Now mind you I have not tried the Mk V and it's Mark IIC+ setting but everything I have read from Mark V users, experienced with the original IIC+, pretty much say it's not there. Mesa reissued the Mark I so wouldn't it make sense for Mesa to reissue the IIC+? Or perhaps its the reproduction costs since its more of a hand wired production. I'm not trying to fan a fire here, I'm just wondering why? I'm not in the amp manufactoring biz, just in the amp buying biz...
endless droll for a cry for a MK II C+ reissue.
- Thread starter revgsmall
- Start date
Help Support The Boogie Board:
SonicProvocateur
Well-known member
Because a 3 channel, multi-mode amp offers more to players for their money than a 2 channel amp would if it was clean cut unit for unit or built to order as the IIC's were. Mesa is stream lined now and while offering "custom" amps, not really offering the same kind of custom features you would find on the II's and III's. A IIC+ reissue would be labeled as a boutique amp in the market, keep it's high price more than likely and be a harder sell because of it's lack of features versus the Mark V. It would also bring prices of the older IIC+s and Mark V's down because of the buyers market. It would just be a poor marketing move on Mesa's end no matter how much "mojo" or "magic" they reissued in it, and they would need to recontract with Schumacher for the transformers for a true reissue, which would be costly on their end.
#1: The Mark I reissue is no more. It's not because it was so popular.
#2: At least half the people who bought a IIC+ reissue would endlessly troll about how it doesn't sound anything like the "real thing".
#3: The other half would endlessly kvetch about how it sounds "better than the real thing".
#4: IIC+ owners would happily support the folks in #2 above.
#5: The rest of us would die of boredom from having to watch all the phallus waving. :lol:
#2: At least half the people who bought a IIC+ reissue would endlessly troll about how it doesn't sound anything like the "real thing".
#3: The other half would endlessly kvetch about how it sounds "better than the real thing".
#4: IIC+ owners would happily support the folks in #2 above.
#5: The rest of us would die of boredom from having to watch all the phallus waving. :lol:
SonicProvocateur
Well-known member
MrMarkIII said:
JOEY B.
Well-known member
MrMarkIII said:
Sadly, I don't ever see a "true" reissue of the C+ happening, especially with all the options or lack thereof. The lack of comsumer based options would ruin the magic of any reissue, for me. They have reissued parts of the amp in the Triaxis and Mark V, but never the real deal. Did anyone see the used C+ market tank after the Mark V release? :wink:
I don't think they could please everyone with a reissue, it's just human nature.
FWIW, john petrucci, an avid IIc+ user, said he used the IIC+ mode on the Mark V instead of the real II C+ that he owns (and has used on most of dream theaters albums) because he thought it sounds better, if not the same.
now thats an endorsement for sound quality.
i dont have an original IIc+, but i like the MV mode, and i wouldnt pay 2000+ for just that one mode which maaaaay, sound better than the 3 channel amp that sounds good as is.
also the other issue is what IIc+ do you reissue?
reverb, simul-class, collessiuem, eq , no eq, or one of the countless other little mods that were done back in their early days.
now thats an endorsement for sound quality.
i dont have an original IIc+, but i like the MV mode, and i wouldnt pay 2000+ for just that one mode which maaaaay, sound better than the 3 channel amp that sounds good as is.
also the other issue is what IIc+ do you reissue?
reverb, simul-class, collessiuem, eq , no eq, or one of the countless other little mods that were done back in their early days.
gts
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 931
- Reaction score
- 16
- LOCATION
- Looking over the shoulder of the guy who lost his apples
Too many of the original parts are no longer available.
Pretty sure Schumacher is out of business. No Tranny's from Schumacher no "real" reissue is possible.
Besides there's plenty of phallus waving around here from all corners of the Mark series collective.
And More than enough to talk (or argue :wink: ) about on this board without there being one more Mark amp added into the mix.
Pretty sure Schumacher is out of business. No Tranny's from Schumacher no "real" reissue is possible.
Besides there's plenty of phallus waving around here from all corners of the Mark series collective.
And More than enough to talk (or argue :wink: ) about on this board without there being one more Mark amp added into the mix.
JOEY B.
Well-known member
dmcguitar said:
The Mark V has a "sample" of the C+ in channel 3, that is all. I don't get paid for hyping up any amp, but some people do. :wink:
zodiac272
Well-known member
adonixx said:
he probably gets most of his mesa gear for free, or super cheap. a vid with his tech, and the tech was trying to say the V sounds better than the C+, and he really seemed to be lying about it
scott
chipaudette
Well-known member
Petrucci would sound awesome through anything he played. He could say any piece of gear sounds fantastic because, in his hands, it does. <Well, assuming that you like how Pretrucci sounds at all, then this is true>.
Remember the recto / road king years? He sounded awesome. Mark IV years? Awesome. Remember the triaxis years (Liquid Tension Experiment, first album)? Awesome. Mark IIC+ years? Yup, awesome. I haven't heard any of his super-early material when he played a Mark III, but I bet he sounded awesome on that, too.
So, I take it as a compliment to Mesa that he has always chosen to play their gear. But, I don't try to read to much into it. I don't try to interpret his use of a *particular* piece of Mesa gear as him saying that it is better than piece of Mesa gear. He sounds good on anything, so he's got the freedom to play whatever is easiest to get, maintain, and integrate with the rest of his gear. That usually means the latest model of gear. Hence, switch from DR to RK when the Road King came out. Hence the switch from the Mark IV to the Mark V when he Mark V came out.
As usual, it's just my interpretation.
Chip
Remember the recto / road king years? He sounded awesome. Mark IV years? Awesome. Remember the triaxis years (Liquid Tension Experiment, first album)? Awesome. Mark IIC+ years? Yup, awesome. I haven't heard any of his super-early material when he played a Mark III, but I bet he sounded awesome on that, too.
So, I take it as a compliment to Mesa that he has always chosen to play their gear. But, I don't try to read to much into it. I don't try to interpret his use of a *particular* piece of Mesa gear as him saying that it is better than piece of Mesa gear. He sounds good on anything, so he's got the freedom to play whatever is easiest to get, maintain, and integrate with the rest of his gear. That usually means the latest model of gear. Hence, switch from DR to RK when the Road King came out. Hence the switch from the Mark IV to the Mark V when he Mark V came out.
As usual, it's just my interpretation.
Chip
Mr. Petrucci is a fine guitarist no doubt, but I didn't start my long history with the IIC+ because he nor anyone else used one. Heck I didn't know he used one until this post and I can't personally name anyone who be of fame that does/did. I just dig the sound.igfraso said:
Having said that, I have a Dumble clone amp that is a great alternative should my Boogie ever implode into a green powder one night on the stage.
I doubt I could afford the cash and carry on a new one at this time in my current tax bracket, but I do have (likely unrealistic) anxiety about being without one.dodger916
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 2,403
- Reaction score
- 2
A BIG +1!gts said:
SonicProvocateur
Well-known member
Schumacher is still in business, though they are no longer Woodward-Schumacher I think (EIA code 606 as part numbers have been). I've seen some big lists of new parts with the 606 codes, but I can't recall if the new ones have them. But as far as I know they still make custom linear power transformers and are in business as Schumacher Electric. Mesa just switched brands during Mark IV production...
JOEY B.
Well-known member
SonicProvocateur said:
http://www.batterychargers.com/Content.aspx?PageName=CustomTransformers
The capability of a C+ reissue is there, the wanting to do it (by MESA) is not.
zodiac272
Well-known member
JOEY B. said:
+1
I feel like the only person at mesa that still likes to talk C+ is mike b. .... like the rest of them are over it... so i seriously doubt they want to open that can of worms with a C+ RI.
scott
Well certainly, they don't owe it to us. Mesa probably made a huge profit with the Rectifier series and so forth. I do have (as I said a couple of posts ago) a great Dumble clone amp and while it's not a perfect replacement it certainly has alot of the same vibe. I should probably consider my post dead in the proverbial water,,,,,zodiac272 said:
how complicated is a C+? I mean if the Transformers and original parts can be made again, is there anyone who could make the C+ clone? much like George Metropolous does plexi replicas?
Is anyone dedicated to the amp enough to venture into it?
What would everyone want in the reissue though? That is what features
Is anyone dedicated to the amp enough to venture into it?
What would everyone want in the reissue though? That is what features
chipaudette
Well-known member
It's not that easy to clone something. For example, you can't just go buy a simulclass transformer (except from Mesa). It's got a somewhat unique way of being wound. So, while there are lots of output transformers that are built for tube amps (Hammond et al), there isn't one off-the-shelf that mimics the ones used for a simulclass amp. You could ask for a custom run of transformers wound to the simulclass specs, but I think that it usually only makes sense for a minimum buy of something like 500. That's out of reach for a hobby-level C+ clone project.
There are C+ clones out there. You can check out the folks at SLO Clone...that's where I've seen people doing C+ clones. They almost always just do the pre-amp, though. And, while you might think that the pre-amp might capture the essence of the C+, you'd find that you'd be wrong. The sound of any quality amp (not just the C+) finds itself being affected by all parts of the amp...pre-amp, power-amp, cab, and speaker...in startling ways.
I myself am a C+ owner (well, a IIC to IIC+ factory upgrade actually) and I'm also an amp modder/tweaker. I myself built a IIC+ pre-amp based on the schematics on the web (later confirmed with my own IIC+). I then grafted it into a Fender Deluxe Reverb Reissue...which is a nice little tube amp. It sounded horrible. Totally wrong. Sure, the circuit was correct compared to the schematic...but the schematic doesn't make the sound, the whole amp does. Just connecting the right value resistors and capacitors in the right order does not give you the right sound. That's what this exercise taught me. It taught me that you've got to get the physical layout of the circuit board to be the same, the length of wiring from the pots to the PCB to the tubes all has to be similar (my amp probably had 2-3x the length of internal wiring), the DC voltages need to be similar (the Fender power xformer output is about 100-150V lower), and then the voicing of the power amp, presence (which is a power amp function, not a pre-amp function), cabinet, and speaker all need to be similar. It's stunning what contributes to the sound *and feel* of a good amp. My FrankenFender was not it.
So, if someone wants to try to clone....that would be awesome. I don't think that they'll ever get close...not because of some magical Mark IIC+ pixie dust...but because it's hard to copy the sound of *any* amp convincingly. There are just too many variables. Frankly, unless Mesa literally copied there own circuit board patterns (which are a tangled mess in my IIC+), and magically got the right caps and right transformers made, and got their old wiring lady out of retirement (if she'd still put up with that nasty tight wiring job inside the IIC+), and got EVM to make the 12-L speaker to *really* sound like the original one....well, i don't even think that Mesa could make a clone of their own IIC+.
To each, there is its time. Then its time passes. So, let's all go buy an Electodyne or a Royal Atlantic...maybe one of those will be the next classic that everyone will be longing for in 25 years.
Chip
There are C+ clones out there. You can check out the folks at SLO Clone...that's where I've seen people doing C+ clones. They almost always just do the pre-amp, though. And, while you might think that the pre-amp might capture the essence of the C+, you'd find that you'd be wrong. The sound of any quality amp (not just the C+) finds itself being affected by all parts of the amp...pre-amp, power-amp, cab, and speaker...in startling ways.
I myself am a C+ owner (well, a IIC to IIC+ factory upgrade actually) and I'm also an amp modder/tweaker. I myself built a IIC+ pre-amp based on the schematics on the web (later confirmed with my own IIC+). I then grafted it into a Fender Deluxe Reverb Reissue...which is a nice little tube amp. It sounded horrible. Totally wrong. Sure, the circuit was correct compared to the schematic...but the schematic doesn't make the sound, the whole amp does. Just connecting the right value resistors and capacitors in the right order does not give you the right sound. That's what this exercise taught me. It taught me that you've got to get the physical layout of the circuit board to be the same, the length of wiring from the pots to the PCB to the tubes all has to be similar (my amp probably had 2-3x the length of internal wiring), the DC voltages need to be similar (the Fender power xformer output is about 100-150V lower), and then the voicing of the power amp, presence (which is a power amp function, not a pre-amp function), cabinet, and speaker all need to be similar. It's stunning what contributes to the sound *and feel* of a good amp. My FrankenFender was not it.
So, if someone wants to try to clone....that would be awesome. I don't think that they'll ever get close...not because of some magical Mark IIC+ pixie dust...but because it's hard to copy the sound of *any* amp convincingly. There are just too many variables. Frankly, unless Mesa literally copied there own circuit board patterns (which are a tangled mess in my IIC+), and magically got the right caps and right transformers made, and got their old wiring lady out of retirement (if she'd still put up with that nasty tight wiring job inside the IIC+), and got EVM to make the 12-L speaker to *really* sound like the original one....well, i don't even think that Mesa could make a clone of their own IIC+.
To each, there is its time. Then its time passes. So, let's all go buy an Electodyne or a Royal Atlantic...maybe one of those will be the next classic that everyone will be longing for in 25 years.
Chip
Similar threads
