Mark IIc+ with most “sparkle”? (SR? HRG? …)

[erickompositör72]

I had an opportunity to try a IIc+ SRX today (with an x101!). My current amp is a DRX.

What struck me was the top end “sparkle” that I seemed to get out of the SRX when playing leads. I’ll never sell my DRX, but I’m intrigued about what flavor of IIc+ has the most top-end “sparkle” for lead playing (I’m pretty sure the simul-classes are the opposite of that…)

I also may try an HRGX. Curious how it will compare.

Would the non-EQ versions generally have more sparkle than the EQ versions? I was leaning towards trying to get an EQ version (SG[X], SRG[X], HG[X], HRG[X]), the hundred watt being especially appealing because 90’s era Petrucci was a big inspiration to me, and I believe that was what he used…

But knowing how people speak of the non-EQ’s, maybe that will get me closer to what I want?

Thanks!

 

[mace]

At this point I mist pose a practical question…what do all those acronyms mean? I’ve been a little shy to ask. Also, the IIc+ OG.. what is OG?

 

[erickompositör72]

At this point I mist pose a practical question…what do all those acronyms mean? I’ve been a little shy to ask. Also, the IIc+ OG.. what is OG?

H= 100/60watt
S= 60watt
D= simul-class (75/15watt)
R= reverb
G= graphic EQ
X= export transformer

OG= (colloquial) original gangster

OG refers to a vintage Mark IIc+, distinguishing it from the reissue

 

[tbonesullivan]

I had an opportunity to try a IIc+ SRX today (with an x101!). My current amp is a DRX.

What struck me was the top end “sparkle” that I seemed to get out of the SRX when playing leads. I’ll never sell my DRX, but I’m intrigued about what flavor of IIc+ has the most top-end “sparkle” for lead playing (I’m pretty sure the simul-classes are the opposite of that…)

I also may try an HRGX. Curious how it will compare.

Would the non-EQ versions generally have more sparkle than the EQ versions? I was leaning towards trying to get an EQ version (SG[X], SRG[X], HG[X], HRG[X]), the hundred watt being especially appealing because 90’s era Petrucci was a big inspiration to me, and I believe that was what he used…

But knowing how people speak of the non-EQ’s, maybe that will get me closer to what I want?

Thanks!

From watching way too many videos and reading way to many articles, the sixty watt version is supposed to have the most immediate response when compared to the D H and K models. It's also possible that due to component drift and other things over the years have caused variations. I would think however that without the "part class A" part of the simul-class amps, you get some more crispness in the power section, and having the smaller and "faster" power section accentuates that.

 

[erickompositör72]

From watching way too many videos and reading way to many articles, the sixty watt version is supposed to have the most immediate response when compared to the D H and K models. It's also possible that due to component drift and other things over the years have caused variations. I would think however that without the "part class A" part of the simul-class amps, you get some more crispness in the power section, and having the smaller and "faster" power section accentuates that.

Makes sense. I'm wondering if the smaller coupling cap on the non-EQ's further accentuates this, or if the GEQ versions of the sixty watt versions are also noticeably more sparkly.

Similarly, I had a Fuchs ODS 100 and an ODS 50; I kept the 50 for the same reason- tighter, more crisp response.

 

[Doug Doppler]

H= 100/60watt
S= 60watt
D= simul-class (75/15watt)
R= reverb
G= graphic EQ
X= export transformer

OG= (colloquial) original gangster

OG refers to a vintage Mark IIc+, distinguishing it from the reissue

Hey @erickompositör72 THANKS for posting that. Do you know why Simul-Class has a the designation of D? Thanks ~ Doug

 

[erickompositör72]

Hey @erickompositör72 THANKS for posting that. Do you know why Simul-Class has a the designation of D? Thanks ~ Doug

I believe it is/was also referred to as "dual-class"

 

[Doug Doppler]

I believe it is/was also referred to as "dual-class"

AHA! Thanks @erickompositör72

 

[meesa_jarjar]

based on what I've read, serial # might also be a factor, as the earlier IIC+'s had some additional HF-rolloff caps that were not there towards the later production #'s, I think that was common across all of the various configurations

 

[Doug Morisoli]

I believe it is/was also referred to as "dual-class"

Yes. In one of the videos for the reissue they noted “D” was used for Simulclass because S had already been used for 60w. So D was the next best as Dual.

 

[erickompositör72]

based on what I've read, serial # might also be a factor, as the earlier IIC+'s had some additional HF-rolloff caps that were not there towards the later production #'s, I think that was common across all of the various configurations

I'm not sure if this is the same thing you're referring to, but I know some of the later simul-class IIc+'s were described by Mike B. as "heinously bright." I had one of those, and he changed one of the caps. Called it the "brightness reduction mod."