Mark V compared to the IIC+?

[dmcguitar]

most threads veer from their original topic.... what im wondering is how we have a topic of scantily cloud women, but i digress!


(oh darn spammers)

 

[Mark Fore]

Yes they did !

James used primarily his Gibsons on the recording - I don't recall the V being fitted with EMG's, do you?

For those of us that were there at the time (seeing them on tour, in magazines, etc.) it is a fact EMG's were not used until after MoP.

 

[MrMarkIII]

You guys sound like chicks comparing nail polish. :lol:

 

[Iconoclysm]

Yes, I'm yawning heavily in this thread, especially when there's a Metallica Tone subforum here. :roll:

If you talk about metal and the IIc+ you're talking about Metallica. You're really complaining in the wrong place if you want to pretend Metallica wasn't one of Mesa's premier artists, if not THE premier artist.

 

[Iconoclysm]

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)

What I don't get is why everyone is still trying so hard to get the tone from Puppets anyway. If you take away the bass and drums and listen to those raw guitar tracks, it's really not that great of a tone. If you come close but manage to get a little bassier, you'll sound better than Puppets...

 

[JOEY B.]

Yes, I'm yawning heavily in this thread, especially when there's a Metallica Tone subforum here. :roll:

If you talk about metal and the IIc+ you're talking about Metallica. You're really complaining in the wrong place if you want to pretend Metallica wasn't one of Mesa's premier artists, if not THE premier artist.

The title and original post did not mention "Metal" or "Metallica". Somewhere this thread took a hard left turn. There were people who used the C+ back in the day for tones other than metal, although most internet surfers are led to believe otherwise. One look at Youtube and the newb Boogie enthusiest would think that all the C+ was capable of WAS Metallica. There is so much more to this amp if you take the time to experiment and think outside of the box. 8)

 

[phyrexia]

Whatever, I don't want to hear what kind of gear was used on AJFA vs MOP vs RTL. I want to hear some comparisons between the Mark V and the IIC+. :lol:

 

[igfraso]

Yes, I agree. I don't mind people talking about EMG pickups, or whatever they like, as long as they start a different thread with a suitable and self-explanatory title.
Please, don't hijack other people's threads.

Now, coming back to the topic in subject, I am still waiting for my Mark V head to get home so I cannot make any type of comparisons.

I just wanted to point out that the manual says somewhere that the Mark V has the same exact circuit as the IIC+ LEAD mode. It doesn't say it has the whole IIC+ circuit in it.
Also, what about the 105 transformer?
Peace!!

 

[phyrexia]

to my knowledge the 105 eats up modern tubes because of the plate voltages. JOEY can hook us up with some knowledge there, I'm sure...

 

[JOEY B.]

to my knowledge the 105 eats up modern tubes because of the plate voltages. JOEY can hook us up with some knowledge there, I'm sure...

Only in a new thread on the Vintage Amps or Tubes forum. :wink:

 

[Octavarius]

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.

I'm no electrician, but I do know that in any case, none of the components in the amp are receiving the whole load of 120V anyway, so in essense, the power transformer is a "step-down" transformer (if you want to call it that) in both cases.

You could think of it this way: from Mesa/Boogie's marketing and distribution perspective today it would seriously hurt the sales if these amps differed depending on what voltage they are made to run on.

With Mark IIC+s back in the day this was the case though. The value of an export Mark IIC+ (with the X101 transformer) is relatively higher than the domestic version (105 transformer) from a collectors point of view. There was noticable difference in tone and mostly the feel and the response of the amp. However, this was due to the difference in the design of the tranny itself. With Mesa's current amps, I'm sure they are all delivering the same power to all the internal taps. The proof of this fine tuning could also be that there aren't only 120V and 220 - 240V versions. You have different trannys for 220V, 230V, 240V. Although this could also be a distribution thing, I'm pretty sure Mesa has made all efforts to keep the tone and feel the same, no matter what power rating the power transformer has. :wink:

If you still have doubts, I'd write an email to Mesa and ask.

 

[igfraso]

As far as I know, nowadays trannies are either 115 volt or 230 volt.
I don't think that a 4% variation in voltage will cause any trouble to Australians that use 240 V.

On the other hand, nobody has made any comment here on the difference between 50 Hz and 60 Hz.
While USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, etc, use 60 Hz AC current, the majority of the world uses 50 Hz.

I was wondering whether there is any difference created in the rectifying section, since maybe the 50 Hz AC current might be more difficult to "planish". Take into account that the cycles are 20% longer compared to the 60 Hz current.
regards

 

[MrMarkIII]

Once past the rectifier, it's all DC. Amps don't run on AC.

 

[igfraso]

Ah, OK. I know the rectification makes the AC current become a DC current.

However, I thought that the rectification is never perfect and that there are some filters in the circuit especially designed for the recification of 60 Hz current... but not for 50 Hz current.

 

[Octavarius]

Ah, OK. I know the rectification makes the AC current become a DC current.

However, I thought that the rectification is never perfect and that there are some filters in the circuit especially designed for the recification of 60 Hz current... but not for 50 Hz current.

On the back of my Lonestar it says: 230V, 50-60Hz

I've seen others where it says 220V or 240V as well. However, I believe that they are all the same tranny, only with different taps connected. The export transformer probably has 220V, 230V and 240V taps. And the domestic transformer, in addition to 120V, possibly has a 100V tap as well (for Japan). At least this was how it was done on the latest Mark IV's.

So if you're in a country where the voltage is 240V, and you bought the amp in a 220V country, you just need to solder the correct voltage tap in the place of the "stock" one, and you're good to go. You'll have to find out which color corresponds to which voltage, though.

 

[jdurso]

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.

Unless the slave on the mark's work different from the recto's, if you have your IIC+ hook up to a cab and you slave it to another power amp (or power section of another amp), your using both amp's power secton and only the IIC's preamp. This is how I accomplish a W/D/W setup.

 

[Jacko123]

Good point. Your post reminds me of myself looking at the Peavey 6505 because I heard it was a good metal amp (I ended up getting a Dual Rec. Woot!). All I could find were videos of people playing Van Halen riffs.

Hopefully I'll get a chance to try a V myself. The funny part is that I'll probably try to get a Master of Puppets sound out of it and completely ignore the rest of the settings. :?

... There were people who used the C+ back in the day for tones other than metal, although most internet surfers are led to believe otherwise. One look at Youtube and the newb Boogie enthusiest would think that all the C+ was capable of WAS Metallica. There is so much more to this amp if you take the time to experiment and think outside of the box. 8)

 

[Octavarius]

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.

Unless the slave on the mark's work different from the recto's, if you have your IIC+ hook up to a cab and you slave it to another power amp (or power section of another amp), your using both amp's power secton and only the IIC's preamp. This is how I accomplish a W/D/W setup.

Yes, this is correct.

When you SLAVE an amp into another, it means you are using the Slave Out, which is derived straight from the Speaker Outputs, meaning the sound includes both the preamp section and the power section of the amp. This is in other words not the same as using the FX loop send. So when you are slaving an amp into another (assuming this is the way Mesa defines slaving and how it is used in conjunction with their amps), you are using the whole amp (both the preamp section and the power section) as a line level preamp (because the speaker level signal at the speaker outs is trimmed so that it can match the input of line level devices), which means that you get the coloring effect from the power section included in that signal, as opposed to using the preamp signal only. The power section then only acts as another coloring preamp section, though, not as an actual power section, as it's not really driving a speaker.

When you are using the preamp section only, you are using the Effects Loop Send with another amps Effects Loop Return. This can in some cases also be defined as slaving, as it technically is the same procedure when looking at the relationship between the two amps, but when talking Mesa, it usually means using the Slave Out into another power amp/effect processors.

Danyeo is right about there not being two power sections in effect (even though the first amp will still control the volume, just like any master/volume control before the power section will), but technically, if they slaved the Mark IIC+ into the power section of a Marshall, there was coloring of both the Marshall's power section and the Mark IIC+. Not equal to using both power sections next to each other, though.

In terms of how this whole procedure affects the tone, it is very hard to come up with an exact analysis, but in any case, there is a major difference between Slaving an amp into a power section/poweramp and simply patching the preamp out/FX loop send into another power section/poweramp.

 

[Satch12879]

I've read from his tech when they were beta testing it on the last DT tour, Petrucci had said that the MarkV is dead as balls on with regard to the IIC+ mode...

 

[lesterpaul]

I've read from his tech when they were beta testing it on the last DT tour, Petrucci had said that the MarkV is dead as balls on with regard to the IIC+ mode...

...help me out here,satch....."dead as balls on...".....is that a faithful recreation of the c+ LEAD mode, or "help me, there are balls on me,I am dead..."I am thinking it is a faithful recreation....