Mark IIC+ vs IV gain....

[sbalderrama]

I recently was able to borrow a friends IIC+. In the past I owned a Mark IV(a) that I sold quite a while ago. The IIC+ seems like it has quite a bit more gain on tap than I remember from the IV, does this seem right or am I just mis-remembering my IV?

The IIC+ can get downright brutal, especially with the EQ engaged. Definately gets that heavy boogie Mark tone. I'm not convinced its the "end all be all" of the Mark series, but I don't have a III or IV around to compare it with. For anything less than bruising distortion, I actually prefer my Lonestar. The lonestar with a boost has lead tone to die for. I also have an early Mark 1 ( #355), and the IIC+ is a very different amp from that one. The Mark 1 really is like a hopped up fender, including the tendency towards flabby bass. The IIC+ has tons of tight bass that sounds great going through my Theile EVM.

 

[Elpelotero]

never played a lonestar, but i know the C+ clean sound very well. It's somewhat like apples and oranges in that the lonestar is geared directly towards cleans and overdrive, whereas the C+ was made for it's succulent distortion, but it just so happens to have an amazingly warm and round clean tone as well.

 

[sbalderrama]

yeah, I like the cleans on both the Mark 1 and IIc+ as well. With the two channels on the LSC plus a boost pedal I can cover alot of ground very well, wheras the Marks seem to have a bit more trouble with the elusive "middle ground" sounds a bit more than the LS does.