Mark V as IIc+ substitute?

[erickompositör72]

I know this topic has been discussed, but consider my situation:

I have my “grail” amp (iic+ DRX), and even a “backup” (HR), but might want something to keep at my office/studio that isn't so irreplaceable.

The sound I go for is a mix between Petrucci’s lead tone and sort of Holdsworth-on-steroids. No scooping, lower output PAF style pickups, cranked gain, not-too-much treble sweet liquid lead tone is what I’m after.

Would a Mark V be a good substitute when I don’t want to travel with my precious’s?

I know a Mark III w/ + mod sounds good, but I found it a little too compressed in samples I’ve heard (I’m going for a super “open” sound, hence my choice of pickups). I had a stock III red stripe and found an annoyingly grating upper-mid frequency that I couldn’t dial out (even on an EQ model)

I also had a IIb loop mod, and the single-note “bloom” was amazing, but I found the lead tone to not have the connected fluidness of the iic+ and onward.

I had a Mark IV a decade ago (my tastes have changed considerably since then) and my memory is that it was more on the compressed side, and didn’t have as rich a bloom/envelop when playing single notes.

Could the Mark V be the one? Can the “Mark IV” mode sound more open than an actual Mark IV? I’ve read the “iic+” mode is modeled after the c+ lead sound without the “pull deep” engaged, which I always have engaged. I do fine it interesting that it was based on a non-EQ iic+, which I actually prefer for liquid, high gain lead.

 

[erickompositör72]

Should clarify: I’m considering a 25 or 35

 

[iceman]

I would say Mark III is least compressed between the III,IV,V. Though I don't find the V compressed, just III is a bit more open. For example the Triaxis is really compressed compared to the III,IV,V. IVb is a bit darker so perhaps that comes off as compressed. It took me longest to get my tones out of the lead channel out of the V, it has a different approach with no push/pull, separate lead drive etc.

 

[erickompositör72]

If I'm really into the IIc+ simul-class sound, will I be able to work with a Mark V 35, or do I need the 90 watt? Practically, 90 watts would be overkill for me, but it seems to be the only simul-class option.

Can the V 35 produce comparable tones?

To clarify: I use 6L6's and EL34's together in my Mark II's

 

[LesPaul70]

Since no-one seems to have replied to your most recent post, thought I'd chime in...

As an owner of a IIc+ and a V (90W), I don't think a Mark V should generally be the first choice for someone trying to replicate the famous IIc+ tone. Yes, it has a "IIc+" mode on it but it is a very specific IIc+ tone. One that Doug West was particularly happened to like. It was designed after his favorite non-GEQ IIc+ head that used a small coupling cap. As a result, it sounds very bright, tight, and thin compared to what a IIc+ veteran might expect. Totally devoid of low-end oomph. And as you point out, there is no "Pull Deep" functionality available on the V either to compensate for that.

So if you want that Doug West kind of sound, you're in luck. It could actually work for the liquid lead sound you describe. But for heavy riffing rock/metal sound, you might want to look elsewhere. The distortion department of a Mark V is by far one of the tamest so far (in relative terms, and at least since IIc+). It is almost too polite, as in "Excuse me sir, I hope you do not mind if a distort a little?". You have to flip to the Extreme mode and crank the Treble pot (which effectively works as a treble boost) to get a somewhat convincing metal tone, and even then, a Mark III would beat it senseless.

Other thoughts.

Compression / open sound is something people tend to experience a little differently. To my ears, SimulClass Marks tend to sound smoother and more compressed than the same Marks (same model, same options) as 100-watters. A 100W Mark tends to be rougher, more raw, more alive-sounding than its SimulClass counterpart and, yes, more "open-sounding" to my ears. A SimulClass Mark would be more hifi, more modern sounding. YMMV.

I also greatly prefer 'full' Marks to these newer 'mini' versions. No matter how loud you play, the big iron and bigger watts give you fuller, thicker and deeper tone. And yes, I always the 90W mode on my V, even at home.

Here's an option for you to explore: The JP-2C. It is Petrucci's signature amp. A Mark amp in all but name. It is designed after his favorite IIc+,with some modern features thrown in. While it is a 100W model and not a SimulClass one, for most of us, it gets a lot closer to capturing that elusive IIc+ magic than the Mark V did. Well, actually Mark V achieved that reasonably well, but only for a very specific type of IIc+ sound - the JP-2C gives you more options that help you sculpt your ideal IIc+ tone.

 

[erickompositör72]

Since no-one seems to have replied to your most recent post, thought I'd chime in...

As an owner of a IIc+ and a V (90W), I don't think a Mark V should generally be the first choice for someone trying to replicate the famous IIc+ tone. Yes, it has a "IIc+" mode on it but it is a very specific IIc+ tone. One that Doug West was particularly happened to like. It was designed after his favorite non-GEQ IIc+ head that used a small coupling cap. As a result, it sounds very bright, tight, and thin compared to what a IIc+ veteran might expect. Totally devoid of low-end oomph. And as you point out, there is no "Pull Deep" functionality available on the V either to compensate for that.

So if you want that Doug West kind of sound, you're in luck. It could actually work for the liquid lead sound you describe. But for heavy riffing rock/metal sound, you might want to look elsewhere. The distortion department of a Mark V is by far one of the tamest so far (in relative terms, and at least since IIc+). It is almost too polite, as in "Excuse me sir, I hope you do not mind if a distort a little?". You have to flip to the Extreme mode and crank the Treble pot (which effectively works as a treble boost) to get a somewhat convincing metal tone, and even then, a Mark III would beat it senseless.

Other thoughts.

Compression / open sound is something people tend to experience a little differently. To my ears, SimulClass Marks tend to sound smoother and more compressed than the same Marks (same model, same options) as 100-watters. A 100W Mark tends to be rougher, more raw, more alive-sounding than its SimulClass counterpart and, yes, more "open-sounding" to my ears. A SimulClass Mark would be more hifi, more modern sounding. YMMV.

I also greatly prefer 'full' Marks to these newer 'mini' versions. No matter how loud you play, the big iron and bigger watts give you fuller, thicker and deeper tone. And yes, I always the 90W mode on my V, even at home.

Here's an option for you to explore: The JP-2C. It is Petrucci's signature amp. A Mark amp in all but name. It is designed after his favorite IIc+,with some modern features thrown in. While it is a 100W model and not a SimulClass one, for most of us, it gets a lot closer to capturing that elusive IIc+ magic than the Mark V did. Well, actually Mark V achieved that reasonably well, but only for a very specific type of IIc+ sound - the JP-2C gives you more options that help you sculpt your ideal IIc+ tone.

I really appreciate this response. A lot of good stuff. I've come to the point of thinking that I don't need a IIC+ backup. What you described is accurate: the simul-class is slightly more compressed than 100/60w, but compared to most subsequent Marks (except perhaps the III and the V on "IIC+" mode), it is still quite "open" sounding. I just happen to love the harmonics that EL34's add, and I'm usually not pushing them very hard to the point of getting too compressed.

Mark III's are a non-starter for me, because I do not like the way they are voiced for lead playing. I had a red stripe DRG, which I hear is the "warmest" sounding, and still, the lead tone was not to my liking. My amps are 100% geared towards lead tone, with no consideration for riffing/heavy rhythm, etc. With that said, I actually had a chance to play a V 35, and was very, very impressed. I kept it on IIC+ mode, and got a great sound. Thick, rich, sweet, liquid. Didn't have the bloom of my IIC+ DRX, but for 1/4 the price, I thought it was great.

Despite the JP2C being based on Mr. Petrucci's HRG IIC+, I've found all of the clips of that amp to sound far more compressed than my IIC+DRX. Even Petrucci's demo he does himself. Plus, the price tag on that amp is starting to defeat my goal: a reasonably-priced backup.

Currently, I've actually got a Fuchs ODS coming my way. I'm hoping the Fuchs and my export IIC+ will get me through for the time being 8)