Mark V compared to the IIC+?

The Boogie Board

Help Support The Boogie Board:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Silverwulf said:
Yeah, I'm familair with that interview. There's a later one that contradicts it if I can find it. Of course, James also said he used "30W Vintage 30's" and Kirk stated he liked to dial in a "warm midi sound" live before too, so who knows... :lol: The interview I'm referring to was a later one with Kirk. I'll try to dig it up later.
They were young and on drugs and alcohol. Im willing to bet that their recollections are pretty suspect. :lol: Im trying to find this production list from sweet silence studios where they recorded MOP. Thats where it listed 500t pickups with a Mark IIC+ and a furman eq as the main rhythm rig.
 
ryjan said:
They were young and on drugs and alcohol. Im willing to bet that their recollections are pretty suspect. :lol: Im trying to find this production list from sweet silence studios where they recorded MOP. Thats where it listed 500t pickups with a Mark IIC+ and a furman eq as the main rhythm rig.

I have that list at home. I don't recall specifically reading about the 500T, but Flemming did say all the rhythms were the Gibson Explorer, and I was just putting 2+2 together with the other Kirk interview. It's hard to tell.
 
Direct from the manual........

NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR: Douglas West A.K.A Tone Boy

Randy wanted me to give this bit of info to you personally, even though it felt a bit funny to write “I” as opposed to “we”, so that my personal experience could validate the source.
From 1982-1991 I was the person who tested every finished amplifier here at MESA - along with my other duties in R&D, Customer Service and writing Owner’s Manuals. I worked side by side with Randy (playing guitar and asking for more Tone and features) on the revision of the MARK II B that would eventually become the MARK II C+… as well as every amp since. During that time is when I was affectionately given the nickname Tone Boy for my relentless pursuit of a certain attack/morphing-harmonic characteristic I was hearing in my head. I was driving Randy crazy then - and I must take the time here and now to give him my deepest thanks and utmost respect for listening to my ranting and raving. He didn’t even play guitar - but he heard me - and had the belief in this quality I described just as deeply as I did. And even better - he found a way to deliver it! From myself, and all of us guitarists who have made this sound our own…Thank You!
Anyway, as to how this affects you as a MARK V owner, there is some inside info you need to know to get the most out of Channel 3. This especially applies to you MARK II C+ and MARK IV owners who will be looking for your old amps sound in this Channel and probably even be comparing the MARK V side by side to your II C+ or IV.
Back when I was testing II C+’s every day in the burn-in room, I always thought the non-graphic amps had a certain attack and purity to the sound that the amps that had Graphic EQ on them just didn’t have. There was an urgency and bold punch to the sound…they seemed tighter and more cohesive. Now granted, we made far more amps with the on-board EQ than without…probably 70% had the EQ, but not many people had the opportunity to compare day-in and day-out as I did. The EQ model had the shaping advantage…no doubt about it, and certainly all the sounds that II C+ are famous for were created with the EQ being an integral part of that sound, but when it came to the straight sound – no EQ – the non-graph model always got to me with it’s speed and authority.
So it was that I came to be the obsessive/compulsive owner of no less than 8 of the II C+ Simul-Class, Reverb (non-graphic) heads. I hand picked these as being the best sounding amps - for me - out of the thousands of II C+ we made. Out of these eight amps I immediately found my favorite - which I dubbed “His Highness the C-ness” and which I used as a reference model to have our Chief Tech and Archival Guru Michael Bendinelli, copy exactly on the other 7 amps. Everything was measured and scrutinized (pot values, resistors, caps, transformers swapped, etc.) and duplicated, and in the end… all 8 sounded alike. Regardless, His Highness was my golden reference for MARK II C+ Tone and our R&D reference amp for many MARK Series amps to follow, including the MARK IV.
Over the next two decades I found the need to part with some of these magic amps for studio gear and such and always I gave my close friends first crack at these – but His Highness remains to this day a mysterious, sweet-singing, fire-breathing beast of an amp.
So naturally when it came time to do the Channel 3 sounds of the MARK V, we went to the Oracle – His Highness The C-ness - and asked permission to pay our respects to His Golden Tone…He granted, and the work began.
In our endless comparisons of many original II C+’s - both EQ and non-EQ samples - alongside this golden reference, we discovered that I wasn’t just Tone-dreaming. There was actually a difference between the EQ model and those non-EQ models. It all came down to a coupling capacitor at the end of the EQ circuit that feeds the driver. In the EQ model, it was a great big cap that let a lot of sub-low pass, slowing down the sound and making it fatter. In my amp - a non-EQ version - this cap was smaller and didn’t let as much sub-low through - which speeds up the sound and makes everything tighter and more urgent. There it was, a simple part…but it made all the difference in the time domain.
Yet there were so many more of these slower, fatter sounding EQ versions out in the world… that many more people were used to
THE CHANNELS: (Continued)

hearing as their reference. It would not do well to set the MARK V permanently to this faster, tighter way. Too many players would have a tough time adjusting and when they compared the two amps side by side, the V would sound faster and tighter yes, but also stripped of sub-low and therefore maybe not as fat in comparison to their trusty II C+ Graphic model or MARK IV - which also had the bigger coupling cap. What to do at the crossroads? What we do is take more time… and go down both roads.
So in the MARK V we gave you both fast and fat.
The II C+ Mode in Channel 3 uses this smaller coupling cap to deliver the tightest attack and fastest response in the time domain. In addition you get the bonus of having this Mode work incredibly well with the EQ, because the lack of sub-low at the end of the preamp means you can add more low frequencies with the EQ before the sound gets flubby. So all you II-C and MARK IV guys might like this characteristic even better. You can get high gain sounds with the EQ even tighter than ever before!
The MK IV and EXTREME Modes utilize the bigger coupling cap to add sub-low and slow down the attack for a bigger, fuller slow-hand feel that is absolutely huge. You will find that you have to be a little more careful with the 80 and 240Hz Sliders when dialing in low end with the EQ because more low end happens earlier, but the sound is definitely bigger.
So if you want it tight, urgent feeling with the fastest attack and maximum focus, use the MK IIC+ Mode. If you want the fattest, warmest,
biggest sound and don’t need the super fast response, use the MK IV and EXTREME Modes.
Oh, and by the way…Mission Accomplished! The Oracle, His Highness The C-ness, now shares the Throne Of II-C Tone with the MARK V. Of course the MARK V rules in so many other sonic Kingdoms that it has it all over the II-C for all around diversity of sounds and incredible gig-ability.
NOTE: II-C+ and MARK IV OWNERS
If you do end up doing a side by side with a II-C+ for the LEAD Mode, you must use the II-C+ and MARK V set like this for a fair comparison:
SET II-C+ As Follows:
VOLUME (Far Left) control Pulled (Bright On) and set to Approx. 7 ¾. (This stage in the MARK V is set to a sweet spot we found from measuring many amps and control deleted).
LEAD DRIVE Control Pulled and set to desired setting
All Tone Controls set by ear as close as possible (we measure each pot and set both exactly with an ohm meter).
PRESENCE set to desired setting. (0 or 10 is the most fair for comparisons sake and removes any pot variance).
GRAPHIC EQ Off (Bypassed)
SET MARK V As Follows:
GAIN control set by ear and relative “clock face” setting to II-C LEAD DRIVE.
Tone Controls set by ear and relative “clock face” setting as II-C Tone Controls. (Remember that II-C BASS control is in the 2nd position
- MID is 3rd on II-C whereas MARK V is TREBLE, MID, BASS).
Channel 3 BRIGHT switch in the BRIGHT (switch down) position.
Rear Panel Channel 3 TRIODE / PENTODE switch set to TRIODE (switch down).
Rear Panel EFX LOOP switch set to ACTIVE (switch up).

CAUTION: The EXTREME Mode is LOUD in both these amplifiers…Use Care and Zero out the OUTPUT Level Controls before beginning this comparison
SET MARK IV As Follows:
Channel 3 (LEAD)
LEAD GAIN (FAR LEFT) Pulled and set to 7 ¾
LEAD DRIVE Pulled and set as desired
Channel 3 (LEAD) Tone Controls set as desired.
Pull All Controls (unless comparing EXTREME - then leave LEAD PRESENCE Pushed In = EXTREME)
PRESENCE set as desired (0 or 10 is most fair and removes pot variance)
Rear Panel TRIODE / PENTODE switch set to PENTODE
Set MARK V As Follows:
Channel 3 set to MK IV or EXTREME Mode (Make sure set the same as MARK IV)
GAIN set to match relative “clock face” setting of numeric LEAD DRIVE setting on MARK IV.
Channel 3 Tone Controls set to match relative “clock face” settings on Mark IV.
Channel 3 BRIGHT / NORMAL switch set to BRIGHT (switch down).
Channel 3 PRESENCE set to relative setting on MARK IV.
Rear Panel TRIODE / PENTODE switch set to PENTODE (switch up).
Rear Panel EFX LOOP switch set to ACTIVE (switch up).
You cannot hear the MK II C+ Mode in the MARK V’s response in an older MARK Series model because the coupling cap at the end of the EQ in those amps is simply too big and is adding too much slow-lows to be a fair comparison.
NOTE: These comparisons are as close as possible regarding the setting and configuration of the circuits. When doing these types of tests it is important to take into account that the power tubes, preamp tubes, transformers and even the caps and resistors may be different depending on availability at the time of construction
 
I see Coils in that explorer... I'd be willing to be its stock.. or Seymour Duncans in there ( i remember hearing they used those before the EMG's)

also there is a wall of marshall cabs... Can't see heads..


does anyone know what cabs / speakers where used for MOP?
or what speakers were available back in 83? did the Vintage 30 exist?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmN9M7PIZLU&feature=related

disposible heros' better shots of his guitar up close.. its not an EMG... and he said the song is off the new album coming out around christmas time.. so no EMG during the recording of MOP...

also watch him play the intro to the song.. he is using alternate picking. i guess he only uses strict down-picking for recording? (i dont mean the main/verse riff, therese too many gallops to not alternate)
 
The Gibson was stock, but his Flying V copy had Duncans installed in it (speculated to be Invaders). But, Flemming noted it was the Gibson that was for tracking rhythms. Now, Gibson DID issue a few Explorers with Dirty Finger pups around that time, but it wasn't one of the models that James used. With that said, if the video you posted has James saying "this is a song off the new album" and it doesn't have EMG's in it yet, I'd say that's enough of the puzzle put together to make a call.

Fleming said it was 300W Marshall cabs used on MoP, so that leads me to believe it was G12T-75's used. The first mention I've seen of V30's was on AJFA and they've been using them ever since.
 
ryjan said:
Iconoclysm said:
mr_dj07 said:
Yes they did !

James used primarily his Gibsons on the recording - I don't recall the V being fitted with EMG's, do you?
James' V didnt get emgs until he got it out of storage for recording Death Magnetic. There was some guitar magazine a couple years ago that did a photo shoot of James and Kirks' Vees and neither of them had emgs yet. However they both do now.

THanks, but that was the point, it was sarcasm.
 
ryjan said:
Iconoclysm said:
mr_dj07 said:
Yes they did !

James used primarily his Gibsons on the recording - I don't recall the V being fitted with EMG's, do you?
James' V didnt get emgs until he got it out of storage for recording Death Magnetic. There was some guitar magazine a couple years ago that did a photo shoot of James and Kirks' Vees and neither of them had emgs yet. However they both do now.

THanks, but that was the point, it was sarcasm.
 
Silverwulf - thanks for the clarification.

Gizzorge - thanks for the quote.

I'd be very interested to hear (or try) a true side-by-side comparison of the V and the IIC+ to see just how close they got. If the V really nails the IIC+, I wonder if it will make a bit of a dent in IIC+ prices. I suppose that prices will still probably remain strong on the original amps, though.
 
After reading the note from the author section I am left wondering...

Will the fact that I am getting an export model which has a step down transformer to convert our Australian 240 wall socket voltage to 110V or whatever it is you guys have in the U.S. have any impact on this fine tuning of components or is this not going to make any difference as the tubes will receive the same amount of voltage after the step down transformer in my V?

It seems like small changes to the components effects the sound in a big way, like in the case of this cap from the IIC+ non eq version did.

I hope my amp has the spirit of his highness the c-ness in it. If anyone knows more about electronics and could clarify I would really appreciate it.
 
Silverwulf said:
The Gibson was stock, but his Flying V copy had Duncans installed in it (speculated to be Invaders). But, Flemming noted it was the Gibson that was for tracking rhythms. Now, Gibson DID issue a few Explorers with Dirty Finger pups around that time, but it wasn't one of the models that James used. With that said, if the video you posted has James saying "this is a song off the new album" and it doesn't have EMG's in it yet, I'd say that's enough of the puzzle put together to make a call.

Fleming said it was 300W Marshall cabs used on MoP, so that leads me to believe it was G12T-75's used. The first mention I've seen of V30's was on AJFA and they've been using them ever since.


I believe James used Duncan Distortions around that time. Also, everyone seems to be forgetting about the heavy use of parametric eqs(furman and aphex) which is the biggest part of that Mark IIC+ "Metallica Scooped Mids" tone. It's definitely THE crucial part of that sound which the stock amp just doesn't have.
 
Armando said:
Silverwulf said:
The Gibson was stock, but his Flying V copy had Duncans installed in it (speculated to be Invaders). But, Flemming noted it was the Gibson that was for tracking rhythms. Now, Gibson DID issue a few Explorers with Dirty Finger pups around that time, but it wasn't one of the models that James used. With that said, if the video you posted has James saying "this is a song off the new album" and it doesn't have EMG's in it yet, I'd say that's enough of the puzzle put together to make a call.

Fleming said it was 300W Marshall cabs used on MoP, so that leads me to believe it was G12T-75's used. The first mention I've seen of V30's was on AJFA and they've been using them ever since.


I believe James used Duncan Distortions around that time. Also, everyone seems to be forgetting about the heavy use of parametric eqs(furman and aphex) which is the biggest part of that Mark IIC+ "Metallica Scooped Mids" tone. It's definitely THE crucial part of that sound which the stock amp just doesn't have.
+1 You can get pretty close just by dropping the 750 slider though.
 
ryjan said:
This is quoted off of freeweb also. The emgs were not used in recording the albums but on tour.



Made in 1984, the Explorers from this year came in different options including colors, bridges, tremolos, no pickguards. James' is a stock 1984 Gibson Explorer in cream white, Gibson 500T in the bridge and a Gibson 496R in the neck, and a stop tailpiece, tune o matic bridge. These were later changed to EMG pickups.
That is a misnomer, Gibson didn't start making the 500T until about '92. The most likely pickup for a stock explorer in the 80's is the Dirty Fingers.
 
ryjan said:
Armando said:
Silverwulf said:
The Gibson was stock, but his Flying V copy had Duncans installed in it (speculated to be Invaders). But, Flemming noted it was the Gibson that was for tracking rhythms. Now, Gibson DID issue a few Explorers with Dirty Finger pups around that time, but it wasn't one of the models that James used. With that said, if the video you posted has James saying "this is a song off the new album" and it doesn't have EMG's in it yet, I'd say that's enough of the puzzle put together to make a call.

Fleming said it was 300W Marshall cabs used on MoP, so that leads me to believe it was G12T-75's used. The first mention I've seen of V30's was on AJFA and they've been using them ever since.


I believe James used Duncan Distortions around that time. Also, everyone seems to be forgetting about the heavy use of parametric eqs(furman and aphex) which is the biggest part of that Mark IIC+ "Metallica Scooped Mids" tone. It's definitely THE crucial part of that sound which the stock amp just doesn't have.
+1 You can get pretty close just by dropping the 750 slider though.

No chance....I had this set-up back in the day and that certain thick, "chud" sound from MOP and AJFA were unattainable until you threw a parametric eq(preferably the Aphex...I can't seem to remember the model number. It was 2 or 3 rack spaces(pretty big considering the Furman's only one rack space!) Either way, it's been discontinued forever and is no longer even mentioned on the Aphex website) into the FX loop. Besides this you still needed to scoop the eq on the IIC+.
 
I believe James used Duncan Distortions around that time. Also, everyone seems to be forgetting about the heavy use of parametric eqs(furman and aphex) which is the biggest part of that Mark IIC+ "Metallica Scooped Mids" tone. It's definitely THE crucial part of that sound which the stock amp just doesn't have.[/quote]
+1 You can get pretty close just by dropping the 750 slider though.[/quote]

No chance....I had this set-up back in the day and that certain thick, "chud" sound from MOP and AJFA were unattainable until you threw a parametric eq(preferably the Aphex...I can't seem to remember the model number. It was 2 or 3 rack spaces(pretty big considering the Furman's only one rack space!) Either way, it's been discontinued forever and is no longer even mentioned on the Aphex website) into the FX loop. Besides this you still needed to scoop the eq on the IIC+.[/quote]
Like I said, I can get pretty darn close with my mark iv without any effects. But if I dump the mid at about 650hz with my parametric its on the money. The eqs that they used were the wierd "lunchbox" vertical mount ones from aphex. You can still find similar ones though Im not sure about the specs or quality of their newer stuff.
 
for what its worth concerning the MoP tone...

1. The cabs were Marshalls
2. They slaved the IIC into a marshall amp... thus there is a mix of the IIC power section and the Marshall power section
3. No EMGs on the recording
 
jdurso said:
for what its worth concerning the MoP tone...

1. The cabs were Marshalls
2. They slaved the IIC into a marshall amp... thus there is a mix of the IIC power section and the Marshall power section
3. No EMGs on the recording


They used a mix of Marshall cabs and they also used the old Metal Grill Boogie 4x12's.

And if you slave a IIC into a Marshall you're only using the preamp of the IIC, not the power section. I've tried it with a Mark III and a Mark IV. If you use the slave out of a Mark III into a IV, then the IV controls the volume since you're using it's power section. The III only uses the preamp so it won't affect the volume.
 
what if they do a load box slave? set up their C+s how they want. then speaker out into a load box, and the line out from there into a marshall power amp (or effects return of normal amp to bypass the preamp of the marshall)
effectively they then used power amp of the mark.. and the marshall and get a mixture... unique tone..

- i read alot about EVH's tone.. and theres lots of speculation that in the dave era he was slaving ... whether it was for live gigs or specific albums, i dunno.. no one has a definitive answer.. just a lot of sound clips both ways that get real close..

- i relate this tone search to the getting eddies.. its one of those iconic sounds.. funny how the artist moves away from them, but all the fans try to achieve 20+ year old sound hahahah

- unrelated... i like to read up on all this cause im trying decide between going for the old school evh tone (and 80's marshall) or the old school metallica / DT sounds (SFAM and prior... although the new album has the same quality) (cant get em both, too much money.. and i think the stiletto is too tight for getting the old marshall sound, but it does sound good)
 
From the MkIII manual:


DIRECT
Previously known as the SLAVE, this feature provides a variable strength signal right from the speaker jack This way better tone is
supplied, all Effects and Reverb are included, and there is absolutely no loss of the Boogie's tone when running from the Direct to a
mixing board or another amplifier. (Many players will still prefer a microphone "listening" to their speaker coloration.) In some
sophisticated set-ups, players run their Direct into their Effects Rack and then from the Effects into other, external amplifiers. But such a
set-up cannot route the Effects output back into the original Boogie. Also note that a speaker or load resistor should be plugged into a
Speaker jack when using the Direct. Load resistor value...though not critical ... can change the overall tone. Suggested value: 8 ohms,
50 watts minimum. And note that this resistor will get quite hot when running the Boogie "up loud" for long periods.


SO, as this stated the Slave (or Direct) captures the sound of the preamp AND power sections of the Boogie. How did this turn into the motherf#%@^&ing Metallica thread anyway??????? :roll:
 
Back
Top