!! Check out the new Toy @ Mesa Boogie!!

[xdg999]

Just called Mesa's Hollywood store. They said the JP-2C's power section is pentode if anyone else was curious.

 

[Justin_Blackened]

I suspect the majority of Mesa's metal community is rejoicing at the 60/100 decision.

But not the Hetfield camp, though, they must have Simul since the classic 1980s Metallica tone is IIc+ Simul. Which is why I would have thought there'd have been more demand for a Simul recreation.

I can appreciate that the 60/100 is more organic and aggressive sounding; OTOH, the Simul is tighter and more modern sounding. I have played both and yes, either can sound great. Just how close this new offering is to vintage IIc+ tone (as opposed to the Mark V recreation thereof) is a bgger issue than Simul vs 60/100.

Who knows maybe there will be a sig JH-2C now THAT would be a surprise. The question pop'd into my head of whether or not this amp would find its way into JH's rig (I know his live Rig is now Axefx, but the sims have to come from somewhere) He did put up a new years post about finding the best guitar tone yet. Maybe he got his hands on a prototype. OH man I dont think I could contain myself if a video of JP and JH testing the 2C similar to the V:25 demo JP did surfaced! Haha sorry went full fan boi, just day dreaming.

JP has put in the time, if anyone deserves a Signature amp its him. COuldnt be happier about it. He knows his Mark's.

Maybe so but they did find room to pack a whole bunch of Pull Bright, Pull Shift and Pull Deep switches that helped you sculpt your tone. In fact, I normally have 2 or 3 of them pulled on my IIc+, and there's simply no way to recreate that sound on my Mark V. Nor on the new JP 2C, apparently.

I would say that the key problem with vintage IIc+'s (aside from availability/price) is the shared controls. You can dial your dream lead tone and...that's it; your clean channel will sound like ***. Or the other way around. Obviously, in this regard the JP 2C holds the edge.

Didnt even register the lack of 'pull' pots on the front panel on first inspection. Youre right, will be interesting to see just how well it does the 2C sound. But I think curbing expectations may be a good move, its the perfect 2C for John and maybe not the world.

Midi is huge for this amp, the addition of cab clone. Extra 5 bands and eq controls, and more speaker outs than I thought possible hahaha. He pretty much took 2 classic 2C+'s and smashed them into one package. I am very much in love with the the 2 and 3 channel clones. That begs the question are channels 2 and 3 identical in tone? or are they slightly different?

 

[OryCheyne]

Two IIC+ amps in one amp plus clean! Foot and Midi Switchable!
Very specific objective. Anyone think Mesa would release it if it didn't meet it?

 

[Justin_Blackened]

Two IIC+ amps in one amp plus clean! Foot and Midi Switchable!
Very specific objective. Anyone think Mesa would release it if it didn't meet it?

My thoughts exactly. They just made the perfect 2C in terms of features. Rather than a Mark VI JP sig with 500 setting options and built in Apocalypse mode powered by babies and small mammals. Well done mesa. Wonder if they will do a 2C+ non signature in about a years time with Simul? or just keep the JP? or maybe even a Mini JP2C?

 

[Agustín Collia]

I definitely hope they do a Mini version of the JP 2C as well!! (JP really liked the V:25, so it could be a possibility)

I may be alone here, but I really can't get my head around two things:
Number one is people saying the original IIC+ had few features, or saying that because you have a shared EQ you have to sacrifice tone... I'm sorry, but if the amp has the GEQ built in, the only thing you need is a second Volume 1 (so as to have one for Rhythm and one for Lead, which is called the Volume 1.1 Mod). Aside from that, you can definitely get an amazing clean with an amazing lead sound at the same time. You have plenty of options EQ-wise because (apart from the GEQ), the only switch that affects all channels is the Pull Deep, all the other Pull options affect only the Lead OR the Rhythm channel.

Number two is the fact that people complain that because you don't have treble or bass shifts or a bright switch or a pull deep, you can't recreate those sounds with this amp... A bright switch is self explainatory, if you have it engaged on your IIC+ and you want the same here, just set the presence a tad higher on the corresponding channel (BTW, this amp has a Pull Gain and a Presence Shift). If you have the treble shift engaged on your IIC+ and you want to replicate that here, just set your treble control on your Lead channel a bit higher (both treble and bass shifts affect only the Lead channel). It's that simple.

Let's just hope that they've gone back to the roots with the internal design of the amp as much as they can (I'm talking PCB-wise, as the trace of the IIC+ was very particular), and that this amp really ends up being an "improved" IIC+ reissue, and not a repackaging of the Mark V's IIC+ mode.
Channels 2 and 3 seem to be a clone of each other. Still it'd be great if there's a confirmation that they are in fact identical, with no differences regarding the voicing, etc.
The other thing that would be great to know is what that Shred switch actually does. Knowing some of JP's IIC+'s have been converted to ++, or have had some sort of gain-increase mod performed, my guess is the Shred mode is "akin" to the sound of a IIC++. However, I was surprised to see that (in the rig rundown he did with Mesa last year) he was using the Lead 2 Red setting of his TriAxis (which is a Mark III Lead circuit) for a Lead patch, so you never know!

 

[Justin_Blackened]

I definitely hope they do a Mini version of the JP 2C as well!! (JP really liked the V:25, so it could be a possibility)

I may be alone here, but I really can't get my head around two things:
Number one is people saying the original IIC+ had few features, or saying that because you have a shared EQ you have to sacrifice tone... I'm sorry, but if the amp has the GEQ built in, the only thing you need is a second Volume 1 (so as to have one for Rhythm and one for Lead, which is called the Volume 1.1 Mod). Aside from that, you can definitely get an amazing clean with an amazing lead sound at the same time. You have plenty of options EQ-wise because (apart from the GEQ), the only switch that affects all channels is the Pull Deep, all the other Pull options affect only the Lead OR the Rhythm channel.

Number two is the fact that people complain that because you don't have treble or bass shifts or a bright switch or a pull deep, you can't recreate those sounds with this amp... A bright switch is self explainatory, if you have it engaged on your IIC+ and you want the same here, just set the presence a tad higher on the corresponding channel (BTW, this amp has a Pull Gain and a Presence Shift). If you have the treble shift engaged on your IIC+ and you want to replicate that here, just set your treble control on your Lead channel a bit higher (both treble and bass shifts affect only the Lead channel). It's that simple.

Let's just hope that they've gone back to the roots with the internal design of the amp as much as they can (I'm talking PCB-wise, as the trace of the IIC+ was very particular), and that this amp really ends up being an "improved" IIC+ reissue, and not a repackaging of the Mark V's IIC+ mode.
Channels 2 and 3 seem to be a clone of each other. Still it'd be great if there's a confirmation that they are in fact identical, with no differences regarding the voicing, etc.
The other thing that would be great to know is what that Shred switch actually does. Knowing some of JP's IIC+'s have been converted to ++, or have had some sort of gain-increase mod performed, my guess is the Shred mode is "akin" to the sound of a IIC++. However, I was surprised to see that (in the rig rundown he did with Mesa last year) he was using the Lead 2 Red setting of his TriAxis (which is a Mark III Lead circuit) for a Lead patch, so you never know!

Well with number one I disagree completely. Shared eq means you cannot optimize exactly to what you want. Getting a good sound out of each channel is achievable sure, but you do sacrifice tone shaping when you have everything shared. Having individual eq's is just the smart move. And when I said featureless its more in comparison to what we come to expect from modern amps like midi and direct out and stereo outputs for example and less about tone shaping, because the tools were definitely there for sound, just needed to be split for each channel rather than trying to juggle the knobs so much.

Number 2 makes perfect sense. But I guess if you are used to tweaking your sound in a certain way you have to learn your way around the amp again. But would doesnt love tweaking 8)

Your thoughts on the shred mode is interesting I would like to know too. No 2 IIC+'s are the same especially with mods. So would be cool to find out you could replicate the mods out there with a flick of a switch on the amp.

 

[Agustín Collia]

Well with number one I disagree completely. Shared eq means you cannot optimize exactly to what you want. Getting a good sound out of each channel is achievable sure, but you do sacrifice tone shaping when you have everything shared. Having individual eq's is just the smart move. And when I said featureless its more in comparison to what we come to expect from modern amps like midi and direct out and stereo outputs for example and less about tone shaping, because the tools were definitely there for sound, just needed to be split for each channel rather than trying to juggle the knobs so much.

Number 2 makes perfect sense. But I guess if you are used to tweaking your sound in a certain way you have to learn your way around the amp again. But would doesnt love tweaking 8)

Your thoughts on the shred mode is interesting I would like to know too. No 2 IIC+'s are the same especially with mods. So would be cool to find out you could replicate the mods out there with a flick of a switch on the amp.

Yeah, maybe I should've said that I'm able to not sacrifice tone with the shared EQ of the IIC+ (not implying that I'm a tone guru or anything like that, just that I'm lucky enough to not need a separate EQ for each channel to get the sounds I like/need).
--Banter alert--
To be completely honest, I was kind of hoping/expecting this amp to be a IIC+/++ "clone" (both in terms of sound, features AND looks), but with the addition of the Volume 1.1 Mod. However, I also kind of knew, deep down, that it was just not going to happen, and after some processing, I now realize this is a better move. Not only from a market standpoint, but also looking into the future. People are more and more used to having (and expecting) a lot of features from modern production. I'm nobody to judge whether that's good or bad, but the truth is the majority of people do expect that, so how many years could you expect a reissue to last if it were identical to the original IIC+? In recent years some people were even bashing Mesa because the amps didn't have MIDI, imagine if their new amp were to "step down" even further to a shared EQ? Besides, Mesa wants to keep the hype and the glory of the IIC+ intact, and let's not be foolish, one of the reasons that amp is so coveted, "legendary" and valuable right now (apart from the amazing tone that turned it into that "legend") is because it's out of production. With this approach, they've managed to keep the "legend" of the original IIC+ going strong, while (hopefully) reintroducing its' sound signature to their current production, and adding those features people have come to expect from a modern production amp.
--End of banter--
Seeing how stereo effects have been a part of JP's sound since the beginning, I honestly thought they were going to try to squeeze a stereo power section in there (like, an FX loop with a mono send and a stereo return, that would feed a stereo power amp, with individual speaker outputs and Standby switches for each power amp), but well, that chassis is already too crowded they way it's right now.
Yeah, definitely waiting for them to release the details about that Shred mode, though I'm really excited that they went back to using such a big iron like in the original IIC+s (gives me hope that it may sound more like the original IIC+ and less like the IIC+ mode in the Mark V).

 

[LesPaul70]

Number one is people saying the original IIC+ had few features, or saying that because you have a shared EQ you have to sacrifice tone... I'm sorry, but if the amp has the GEQ built in, the only thing you need is a second Volume 1 (so as to have one for Rhythm and one for Lead, which is called the Volume 1.1 Mod). Aside from that, you can definitely get an amazing clean with an amazing lead sound at the same time. You have plenty of options EQ-wise because (apart from the GEQ), the only switch that affects all channels is the Pull Deep, all the other Pull options affect only the Lead OR the Rhythm channel.

Sounds nice when you say it but just doesn't work in practice. The controls that are shared between the two channels are some of the most critical for manipulating channel character and response.

There's a reason Mesa strived for a better channel separation in their later models.

Number two is the fact that people complain that because you don't have treble or bass shifts or a bright switch or a pull deep, you can't recreate those sounds with this amp... A bright switch is self explainatory, if you have it engaged on your IIC+ and you want the same here, just set the presence a tad higher on the corresponding channel (BTW, this amp has a Pull Gain and a Presence Shift). If you have the treble shift engaged on your IIC+ and you want to replicate that here, just set your treble control on your Lead channel a bit higher (both treble and bass shifts affect only the Lead channel). It's that simple.

No, it is not. Their effect on your tone is very different!

 

[Agustín Collia]

Sounds nice when you say it but just doesn't work in practice. The controls that are shared between the two channels are some of the most critical for manipulating channel character and response.

There's a reason Mesa strived for a better channel separation in their later models.

Well, then (as I said in my last post) I'm just lucky that it does work for me.

No, it is not. Their effect on your tone is very different!

I haven't found that to be true... But well, we agree to disagree

 

[Wayno]

I think this is going to split opinions just like the MK V. I'm of the opinion that the MK V is pretty **** close to the iiC+ tone ( albeit the small cap version ) and i think a lot of the MK V bashing is a little bit snobish, i can see the same thing happening here.

Apparently JP says the circuit is an exact copy of his favourite iiC+. Cant see it my self, its not going to be anything like the same type of PCB due to production techniques, and, correct me if im wrong but doesn't the original iiC+ rhythm channel stay active when the lead channel is switched in. So therefore this amp would need both channels circuits in both channel 2 and channel 3?

Don't get me wrong, i really hope this is as close as you can get, and i will be first in cue to give one a thrash out when they come across the pond.

Shame about not having EL34 option though.

 

[Justin_Blackened]

I think this is going to split opinions just like the MK V. I'm of the opinion that the MK V is pretty **** close to the iiC+ tone ( albeit the small cap version ) and i think a lot of the MK V bashing is a little bit snobish, i can see the same thing happening here.

Apparently JP says the circuit is an exact copy of his favourite iiC+. Cant see it my self, its not going to be anything like the same type of PCB due to production techniques, and, correct me if im wrong but doesn't the original iiC+ rhythm channel stay active when the lead channel is switched in. So therefore this amp would need both channels circuits in both channel 2 and channel 3?

Don't get me wrong, i really hope this is as close as you can get, and i will be first in cue to give one a thrash out when they come across the pond.

Shame about not having EL34 option though.

Yerp I am preparing for the masses of 'sounds nothing like the IIC+' etc etc. You can replicate something all day but even with the same hands, same parts, same specs built in the same factory you cant make an exact copy of something made 30 years ago. Especially when there has been so many variants, so many different mods, different tubes, different people servicing them and 30 years of aging in different environments around the world. I am of the opinion that even now an unmodded IIC+ would sound different than what it did 30 years ago brand new.

There is just to many variables to make it happen the way people dream in their heads. Especially when every IIC+ sounds different. To much hype can be dangerous, however the V:25 managed to pull it off (meeting expectations that is), maybe the JP2C will too. I have alot of trust in JP's ears, it may not sound exactly like someones particular IIC+ they have sitting in their jam room. But I am willing to bet $1bil itll sound absolutely amazing none the less.

 

[screamingdaisy]

Yerp I am preparing for the masses of 'sounds nothing like the IIC+' etc etc. You can replicate something all day but even with the same hands, same parts, same specs built in the same factory you cant make an exact copy of something made 30 years ago. Especially when there has been so many variants, so many different mods, different tubes, different people servicing them and 30 years of aging in different environments around the world. I am of the opinion that even now an unmodded IIC+ would sound different than what it did 30 years ago brand new.

There is just to many variables to make it happen the way people dream in their heads. Especially when every IIC+ sounds different. To much hype can be dangerous, however the V:25 managed to pull it off (meeting expectations that is), maybe the JP2C will too. I have alot of trust in JP's ears, it may not sound exactly like someones particular IIC+ they have sitting in their jam room. But I am willing to bet $1bil itll sound absolutely amazing none the less.

I have this theory that Mesa could take real IIC+, hide it inside a modern chassis... and people would still complain that it doesn't sound like a real IIC+.


Anyway, the Mark V's IIC+ mode has a monster crunch tone, but most people will never turn a Mark V up loud enough to experience it.

 

[OryCheyne]

Anyway, the Mark V's IIC+ mode has a monster crunch tone, but most people will never turn a Mark V up loud enough to experience it.[/quote]

+ 1. These are capable big venue items. Even in a good rehearsal room unless the drums are micked these amps can be too much. Recently I had both my MkII and MkV at practice. Both were only idling. Staying back was the only time I could open them up.

I only have combo's. Not sure how many JP 2C's will be plugged into much less than a 2x12.

Just thinking about it gives me gas for a 2x12 EV. Ouch!

 

[dlpasco]

*inhale*

Auuuuuugh

Shutupandtakemymoney

 

[LesPaul70]

No, it is not. Their effect on your tone is very different!

I haven't found that to be true... But well, we agree to disagree

It is not a matter of opinion, actually.

As I understand it (and please do correct me if I'm wrong), the tone pots (T, M, B) are placed before the preamp gain, and they simply do not have the same effect as the post-distortion GEQ or the pull switches. For example, you simply cannot replace the Pull Deep effect by turning up the Bass knob because what you end up with is not so much more bass frequencies but you do get significantly mushier distortion - which is something most people do not want.

But I can agree that your ears apparently don't hear the difference.
(Sadly, I'm cursed with a pair of slightly more discerning ears...which is probably why I also hate what my Rhythm channel sounds like after I've dialed my ideal Lead channel sound.)

 

[LesPaul70]

Yerp I am preparing for the masses of 'sounds nothing like the IIC+' etc etc.

I have this theory that Mesa could take real IIC+, hide it inside a modern chassis... and people would still complain that it doesn't sound like a real IIC+.

Ok, so I haven't played or even heard the new JP 2C yet, but for the benefit of everybody else, here goes...

IT SOUNDS NOTHING LIKE A REAL IIc+!

There, you have it. Happy now?

On a slightly more serious note...

Anyway, the Mark V's IIC+ mode has a monster crunch tone, but most people will never turn a Mark V up loud enough to experience it.

That one actually doesn't sound like my real IIc+. There are certain similarities, the overall gain structure, harmonic structure and timbre are very close - it might pass for the real thing on a CD track after some deft studio mastering and EQ'ing, but playing both live and A/B'ing them, I notice significant differences - most clearly in the amp behavior and response. The IIc+ is much more dynamic and alive-sounding in its response to my playing, while V mode feels so much smoother and more uniform that if I play it right after playing the IIc+, it almost feels like playing a digital model of the IIc+. The tone can get very close (with certain reservations, more on that below) but the feel is totally different. I blame that on the different power section.

Actually, I think Justin got it right above. I wouldn't know if there are no two similar-sounding IIc+'s, though, I obviously haven't played them all - but I do know that there are substantial differences between individual units. Not just the different optional features (which do play a big role) but even two units with the same options can sound very different from each other.
I know that Doug West based the mode on the V on a IIc+ that lacked the GEQ (and had a small coupling cap) and sounded remarkably tight and bright. My IIc+ has the GEQ and the bigger coupling cap and, yes, pretty much anybody can hear the difference if both amps are dialed the same. And if I Pull Deep on my IIc+ (I normally do), the difference becomes much more pronounced. Personally, I like the way my IIc+ sounds better (duh, obviously - otherwise, I'd have no reason to keep it!). It's not just that it sounds bigger, beefier and more bad-*** in general, there is also something about its high-frequency chime - a ringing ethereal halo - that the V mode fails to replicate.
Not saying the V mode is bad, even if it isn't my favorite mode on the 3rd channel. I just think it could have been even better, and YMMV.

In any case it will be interesting to hear what John Petrucci's ideal IIc+ sounds like.

 

[Agustín Collia]

As I understand it (and please do correct me if I'm wrong), the tone pots (T, M, B) are placed before the preamp gain, and they simply do not have the same effect as the post-distortion GEQ or the pull switches. For example, you simply cannot replace the Pull Deep effect by turning up the Bass knob because what you end up with is not so much more bass frequencies but you do get significantly mushier distortion - which is something most people do not want.

Uh, exactly, the POTS are placed before the preamp gain, both in the original IIC+ AND in every other Mark amp to date... So are their pull functions my friend, that's why you can replace almost all of the pull functions by adjusting the corresponding pots (the only one you can't replicate so much is Pull Deep, which I manage to do by setting the bass pot a tad higher in the clean channel AND using the Fat mode, and by setting the 80 and 240 Hz sliders a bit higher for distortion).

That one actually doesn't sound like my real IIc+. There are certain similarities, the overall gain structure, harmonic structure and timbre are very close - it might pass for the real thing on a CD track after some deft studio mastering and EQ'ing, but playing both live and A/B'ing them, I notice significant differences - most clearly in the amp behavior and response. The IIc+ is much more dynamic and alive-sounding in its response to my playing, while V mode feels so much smoother and more uniform that if I play it right after playing the IIc+, it almost feels like playing a digital model of the IIc+. The tone can get very close (with certain reservations, more on that below) but the feel is totally different.

In any case it will be interesting to hear what John Petrucci's ideal IIc+ sounds like.

My thoughts exactly!! I have found that to be true even with my Mark III, the behavior and the response is more akin to that of the IIC+ than to any of the modes in the Mark V.

 

[Wayno]

Yerp I am preparing for the masses of 'sounds nothing like the IIC+' etc etc. You can replicate something all day but even with the same hands, same parts, same specs built in the same factory you cant make an exact copy of something made 30 years ago. Especially when there has been so many variants, so many different mods, different tubes, different people servicing them and 30 years of aging in different environments around the world. I am of the opinion that even now an unmodded IIC+ would sound different than what it did 30 years ago brand new.

There is just to many variables to make it happen the way people dream in their heads. Especially when every IIC+ sounds different. To much hype can be dangerous, however the V:25 managed to pull it off (meeting expectations that is), maybe the JP2C will too. I have alot of trust in JP's ears, it may not sound exactly like someones particular IIC+ they have sitting in their jam room. But I am willing to bet $1bil itll sound absolutely amazing none the less.

I have this theory that Mesa could take real IIC+, hide it inside a modern chassis... and people would still complain that it doesn't sound like a real IIC+.


Anyway, the Mark V's IIC+ mode has a monster crunch tone, but most people will never turn a Mark V up loud enough to experience it.

I've had the same theory in my head for a while too, same could be said for virtually every coveted amp i believe.

That's definitely key to the Mk V, getting it up loud enough to breathe.

Any idea's when we'll have some JP 2C sound clips to chew on???? Itching to hear this......

 

[dlpasco]

Well, I just made a down payment on a standard JP-2C. No point in messing around. No idea when it will be available.

If John's putting his name on it, I believe it will be something that he uses and wants to have himself. He's certainly demonstrated that with his guitars.

Based on what I remember from the Triaxis manual, I'm guessing Shred mode is based on the Mark III. I'm excited.

 

[JMMP]

I made a similar comment on TPG when the JP-2C was first unveiled, but I think it has merit here as well: I'm building a 16U rack rig with a quad formula preamp and, so an excellent clean and two mark series high gain sounds. I'm not bothered by it sounding exactly like a 2C+. It could sound like a mark IV and I'd be content. I believe the key is that it is TWO high gain channels. A few years back I couldn't decide between getting a mark IV or mark v. It boiled down to the V not having two high gain channels. That's why I will one day own a JP-2C, but I will not sell my simulclass mark IV to get it.