NAD: Mesa Boogie Mark VII head. WOW

Gonna jump in, since alternates are being discussed to once again sing the praises of the Fillmore. I own a Mark V 90 and 25, VII, 2C+, Electra-Dyne and LSS. There is something about the Filmore that always sounds great. It has clean and crunch tones to die for, and excellent but not madman gain. I like the crunch better than the Marks. If that is what you are looking for, def check this amp out. It just works and is dead simple to dial in.

twintriode said:

Thanks for your detailed response. The reason I asked is because I've read all of your posts and some of you observations of the Mark V I didn't agree with and I was wondering how you came to those conclusions. In the end I just think its subjective. I get the ice pick sound you called out on the "edge" mode, but I think it is easily tamed by taking the tone of my guitar down to 3 then I think 1) the ice pick is gone, and 2) it sounds pretty decent. I do not find the "tweed" sound to be ice picky at all. In fact, I think its a decent representation of a tweed amp, but then it could be argued that my opinion is subjective. Which is fine because I would probably agree. The biggest thing for me on the Mark V is I think it probably sounds better as a head and closed back 4-12 setup. Maybe someday I will be able to confirm that. Even with that, my general preference for speakers is the 20w Greenbacks. I like them better than the typical G12M 25 75Hz's. Finding that in a 4-12 might be hard.

When I got my Mark V I felt that it was the best amp I have owned. I have owned several Fender's including several 60's black/silver bassman amps, a 1969 Bandmaster Reverb that had an awesome clean tone, one of those brown 90's Vibroverb Reverb reissues, and a 1966 Super Reverb. I found that Fender was not enough for me because they are single channel made to be clean amps. I don't like to front load amps so I always hated the drive sound on those amps because of pedals. In general I could not afford Marshall's back in the day because they were "the" hot amp and where I could buy black panel Bassman amps all day long for $125 a Marshall was (if I remember correctly) $400-600. I did, however own a 76 Marshall JMP Master Volume. I thought that amp sounded bad. First it was a Korg distributed amp from what I remember, and what they were doing at the time was deleting the EL34 power tubes in favor of 6550's. 6550's are a very ridged tube, and were not very flattering on that amp...again subjective, but not for me.

I am very much a guitar/amp player. I don't use effects at all. I rarely use the built in reverb on amps. When I saw this Mark V for sale at $1,400 I jumped all over it. I think any Mark you can get for that price is worth it. I usually only use channel 1 or channel 2. I almost never use 3 as 3 has too much gain for me. I do like the amp, but Mesa does pull some marketing crap with their amps. I remember thinking when I got the amp that it wasn't that loud. Eventually I hooked up my scope, tone generator, load resistor, and DMM and performed a little ohm's law to see what the output of that amp was. I don't have the results anymore, but I can say its nowhere near the advertised 90, 45, 10. No mode or channel was able to hit those outputs. That kinda felt like a trend with Mesa because I don't even need to measure a Mark V 25 to know there is no way that amp can do 25w. 2 EL84's are not mechanically capable of producing 25w.

In the end I subjectively would say that I have the best modern Mark. I like the non-repeated modes, I like the tube rectifier to be in the amp, I like the idea of the solo knob, Triode mode adds flavor, I like the variac mode, I have no desire for MIDI or cab clone features so the VII does not appeal to me. I also am curious to understand how they did the bias for the EL34's on the VII. There is this whole procedure that you follow on the V to use EL34, but on the VII you just flip the switch and you are good to go. They do really come close to trashing the idea of running the amp with EL34's in the VII the way the manual reads. "If you run the EL34 tubes plan on keeping a spare set of tubes with you and fuses". "The 6L6 in our opinion is a superior tube". Etc. I'm not suggesting the EL34 is better in the amp because I didn't really care for it, but I find it odd that they downplay using them in the VII manual or at least that is how I took it. Anyhow, thanks and I do like the write-up and even though I don't agree with some of it, it is interesting to read other perspectives.

Click to expand...

I am not being subjective on the Mark V90 in general terms; I have played through a few others and though they sounded good. However I am being specific to the one I own. It was a lemon to start with. I could not use the STR440 Mesa tube as they would red plate in 20 seconds to 1 week. Life span was unpredictable. SED =C= 6L6 GC tubes were the only tubes that worked in the amp ran a set of those for 8 month of heavy use. Tried another quad of STR440, red plated shortly after taking the amp out of standby. The SEDs went back in, all was good an ran those until the tone shifed and lost most of the low end. Tried a quad of the Tung Sol 7581A tubes, they lasted about 8 months. After those, I tried the EH EL34. then the JJ 6CA7 that was ok for 2 weeks until the Screen resistors failed. Had to replace all of them. The center pair were completely split open, the ones on the outer pair had some blisters that were suspect. Also had to figure out why the reverb died. JFET gate crapped out. Got it fixed and then ran a quad of Gold Lion KT77 and used on the crunch mode on CH2. That was awesome. Tweed, edge, and all of CH3 was still ice pick. Not just bright sounding. I can tolerate that. This is that glass breaking in the ear drum sound you could not dial out even with the presence all the way out, gain at 9am and the treble at 9am or lower. We are talking physical ear drum pain too. I did not care for that level of pain. I never had the opportunity to own a good sounding Mark V90. Considering the other issues like the impedance problem with the FX loop, just was not worth replacing the lemon with another V90. Besides, the Roadster, Royal Atlantic and the Mark IVB were enough to satisfy me. I sold the IVB when I got into drumming. Some tube rolling did help curb the ice pick problem with the V90. It still sucked but was a little better and less painful. 20 minutes tops was the tolerable time. Then came along the JP2C, that was so satisfactory to me that I gave up on the Mark V90 completely. I only brought it back out to compare to the Mark VII. I have no issues with the Mark V90 in general. there are some great sounding amps out there. Mine on the other hand should never have left Mesa and should have been scrapped from the start. My only regret was not returning it after the over-heating issue and constant red plating problems. Oh well. It is now a test bed for mods and such. I have learned a lot from the amp in general. The story is much longer than that but I shortened it. I had nothing but issues, this or that failed. At least I was lucky never to have to replace the diodes like others have encountered. I do try to refrain from being negative on the Mark V90 so my apologies if that offended anyone. Too bad, I felt the Mark V90 had potential but I guess the only way to get there is to replace the one I have. So I did, but not with another V90. I now have two Mark VII, two Badlanders 100W, two Royal Atlantic 100. MWDR, Roadster, JP2C, TC100, TC50 and a California Tweed. I am done with the Mark V90 headache. Never bonded with it but wanted too.

Inthenoise said:

Gonna jump in, since alternates are being discussed to once again sing the praises of the Fillmore. I own a Mark V 90 and 25, VII, 2C+, Electra-Dyne and LSS. There is something about the Filmore that always sounds great. It has clean and crunch tones to die for, and excellent but not madman gain. I like the crunch better than the Marks. If that is what you are looking for, def check this amp out. It just works and is dead simple to dial in.

Click to expand...

How would you say the Mark V:25 sounds relative to the Mark V90? I liked sound I heard in some of the videos on the V:25. I have been looking for an ED too, almost bought one but the RA had my interests, and they still do. For me the two RA100s I have are on the top list of go to amps. One is a combo, and the other is a head with matching 412 cab.

twintriode said:

... I also am curious to understand how they did the bias for the EL34's on the VII. There is this whole procedure that you follow on the V to use EL34, but on the VII you just flip the switch and you are good to go. They do really come close to trashing the idea of running the amp with EL34's in the VII the way the manual reads. "If you run the EL34 tubes plan on keeping a spare set of tubes with you and fuses". "The 6L6 in our opinion is a superior tube". Etc. I'm not suggesting the EL34 is better in the amp because I didn't really care for it, but I find it odd that they downplay using them in the VII manual or at least that is how I took it. ...

Click to expand...

I'm sure the issue of EL34's not getting a vote of confidence from Boogie is because of the variety of "inferior" tubes available in today's market. The days of robust, high current, durable EL34's definitely are in the past. As a disclaimer, Boogie just wants to CYA should you want to run in the EL34 mode. The same issues occur in some vintage era Marshalls. This was one of the reasons they were shipping US (domestic) versions of their 100W amps in the early 70's with 6550's and not EL34's. The 6550's were tolerant of higher plate voltages and better at withstanding mechanical failures.

I can believe that. Are there limits on using the Mesa STR450 NOS Siemens EL34 in regards to plate/screen voltages? I have a few, they did not do so well in the TC amps, kept blowing the fuses. The same tubes work just fine in the RA100. I assumed it may be due to the difference in operating voltage of the two amps. (RA runs at 400V and the TC runs at 450)

Hard to say. since the sourcing of the Siemens of that era have a lot to do with wide specs. My tube spec reference books are not much help when it comes to this period of tube. That's why Aspen Pittman began his Groove Tube Company in order to "bin out" those tubes. (Now owned by Mesa Boogie I believe). The robustness of the earlier EL34's tolerate higher plate and screen voltages that have progressively gotten softer due to the availabilities and manufacturer tolerances for yield improvement. That's why I sourced the Czech Winged C variants as much as I could. They were very hardy and had a nice break to them when driven hard. Contemporary tubes just don't measure up and wear out much faster if you are using vintage amps (eg: Hiwatt, early Marshalls, Sound City, Park) and some contemporary amps from the 80's and 90's. Mesa continues to push the envelope in some of their designs as well.

Adding to the free for all all just one player's opinion.

Well I consider myself to be one of the lucky V:90 owners cause for me it's a truly amazing amp. Also have a IIC+, LSS, Stiletto and a Badlander now. Each has their own place, but for gigging live these days the V is my choice basically because of its versatility and tone.

First off I'm not a tube sniffer most of the time TBH can't tell if a tube is really making a difference or if it is just smelling. This bums me out, however the V4 -> AT7 move was a biggee, it reduced the harshness of Ch 3. Also replaced the set of STR-440 YELs new STR-441s GRYs in the outer sockets, STR-440 GRNs in the inner sockets. Dang if the Simulclass didn't come alive. Could never get along with Edge but running it with Simulclass and these tubes was a difference maker. In fact the whole amp tone was improved.

Now the IIC+ voicing, well is not IMHO truly IIC+. It's an excellent voicing but compared to the real deal... urrr noo. The real IIC+ is truly an amazing amp, more organic in comparison but is just not versatile enough for gigging as the V.

The LSS cleans are lusher and richer, it's Ch 2 with Drive is so smooth, only the Mark 1 mode kinda comes close but it's a bit buzzy, plus the LSS can't touch Crunch or Ch3 for the heavy stuff.

Now I am a fanboy of the Stiletto and it's really the polar opposite of the V in many respects. It's an untamed beast, the V is well behaved and under control. Nothing compares to Ch 2 Tite Gain or Fluid Drive, its raw and cuts. But it's cleans, while enjoyable are not really in the same ballpark as the V. It's also missing that middle ground for crunch rhythm. You have to OD Ch 1 Tite Clean for that cause Ch1 Crunch is hard to cleanup and it's super bright, even on vol rolldown. Plus the large vol differences with the voicings is a PITA live.

Now the Badlander... this is one very cool amp. Simply a pure focus on Crunch with no distractions. Two duplicate chans and 3 voicings which are essentially are just shades of gain around Crunch. But this Crunch is simply amazing. Its clarity with gain is hard to match. It is an amp that you don't fight with playing and dialing it in is sooo easy in large part due to the simplicity. TBH haven't had as much time on it as the others. It's possible, but not likely, it could push the V aside. The V's got better cleans and with more voicing choices which just has it as the #1 gigging choice for this guy.

bandit2013 said:

How would you say the Mark V:25 sounds relative to the Mark V90? I liked sound I heard in some of the videos on the V:25. I have been looking for an ED too, almost bought one but the RA had my interests, and they still do. For me the two RA100s I have are on the top list of go to amps. One is a combo, and the other is a head with matching 412 cab.

Click to expand...

I have the combo. Obviously the 90 will get your core thrumming in a way the 25 won't, and the 10" speaker is thinner. But it sounds awesome for its size and you can patch in a 12" to thicken it up. It's one of my favorite amps and the one to grab when I'm going to an informal due to its weight (which is still impressive given its size -- a testimony to Mesa build quality.)

So for the past week I've been messing with preamp tubes in the Mark VII, I have tried a few long plate Mullards, Chinese square foil getter 12ax7b, a Phillips 12at7 in the phase inverter and sovtek 12ax7lps in a few positions. At the end of the day, I kind of feel like this amp is designed for the jj tubes that ship with it. The tubes did change things, sometimes for better but at the loss of other things or sometimes for worse. At the end of the day the only thing I kept was a sovtek 12ax7lps in v1. That almost opened up the sound a bit more. Anyone else been messing with preamp tubes?

endofall said:

So for the past week I've been messing with preamp tubes in the Mark VII, I have tried a few long plate Mullards, Chinese square foil getter 12ax7b, a Phillips 12at7 in the phase inverter and sovtek 12ax7lps in a few positions. At the end of the day, I kind of feel like this amp is designed for the jj tubes that ship with it. The tubes did change things, sometimes for better but at the loss of other things or sometimes for worse. At the end of the day the only thing I kept was a sovtek 12ax7lps in v1. That almost opened up the sound a bit more. Anyone else been messing with preamp tubes?

Click to expand...

not in a VII but in my IV I've been running
V1 NOS Mullard blackburn
V2 High gain JJ
V3 NOs RFT
V4 chinese square foil
V5 Sovtek LPS
I love how mine sounds the RFT is probably the Key , I have 2 in my Splawn and it sounds worlds better than the stock tubes it shipped with.
V4 is the reverb send , and I do not use the on board reverb so I may experiment a little bit with that slot
I also have some NOS GE, Raytheon , Amperex and tungrams to mess with , but it sounds so good as is I'm in no rush to mess around with it at the moment.

Mark VII tube rolling, this one is trick as the lead drive insertion point moves around for two modes (crunch and crush). So what other than the stock Mesa branded JJ ECC83s would be ideal? have no clue. I have only experimented with the power tubes. I did not care much for the STR445 green bias tubes. Yellows were way better especially at gig level. A blend of STR448 (6L6) in a red bias color and the STR445 in yellow were good as well. Running all the same tubes (STR445 yellows).

Some like the RFT in V1 in a mark amp. I have not explored that much. I have all of the RFTs stuffed in two RA100 as those were needed to tighten up the amp and strip out the mud on the hi gain channel. RFT in V1 and an Ei CV492 in V2 (similar to a Mullard long plate 12AX7). Ei CV492 in the phase inverter as well.

I did experiment with alternate tubes in the JP2C just to see what would happen. Well, I wound up with the same result as @endofall , the stock JJ ECC83s were the best. Had the same result with the MWDR.

Badlander, needs to be explored as it is a Mark + Recto hybrid amp. I have only experimented with Mesa branded power tubes. May have tried a 12AX7 variant like the old Mesa Chinese 12AX7 tube. I do have one spare RFT not used. Most of the one's I got are in the pair of RA100s. Thinking the RFT in V1, Ei CV492 in V3 , NOS Mesa 12AX7 (Beijing 6N4-J Chinese 12ax7/7025/ecc83) in V3 and V4 and not sure what to stuff in the phase inverter. Tempting. May be the fix for gain issues vs doing a circuit mod. I feel the BAD is fine as it is but exploring the potential can be fun.

Amps that had good results with some alternate tubes not using stock Mesa branded JJ ECC83s: Roadster, RA100, and the Mark V90. I would have to see what I used in the California Tweed, I did swap out some of the stock tubes in that as well. I keep forgetting about that amp.

bandit2013 said:

Badlander, needs to be explored as it is a Mark + Recto hybrid amp. I have only experimented with Mesa branded power tubes. I feel the BAD is fine as it is but exploring the potential can be fun.

Click to expand...

Maybe the time has come for some BAD exploration

I tried to see if the EL34 (STR447) sounded different in the Mark VII than the STR445 (6L6GC) stockers. The EL34 were grey bias color coded and the 6L6GC was yellow. Since I have two Mark VII, it was finally that time to hear the difference. To my surprise, there was no notable difference at all. If it was there, I was not hearing it. Had both amps dialed in as close to each other as possible. So that ends that. Sometimes you think there was an improvement but in reality, nothing really changed. Sure, it depends on the amp in question if there is a notable difference. With the Mark VII, I did not take notice to any tone difference or offset of volume shift. OK, I did not push it into gig level this time around, but did explore the three power modes and the various modes. My hearing may still be off from yesterday.

bandit2013 said:

I tried to see if the EL34 (STR447) sounded different in the Mark VII than the STR445 (6L6GC) stockers. The EL34 were grey bias color coded and the 6L6GC was yellow. Since I have two Mark VII, it was finally that time to hear the difference. To my surprise, there was no notable difference at all. If it was there, I was not hearing it. Had both amps dialed in as close to each other as possible. So that ends that. Sometimes you think there was an improvement but in reality, nothing really changed. Sure, it depends on the amp in question if there is a notable difference. With the Mark VII, I did not take notice to any tone difference or offset of volume shift. OK, I did not push it into gig level this time around, but did explore the three power modes and the various modes. My hearing may still be off from yesterday.

Click to expand...

Hey Bandit:

No small thanks to you, I grabbed quad of Boogie EL34s. I did notice a difference - a bit less density, tighter low end, and just a bit less wooly. LOVE both options. Here's clip of them double tracked - EL34s, 6L6s, then both with EL34s on the left https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/eev7fq11n21msvr83yaci/Mark-VII-EL34-GL6-BOTH.mp3?rlkey=1vcfey3od2wxt6ptikt1ebegu&dl=0

Thanks again for the inspiration to do this - appreciated. To anyone thinking of trying this out, I'd suggest putting a piece of tape with BIAS written on it as a reminder to flip the bias if you're going to go back and forth. It's easy in the excitement to forget

Tighter low end w/EL34s? That's the opposite of what I would expect.

SonVolt said:

Tighter low end w/EL34s? That's the opposite of what I would expect.

Click to expand...

Since I have two of these, I compared on with the STR447 EL34 and the other with the stock STR445 6L6 tubes. I was surprised how the two Mark VII compared with the different power tubes. The STR445 tubes have a slight 6CA7 voice to them, that being based on Mesa's description along with the JJ description. The STR447 EL34 were used but were still good.

I could not tell the difference with the side-by-side comparison of the EL34 vs 6L6 (str445) in each Mark VII. At least it is not a compromise on tone. There will be some notable differences with the Mark VII if you run the other 6L6 tubes like the STR440, STR441, STR443, STR448 and including the STR415 (have a set I bought for the JP2C). Some slight boxy undertones take shape. That I did not expect. Did not sound bad though, just different.

Been a while since I updated the thoughts and desires of this amp. It still rocks and captivates me. I am not yet bored with it. There seems to be a bit more interesting characteristics of the seven different voices that keeps me interested. I seem to spend more time with the VII and IV modes and for the low gain part it is usually the crunch on CH1. Not quite sure if my memory serves me well, or did I forget what the Mark III actually sounded like? my mental sound image of the amp seems to match what I hear with the Mark VII. More of an open sound especially with CH3 IIC+ and the IV modes. Sure, the VII mode is a bit more compressed since it is more of a BAD circuit in its repositioning of the lead drive to be forced between V1A and V1B and the tone stack still rests in front of V1B. Gain is pre tone stack. Crunch is no different, just one less gain stage. I can also relate the JP2C to the Mark VII IIC+ and IV modes. Very similar gain and sound characteristics of CH2 and CH3 of the JP2C. The HRG format of the JP2C does tend to have a darker overtone than the DRG format of the Mark VII. Just seems to have a bit more presence in the final sound that I find difficult to get a match with the JP2C. I can get very close but not quite the same.

Now came along the IIC+ reissue. Sort of running through a few things and I have a mixed opinion on the amp in general. So far, it is nothing like the JP2C or the Mark VII. Not even in the same tone farm if that is the terminology Mesa likes to use. What type of farm is it? Dairy, well that would be if the amp had a creamy sound to it. I would feel the Mark VII and JP2C are more dairy farm amps. What type of farm is the Rectifier in? Pig farm? The MWDR does sound a bit like sizzling bacon with a deep low-end grunt. Not quite a cow as it is a bit salty. Isn't no chicken either. The Chicken farm would cover the Triple Crown, Royal Atlantic and the Filmore amps. Well, there really is no point to this tone farm stuff. Which one falls into the manure farm? I can think of one that fits that farm quite well.

Anyhow, the Reissue IIC+ is a different amp in many respects. It seems to have a wooly tone to it. This amp is begging for something different than a V30 loaded cabinet. So far it is doing ok but seems that the frequency response is getting stretched out a bit. I am hearing more of a cry for an EVM12L black label speaker here. The EV classic may be a bit too soft but will try that too. I do not feel the MC90 would be a good speaker for this amp let alone the Mark VII or the JP2C unless they did something to the amp to compensate. I would not say the IIC+ Reissue is sterile in any way, it has more tones peaking out that may require a different speaker to make it sound better.

The output section may be similar to that of the Mark VII. That does not make it sound anything like the Mark VII as I believe the overall design of the IIC+ Reissue may have larger bypass caps on some of the gain stages that gives it that wooly sound. A bit less refined than the VII or JP2C if that helps in its description. I have not run the amps side by side yet. Sort of trying to get a good feel for the IIC+ RI as is. Perhaps this weekend I will have more time to explore comparing amps.

First impressions of the IIC+, it is ok. I feel the Mark VII has more value for the money and much easier to get a sound I like with it. I would say the JP2C sort of falls in close second. Similar sound stage but limited in modes or voices. Sure, you can dial in different settings to get a similar sound but hard to omit gain stages for the IIB or crunch modes of the Mark VII. Too bad the Mark V90 I have does not stack up. Something wrong with it so I cannot relate to a good sounding Mark V90. The IIC+ Reissue is more or less a single channel amp with a lead drive mode. If you like to constantly adjust controls to tweak your sound then perhaps the IIC+ reissue is more your style. I am not yet seeing any advantage here. Ah, the tone, more wooly than the III, IVB, V, JP2C or the VII I had or have. Is this true to the IIC+ sound? JP2C is not as wooly as this reissue is. It is difficult to avoid the low-end aspects. Still trying to figure it out so I will hold off on any final comments, even though I basically made them already.

bandit2013 said:

The IIC+ Reissue is more or less a single channel amp with a lead drive mode. If you like to constantly adjust controls to tweak your sound then perhaps the IIC+ reissue is more your style. I am not yet seeing any advantage here.

Click to expand...

ahhh for the sake of conversation I will contribute 2 cents (and not a penny more)

The single channel chan dual mode provides a player the unique ability to tweak tones in a way unlike most modern amps. The cascading signal chain in lead mode with the vol 1 allows fine tuning of the gain that expands the possibilities. You can chug with the Vol 1 cranked but you can get cool cleans and edge of breakup with dialing the gains back and then everything in between. That is the advantage IMHO The granularity with these adjustments poses a compromise as yes.. constant adjustments are the norm and there is that compromise of clean vs lead live.

The modern Marks V may have that one IIC+ tone locked in, but they can't really duplicate the other areas of the IIC+ that you can tweak in.

That may be true. Not many people want to spend the time to find that magic sound. Not quite the immediate satisfaction setup. Sure, the other mark amps with modes of sorts, may preset some of the ranges or settings that are adjustable on the basic IIC+ circuit. Some other functions like the various pulls may also be defined by the relay logic or JFET for each specific mode or voice. Now you have a wider range of controls around that predefined setting. I would not say the other Mark amps are limited.

Also, since the Mark VII, JP2C and the RI IIC+ all have different power sections, it makes it more difficult to compare them. Obviously the JP2C is all pentode Class AB 100W. The Mark VII also runs full pentode at 90W in simul-class Mode. The reissue IIC+ is 75W Pentode/Triode with all 6L6 tubes. Since the GEQ runs after the FX loop, I can always slave from one amp to the other just to see how different the preamp is. When doing that with the Mark VII and the JP2C, I found out quick enough I did not care much for the crunch or VII modes when pushed into the JP2C return. The IIC+ from the Mark VII was dead on to the CH2 preamp of the JP. Wonder how the different preamp modes will sound through the IIC+ power section. That Pentode/triode will have a different sound to it than the full pentode simul-class. I guess that would be similar to the Mark IV in some ways as that was full pentode but had a triode switch for the class A tube pair. Much like the Mark V90. Only the Mark III green stripe ran full pentode in simul-class as that is how it was wired. No triode wiring so the class A mode would have had a different tone. Never played through a green stripe Mark III. Only the blue stripe.

I do not have much of an accurate reference for how the IIC+ is supposed to sound like so I will have to take it with a grain of salt. It is different than the Mark VII, JP2C and dare I say it the Mark V90 and how I recall the Mark IVb and III to sound. Does not sound bad, just different and getting used to that different characteristic is a bit of chore.

bandit2013 said:

I do not have much of an accurate reference for how the IIC+ is supposed to sound like so I will have to take it with a grain of salt.

Click to expand...

It's pretty well accepted there was variation in tone with the IIC+ OG. SimulClass vs 100/60. GEQ vs Non-GEQ, 60 vs 100, etc. Petrucci said no two IIC+s were exactly alike and I'll take his word for it.

When I've run my IIC+ preamp into the V:90 Simulclass power section.. I kick myself for not ordering that option back in the day. It is an amazing sound, I prefer Simulclass over the Pentode, it's got that 3D musical thing going on. Pentode is great for chugging and that immediate response for some clean settings but often I prefer a bit of give on my lead chan.