How Important Is the EQ on a IIC+?

[CudBucket]

Some guys claim it's not a IIC+ without it. Others claim the EQ-less versions sound better. What do you think? IMO, it shouldn't be necessary in terms of getting more gain. My preamp doesn't have a graphic EQ and I get plenty of gain. So as a tone shaper, couldn't you just throw an EQ stomp in it's loop?

Dave

 

[bartchamdoh]

It,s all about whether you need the extra flexibility that the graphic eq offers. I have three mark 3,s one with and two without and for the style that i try to play heavy rock and fusiony stuff they can all cover enough tertitory for me.There,s no doubt that the eq version is more versatile but i wouldn,t say it sounds better unless you need scooped metal type settings. An eq is a very versatile piece of equipment and can be used as a boost or cut(for volume and tone) and separate tone shaper......i like the basic tonality of the mark 3 and only use the eq to fine tune the channels for a good three channel set up(i use the non eq mark 3,s as two channel amps) so i don,t know how important this is for a 2c+ but since the 2c+ was the final revision of the mark 2 would reckon it would be possible to get good settings for foot switching without the eq....hope that helps.

 

[ryjan]

Although not neccesary, an eq in the loop works just as good as the GEQ.

 

[Scary]

The Mark V manual says the one's without EQ's sound the best if memory serves.

 

[Elpelotero]

Mesa put the EQ on there for a reason....

 

[CudBucket]

Mesa put the EQ on there for a reason....

So did they also make them without the EQ for a reason?

 

[CudBucket]

Although not neccesary, an eq in the loop works just as good as the GEQ.

I wonder if the EQ in the loop is in the same place in the circuit as the front panel EQ. Anyone know?

 

[Facelift]

I thought i read on here somewhere that the graphic eq is placed before the effects loop so in turn it wouldnt be the same exactly if you were to use one in the loop. It sure cant hurt to use one though.

If I remember correctly, theres a site i looked at which showed what gain stage the eq is placed in and Mesa was way different then the others in the same category with 4 preamp tubes. Correct me if im wrong but I think the eq is right after V1. That could be the knob eqs though and not the graphic. Someone will chime in and give you the right info im sure.

 

[dodger916]

Mesa put the EQ on there for a reason....

So did they also make them without the EQ for a reason?

It was extra money, so there's one reason. :wink:

Frankly, I love having the eq. With Mark IIs, it's hard to run the Mids or Bass above 3 or 4 without loosing definition, or creating "conflict" with the highs. Even Mesa says you'll need to reduce Treble in order to increase mids and bass. I find the eq allows me to pump the mids and bass with less flub. (ever notice how many settings recommendations keep mids and bass below 4...some at 0?) It adds a whole other dimension in tone shaping across the whole spectrum. It also boosts highs without affecting gain, contrary to the tone stack Treble which directly impacts gain. And for cutting through the mix by boosting mids, the eq is hands-down superior to the tone stack mids IMHO. YMMV.

I think Mesa originally included eq on the Marks to make-up for the shortcomings in their tonestack shaping, perhaps resulting from the cascading gain?? Others here may have a more informed opinion on this.

Some say the eq sucks tone. However, there is a wide variation of tone "quality" even between amplifiers of identical configuration. So, the only way to test this for sure is to install an eq on an amp and see how much tone gets sucked post-installation.

 

[Boogiebabies]

It's a parallel effect. It takes the signal from the V2, amplifies it enough to pass the signal at unity.
Then you can cut or boost with inductors where it drops the signal into one side
of the phase inverter. I don't think you can get more transparent or quiet.
Much less "tone sucking" than through the loop with a bunch of IC's and capacitors and
surely from the Hi-Fi world.

IMO, it's Smith's take on a Pultec EQ so how could it be a bad thing ?
It's still a great amp without one, but more like a Fender on Stewroids...

 

[CudBucket]

Thanks guys. I appreciate the info.

Dave

 

[JimAnsell]

personally i think the from the c and on is where the graphic is very important.
I's, IIa, IIb's i can live without the graphic.
but after that, no way. graphic is a must for me.

 

[mr_fender]

Necessary? I think it depends on wether or not you like the core tone of the amp with out the EQ. Purely subjective I'm afraid. One thing is for certain though, the graphic EQ does make these amps more tonaly versatile. Even if you don't use it to shape the tone, you can use it as a second volume setting like the Solo control on the modern Mesas. On my MKIV, I'll have the typical V EQ setting on for heavy rhythm parts, and then kick the EQ off for solo parts. It's like getting a mid boost for solos and helps to cut through a bit more.

 

[boogieslayer]

i have a III with the c+ mod and the geq makes a world of difference to me...
i love it

 

[DRG14]

If I may add my two cents:

Since 1991 I have been on the mindset that the onboard EQ was absolutely essential to MY sound. When I stopped gigging regularly three years ago, I began to openly experiment with different settings, which included bypassing the EQ. You know how they say you should always taste your food first before you annihilate it with salt or any other flavorings to "enhance" the taste?

WOW!!! It was like discovering the amp all over again!

I know it sounds corny, but if one takes the time to try different things no matter how set in your ways you can be with your tone, sometimes going in a completely different direction can give you pleasant results you wouldn't have otherwise discovered!

Wow, that was kinda corny, eh? :lol:

 

[GIG4FUN]

Only the ones with the GEQ matter to me.

This is only my view, I'm only answering the OP.

 

[tony777]

Others claim the EQ-less versions sound better.

This is typical for the ones who is selling their non-eq amp to gain a higher price.

 

[Mesa/Kramer]

The Graphic EQ is Crucail to this amp if you plan on using it for any type of Hard Rock/Metal.

The amp is horribly thin with out it.

An EQ in the loop of a Non GEQ amp will also work just fine.

 

[Paul Secondino]

I've owned and played lots of this stuff. And here is the one and only reason I find the graphic Eq effective .....because the midrange control pot does almost nothing on the Mark amps. MArk 2 and 3 heads are midrangey and all I ever do with the graphic is cut a little mids on the 750hz slider.

For recording purposes , I have more than enough expensive EQ plug ins to do the job for me but for live playing, I can see the graphic EQ as being needed to control the abundance of midrange.

If you do get one without an EQ (not a problem in my opinion ) and choose to put something in a loop , consider using a quality parametric like a Rane PE-17 or a TC Electronics . Boss EQ pedals are toys with the sculpting power of a butter knife.

 

[Elpelotero]

I've owned and played lots of this stuff. And here is the one and only reason I find the graphic Eq effective .....because the midrange control pot does almost nothing on the Mark amps. MArk 2 and 3 heads are midrangey and all I ever do with the graphic is cut a little mids on the 750hz slider.

For recording purposes , I have more than enough expensive EQ plug ins to do the job for me but for live playing, I can see the graphic EQ as being needed to control the abundance of midrange.

If you do get one without an EQ (not a problem in my opinion ) and choose to put something in a loop , consider using a quality parametric like a Rane PE-17 or a TC Electronics . Boss EQ pedals are toys with the sculpting power of a butter knife.

Excellent observation! You nailed it!