Has anybody ever compared a IIC+ directly to a Studio Pre?

[Whoopysnorp]

You hear a lot about how the Studio Pre is supposed to be very similar to either the IIC or the IIC+, and how that and the Quad are the closest you can get to a IIC+ in rack form, etc. Has anybody ever done a side-by-side comparison of a IIC+ to a Studio Pre running through an appropriate poweramp (i.e. a Simulclass power amp if it's a Simulclass IIC+)? I'm curious just how much of the magic is or isn't there in my Studio Pre/Simul 395 rig.

 

[Meson Boogie]

I've never compared them, but regardless of preamp similarities the poweramps aren't that similar. People will probably talk about the c+ transformer stuff and other things which make its poweramp tonally unique from other marks, but also although both poweramps are simulclass, the 395 only uses 6l6 tubes while a c+ simulclass poweramp uses el34s for class A.

I always thought it was odd that MB says the 50/50 will give the closest tone to a c+ with the studio pre or quad, along with using the effects out (according to some threads here). I can imagine this being the case for a 60W non simulclass c+ but I'd have thought a 2:90 or the old 295 simul (which does use el34s in class A) would be a better match for a simul c+.
But that's just speculation on my part.

 

[JT_Marshmallow]

I've been researching the Studio Pre for a while now and there isn't a lot of info on it out there.

But as far as I know, the lead circuit design in the Studio Pre is VERY similar, if not almost identical to that of the C+. The main difference is that the Studio was not built with the same components as the C+. I'm no electronics expert, so correct me if I'm wrong, but even slightly different resistors and capacitors in an amp can cause differences in tone. The Studio was probably built with cheaper components to bring the price down if I had to guess.