New amp, C->C+ upgrade, with gut shots

[djsquared]

Hey all, I'm a relative noob to the board and I was just able to purchase a C->C++ DRG combo, serial #111xx. I set the chassis free tonight to get a look at the internals and see what I've got. The initial inspection shows two unexpected things, an RP11 preamp board and an X101 transformer. I was under the impression that a IIC would have the RP10 board and 100 transformer? Another curious thing I discovered was 'T. Frank C+' written on the chassis in marker. Is that the original buyer, maybe, or a Mesa tech?

Anyway, here are some gut shots:

I know by now that any unserviced Mark IIC could use a cap job, but given that, do the caps look ok?

Thanks for any insight into my new purchase. Tomorrow I A/B it against my Mark IVB, and the loser ends up on the 'bay

 

[djsquared]

Well, I don't know what to say, but i am about ready to declare my Mark IV the winner in my A/B shootout. Maybe my expectations were not realistic? Or I'm doing something wrong trying to dialin the IIC+?

I am going to give it another shot today, but don't be surprised to see a IIC+ DRGX in the classifieds tomorrow.

 

[DaveP]

What are your setting?

 

[djsquared]

I started off with some pretty standard scooped metal settings:

vol1 - 9
treble - 7
bass - 2
mid - 0
lead drive - 8
lead master - 2
presence - 6

with the GEQ in the familiar 'M' shape. But I've got another issue to deal with before I contine the evaluation, which is definitely impacting the tone - I'm pretty sure one of the preamp tubes is dying/dead. After playing for a while today, my Rhythm volume went away and the Lead gain dropped quite a bit. I am going to go through the preamp tubes one by one tomorrow and find the bad one.

 

[DaveP]

Once you get the tubes sorted out and find the bad one try these settings and see what you think.

Vol 1 - Pulled 7.5
Treble - pulled 7
Bass - Pulled 2
Mid - 3
Master Pulled
Lead Drive 7-8
Lead Master Pulled

Presence 3

GEQ - shallow U shape to start.

With the settings you currently have they seem to be on the bright side. Your vol 1 and presence seems especially high. Also it will have an effect on your clean
channel. There is a balance that can be achieved with the proper settings.

 

[JOEY B.]

I started off with some pretty standard scooped metal settings.

....and that's where your problem started. Turn off the GEQ, get the best sound that you can with the knobs and the push/pulls. THEN, turn on the GEQ and go slowly from flat EQ to what sounds good to you. Pay no attention to what someone else has done or is doing. This is your game, play it your way. Your ears will tell you when it is right. 8)

 

[cremona]

I never have my presence higer then 2.5, above that it starts to shound like sh... imo, so turn it down.

Dialing in a c+ wrong can make it go from heaven to hell

Tubes, are also so damm important with a c+. when i got my last one the sound was all over the place untill i swaped the tubes, Tungsram/RFT 12ax7, and sylvania/philips for the power stage.

Sorry to say but you are a damm fool if you sell it before you have dialed it in and replaced the bad tubes.

 

[dodger916]

I started off with some pretty standard scooped metal settings.

....and that's where your problem started. Turn off the GEQ, get the best sound that you can with the knobs and the push/pulls. THEN, turn on the GEQ and go slowly from flat EQ to what sounds good to you. Pay no attention to what someone else has done or is doing. This is your game, play it your way. Your ears will tell you when it is right. 8)

Definitely begin with no Eq and all pots pushed. I've found the Pull features are great for getting a range of different sounds, not necessarily getting "The" sound. For instance, with Treble pot pushed, I'm able to get my C+ Lead channel to sound like Rhy2 of my Mark IVB with gain pot pulled; great overdriven yet articulate rhythm/lead sound. Pulling the C+ Treble pot gets me into where I typically set my Mark IV's Lead Channel.

By the way, the X101 tranny is a wonderful thing! According to Mike B, the C+ is happiest with an export tranny.

 

[djsquared]

Ouch, I don't want to be a fool

Good advice all, I'll sort out the tube issue and be a little more patient. I tested the power stage with STR-425s (what it came with) and STR-440s that I had on hand. I haven't looked at the preamp tubes yet, but I'll figure them out today during my troubleshooting. I'll check out the some Tungsram/RFTs. I've used JJ/Teslas in other amps but my understanding is that they're not a great fit for the IIC+. I was thinking Tung-Sol too.

Regarding the presence, I try to get where I want to be with the main controls and then dial in some growl with the presence. For a 2.5 setting/anything under 4, I understand that's going to cut highs.

I wasn't expecting the X101 tranny at all, discovering that definitely sent my expectations higher.

 

[dodger916]

Ouch, I don't want to be a fool

Good advice all, I'll sort out the tube issue and be a little more patient. I tested the power stage with STR-425s (what it came with) and STR-440s that I had on hand. I haven't looked at the preamp tubes yet, but I'll figure them out today during my troubleshooting. I'll check out the some Tungsram/RFTs. I've used JJ/Teslas in other amps but my understanding is that they're not a great fit for the IIC+. I was thinking Tung-Sol too.

Regarding the presence, I try to get where I want to be with the main controls and then dial in some growl with the presence. For a 2.5 setting/anything under 4, I understand that's going to cut highs.

I wasn't expecting the X101 tranny at all, discovering that definitely sent my expectations higher.

Tubes can make a huge difference in these amps. As others have suggested, get your hands on some STR415s or the non-Mesa-labelled vintage Sylvania/Philips 6L6GC. Then get a pair of STR416s or the non-Mesa-labelled vintage Sylvania 6CA7 for the outer sockets. They're a bit spendy, but no power tubes are better for the C+ than these. I wouldn't have believed it had I not heard it for myself. Preamps tubes are relatively inexpensive, so experiment away and find your favorites.

 

[djsquared]

rodger dodger, tube cocktail ordered and on the way. I didn't go all out with NOS (yet) but I've got a nice mix coming of Tung-Sol, Mullard, EI, EH, and SEDs.

hibernating to wait mode again...

 

[djsquared]

After some decent time tube rolling, I settled on on Tung-Sols in V1-V4 and an EI in V5. The Mullard in V1 sounded good, but I found the Tung-Sol had a little better crunch. Some SED =C= EL34s in the outer sockets helped as well. I took everyone's advice and started from scratch with less extreme settings w/no EQ, and it sounds great now. The pure cleans and the 'on the edge of breakup' cleans are the best I've ever heard, no question. The Leads are vicious too... but, I've got to say, I still prefer the more modern gain on the Mark IV Lead channel. And the Lead channel is where I spend the majority of my time.

I guess I'm going to be one of the few that prefers the IV to the IIC+. Oh well. As much as I wanted to like it more, I didn't, and I am not going to force myself to like it when my ears are telling me something else.

It'll be up in the Classifieds shortly.

 

[dodger916]

After some decent time tube rolling, I settled on on Tung-Sols in V1-V4 and an EI in V5. The Mullard in V1 sounded good, but I found the Tung-Sol had a little better crunch. Some SED =C= EL34s in the outer sockets helped as well. I took everyone's advice and started from scratch with less extreme settings w/no EQ, and it sounds great now. The pure cleans and the 'on the edge of breakup' cleans are the best I've ever heard, no question. The Leads are vicious too... but, I've got to say, I still prefer the more modern gain on the Mark IV Lead channel. And the Lead channel is where I spend the majority of my time.

I guess I'm going to be one of the few that prefers the IV to the IIC+. Oh well. As much as I wanted to like it more, I didn't, and I am not going to force myself to like it when my ears are telling me something else.

It'll be up in the Classifieds shortly.

Like you I prefer the Mark IV lead channel, but for me the C+ generates unbeatable rhythm guitar sounds and feel in the Lead Channel (Treble pot pushed), especially the edge of breakup. If I HAD to choose one I'd also pick the MIV. But then there are those times when I'll noodle with the C+ for a couple of hours and realize that I need it in my life! Good luck with your sale. I respect your decisiveness!

 

[les_paul]

I'm starting to hedge towards the Mark IV myself. I think the folklore behind the IIC+ is all hype. Its a good sounding amp but IMO not a great sounding amp. When you look at all the people that made them famous, they processed the heck out of them.

I will say, however, the clean is easily the best clean sound I've ever had. Even though I'm in a metal band I find myself playing with the clean channel most in my spare time.

 

[zodiac272]

I'm starting to hedge towards the Mark IV myself. I think the folklore behind the IIC+ is all hype.

I will say, however, the clean is easily the best clean sound I've ever had. Even though I'm in a metal band I find myself playing with the clean channel most in my spare time.

hey les_paul,
do you have a C or a C+? just wondering since your last thread you started was asking if mesa would add GEQ to to your IIC. just wondering no biggie either way.

You did say the clean is easily the best clean you ever had and that's not enough to call it a great amp, and not hype? I had a very early mark IVa, and as far as lead tone, the C+ wins, but they both are really good. maybe since you like metal like I do, you are comparing a non GEQ IIC to a GEQ mark IV, which will not be so good for the IIC. to me the mark IV sounded thin and lacked some balls next to my HRG C+. but that's me.

ymmv, but i wonder if doug west bought 8 of any other mesa amps other than the 8 IIC+ he did buy.

scott

 

[les_paul]

I'm starting to hedge towards the Mark IV myself. I think the folklore behind the IIC+ is all hype.

I will say, however, the clean is easily the best clean sound I've ever had. Even though I'm in a metal band I find myself playing with the clean channel most in my spare time.

hey les_paul,
do you have a C or a C+? just wondering since your last thread you started was asking if mesa would add GEQ to to your IIC. just wondering no biggie either way.

You did say the clean is easily the best clean you ever had and that's not enough to call it a great amp, and not hype? I had a very early mark IVa, and as far as lead tone, the C+ wins, but they both are really good. maybe since you like metal like I do, you are comparing a non GEQ IIC to a GEQ mark IV, which will not be so good for the IIC. to me the mark IV sounded thin and lacked some balls next to my HRG C+. but that's me.

ymmv, but i wonder if doug west bought 8 of any other mesa amps other than the 8 IIC+ he did buy.

scott

I have a C that has had the C+ update. I generally refer to it as a C because the serial number falls within the C range. If this is not the proper thing to do, please let me know.

The thing about the hype of these amps is that they are known to have a good clean but they are supposed to have a legendary metal tone. The difference between a good amp and a great amp is that it should excel in all aspects. IMO, the IIC+ lead channel is lacking. That is why they came out with subsequent revisions of the amp (the Mark III, IV, and V) in which the biggest differences in all up to the V seemed to focus on the lead channel. My point is that they were heavily processed or not used in a bone stock manner. For example, Metallica slaved them into Marshalls, used several different parametric EQs/preamps, etc.

Having said all of that, I feel I could get a better STOCK sound from a Mark IV, though I'm working with some EQs and venturing into the preamp world to make this IIC(+) sound like the legendary beast we've all heard it is. I'm going to give it a chance for a while, but after a month I'm not convinced I can get a usable metal sound going straight into the amp.

 

[les_paul]

Also, the fact that Doug West bought 8 is a testament to me that these things were reasonably inconsistent and that yours may sound killer while mine is a bit stale.

 

[zodiac272]

from what I have read, the 8 that he bought were built for him exactly the same (modeled after 1 he thought was best) , though there were some small subtle differences in production. the 3 that I have had, I sent to mesa to get serviced when i bought them, and 2 of them get the "+" upgrade. they all have GEQ, and they were all awesome (my opinion) after service.... the 2 upgraded ones were broken when I bought them, and actually so was the coliseum, but I didn't know until mike b. told me. my 60 watter was gnarly, I loved it, but I traded it for a diezel einstein 100W, which i just sold.

do you know the history of yours? did you buy it after it was upgraded? do you know when it was last at mesa for a service?

oh and yeah, you have a IIC+, upgraded or not it's a C+. the circuit is different from a IIC.

scott