Mark IIc+/IV/V - Funny thing ;)

[straitouttahell]

I have purchased a Triaxis lately, just for the fun of it and because it was a bargain.

I have connected it to my MkIV (rev. A) FX return and tried to dial in a lead tone which would sound as close as possible to my MkIV Lead.

Quite surprisingly, I found the best match using Triaxis Lead2 Yellow, while Lead2 Green sounded way too thin at any setting compared to the Mark. The Mark sounded better anyway, bigger and more dynamic.

What's funny about this? The Lead2 Yellow is supposed to match the Mk IIc+/V lead tones, while the Lead2 Green is supposed to match the MkIV Lead, according to the Triaxis user manual (it's stated at Page 3). This, in my case at least, is not true: my MkIV sounds everything like (and even better than) Triaxis Lead2 Yellow mode.

I leave the conclusions to anybody else. As of me, I don't think the MkV is coming to my house anytime soon

 

[fretout]

Any plans to pick up a power amp for the Triaxis?

 

[straitouttahell]

Not yet. I'm thinking about building a custom dual A/B/Y box and keep it as a "channel expansion" to the MkIV, using the Triaxis relay switches to drive it and change amp's channels.

If I decided buying a poweramp, though, it'd almost surely be a 295. Always been in love with that behemoth

 

[fretout]

I don't know why, but I have always preferred the Mark IV lead tone over the Mark IIC+ lead tone. The IV's just sounds so much thicker, while the C+ sounds "harsher" and more "urgent" to me. I would use the C+ as a rhythm sound, but I would use the IV for lead work.

Just my opinion (and my attempt to drive someone to sell me their Mark IIC+ in order to change my opinion). :wink:

 

[JOEY B.]

I don't know why, but I have always preferred the Mark IV lead tone over the Mark IIC+ lead tone. The IV's just sounds so much thicker, while the C+ sounds "harsher" and more "urgent" to me. I would use the C+ as a rhythm sound, but I would use the IV for lead work.

Just my opinion (and my attempt to drive someone to sell me their Mark IIC+ in order to change my opinion). :wink:

The difference is in the upper mids and highs. The C+ is more urgent because of the power transformer. The MkIV has a smoother sound due to the more compressed nature of the high frequencies. I have owned both MkIV versions, and this was the case with them compared to a simul C+.
8)

 

[fretout]

I don't know why, but I have always preferred the Mark IV lead tone over the Mark IIC+ lead tone. The IV's just sounds so much thicker, while the C+ sounds "harsher" and more "urgent" to me. I would use the C+ as a rhythm sound, but I would use the IV for lead work.

Just my opinion (and my attempt to drive someone to sell me their Mark IIC+ in order to change my opinion). :wink:

The difference is in the upper mids and highs. The C+ is more urgent because of the power transformer. The MkIV has a smoother sound due to the more compressed nature of the high frequencies. I have owned both MkIV versions, and this was the case with them compared to a simul C+.
8)

Thanks Joey! I'm happy that the adjectives I used to describe the differences between the Mark IV and the Mark IIC+ were on par with another forumite's opinions. IMO, the compressed nature of the Mark IV lead tone lends itself to lead work, while the upper mids on the C+ will cut you like a butcher on meth. Now, would you like to sell me your IIC+? :lol:

 

[ryjan]

I also went from a triaxis to a mark iv. The difference was amazing. The tri sounds like a modeling amp compared to the real thing. No disrespect to the triaxis, thats just how good the mark iv sounds.

 

[JOEY B.]

Thanks Joey! I'm happy that the adjectives I used to describe the differences between the Mark IV and the Mark IIC+ were on par with another forumite's opinions. IMO, the compressed nature of the Mark IV lead tone lends itself to lead work, while the upper mids on the C+ will cut you like a butcher on meth. Now, would you like to sell me your IIC+? :lol:

What I did not say was that the Xotic RC booster pedal with the treble rolled back a bit works wonders to calm down the "butcher" for the solo sounds. Hell NO, it is not for sale.
8)

 

[Shep]

i have a mk IV and a c+.

I think the channels are quite different. Eg The IV is Very Smooth compressed and rich. were the C+ is alot more tight open non-compressed and cutty. Of course you can place a pedal infront of your C+ to make it more compressed, Thats Really What it need's. But i think the idea with it is that it is meant to be Uber tight and Harmonically rich but still very very clean Overdrive.

 

[straitouttahell]

'course I never meant to say that the IV sounds anything like the IIc+, or even that a preamp can match the sound of a whole amp.

What I wanted to tell here is that I've got the feeling that the whole "IIc+ mode" affair is a bit tricky, so, for example, if I bought a MkV or any other amp because it has a "IIc+" mode on it, I'd be in reality upgrading more or less to what I already have. Unless, of course, I bought the real thing

 

[fretout]

Thanks Joey! I'm happy that the adjectives I used to describe the differences between the Mark IV and the Mark IIC+ were on par with another forumite's opinions. IMO, the compressed nature of the Mark IV lead tone lends itself to lead work, while the upper mids on the C+ will cut you like a butcher on meth. Now, would you like to sell me your IIC+? :lol:

What I did not say was that the Xotic RC booster pedal with the treble rolled back a bit works wonders to calm down the "butcher" for the solo sounds. Hell NO, it is not for sale.
8)

I am actually a fan of the treble response of the C+. Even though it could be described as harsh, I like it for fast staccato lines. IMO, it's the best used for riffs where "attack" is key!

Feel free to disagree, this is just my opinion (I am a Thrash guitarist).

And to JOEY B, keep your C+, I didn't want it anyway (but if you decide to sell, let me know)!