Maybe somebody can help me - Mk IIC question.

[Empty Uranus]

I've got an '83 Mk IIC. I bought it new in Atlanta, GA back in 10/83 - as they put it, one of the first Boogie's to ever make it east of the Mississippi. Cream-colored and it came with the cream-colored 4x12 cabinet as well. I've heard a lot of amps since I've had it, but it get the ballsiest sound of any amp I've ever heard. I'll never get rid of it!

Anyway, here's my problem. I'm sure many of you know the crappy sound you get when you run distortion/gain in FRONT of chorus and/or delay. When distortion is at the lead of the chain, it's a wonderful thing. Anyway, I KNOW the difference in sound.

Evidently on this particular model, the effects loop ran in FRONT of the preamp. Over the years, I've tried running every hookup experiment known to man, but the same old sound happens - the unmistakable sound of sound-altering mush in front of distortion. Ya - I've gone as far as running slave out into my effects and then go into an old Music Man HD 130 I've got, but it's honestly a pain in the butt, and the Music Man output just lacks the "balls" of the Boogie. Still - the creamy sound of the chorus will THEN happen, as well as the awesome delay sound.

I once had a guy at Mesa deny up and down that this amp's preamp section came in front of the effects loop, so I just gave up. I've produced CD's, played professionally for quite a while, and am a recording engineer as well. Again, I truly understand the sound of how the effects chain is going.

Is there ANYWAY to re-wire this problem, or ANY way to get effects AFTER the preamp?

Help an old brother out!

 

[stokes]

The effects send comes out of V2a and returns into V2b,everything in the preamp is prior to this and V2b feeds the PI so the effects loop is after the preamp,not before it.Just take a look at the schematic.

 

[Empty Uranus]

The effects send comes out of V2a and returns into V2b,everything in the preamp is prior to this and V2b feeds the PI so the effects loop is after the preamp,not before it.Just take a look at the schematic.

Okay - again, have you ever heard the difference? Go and stick a distortion pedal in front of chorus and delay unit(s) and listen. Go back and put the chorus and delay in FRONT of the delay and chorus - that's the sound I get when I use the effects loop.

The differences in sound are as clear as night and day. As was told to me - far more Boogies were actually hand-made back then. Perhaps it was wired wrong from the beginning? I've been at this too long to know the difference! (Not being cocky - just being honest!)

 

[stokes]

Well then you have a one of a kind.That would be a lot of miswiring if they put the effects loop in front of the preamp.You've been at this so long open it up and move it where it belongs.

 

[Boogiebabies]

Courtesy of BWK-

Mark IIC & IIC+

The Mark IIC+ was the last of the Mark II series and featured a more sensitive (i.e. useful) lead channel and, more importantly, an improved circuitry in the effects loop. Unlike earlier Mark II models, pedals could be used without the amp's signal overloading their inputs.


The amp is a IIC, not a +. These have never been know to have great loops or accept pedals well. On the +, both the input stage and loop were changed to fix these problems. The + did not see official production until 12/83 - 1/84.

There, now the world is a better place.

 

[Dutchman]

Looks like a trip to Mesa for a Mod would do the trick....and you would have a Holy Grail C+ to boot.
The Effects loop in my Mark IIB sucks too, an Intellifex LTD in the effects loop has been my salvation.
I'm still saving to get back to Mesa for the loop mod, Someday......

 

[Empty Uranus]

Courtesy of BWK-

Mark IIC & IIC+

The Mark IIC+ was the last of the Mark II series and featured a more sensitive (i.e. useful) lead channel and, more importantly, an improved circuitry in the effects loop. Unlike earlier Mark II models, pedals could be used without the amp's signal overloading their inputs.


The amp is a IIC, not a +. These have never been know to have great loops or accept pedals well. On the +, both the input stage and loop were changed to fix these problems. The + did not see official production until 12/83 - 1/84.

There, now the world is a better place.

You da man! Too bad the other cat was in a world of +.

I had a blowout with it about 12 years ago in which I had to send it back to the factory for repairs. They asked me if I wanted to spend the extra $$$ to change it to a +, but I was honestly too damned scared that I'd lose the tone I've got. Sure - I've heard all the + hype, but was just too scared to change my extreme happiness with the tone I've gotten.

NOW - had I known that this would have helped out the loop - I would have probably done it.....

Let me ask you this - what exactly did they do to the efx loop with the +? Might look back into it....

Thanks!

 

[Empty Uranus]

Looks like a trip to Mesa for a Mod would do the trick....and you would have a Holy Grail C+ to boot.
The Effects loop in my Mark IIB sucks too, an Intellifex LTD in the effects loop has been my salvation.
I'm still saving to get back to Mesa for the loop mod, Someday......

Hmmmmm. Intellifex LTD? How does that work (I'll be googling right away)?

Honestly, I've just avoided using time-related effects while playing out, unless I was running the Music Man as the main amp. As far as recording - that's easy - I simply stick everything on in the mix (like you're supposed to)...

Thanks for the help, guys!

 

[Boogiebabies]

Courtesy of BWK-

Mark IIC & IIC+

The Mark IIC+ was the last of the Mark II series and featured a more sensitive (i.e. useful) lead channel and, more importantly, an improved circuitry in the effects loop. Unlike earlier Mark II models, pedals could be used without the amp's signal overloading their inputs.


The amp is a IIC, not a +. These have never been know to have great loops or accept pedals well. On the +, both the input stage and loop were changed to fix these problems. The + did not see official production until 12/83 - 1/84.

There, now the world is a better place.

You da man! Too bad the other cat was in a world of +.

I had a blowout with it about 12 years ago in which I had to send it back to the factory for repairs. They asked me if I wanted to spend the extra $$$ to change it to a +, but I was honestly too damned scared that I'd lose the tone I've got. Sure - I've heard all the + hype, but was just too scared to change my extreme happiness with the tone I've gotten.

NOW - had I known that this would have helped out the loop - I would have probably done it.....

Let me ask you this - what exactly did they do to the efx loop with the +? Might look back into it....

Thanks!

They corrected it by making it usable. It was also moved further down the signal path.

 

[Dutchman]

The Intellifex allows you to mix the original analog signal with the digitally affected signal(Chorus, Delay, whatever). You still get the distortion tone you want and then you can blend in the amount of effect to suit your taste.
Not perfect but way better than stomp boxes.
They sell for around $150.00 bucks on Ebay.

 

[Empty Uranus]

Courtesy of BWK-

Mark IIC & IIC+

The Mark IIC+ was the last of the Mark II series and featured a more sensitive (i.e. useful) lead channel and, more importantly, an improved circuitry in the effects loop. Unlike earlier Mark II models, pedals could be used without the amp's signal overloading their inputs.


The amp is a IIC, not a +. These have never been know to have great loops or accept pedals well. On the +, both the input stage and loop were changed to fix these problems. The + did not see official production until 12/83 - 1/84.

There, now the world is a better place.

You da man! Too bad the other cat was in a world of +.

I had a blowout with it about 12 years ago in which I had to send it back to the factory for repairs. They asked me if I wanted to spend the extra $$$ to change it to a +, but I was honestly too damned scared that I'd lose the tone I've got. Sure - I've heard all the + hype, but was just too scared to change my extreme happiness with the tone I've gotten.

NOW - had I known that this would have helped out the loop - I would have probably done it.....

Let me ask you this - what exactly did they do to the efx loop with the +? Might look back into it....

Thanks!

They corrected it by making it usable. It was also moved further down the signal path.

Hmmmm. So is Mesa still charging around $200 to do it? Also, is the change in tone between the C and the C+ really that radical?

 

[Boogiebabies]

Yes, the IIC did not have the gain potential or loop of the IIC+.
The IIC was the next branch in the evolution from the IIB.
Mesa knew pretty quick after Mike Bendinelli and Doug West modified the circuit in the winter of 83'. With Mesa not being so progressive back then the improvement had to be monumental to change the series to the +, and it was. Don't mess around with conjecture. Call Mike Bendinelli today and get the price quote from him. Generally an amp if this vintage may need some spring cleaning so be prepared for that.

$ 50.00 says he leaves the original caps in.

 

[Empty Uranus]

Yes, the IIC did not have the gain potential or loop of the IIC+.
The IIC was the next branch in the evolution from the IIB.
Mesa knew pretty quick after Mike Bendinelli and Doug West modified the circuit in the winter of 83'. With Mesa not being so progressive back then the improvement had to be monumental to change the series to the +, and it was. Don't mess around with conjecture. Call Mike Bendinelli today and get the price quote from him. Generally an amp if this vintage may need some spring cleaning so be prepared for that.

$ 50.00 says he leaves the original caps in.

Hmmmm. Although I'm a little strapped for cash right now, I may do it. I'm still scared to death that it might radically change the sound I've got, but still....