Circuit nerds and IIc (non “+”) enthusiasts: tell me about the RP-9C vs RP-10 (non “+”)

[erickompositör72]

I am very fascinated by the amps just before the IIc+. I have an amazing IIb DRGX (RP-9C) that I love. I have never played a (non “+”) IIc.

Questions:

Is a IIc (non “+”) to the IIc+ kind of like a IIb (RP-9C) non-loop mod’d is to a loop mod’d IIb (RP-9C)? Is the RP-10 (non “+”) closer to the RP-9C (loop mod’d or non-) or the IIc+? I’m wondering if the differences in the circuit account for any of the items I list at the bottom of this post.

N.b. - I did not feel the loop mod made a huge difference to the IIb (RP-9C) (but was not able to A/B them), so I am now fascinated to compare a IIc (non “+”) to my IIc+’s, if I can ever find one for a reasonable price.

Some anecdotal items that whet my curiosity:

• I think my IIb DRGX (RP-9C) has amazing tone and TONS of gain, with a little more punch/spank that my IIc+ DRX
• I do think the IIc+ clearly has the most “liquid” lead tone; it is heard most in the attack (esp. w/ neck pickup), and also very clearly when “shredding” (i.e. fast alternate picking high on the fingerboard) on the neck pickup. The notes just connect with more fluidity on the IIc+ than the IIb. I am so curious where the IIc (non “+”) lands in these aspects
• I noticed that my IIb DRGX does not have the same overtone “bloom” as my IIc+ DRX when sustaining single notes. I thought this might be a IIb vs. IIc+ thing, but I then realized that my DRX IIc+ has more overtone “bloom” than my HRGX IIc+. Could the overtone “bloom” difference I noticed just be a non-GEQ vs. GEQ thing? Again, I would love to hear where the IIc (non “+”) lands generally in this respect.

 

[rarebitusa]

I would love to hear where the IIc (non “+”) lands generally in this respect.

All IMHO original owner of a IIC HR, who waited a long time before upgrading to a "+", looking back now the IIC lands in a very uninspired place. It suffered from two big problems, the lead chan really was bland, sterile and not fluid and even worse was the fx loop was placed before the lead chan. Personally I found it almost useless. The "+" fixed both of these things.

The unsung hero for either amp is Chan 1 and that alone was enough for me to soldier on with it. But the "+" upgrade did change the amp in a major way, for the better. Never have missed the IIC

From what I can see a stock IIC is pretty hard to find these days.

 

[Tuna141]

I am one of the few remaining stock C owners, and have owned my loaded combo since the 80's...

I agree with "rarebitusa"s comments about the lead channel sounding bland/sterile. It is not liquid/fluid sounding, and can sound harsh when playing alone. However, in a band, it really cuts through the mix. IMO, the C+ is better for scooped metal rhythm and fluid lead lines. In my experience, the lead channel on the C can sound like nails on a chalkboard with many single-coil guitars, and some bright humbucking guitars. But can sound amazing paired with the right guitar.

That being said, I can answer your question regarding note bloom. The bloom on my C is the better than any amp I have ever played. Notes just take off and the sustain is incredible, even at low volume levels. The bloom is also controllable. I like the uniqueness of the lead channel, and the clean channel is very good as well. The sustain and note bloom is there with the EQ on and off, so I don't think the EQ is a huge contributor to the bloom.

I've never played a Mark IIB, but have decades of experience playing other Mark series amps (in addition to my C, I also own a IIIblue, IVA, and two V's 90's). My C's lead channel "out-blooms" and out sustains all of them.

 

[rarebitusa]

However, in a band, it really cuts through the mix.

Oh yea, this is true. I do recall the C lead chan never had a problem being heard. and also agree in a band mix it actually sat in well. I ended up doing the "+" mod before I got other Mesas so TBH I missed out on doing a fair comparison.