Dopethrone
Active member
My Red Export Trafo and Mkiv sound uncanny together in stereo through dedicated 412 cabs w same speakers (marshall 800 lead 1982 and ampeg v412) both cabs h100 / t75 x pattern
Uncanny
Uncanny
Mesa MkIII - your thoughts
- Thread starter aside
- Start date
GJgo":2m9hrid8 said:Most IIs could use a trip to the tech anyway, so pick it up for a good price considering & then send it to Mike B. for his magic. That's what I do.
The IIC+ I was chasing is back up and running and I am continuing to move forward with the deal. I was considering having the seller send it straight to Mike B to save time and money. But I am also seriously considering having a ++/Hetfield and pentode/triode switch mods done to it. I should spend some time with the amp before going all crazy on it, but I love to shortcut to the end too.
I am curious to ask, since you have owned a IIC+ ++ and a wide variety of IIIs, could the IIC++ be a bit redundant if I was going to be blending it with a III (thinking red strip today and have moved on from my idea of including a IV in the equation). The main point of the III for me is to add extra aggression and rawness alongside a IIC+ or ++, with the IIC compromising the majority of the tone and feel.
The IIC++ seems to have some extra growl and grind in the mids, especially the low mids, that I would just die for. I also wonder if the IIC++ loses its ability to cover mid’ish gain rock tones as well as the IIC+ on the lead channel. I saw your IIC++ vid with the clean channel doing a respectable job on the mid gain stuff, and I don’t mind loosing the pure clean tone with the IIC++ mod. But I can’t really tell if the IIC++ mod kind of neuters the amps ability to really shine at anything less than metal, which would be a deal breaker for my needs. I know you have a V as well. I owned one too for ~4 years and my favorite thing about it were the Crunch, Tweed, and Mark I voicings. If you think the IIC++ can do something along the same lines as these voicings just as good as a IIC+, then I think the decision could be made based on just that. I am getting a III no matter what, and I am just trying to figure out if there might be reasons for me to dive straight into a IIC++ out of the gate, which I know would be reversable if ever needed.
Tone Monster
Well-known member
GJgo":256arowf said:
That red stripe sound waaaay more muffled and boxy than the one I had. Almost sounded like the EQ was off.
GJgo
Well-known member
Tiger1016":1f2mla33 said:
If you want a big departure from a C+ then get a blue or green stripe depending on if you want triode or pentode. Otherwise it is a bit redundant, and just not quite as good.
The C++ does have an extra growl that's more dynamic than just boosting a C+. So does the III++, but once again, just not as good. The III++ also removed the pissed-ness though so you have to be careful with that one.
The C++ excels at all tones above pure cleans. My #1 favorite tone I ever got out of my DRG C++ was with my ESP Kamikaze & a Greenback cab at mid gain. That tone was all-time. It's not going to have the radically different voicings of the V but the tones you do have are way better.
Also, for an extra fee Mike B. can make the amp C+/++ switchable.
Honestly from listening to you, if you don't want to spend 4 grand to have THE BEST, I think a III++ might check all your boxes.
P.S. that short Red Stripe in the vid above will be for sale shortly.
GJgo":3v54bp96 said:
I can't thank you enough for being so helpful between here, some of your comments on my questions on youtube, and all of the videos you have put out! This last response helped me figure out what to do in the near term.
I went ahead and bought the IIC+ HX I had been chasing. The price is good enough to where I should at least not loose money if I fell compelled to part ways with it quickly. I am going to have to experiment with using the EQ options I have in an Axe Fx III in the loop of the IIC+ given it is missing the built in 5 band GEQ. I actually preferred the outboard EQ tone in the video you did comparing the Empress ParaEQ, and this is what helped me go ahead and take this plunge. That was with a IIB+ coli though, so TBD on how I feel about the result with a IIC+. If all goes well, I'll send the amp in to Mike and get a full servicing, most likely a switchable +/++ mod, and maybe also try to see about a separate and custom loop for an EQ that is in the same location on the circuit as a built in one, if that is even possible.
Also, I had a Roadster head up for sale and decided to accept an offer to trade it heads up for a Mark V 90 watt. I really loved the V for Ch 1 & 2 when I owned one before, and with a real IIC+ on the team now to make up for the deficiencies of Ch. 3, I might have a winning formula for me if I can get everything I want out of the IIC+ without feeling like I need to try to blend in something additional that I can't get out of the V.
I am going to see how these two options play out first, then make a more educated decision on whether I really have a strong enough want for a third amp with the III or as a replacement for the V. No matter what, I will have a IIC+ or ++ as my main amp, the question is if I will have to try out a few before finding the right keeper for the long term. I don't know if all of the other stuff I am trying to sell right now will be offloaded in time before you have your III on the chopping block, but I am still very interested in trying out a III so it is not off the radar or out of the equation. I saw your thread on the no-eq IIC+, so I will likely get active on that one as I progress with my experiment to share observations and maybe ask question along the way rather than start my own thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0E0aiE4ns0&t=87s
JTyson
Well-known member
This^Racerxrated":8grqsbu6 said:
I gigged with 2 of them in a rack system for several years, the lead/rhythm gain tones are fantastic, but the first gain control being common to all 3 channels (you'll only use 2 of the 3) can be problematic if you need a really clean channel, I ended up setting up all the guitars with a coil split in the neck and a les Paul toggle, I'd have the neck volume rolled off a lot and switch to it when changing to the clean channel. We did a lot of stuff that had clean parts in it so it was mandatory. Great gain tones though, it cuts in a live mix better than the Dual Recs I used later. Dosent cut in a mix like a Marshall, and IMO the IIC+ is much easier to get the better goods with, but they are way more money. If the channel switching to a really clean clean is not a factor I wouldn't worry about it at all. I ran mine with EL34's in them, but there are a lot of great tones with the 34/6L6 in Simul-Class. The loop was middle of the road, not the worst or the best, but it worked good. They are well built, the guy that got mine is still running them today decades later. Only problem I ever had with one was the switch in the jack for the effects loop started cutting in/out in the middle of a set. I only had to bend the prong with the contact on it a hair and we were back to racing. Kinda wish I still had 1 of them still..
aside":1qx2xan0 said:
Nice find. I had gotten some feeback from Mike B about doing a mode on a Quad preamp to turn the Mark III channel into a ++ and the IIC channel into a + or ++. The cost would have been >$800 for the mod and would need to involve a servicing as well. So I bet that C++ Studio Pre is a great value in this context. Hit me up if you ever decide to part with it. IF...