Mark V's IIC+ based on non-eq models?

[pilgrimx]

From what I read recently, the Mark V's IIC+ was based on one of the non-eq amps. Apparently, Mike B. had one for a while that he considered the "best of the best", literally the best of a collection of other non-eq IIC+ amps. (Those were the amps that he and Mesa, I guess, considered to be the pinnacle of tone at the time.)

I can't recall the source materiel--the Mark V manual, maybe?--but would appreciate any clarification. I know a smaller cap was involved in the non-eq models. This information

 

[>Photi G<]

Yes, it's a page in the Mark V manual. Doug West yanked the best Non-EQ C+s of the assembly line back in the day. He's sold all but one, which he calls "His Royal C-Ness." Doug, being a play tester, distinguished that the Non-EQ C+s had a faster and tighter attack than the EQ C+s , because the EQ C+s required a bigger coupling cap after the FX Buffer Amp. The larger cap, obviously hindered the response, but also acted as a low-pass filter, allowing more bass into the PA circuit. In an effort to combine the best of both worlds in the V, a smaller pre-EQ coupling cap was used, and the 80Hz slider was made more sensitive, to retain the fast attack of a Non-EQ amp, but add the sub-low response of an EQ amp.

 

[SonicProvocateur]

This explains why the IIC+ setting on the MV has a slight drop in the sub-lows (i.e. 80-120hz) prevalent in the IV setting that makes the low-mids stand out more for EQ'ing. I knew I heard that. The IIC+ setting cuts like a knife.

My non GEQ MKIII has different tones too, lacking the ability to dial in the EQ without the EQ in the loop (post circuit).