mk V manual-C+ content!

[stephen sawall]

I have to admit I'm a little taken back by the comments made towards their own customers who own the IIC+. I just don't know exactly what they are trying to accomplish by putting this one guys opinion right in the Mark V manual. I know the way he's talking it could be taken different ways by the reader but this doesn't sound like something the people of Mesa would say. They are some of the best, most down to earth people I've ever dealt with regarding amps and to sort of slam C+ owners in the attempt to get new buyers for the Mark V just seems strange or out of character. I wouldn't be surprised if that section of the manual is deleted before they are sent out to the masses.

Doug West is the one that does all the manuals at Boogie. He has many II himself. If someone if offended by what is said I believe they are just fooling themselves. I have owned II, III, IV all have good and bad things about them. I see them as equal but different myself.

People who's egos are based on things they own I view as kind of pathetic. There are much better ways to judge yourself and others.

 

[JOEY B.]

My Corvette example is very akin to the "snob" issue. The vintage car (amp) people should not look down their noses at the new car (amp) people. The new Corvette (MkV) has technology that was not even thought of during the vintage 'Vette years (IIC+). To put the shoe on the other foot, the new Corvette owners (MkV) should not have "pity" on the vintage 'Vette guys for liking the nostalgia. 8)

 

[mule#1]

I'm going to play the devil's advocate for a minute. Lets face it guy's Ford will never say the 68' Mustang is better than the 2008 Mustang or they would not sell it. The whole marketing idea is to sell and sell with pride. Don't think for one minute Boogie & Doug West don't read this and other threads. I don't own a C+ but am a owner of other classic Boogies and I am a snob! We do not see the modern amps they put out as relevant to us and that is a shot to their pride. I think Mr.West was shooting one back over the bow saying "We created it, and can still build it. We are relevant!".
However the guy with the classic Mustang knows he's got the holy grail no matter what Ford say's! Hold on to your classics boy's! At least they are headed in the right direction.

 

[JOEY B.]

So many have asked for a C+ Reissue, maybe this is it.

This IS it. They added more bells and whistles along with a much easier to understand (for a noob Mark series customer) control layout. How many times have you seen a Mark II,III,IV in a music store with the controls set "awkwardly"? :lol:

 

[JOEY B.]

Volume 1 at 5

Good for squeaky cleans, instant turds for the lead channel. :lol:

 

[JOEY B.]

Volume 1 at 5

Good for squeaky cleans, instant turds for the lead channel. :lol:

That was what was so odd/ weird about it. He was only playing through the lead channel! :shock:
Volume 1 might have actually been at 4 and the Master around 5.

The MkV will definately help people (that do not understand cascading gain controls) to dial in good tones quickly. 8)

 

[Racerboy44]

Methinks a lot of IIC+ owners have very thin skin.
By the way, if I buy a 30 year-old Corvette, does that make me a Chevrolet "customer"?

So when I take my C+ in to have it serviced by Mesa am I then a customer? Your analogy is weak to say the least. The point I was making had nothing to do with having thin skin. I currently own a Recto and have owned about five other Mesa models, 2 of which were bought new. Am I a customer yet?
The point is Mesa sounds like they are trying to say that the Mark V has the C+ sound and in the process labeling those who have the original as "snobbish". This is not going to make or break whether I deal with Mesa, I just find this tactic strange or out or character.
My guess is that the Mark V will get close to the C+ sound but not all the way. There are just too many variables in parts and such. Of course, Mesa will say different but I would like to talk with Mike B. alone for a few minutes to see what he says. Better yet, I'll hear it for myself soon enough!

 

[Platypus]

Mesa also claims the 3 CH rectifiers 'blow the 2CH out of the water' and completely refuse to acknowledge the pre-500 tone differences..

It's called marketing and nothing more. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. People who cannot find/afford a C+ want to feel like they've got something just as good as a C+ as much as Mesa wants people to believe it's as good or better.

 

[rispsira]

Sorry if this is out of the subject, but mentionning the 3 VS 2 channel rectifiers, i always hear about the 2 channels beeing superior, and the pre 500 being EVEN better than those two. Is this correct??

Also where does the Triple rectos fit in all that in your opinion?? And if you take a few tubes out of the triple will it sound like a dual? (Less headroom, but warmer)

And then theres the roadster and the roadking and people say that even those two dont sound the same etc so where do they fit in all this??

I am interested in a recto after i get my Mark amps but i am TOTALLY lost LOL

 

[MrMarkIII]

Methinks a lot of IIC+ owners have very thin skin.
By the way, if I buy a 30 year-old Corvette, does that make me a Chevrolet "customer"?

So when I take my C+ in to have it serviced by Mesa am I then a customer? Your analogy is weak to say the least. The point I was making had nothing to do with having thin skin. I currently own a Recto and have owned about five other Mesa models, 2 of which were bought new. Am I a customer yet?
The point is Mesa sounds like they are trying to say that the Mark V has the C+ sound and in the process labeling those who have the original as "snobbish". This is not going to make or break whether I deal with Mesa, I just find this tactic strange or out or character.
My guess is that the Mark V will get close to the C+ sound but not all the way. There are just too many variables in parts and such. Of course, Mesa will say different but I would like to talk with Mike B. alone for a few minutes to see what he says. Better yet, I'll hear it for myself soon enough!

Of course you're a customer of Mesa if you buy something new. You missed the point, which is buying a 30 year-old amp. The operative word being "old".

And yes, you are the customer - of the service dept. - but, again, not the (new amp) sales dept.

Usually, the only people worried about the "snob" label are, well, snobs.

 

[Racerboy44]

To be honest, the closest thing I've heard to the C+ tone is the Quad preamp and I'm sure the power amp you use affects the end result. I'll be surprised if the Mark V nails the C+ tone. But if it does, I will purchase it and put my C+ safely into retirement!!

 

[sfarnell]

Doug West speaks the truth about the C+ w/o EQ. A lot of Boogie enthusiasts who I know and who have had different versions of the C+, some 60 Watt, some w/eq, some without eq, etc., and who have compared them side by side, will tell you that the C+ w/o EQ has the better tone.

I've owned many C+ amps over the years and still own a couple. I've sold every one of them except a 60 Watter w/o EQ (the best I've ever heard) and a Simulclass w/o EQ that is also a killer amp.

Just the $.02 of someone who has owned 25 different Boogies since the '70's and someone who now owns a Mark V (which IMO doesn't nail the lead tone of the C+, regardless of what Doug West has to say now when he is motivated to sell the Mark V).

 

[JOEY B.]

Doug West speaks the truth about the C+ w/o EQ. A lot of Boogie enthusiasts who I know and who have had different versions of the C+, some 60 Watt, some w/eq, some without eq, etc., and who have compared them side by side, will tell you that the C+ w/o EQ has the better tone.

I've owned many C+ amps over the years and still own a couple. I've sold every one of them except a 60 Watter w/o EQ (the best I've ever heard) and a Simulclass w/o EQ that is also a killer amp.

Just the $.02 of someone who has owned 25 different Boogies since the '70's and someone who now owns a Mark V (which IMO doesn't nail the lead tone of the C+, regardless of what Doug West has to say now when he is motivated to sell the Mark V).

You are probably 100% correct about the non-EQ versions having a more "pure" tone. I still will prefer the EQ models based on their ability to adjust for the guitar being used and the room acoustics. I also like to use my "EQ AUTO" function to shape the lead channel tone independently of my clean channel. To each their own. 8)

 

[GIG4FUN]

Doug West speaks the truth about the C+ w/o EQ. A lot of Boogie enthusiasts who I know and who have had different versions of the C+, some 60 Watt, some w/eq, some without eq, etc., and who have compared them side by side, will tell you that the C+ w/o EQ has the better tone.

I've owned many C+ amps over the years and still own a couple. I've sold every one of them except a 60 Watter w/o EQ (the best I've ever heard) and a Simulclass w/o EQ that is also a killer amp.

Just the $.02 of someone who has owned 25 different Boogies since the '70's and someone who now owns a Mark V (which IMO doesn't nail the lead tone of the C+, regardless of what Doug West has to say now when he is motivated to sell the Mark V).

You are probably 100% correct about the non-EQ versions having a more "pure" tone. I still will prefer the EQ models based on their ability to adjust for the guitar being used and the room acoustics. I also like to use my "EQ AUTO" function to shape the lead channel tone independently of my clean channel. To each their own. 8)

+1 well said kiddo
I never will listen to the non-EQ cork sniffers hehe
I am beer drinkin' bar giggin' EQ lovin' Boogie Man

 

[JOEY B.]

+1 well said kiddo
I never will listen to the non-EQ cork sniffers hehe
I am beer drinkin' bar giggin' EQ lovin' Boogie Man

This kiddo is sneaking up on 40 years old and has been playing MESA/Boogie amps for the past 20 years. I sniff no corks, and say to everyone "Go with whatever works best for YOU!"
As for the beer drinkin' Boogie Man, I am guilty as charged. :lol:

 

[caf]

Just the $.02 of someone who has owned 25 different Boogies since the '70's and someone who now owns a Mark V (which IMO doesn't nail the lead tone of the C+, regardless of what Doug West has to say now when he is motivated to sell the Mark V).

well that sucks, how close does it get though?
i assume you did the side by side comparason suggested in the mark 5 manual?

 

[Shep]

Just the $.02 of someone who has owned 25 different Boogies since the '70's and someone who now owns a Mark V (which IMO doesn't nail the lead tone of the C+, regardless of what Doug West has to say now when he is motivated to sell the Mark V).

well that sucks, how close does it get though?
i assume you did the side by side comparason suggested in the mark 5 manual?

Shouldn't switching the EQ out leave it set like a C+ with out a eq? appart from the switch and the little wire with it out whats the difference?how does the Eq switching circuit work?

 

[lesterpaul]

Shep, I think I understand your question..this is quote from manual..hopefully it answers your q-
"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."-Doug West/Mk V manual
eq out doesnt remove the "great big cap" from the circiut, I suppose

 

[BENNY]

UUUGGGGHHHHHH ! NOW THEY TELL ME ! man i passed up buying a II c+ years ago cause it DIDN'T have the eq.


the first thing that jumped out at me when reading the manual is how far manuals have come. i still have my 50 cal. + manual that was typed with a type writer on blue paper with typos and everything. :lol:

 

[danyeo1]

Doug West speaks the truth about the C+ w/o EQ. A lot of Boogie enthusiasts who I know and who have had different versions of the C+, some 60 Watt, some w/eq, some without eq, etc., and who have compared them side by side, will tell you that the C+ w/o EQ has the better tone.

I've owned many C+ amps over the years and still own a couple. I've sold every one of them except a 60 Watter w/o EQ (the best I've ever heard) and a Simulclass w/o EQ that is also a killer amp.

Just the $.02 of someone who has owned 25 different Boogies since the '70's and someone who now owns a Mark V (which IMO doesn't nail the lead tone of the C+, regardless of what Doug West has to say now when he is motivated to sell the Mark V).

I'm going to have to agree with you. I've owned 2 IIC+ amps over the past 10 years. 1 was a 60 watt non-simulclass EQ loaded head. The other was the same but a NON-EQ loaded head. FWIW, i liked the EQ loaded head better.

But, yes, something's missing with the Mark V. I'm not sure what but i am tweaking, tweaking, tweaking, and more tweaking. Know what i did on my IIC+?...i was playing. There's something up with the EQ sliders on the new MArk V, I'm not sure what but a lot of people have complained about it and i feel there is something to it.

A lot of Boogie haters say that Mark series amps are boxy, thin, cardboardy sounding, and with the Mark V i can't argue with them. All the usual settings i always used on MArk II, III, and IV's just don't work right with the V. I'm not sure if maybe even my ears have changed, or if the Mark V is really that different from previous Mark amps.

I notice when i get something decent with the preset knob and switch to the sliders the tone is really muffled, boxy, and just wierd sounding. Where's that ALIVE sounding feel that the IIC+ had, you know that sound and feel where the tone is just jumping out of the speaker. I'm not hearing it here.


And I'm not suprised to see Boogie trash IIC+ owners calling them snobs and whatnot. 20 year old amps really don't really help Boogie sell amps right now do they? They can say all they want, but for those of us that really know the truth, we can spot marketing ******** when we see it.