mk iv A lead?

The Boogie Board

Help Support The Boogie Board:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Shep

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
1,581
Reaction score
0
Location
Newcastle , Australia
is it true that a mk iv A's lead channel is very very close to a 84' IIc+?

I think this can become quite the debate....

I have to say yes....i get the Same lead tone as my friend...if not better...


wat do you think..
 
preamp circuitry should be exactly the same, don't know about poweramp section.
 
whats does that mean?

because i really love the sound of the lead channel on mine mk iv..and noone believes me that they sound pretty close...
 
Shep said:
whats does that mean?

because i really love the sound of the lead channel on mine mk iv..and noone believes me that they sound pretty close...

Well, Mesa isn't selling mkIIC+ anymore, so they don't get profit from all the mkIIC+s which are sold today by privates (i don't think C+ mods are the main earning source at mesa 8) ). So, why should they be interested in not producing great amps like mkiiC+ anymore?there's no reason! i believe instead that mesa always wanted to improve mkIIC+'s tone introducing mkIII and mkIV amps. If they succeeded, well, it's REALLY only a matter of taste. If you ask me what i would rather buy betwean a IIC+ and a IV i surely would go for the mkIV, no doubt... even if they cost the same price. Imagine now that there are people selling their early 80's mkIIC+ at twice the price of a mkIV new... vintage lovers/collectors can continue spending $4000 for mkIIC+s, personally i'm searching for TONE and that's all.

edit: +1 for Boogiebabies post...
 
The output transformer is the 562004 and is from what I know, no different from the SC-152019B or the 562003.

Mike B told me this is a "yes." There was a revision made a number of years later that is the one that changed electronically. I'm at work now, but it think it was called 562004-R or -1 or something like that. The others, as noted, were just numerical cosmetics. So, in theory, you can get this old mk4 OT and make a c+ into simul and still have the correct pieces. And what's all this $4000 talk?? SHHHH!! You'll drive up the price by saying those kind of things! We poor people can only dish out so much at a time! How about we say things such as "the C+ is a horrid amp and I wouldn't pay over $300 for it." I want everyone to go on harmony central and post that right now. :D
 
I've played a Mark IIC+ through a Marshall 4x12 loaded with V30's (a buddy of mine has one) and while it sounded incredible....cranked up it didn't sound that much better than the Mark IV that I had at the time. With some tweaking and an external EQ...you can get a Mark IV to sound almost identical.
 
Yes, I find that the same is true when it comes to the Mark III too, they can be tweaked to sound very close to each other.

I recently had a chance to compare my red stripe Simul-Class Mark III to a 100w IIC+ (with eq). And although I prefered the IIC+ for most sounds, I was pleasantly surprised that my Mark III could be made to sound very close. Perhap the most difference was that my amp has Simul-Class and te IIC+ didn´t.
 
I was speaking to Mike Bendinelli today about getting some work done on an amp and this topic came up. He told me something to the effect of; you can tweak a Mk III or IV to have a very similar voice as the Mk IIC+ but there is something about the *response* ( to the player's touch I guess ) of the IIC+ that is not the same. He doesn't know why.

Interesting.
 
Boogiebabies said:
483 Volts under load to the plates. It's got power to spare. It's about 40+ volts more than the III or IV. They have headroom to spare.
That makes sense!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top