MKiiB vs MKIIC

[dcgdc5]

I have a '81 MKII B. Fantastic sounding amp. What is the difference between the MKIIB and the MKIIC? Is it THAT much better than a MKIIB and if so is it possible to mod the B to a C?

 

[Boogiebabies]

The IIB is a fantastic amp in it's own right. It cannot however be upgraded to a IIC. The IIB uses 1 relay for switching from clean to overdrive
and relies simply on the mechanical switches for the pull functions. The IIC uses 5 Light Dependent Resistors for some pull functions, EQ in/auto and
switching the clean and overdrive channels. With the two different circuit designs, the circuit boards are vastly different and cannot be retrofitted.

 

[RR]

Don't mean to hi-jack this thread is a Mark IIC closer to Mark III or Mark IIB?


dcgdc5, do search on Mark IIB modified effect loop on this forum. You should get this mod* if you haven't done so. It's practically a standard to get this mod. Even if you don't use the effect loop, the reverb's tone is improved with this mod.

*This modification is done by MESA's head chief technician Mike Benedelli [msp?].

 

[gonzo]

i don't have the mod in my MarkIIb.

i don't have reverb, only GEQ.

my head, is a 60 watter.


i've never had any issues with my fx loop, it works perfectly.

i prefer to record with nothing in the loop, but for live work, it's great.

 

[RR]

gonzo, in your case you probably not much benefits from this mod since you don't have reverb.

The "improve effect loop" is so you could "blend" the signal of your effects with the amplifier signals instead of sending the preamp signal into the effect and return them to the amplifiers.

But since you say you have no problem with the effect loop then you are probably fine.

Don't you just love the Mark IIB? Mark IIB is one of my favorite Boogies that's why I asks if a Mark IIC is more of Mark III or a Mark IIB?

The Mark III is fine amp but not my cup of tea. If I need that much gain I rather go for the gusto and get "master of gain", a Dual Rectifier.

 

[dcgdc5]

I love the MKIIB. I have a non verb/EQ Model but love it. The effects loop poses no problem at all. I was just wondering what the differences between the IIB and the IIC were...especially tonally.

I'm on the verge of replacing/experimneting with tubes. I bought this amp in '81. Sold it in '85 for a MkIII...never cared for that amp as much as the MKII. Just had the chance to buy back the MKII and jumped on it. Since then I've learned s lot about amps and tubes etc. So...the quest begins.

I'll start with SED winged C's 6L6's and maybe a JJ gold pin in the V1 or V2 slot. Maybe spring for a Mullard..we'll see.

Any recommendations?

 

[RR]

gonzo, dcgdc5, ... should have said "if your Mark IIB has reverb then ... => Mike B. mod ..." :wink:

I guess in both of your cases, you would not need this mod.

Yeah, I sure like the Mark IIB. I think the Mark III was competing with Marshall JCM800 which had a lot of preamp gain. Mark IIB was like a fat Fender with added overdrive. Thing I really like about the Mark IIB, you could play a Strat and it sounds like a Strat. Play a Les Paul and sounds like a Les Paul. Then the Mark III you could add so much gain, you would not know what guitar the guitar player is playing. Signal is all lost with preamp saturation. Not really a bad thing but not my cup of tea.

 

[dcgdc5]

Exactly RR.

 

[dodger916]

Thing I really like about the Mark IIB, you could play a Strat and it sounds like a Strat. Play a Les Paul and sounds like a Les Paul. Then the Mark III you could add so much gain, you would not know what guitar the guitar player is playing. Signal is all lost with preamp saturation. Not really a bad thing but not my cup of tea.

+1, and why I think Mark IIs are the "best" sounding Marks.

 

[Neptical]

gonzo, dcgdc5, ... should have said "if your Mark IIB has reverb then ... => Mike B. mod ..." :wink:

I guess in both of your cases, you would not need this mod.

Yeah, I sure like the Mark IIB. I think the Mark III was competing with Marshall JCM800 which had a lot of preamp gain. Mark IIB was like a fat Fender with added overdrive. Thing I really like about the Mark IIB, you could play a Strat and it sounds like a Strat. Play a Les Paul and sounds like a Les Paul. Then the Mark III you could add so much gain, you would not know what guitar the guitar player is playing. Signal is all lost with preamp saturation. Not really a bad thing but not my cup of tea.

IF you add the extra gain (vol/treble) in the III, then of course you could get pretty lost in preamp saturation...and even then distinguishing my Teles,Gretsch's,LP's,PRS etc I've plugged in are drastically noticeable. When rolling back the vol/treble on my III's, they clean up extremely nice reminding me of my old Fender combos. You can get nice and clean with them while still having some nice grit...good for Chet Atkins style finger and chickin' pickin'. Having the extra amount of gain on tap is only an additonal feature to take the amp straight to hell.

~Nep~

 

[RR]

gonzo, dcgdc5, ... should have said "if your Mark IIB has reverb then ... => Mike B. mod ..." :wink:

I guess in both of your cases, you would not need this mod.

Yeah, I sure like the Mark IIB. I think the Mark III was competing with Marshall JCM800 which had a lot of preamp gain. Mark IIB was like a fat Fender with added overdrive. Thing I really like about the Mark IIB, you could play a Strat and it sounds like a Strat. Play a Les Paul and sounds like a Les Paul. Then the Mark III you could add so much gain, you would not know what guitar the guitar player is playing. Signal is all lost with preamp saturation. Not really a bad thing but not my cup of tea.

IF you add the extra gain (vol/treble) in the III, then of course you could get pretty lost in preamp saturation...and even then distinguishing my Teles,Gretsch's,LP's,PRS etc I've plugged in are drastically noticeable. When rolling back the vol/treble on my III's, they clean up extremely nice reminding me of my old Fender combos. You can get nice and clean with them while still having some nice grit...good for Chet Atkins style finger and chickin' pickin'. Having the extra amount of gain on tap is only an additonal feature to take the amp straight to hell.

~Nep~

Yeah, but that's like the analogy what a music salesperson try to convince me of: 'Yes, these pickups are extremely HOT but if you roll off the (guitar) volume you could get a 'PAF' tone." :?

 

[Neptical]

gonzo, dcgdc5, ... should have said "if your Mark IIB has reverb then ... => Mike B. mod ..." :wink:

I guess in both of your cases, you would not need this mod.

Yeah, I sure like the Mark IIB. I think the Mark III was competing with Marshall JCM800 which had a lot of preamp gain. Mark IIB was like a fat Fender with added overdrive. Thing I really like about the Mark IIB, you could play a Strat and it sounds like a Strat. Play a Les Paul and sounds like a Les Paul. Then the Mark III you could add so much gain, you would not know what guitar the guitar player is playing. Signal is all lost with preamp saturation. Not really a bad thing but not my cup of tea.

IF you add the extra gain (vol/treble) in the III, then of course you could get pretty lost in preamp saturation...and even then distinguishing my Teles,Gretsch's,LP's,PRS etc I've plugged in are drastically noticeable. When rolling back the vol/treble on my III's, they clean up extremely nice reminding me of my old Fender combos. You can get nice and clean with them while still having some nice grit...good for Chet Atkins style finger and chickin' pickin'. Having the extra amount of gain on tap is only an additonal feature to take the amp straight to hell.

~Nep~

Yeah, but that's like the analogy what a music salesperson try to convince me of: 'Yes, these pickups are extremely HOT but if you roll off the (guitar) volume you could get a 'PAF' tone." :?

Salesmen are paid to convince and lie. I come to the Boogie board to speak the truth and nothing but the truth.

~Nep~

 

[RR]

The Mark III has too much preamp gain than I like. Yes, if you took a poll on this forum, there will be an overwhelming majority prefer a Mark III over a Mark IIB because of the gain the Mark III has.

But my point is, the Mark III gain is too much for my liking, my opinion as well as dodger916 which is NOT the consensus of this board. My other buddy bought a Mark III and two month down the road he sold it because he said he can't get the tone like mine and my other buddies Mark IIA.

These two amps are completely different animals. That's my point. The Mark IIB is NOT a subset of Mark III. Just because you rolled down the guitar volume, you claim it cleans up like your old Fender(?). Silver Face or Black Face?

You did bring up "old Fender" and in a live setting I sure like to A/B a Black Face Fenders say Princeton Reverb, or Deluxe Reverb, or Super Reverb against your Mark III put them behind curtain and you demonstrate that the Mark III will clean up when as well as these amps when rolling off the guitar's volume.

Our ears must have a different threshold of a tone of an old Fender.

 

[Neptical]

The Mark III has too much preamp gain than I like. Yes, if you took a poll on this forum, there will be an overwhelming majority prefer a Mark III over a Mark IIB because of the gain the Mark III has.

Ok, first..the Mark III is only going to give me as much preamp gain as I dial in. If I don't dial much in, then with some volume it starts driving the power section giving a real nice vintage sound. These amps are very versitile amps.

But my point is, the Mark III gain is too much for my liking, my opinion as well as dodger916 which is NOT the consensus of this board. My other buddy bought a Mark III and two month down the road he sold it because he said he can't get the tone like mine and my other buddies Mark IIA.

Cool, we all have our opinions...let 'em rip. And because one person can't seem to get a good tone from the Mark III doesn't really mean much. There's way too many variables.

These two amps are completely different animals. That's my point. The Mark IIB is NOT a subset of Mark III. Just because you rolled down the guitar volume, you claim it cleans up like your old Fender(?). Silver Face or Black Face?

Your right, one is a Mark IIB and one is a Mark III. As I previously stated, you don't have to have all the gain cranked on a Mark III. And maybe I should of been more clear but I meant rolling back the main volume and treble on the AMP...not the guitar. LOL. I think this is where we got the miscommunication going. :lol: :lol: BTW- I also had a Silver Face AND a Black Face given to me from my pops who's also a player.

You did bring up "old Fender" and in a live setting I sure like to A/B a Black Face Fenders say Princeton Reverb, or Deluxe Reverb, or Super Reverb against your Mark III put them behind curtain and you demonstrate that the Mark III will clean up when as well as these amps when rolling off the guitar's volume.

Your right, the old Fender cleans are where its at. As I said with my IIIs, when they are strictly clean with absolutely no gain, they are very full,bright and chimey reminding me of my old Fender combos. It's pretty **** convincing.

Our ears must have a different threshold of a tone of an old Fender.

Put us in the same room with one and I doubt we'll disagree on a good ole Fender.

~Nep~

 

[RR]

Neptical

I'm cool with you. Just thought it was going to be a TGP thread. :shock:

I see your point. I'm kind of a Fender guy (as well as vintage amp guy Marshall's JTM45 and Super Leads, Vox AC30 etc ... ) and I think the change from the Mark II to Mark III was fairly a giant jump. As you said if you roll down the Mark III's treble you could get a fairly Fender tone. I agree. Its that Mark I, II was more "Fender" (with more midrange and bigger x-former than Fender's) than today's Mark III, IV, Mark V.

By design, the Mark III's tone controls differ than Mark II's (I think) for versatility due to the higher preamp gain. Mark II stayed basically similar to Fenders with cascading preamp tube gain.

didn't mean to jump on you. :wink: Yes, Mark Series does still have fender heritage.

 

[Neptical]

Neptical

I'm cool with you. Just thought it was going to be a TGP thread. :shock:

Oh no!!! LOL. Stay far from that monstrocity. I am cool,I come in peace. 8)

I see your point. I'm kind of a Fender guy (as well as vintage amp guy Marshall's JTM45 and Super Leads, Vox AC30 etc ... ) and I think the change from the Mark II to Mark III was fairly a giant jump. As you said if you roll down the Mark III's treble you could get a fairly Fender tone. I agree. Its that Mark I, II was more "Fender" (with more midrange and bigger x-former than Fender's) than today's Mark III, IV, Mark V.

We can agree!! No biggie, my friend. Just a little miscommunication, that's all. Sorry!

By design, the Mark III's tone controls differ than Mark II's (I think) for versatility due to the higher preamp gain. Mark II stayed basically similar to Fenders with cascading preamp tube gain.didn't mean to jump on you. :wink: Yes, Mark Series does still have fender heritage.

As long as we are both happy with our Boogie amps, that's really all that matters. We have such small amount of time that passes by so quickly to compare our differences, that all we can really do is listen to what each other has to say. Boogie friends!

~Nep~