Mark IIC or III versus Studio Pre/Simul 395?

[Whoopysnorp]

I have a rack rig containing a Studio Preamp and a Simul 395 power amp. The thing is really awesome, and I have a hard time imagining better tone for what I do. However, it's really **** big and heavy. I recently just missed the chance to pick up a Mark IIC from Craigslist. I was thinking that a IIC would give me the same basic tone in a smaller package--at least, if it was Simulclass. The guy with the IIC told me that my rig would have more control, though, which makes sense since the 395 has two tracks per channel like the Strategy 500. Still, I'm wondering if I might be happier with a IIC or III head. Does anybody know how one of these would compare with my rig, and does anybody have any ideas which they'd rather have?

 

[Elpelotero]

as far as weight, if you get a combo, you're looking at 70-80lbs.

Another thing to consider is the C vs. C+. The Studio Pre probably has a C+ setting, which is very different from a regular C. If you get a C, you would likely want to have it modded to a C+ at Mesa, which is about $400

 

[reo73]

I have owned a III and now use a Studio Pre into a 50/50. To me the Studio Pre is the superior amp and the III may be a let down for you. The III is not as smooth, has less bottom end chunck, and more of a top end fizz. Also, the Studio Pre's cleans are much better.

The Studio Pre is based off the lead channel of a C+.

 

[Whoopysnorp]

I have owned a III and now use a Studio Pre into a 50/50. To me the Studio Pre is the superior amp and the III may be a let down for you. The III is not as smooth, has less bottom end chunck, and more of a top end fizz. Also, the Studio Pre's cleans are much better.

The Studio Pre is based off the lead channel of a C+.

Really? I had always heard C (non-plus)...

 

[reo73]

I have owned a III and now use a Studio Pre into a 50/50. To me the Studio Pre is the superior amp and the III may be a let down for you. The III is not as smooth, has less bottom end chunck, and more of a top end fizz. Also, the Studio Pre's cleans are much better.

The Studio Pre is based off the lead channel of a C+.

Really? I had always heard C (non-plus)...

That's what the rumor has been but there are people here who talked to Mike B himself and said the gain structure is that of the C+ even though it was "marketed" as the preamp from the IIC. If you do a search you will find threads on it in the Rack Equip forum. I can tell you it has as much gain as the III.

 

[scottcrud]

I wish I still had my Studio Pre and 2:90, that thing sounded sick, I just can't stand rack set-ups at all though.

 

[Shep]

I have owned a III and now use a Studio Pre into a 50/50. To me the Studio Pre is the superior amp and the III may be a let down for you. The III is not as smooth, has less bottom end chunck, and more of a top end fizz. Also, the Studio Pre's cleans are much better.

The Studio Pre is based off the lead channel of a C+.

my III has more bottom end than a dual recto..and it is Tight and not fizzy.... are we talking about the same amp here?

 

[reo73]

I have owned a III and now use a Studio Pre into a 50/50. To me the Studio Pre is the superior amp and the III may be a let down for you. The III is not as smooth, has less bottom end chunck, and more of a top end fizz. Also, the Studio Pre's cleans are much better.

The Studio Pre is based off the lead channel of a C+.

my III has more bottom end than a dual recto..and it is Tight and not fizzy.... are we talking about the same amp here?

I didn't say it didn't have bottom end compared to a rec and I didn't say it wasn't tight. But compared to the studio pre it has less bottom end chunk and a hi-end fizz.