didn't expect that. Uber Rev Blue was about the deepest low end I've experienced followed by the MW Dual Recto maybe. The ISP powered sub gives my MCII tremendous thunder down low.

 

[cardinal]

Mine isn’t high plate voltage. 480 range.

Ah, that's interesting to hear. C or V transformer? I've always wondered if the C transformers were lower than the V.

 

[braintheory]

I think I felt your Beta out here the other day. Plates and shit were rattling around in the kitchen cupboards.

The Morris Perplexed had a surprisingly deep/huge low end response. Didn't expect that. Uber Rev Blue was about the deepest low end I've experienced followed by the MW Dual Recto maybe. The ISP powered sub gives my MCII tremendous thunder down low.

Hahaha literally what the Beta does. Nothing shakes the floor or downstairs (playing upstairs) like that amp. It’s like it has the most low end in the lowest part of the low end area (guessing below 100 Hz, but not really sure), but the Uber Rev 1 and Blueface have more low end above the ankles and low mids if that makes sense. Those and my c+ coli are probably the biggest behemoths in bottom end that I have and not using any subs, 15’s or really anything else to enhance bottom end when doing the comparisons to keep it fair for comparison sake

 

[braintheory]

The Uber is the one and only experience I had with a Bogner. It was at a GC, and I had crazy eq settings to make it sound even ok. Seemed to be light in gain too…but maybe needed new tubes. And, I have no clue which version it was.

Gotta try ideally a Rev 1, but Rev 2/Green’s are good too (just not amazing ime). The Rev 1 has lots of gain and saturation even around 9 o clock. It’s a very over the top amp. Later Uber’s didn’t have a gain taper like that. I admit though with the Rev 1 also I gotta use really whacky eq setting to get it right, opposite how I’d dial in almost any other amp, but just how it is. I’m not at all a Bogner fan, but the Rev 1 is the only Bogner that’s done it for me. I don’t think it’ll be your cup of tea, but I think you’d still see that it has some cool, unique things about it. It’s one of my top 5 for high gain

 

[Techdeth]

The Uber is the one and only experience I had with a Bogner. It was at a GC, and I had crazy eq settings to make it sound even ok. Seemed to be light in gain too…but maybe needed new tubes. And, I have no clue which version it was.

I have a Rev blue that sounds terrible to me until it’s been on like an hour and up loud . It’s a strange amp but does some cool shit . I still like my wizard , Diezel , and boogie more though

 

[Greazygeo]

Ah, that's interesting to hear. C or V transformer? I've always wondered if the C transformers were lower than the V.

Neither. Mine are A. When we were specing my amp, he asked if I wanted VH tone...I said hell no. We went with A.

 

[MetalHeadMike]

Rev blue I had was an amazing amp and really didn't require any crazy settings to sound great. Gobs of gain/saturation available if you wanted, more than any other amp I've owned probably. Could be set with less gain and get pretty open sounding. Tons of deep thick low end and plenty of cut in the mids and high end without being the slightest bit harsh. My only beef and reason for letting it go was the overall voicing was a bit...hmmm...generic or average sounding. Maybe I just built up an unrealistic expectation in my head all the years of wanting one. Just thought it would have this insanely growling pissed off vulgar angry voicing but it didn't. Killer sounding, but lacked the menacing growl I like.

 

[gtr31]

What’s is the hollow mids you guys are mentioning does it just have a scoop out or is it more like a Mesa
Mk Eq contour

 

[Greazygeo]

What’s is the hollow mids you guys are mentioning does it just have a scoop out or is it more like a Mesa
Mk Eq contour

No idea what that is about. As far as I know you have low mids, mid mids and high mids....

 

[MetalHeadMike]

No idea what that is about. As far as I know you have low mids, mid mids and high mids....

Depends whether talking MTL or MC/MCII and then Wizard compared to other amps. The MTL definitely lacks certain mid to upper mid frequencies to me. Just a more neutral, dare I say flatter mid frequency with a nod to the low mids. The MCII has plenty of low mids/mid centered mids/upper mids, but the lows and highs on all Wizards are a bit accentuated giving the mids a bit of a back seat as compared to something like a Marshall.