Mark II C+ question

[Fwank]

Hello fellow Boogie fans. I have a question that hopefully a Boogie expert can help me out with.
I have been looking to get a Mark II head with graphic EQ that I can send to Boogie to have modded/updated into a C+. I am looking to go this route because it will be MUCH cheaper to do it this way. Now I know its not a "true" C+, but its as close as I can afford to get, not to mention it is my understanding that the modded MKII into a C+ sounds very close. Anyway, besides the fact that I know I need to get a head with the EQ, what Mark II should I be looking to buy that is the best one to get to send to Boogie? (What version, features, ect)
There is one currently on Ebay that I am watching, but I am not sure if it is the right one to buy. It is a Mark IIB with GEQ, and its 60w. Would something like that be good to consider, or should I be looking at another type?

Thanks in advance for the help.

 

[trem]

Only a IIC can be converted to IIC+ nowadays. Mesa doesn't convert IIB into IIC+ any longer. Might I suggest a Mark III instead? Much less money (around 800ish), great sound, in the same vein as a IIC+ (though some would argue it isn't quite).

 

[Ednolb]

Since almost everybody converts their IIC to a IIC+, the IIC's are almost harder to find than the IIC+'s.
I don't think it would be cheaper to buy a IIC and then convert it to a IIC+ (buying a IIC (+ shipping), converting a IIC+ at MB (+ shipping)).

 

[Racerboy44]

Get a IIB and have Mike B. do the effects loop mod. It will sound awesome and have a sound real close to a IIC+. That would be the cheapest way to get close to the C+ sound.

 

[trem]

Sorry gts, when it comes to "what sounds like what", everything's an opinion (how close is close?). Here's one opinion that I based my statement on:

I've been ranting on how the Green Stripe is IMO the closest to the IIC+.
Not quite exact, but worth leaving the treasures at home. I'm going to try the triode wiring to see if it sweetens up a bit, more like the C+.

Enjoy that beast.

I didn't say that they're the same. I do concede that since you have several IIC+s and I don't have any, your opinion matters more than mine. Perhaps I should have written "some argues that the Mark III sound close to the IIC+" instead.

 

[dodger916]

Fwank: You want a C+ get a C+ be it a C modded to C+ spec or an original!

According to the IIC+ beastmaster himself (Mike B), there is no difference between an upgraded C+ and a production C+. (There is a unmistakable hint of the incredulity and sacrasm when he answers the question, referring to the premium for the production C+!) Production C+s have collector value, which is why they cost the extra $1k to $2k. I have no complaints with my upgraded Simul C+.

You should first consider your playing style. My writing/playing style (rock/rock'n'roll/R&B) doesn't call for the metal "uber-gain" of the C+, but I had to get one out of curiousity! I do enjoy the aggresiveness, attack and overall vibe of the Simul C+ at low to moderate gain levels, and it's fun to occasionally venture into molten metal, but I'm continually blown away by the rhythm capabilities of the 60 watt (non-Simul) IIC....gritty yet smooth....Keith Richards heaven! I bought the IIC thinking I would upgrade it. Now having both, I will not sacrifice the voice of the IIC in an upgrade. That's more a reflection of my style and taste than the inherent qualities of the amps, and it also speaks to the differences between Simul (smooth and broad) versus non-Simul (Fender on steroids).

As my style has "evolved" over the years, I now find myself striving to exploit the inherent voice of the guitar rather than looking for the ultimate liquid solo sound. I find the IIC does a better job of capturing that voice than the C+, and both are better at that than the Mark IV. Again, first consider your needs and goals.

 

[JAZZGEAR]

I'll say this again too. A Mark III does not come close to a C+'s tone, ever period! :evil: This is not an arguement (trem) it is fact! I have both so it's knowledge based on direct experience.
They simply are very different animals! MkIII's have their own unique abilities and excel in their own way.

All these comparisons are like saying if you're a long distance runner or a sprinter you are in the same vein/ are close to each other in skills becasue you are both runners. Niether are remotely the same. The sprinter will CRUSH the lond distance runner every time in the 100 meter race. The Long Distance runner will have leave the sprinter GASPING and have a 2 minutes lead on the the sprinter at the end of a 10K race.

Not the best annaolgy but you get the point. Just becasue they are both runners doesn't make them in the same vein/ close enough. A C+ is a C+ a MkIII is a MkIII. And for the matter a MkIV is MkIV a IIB is IIB etc etc....
The Mark series have a similarity like brothers and sisters of the same family but each model are quite unique. Just look at the peoples experience about what stripe is "best" in the MkIII series!

Fwank: You want a C+ get a C+ be it a C modded to C+ spec or an original!

Not sure about the analogy .....since in the case of both runners, you can more easily distinguish a person who is a sprinter from a long distance runner (body build, etc). However it is possible that with the right conditioning a Sprinter could be a Long Distance Runner and
vice-versa......both have the require tools to become one another.

Therefore, the Mark III and IIC+ could be indistinguishable in a band mix....when both amps are (and can) be dialed in to sound very very close to each other....At one time I had a Mark IIC+, Mark III, and Mark IV, at the same time (in the studio with friends).....and was very hard to tell them apart when properly dialed in. Not just my ears, but friends and family that blindly listened.

 

[Fwank]

Wow, this thread is really taking off and I am enjoying reading it, not to mention learning some new things at the same time. Please guys, continue!

 

[Nomad]

Well now you have to understand the C+ have the extra special Monkey Juice whilst the III's got none. :lol:

I think in reality it's not quite that radical.

Follow me on this.

How come all the C+'s sound amazing but there are actually a number of different versions? There are 60 watters, 60/100 watters, Simul Classers, no EQ's, EQ's, no Rev's, Rev's, 1x12 combo's, 1x15 combo's, Heads with 4x12 Cabs, 2x12 Cabs, 1x12 Cabs yet they all sound the same? Lets also not forget what the Cab is made of as to how that affects the tone. A Hardwood Amp is gonna sound different than a Tolexed amp.

The mere notion that they all sound different dispells the notion they all sound incredible.

They are great amps no doubt but dont get caught up in Magic Monkey Juice.

I had a IIC+ that I bought new many moons ago. I never saw any Magic Monkey Juice in it any where. They are the best of the II's and they didnt make many of em so demand is high thats all.

Normally when you see someone compare C+'s to a III when refering to the C+ you usually hear words used like Touch Sensitive, Openess, Harmonics, Blooming Sustain etc........... Rarely do you hear someone talk about Plate Voltage, Cap, and Resistor Values. Why? Cause there aint a dimes worth of difference between them.

 

[adrenaline junkie]

"The mere notion that they all sound different dispells the notion they all sound incredible."

I fail to see in any coherent way how that dispels anything at all. In fact it sounds plain stupid.

There are quite a few forms of the MKIIC+ but at the heart of them lies the exact same amp. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the MKIII.

 

[Nomad]

"The mere notion that they all sound different dispells the notion they all sound incredible."

I fail to see in any coherent way how that dispels anything at all. In fact it sounds plain stupid.

There are quite a few forms of the MKIIC+ but at the heart of them lies the exact same amp. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the MKIII.

Saying a Simulclass C+ is the same amp as a 60 watter C+ then saying they are totally different from a Mark III is an Oxymoron.

 

[adrenaline junkie]

"The mere notion that they all sound different dispells the notion they all sound incredible."

I fail to see in any coherent way how that dispels anything at all. In fact it sounds plain stupid.

There are quite a few forms of the MKIIC+ but at the heart of them lies the exact same amp. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the MKIII.

Saying a Simulclass C+ is the same amp as a 60 watter C+ then saying they are totally different from a Simuclass or 60 watter III (respectively)is an Oxymoron.

They don't have the same preamp. While the C+ did use different transformers in several different models, they were all very similar in size and power. The MkIII used much different transformers than any of the MkIIC+ did and most of them are wired differently. They're different amps in both the preamp and power amp.

 

[Nomad]

For the record I love Mark IIC+'s. They are no doubt great great amps.

I love all you guys as well so don't take what I say as an attack please.

To restate what I was saying in a slightly different manner.

To me there are greater differences between a Mark IIC+ Simulclass and 60 watter C+ than between a Simul C+ and a Mark III.

Yes the preamps are slightly different but remove R2 from a Mark III and what do you have? In the Simul versions of each the OT is the same which to me is the very heart of these amps.

Anyway I love both so you guys have a great day.

 

[Fwank]

Well, I have played a MKIII and thought it sounded great. If I had to "settle" for a MKIII, I would be totally happy with it because it is a great sounding amp. Having said that, I have only heard but never played thru a C+, but I really do want one based on just what I hear. And for the record, my taste in music/playing style is in the vein of Dream Theater/progressive metal. So my taste ranges from chimey cleans thru the higher gain stuff. Also, I currently own a MKIV B that I am absolutely in love with and there is NO WAY I would get rid of it. I want to add the C+ to my rig. I also own (2) Triaxis with the Recto board and no Phat mod (serials 12xx and 14xx). There is no way I would get rid of those either. I know many of you will say that adding a C+ to my rig at this point may not be worth it because of the overlap of tones, but I am OK with that. I think I will keep my eye out for a MKII C and have it modded to a C+ because it looks like an original C+ is just too far out of my price range. Sad thing is that there are two original C+'s on Ebay right now.
I really appreciate all of the input I have received from all of you regarding my original question. It has been fun to read and also very informative. Please, anybody feel free to add to the subject as I am very willing to keep reading what you guys have to say.

 

[carlosasi]

To me there are greater differences between a Mark IIC+ Simulclass and 60 watter C+ than between a Simul C+ and a Mark III.

Yes the preamps are slightly different but remove R2 from a Mark III and what do you have? In the Simul versions of each the OT is the same which to me is the very heart of these amps.

Very interesting, can you explain further?

 

[adrenaline junkie]

For the record I love Mark IIC+'s. They are no doubt great great amps.



To me there are greater differences between a Mark IIC+ Simulclass and 60 watter C+ than between a Simul C+ and a Mark III.

That may be what you hear, but I've got a non simul MkIIC+ and a Simul MkII+C here now, and I sold off the MkIII after I the first one. I'll just agree to disagree whole heartedly.

I like MKIII's a lot, in fact I like them better than any of the Mk IV's I've had (I like them too) and I will agree that there is a common ground in the sonic territory they all cover, but my ears and fingers disagree that there "isn't a dimes worth of difference between them"

I guess some of the guys that have had their MkIII's modded to MkIIIC+ specs need to file a suit against Mike B and Mesa to get their 449.90 back.

 

[Nomad]

Like I said before I have owned both. I have owned a bunch of otehr Boogies through the years as well.


I have also struggled to get the goods with both. So take that for what you will.

After discovering the Secret Recipe with the Mark III I am tickled shitless. Played an Outside Gig this past weekend, I have it on digital video. The Mark III smoked everyones Tone out of 20 Bands with at least two guitar players in almost every Band.

One of the cool things about my C+ (back in the day) was it went down on me and Mike sent me the parts and talked me through the surgery over the phone. I had the dang thing running in about 15 minutes after opening it up. It was out of warranty at the time and they shipped me the parts free.


I do believe the Grail Tone can be coaxed out of the III though it does take some work to get there, it's there. I went through so much blood, sweat, and tears getting there I feel like I gave birth. Now for me it's simple coping that tone every time. I have my settings comitted to memory.

Good luck to all with your Tonal Questations! 8)

 

[dodger916]

One of the cool things about my C+ (back in the day) was it went down on me and Mike

Is that on the "recommended settings" sheet?? Now everyone knows what the "+" really stands for! :lol:

 

[Nomad]

To me there are greater differences between a Mark IIC+ Simulclass and 60 watter C+ than between a Simul C+ and a Mark III.

Yes the preamps are slightly different but remove R2 from a Mark III and what do you have? In the Simul versions of each the OT is the same which to me is the very heart of these amps.

Very interesting, can you explain further?

Which part? I'll do my best.

The Output Tranny in any Tube Amp is the true Heart of the Amp. Change that and the game is over or definately going in another tonal direction. The Simul OT in a C+ and Simul III would have to be pretty much the same on both to do what it's doing.

Now lets talk about Power Trannys. It is supplying the Voltage's present in the amp that makes everything go. Change that keep the specs close to the same and you wont be able to tell the difference or just a little if any. Now there are drastic things you can do that will make a difference but I'm saying staying in spec to the voltage/heater requirements. I'm sure there is a slight difference between a Simul C+ PT and a Simul III PT.

R2 I'm sure being present in the circuit of a III does affect R1 and Lead Tone. It probably is the equivalent of a Tone Sucker in the Circuit but I've been able to smoke out the good juice from mine so I know it can be done. Though I must say I had similar struggles Tonaly with my C+. Thats why I sold it at the time (somewhere around 93 I think). I could never get the goods. I want to say part of my problem with it was the cab. It was a Hardwood Cab and they definately (to me) have a more Mid Presence than a Tolex Cab or at least that one was and that coupled with the Guitar I was using at the time added up to not good tones. I even have recordings from back then that tell what I'm saying. I will see if I can dig them up.

Now all that being said you can change one cap value in an amp in the right place and make a drastic difference in what you hear. So I'm sure there are a few minor differences in the circuit but these amps are pretty close to the same amp. More so than say a Bassman and a JTM 45 and those are built on the same schematic with a few minor changes.

As far as the IIIC+ mod if I had to guess MB is removing the PCB in the III and replacing it with the IIC+ board thus removing R2 from the equation and whatever other minor differences there are. I doubt they change the trannys and that is the biggest part of either amp.

Here is a great question. If the C+ was so much better than the III why did they continue down that road? They could have done a U turn.

Dont get me wrong I would'nt mind mine having the C+ mod as well for a different reason though. Because I hate having stuff in an amp I dont use. Its a pet pieve of mine for some weird reason.

Anyway I'm starting to ramble now. I had one hell of a day. See ya.

 

[Nomad]

One of the cool things about my C+ (back in the day) was it went down on me and Mike

Is that on the "recommended settings" sheet?? Now everyone knows what the "+" really stands for! :lol:

Dang I made a funny and didnt even know it. :lol: