Quad pre and IIC+ comparison

[MesieBooga]

Anyone compare these back to back/ side to side?

 

[Friedmett]

No not yet.

I would say that comparing the old Metallica records Puppets,Justice and the Black album to the tone of the Quad nails it perfectly.

I do wonder if a C+ mod would be that much better if it could be done.

 

[MesieBooga]

I will be this week because I am getting a Quad Thurs. :wink:

 

[4nkam]

Cool! I did compare the studio and Quad awhile back and I really love the studio over quad ch1. The Quad is scary close, but is lacking some thickness in the general tone. They're both GREAT preamps though

As soon as I get some extra $$, I'm gonna call up Bendinelli and see about modding the Quad ch1 to C+ specs though.

mJ

 

[MesieBooga]

My Quad Pre showed up...
Tonight at low volume I'm impressed. The Quad Channel one sounds VERY similar to my IIC+. I haven't retubed it or anything yet either. :shock: Pretty Cool unit.

 

[4Draw]

Did you get to compare the two more closely?

Dying to hear a review here!

 

[MesieBooga]

Did you get to compare the two more closely?

Dying to hear a review here!

The Quad is a great way to see if you like the IIC+ tone. There is a learning curve to dialing in both amps of course. Its very similar with a different power section. I was able to dial in pretty close to my fave IIC+ tone.
I still prefer my IIC+ of cource.

 

[4Draw]

Hehe, that's cool, but I was kind of looking forward to a bit more in depth review. Not to be disrespectful, but I pretty much knew all of that already, having a Quad myself, hehe.

How does the Ch1 on the Quad compare to the IIC+?

 

[Aart]

i didn't compared them together, but in my memory, teh IIC+ has just a bit more gain than the Quad's lead 1.

 

[Ed Pitman]

Hi - congrats on buying a Quad. How do you find the sound in Rhythm 2 with just a hint of gain ? - Let me know - enjoy !

best wishes

Ed

 

[petejt]

I thought the Quad preamp was supposed to be a exactly the same as the IIC+'s preamp?

 

[Whoopysnorp]

I thought the Quad preamp was supposed to be a exactly the same as the IIC+'s preamp?

I think it's "based on" the IIC (not +). What "based on" means exactly, I'm not 100 percent sure.

 

[4nkam]

There is no preamp/circuit exactly the same (but the Mark IV is preeeeeeeeetty close). The Quad ch1 is based on the Mark IIC and ch2 is based on the Mark III. Bendinelli "says" that ch1 is basically a C+ and I interpret that as simply meaning that it's very very close. The CH1 layout/design does seem to be pretty close (closer than the Studio too).

 

[disassembled]

I am sure any purest would say that it doesn't come close to the true C+ specs but the quad sounds pretty good to me. I prefer the Mark IV for versatility though (independent gain controls and more seperation of EQ controls).

I think most of the hype surrounding the C+ is partly due to the dynamics which are in the lead channel. I think similar dynamics are found in the Quad but I still hate having shared B,M, and T controls for the two channels. IMO it really limits the potentional of having a 2 channel amp.

Greg

 

[PC Biz]

You've got to remember that a lot of the IIC+ tone comes from the power amp. If you don't have a Mesa Simul Class power amp with the Quad, it's safe to assume that your tone will be further away from the tone of a IIC+.

 

[MetalMatt]

I remember reading a thread that someone talked to a Mesa tech guy asking about the Quad pre and the C+ comparison. He said that a Quad pre into 50/50 power amp on channel 1 is basically a Mark IIc+. Now I could have read it wrong. I'll try and find the thread.

 

[MetalMatt]

I think this was the thread I was talking about :?.... http://forum.grailtone.com/viewtopic.php?t=10231&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=power+amp&start=15

 

[schnarf]

I remember reading a thread that someone talked to a Mesa tech guy asking about the Quad pre and the C+ comparison. He said that a Quad pre into 50/50 power amp on channel 1 is basically a Mark IIc+. Now I could have read it wrong. I'll try and find the thread.

Basically he told me that it was pretty much the IIC+ circuit, but not exactly the same. He said that disconnecting the recording out circuit would make it a little closer, and there are some other tweaks in there which he told me some people have had him do to their Quads to make it exactly the same, but basically it's very close, as long as you run it into a similar power section like the Mark IV power section or a 50/50. Basically his point was it sounds about the same, and sure, you can do little tweaks here and there, but if you really care about those little differences, get a IIC+.

 

[tommyhawk13]

Did you get to compare the two more closely?

Dying to hear a review here!

The Quad is a great way to see if you like the IIC+ tone. There is a learning curve to dialing in both amps of course. Its very similar with a different power section. I was able to dial in pretty close to my fave IIC+ tone.
I still prefer my IIC+ of cource.

What power amp are you using?
Are you just running into the return of the IIC+?

My instructor had a Mark IIC+ in the 80's. A friend of mine had the Quad/Srategy 400. They ended up trading. My friend liked the idea of a combo vs a rack setup for gigs, while the instructor's setup never moved. Neither one complained about tonal differences.

 

[schnarf]

I think the important question to ask is if you're looking for a good tone or if you're looking to have exactly the IIC+ sound because it's the IIC+. The Quad sounds awesome, and so does the IIC+.