Recent loop modded mark IIb questions

The Boogie Board

Help Support The Boogie Board:

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

Appleridge

Well-known member
Boogie Supporter
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
48
Reaction score
32
Howdy,

I just got my 1983 SRG IIb (RP9C) home from Petaluma. Full work over and loop mod. There are multiple explanations of what the loop mod is technically, but I’m looking for those who are familiar with the “tweaking” experience and how this new knob interacts. I’m very familiar with the front of my green stripe mark III and how to dial in….looking for some advice on the IIB regarding setup. It seems to act differently than my III and I’m struggling to dial it in. Preamp tubes are Russian mesa 12ax7’s and a 12at7 in v4. I dumped the JJ tubes and put my 415’s in (much better), but the suggested setting on the new post level control of 8 makes the amp clip to my ears. The distortion seems over modulated. If I dial this post level back to 5 I can get closer to a sound I’m looking for ( standard articulate high gain that rings clear while strumming full chords). Vol 1 7.5, Trb pulled 7.5, Bass 3, Mid 2, Drive 7, Lead vol 5. Presence 7. Standard “V” EQ.

looking for some tips or “this is what my settings are” statements. It’s a little “*****” and I’m trying to dial it out. I’m familiar with mark behavior, but this one if different to me. I know there are a few of u who use these, so any advice would be helpful! I’m also considering my cabs…I have a 2x12 recto which I could do without and a 4x12 metal grill with a v30, mc90, and 2 evm 12Ls.

What cabs/speakers do you like with the IIb?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
After a few weeks of tinkering I think I have it figured out. For whatever reason the amp prefers to have the post level set lower than what is recommended. It also seems to behave a little differently when the loop is used. Im still verifying of this is true, but so far maybe?

As far as tubes, I have tried several and unfortunately the 415’s are best to my ear (no suprise). The 420’s and 440’s were passable for sure..the 448’s however…I cannot find a home for those tubes. I know they are TADs (I have other tad sets that like) but these 448’s are too much for my II and III.

I changed the preamp tubes with an array of Chinese square getters (Mesa branded and unbranded) that I have. I matched them on my orange tester and tossed them in (much improved sound). I think one of the Russian 2’s I had in there may have been ruining the party (although they all test good). Also running a 12at7 (Jan Phillips) in V4 as suggested.

Anyone with tube suggestions on what you like or don’t like on these IIb’s? 12at7 in v2 instead of v4 thoughts?

Lastly, I have an array of cabs and speakers. Currently using a 2x12 recto (v30s) which I’m not crazy about. I have a c90 arriving this week that I’m going to toss in and pair w the v30. May round out the sound a little.
 
the added pot on the back is a post fx loop master.
as simple as that.
the loop mod then will add more gain, but there no change in the front panel knobs meaning.
 
I agree that 8 on the post master is too hot, I've always used 5. Beyond that I dial mine in pretty much the same as all my other C+, III and IVs. Only subtle differences are amp to amp differences in the honkiness of the mids & the presence.

I stopped worrying about tubes when I realized that you can't tell a difference on a microphone.

If we're being picky I'm not a huge fan of 16 ohm V30s, my preferred speaker for high gain is a 2000-2003 8 ohm V30. For normal gain sounds I do like a good Greenback with my Mark IIs. C90s are a great rock speaker but not much for metal. If I were to pick an ideal rock speaker it might look more like a G12-65 or a 65w Creamback. Personally I don't care for EVs, too sterile. YMMV..
 
Appleridge,

As a long time fellow owner of a lat transitional B, I'll offer what observations I can. WARNING Loooong post: thought that some of the technical info might help you get to where you want to go.

I'm sure Mike sent along the instruction sheet for the mod, so you know that the dot on the dial is the point of unity gain--anything above that is only to compensate for effects with low output.

One of the beauties of this mod is the ability to use post effect knob is a master-master volume to bring the amp down to "bedroom" levels while opening up the rhythm, lead and master volume controls so the amp "breathes."

The mode switching and masters have circuit differences from your Mark III (or a Mark II C). Besides the switching relay's lack of distortion/noise from the C/MkIII vactrol switching, the way the lead channel switches in/out differs.

I find this to be a plus (no pun intended), as it lets you setup both modes so they work better together then they do on the original B circuit, It allows it to be a better two-mode switchable--I can find settings that allow me to actually switch to lead and punch out some rather than having to choose setting for just one mode or the other. Then you just set the master-master (post FX volume) to the level you like between 0 and about 7.

As was mentioned, the presence on the B is different than any of the various ones used on the Mk III run, but it is not changed by the loop mod, so use it accordingly.

The mod is more than just a "loop" modification, yes, Mike flips the effects driver from low to high impedance, which is where the "extra" gain stage comes from as well as its B+ moniker, but he also changed the topology of the amp by moving the reverb from the classic Fender implementation to the effects loop section. This makes reverb more useful in both modes and puts it where all time-based effects belong--at the back end, as close to the "room" as you can get without being on the output side of the speaker.

As is well known, these changes are the progenitor of what would turn the C into the C+. So both the loop and reverb should behave similarly to what you are familiar with in the MkIII. Of course, with the proper 12AT7 in that socket, its a better reverb than the C+ or MkIII IMHO. Keep a 12AT7 in that slot, the extra gain of a 12AX is not needed there and the current of the 12AT is not a plus in the V2 loop circuit.

The extra gain stage gives it a more organic lead that is less smooth-hydraulic than the later Marks since the lead on the B is still a single triode rather than the later two triode cascade, so keep that in mind when tube rolling. Also remember that the lead triode shares the same glass with the reverb return--what you select for one may effect the response of the other.

I "suffered" though with a stock 9C B for years before I had Mike retrofit the mod, as I was afraid that I would lose the one trick I used if tor--I have since spent the time kicking myself for not having it done originally--but the amp is now far more flexible and usable. even with the effects driver adding gain the clean is really close to my Mk I, which can be indistinguishable from a Blackface Twin Reverb. The point being, for me nothing was lost.

Another mod that Mike slipped in was to do a wee bit of the later Mark "Bass Shift" change. He changed the slope of the cathode filtering by tagging a low value resistor to the bypass cap. Enough to filter out some of the low end crap without appreciably changing the EQ of the amp. Nowhere near the amount done on the C+. He may have done this on yours; He would have probably told you, but you can be sure by looking at V1 and spotting the flying components on the board. I have since put a switched pot in there to access both characteristics like a C does, but it usually stays set with Mike's handiwork--he does not waste his time on un-impactful changes.

Likewise, you are probably aware that the "Gain Boost" pull switch is not really the original gain boost circuit that lifted the drain of the tone stack via a foot switch or pull knob. It is a switch button that changes the filter shelf at the back end of the amp, later relabeled as such on the C+ face plate. Pulling that puts it back to old-school, while leaving it pushed in attenuates the low frequencies much the same as the bass shift does at the front end. If you are playing high gain, this attenuation may be useful, but if you are doing low/no gain, pull them out and see if you get some more low E growl and then control any flatulence with the bass control. These shift controls were implemented to compensate for the crop of poor offshore tubes that were on the horizon as NOS production/availability was drying up back in the day--they could not hold up to high gain and low crud (and because Doug's ear and guitar wanted less bass). Newer Chinese and Russian tubes are better than those early crops, so use the switch as your tubes and tastes allow.

I also had Mike change to smaller cathode bypass cap values throughout to keep the low end garbage out. I like the quicker response of the non-GEQ amp and don't need the back-end EQ to put the bass back in, since it can be controlled as needed earlier in the circuit. Don't know about your configuration or preferences, but this is probably an unnecessary change with little noticeable effect in most circumstances. So my experience may not map precisely to your amp.

Cant offer much more on tubes, that is a personal ear thing. You are not compressing ahead of the tone stack's phase shift, so I focus on getting as much headroom on the valve as possible--only get one chance at a first stage, after that all controls are subtracting frequencies. your Lead valve is where there is more play room, and you may need to sacrifice the reverb return behavior to get there. You can drive more signal with a higher gain version 12AX7 at the front of the loop if you are not plugging into it or can set the input level of the first effect in the chain. You should be aware when you are rolling tubes that the loop send and recovery triodes have been swapped. Mike retasks them to avoid bad amp behavior.

I use NOS glass and I don't generally drive the gain above blues and classic rock. That said the glass will support the occasional foray into overdrive/overboard when desired. I too run 415s and have never been bowled over by modern Mesa (offshore) big glass. I have run RCA black-plates and GE with success, but Boogie and 415s are a happy combination. If I was a working musician relying on this amp, I would have to make some hard decisions about what glass to use/wear out/replace on a regular basis.

If you have Mk III experience then you already know that the front end EQ is not set and forget like an old Blackface--just make incremental changes, one at a time, until you get to know the amp. Start at low volumes, so you can hear the changes as you rotate through. Do this with the post FX volume down (somewhere 2-4) and the original masters up from where you would have them without the loop mod. Once you have the clean setup with the desired amount of hair, set the lead drive and master for the additional hair and/or volume you want. When you get it dialed into something you like, increase the FX volume to whatever paint-stripping level you want. Obviously, with one tone stack, there may still be compromises to make.

Speakers are kind of a religious thing. I am an EV person for Mark IIs and IIIs. As Mike says "they are an honest speaker'" I find the C-90-n too mid forward and nasally and dull. In general my mission for the amp does not fit the Celestion offerings. I like the flat EQ and general openness of the EV in the B; I am free to EQ the amp to best advantage rather than fighting with it to compensate for something missing or too much of another on this side of the cone. Optimally, the combo on top of an EV Thiele with a speaker of choice on top in the combo cab... if you can tolerate the SPL and weight. I tolerate neither these days, so I leave the EV in the cab. But the tiny cab acoustics are a handicap no matter what version/mods are in the amp tray.

As GJgo said above, YMMV depending on your ears. Be patient a loop modded B is a thing of beauty when mastered. If I have to sell mine before it belongs to my heirs, it will be a tough day! Of course, I say that about all my remaining Marks.

Happy tone hunting.
 
Likewise, you are probably aware that the "Gain Boost" pull switch is not really the original gain boost circuit that lifted the drain of the tone stack via a foot switch or pull knob. It is a switch button that changes the filter shelf at the back end of the amp, later relabeled as such on the C+ face plate. Pulling that puts it back to old-school, while leaving it pushed in attenuates the low frequencies much the same as the bass shift does at the front end. If you are playing high gain, this attenuation may be useful, but if you are doing low/no gain, pull them out and see if you get some more low E growl and then control any flatulence with the bass control. These shift controls were implemented to compensate for the crop of poor offshore tubes that were on the horizon as NOS production/availability was drying up back in the day--they could not hold up to high gain and low crud (and because Doug's ear and guitar wanted less bass). Newer Chinese and Russian tubes are better than those early crops, so use the switch as your tubes and tastes allow.

This depends on the IIB board revision. up to RP9B I believe that the gain boost is indeed the original gain boost (I have a RP9A that does this).
While the later )RP9C board has the feature that was rebranded as "pull deep" on the IIC.
 
As was mentioned, the presence on the B is different than any of the various ones used on the Mk III run, but it is not changed by the loop mod, so use it accordingly.
From a conversation I had with Mike about Presence- The MKII, MKIII non-coli presence is there to boost the highs. However, the IIB & IIC colis have the presence set to squash the highs (where "10" is flat). I'm sure there's more to it but that's an interesting point.

Good post, BTW.
 
I appreciate the analysis guys! The thing that was getting me was the recommended setting on that post. I agree w GJgo that 5 is prob more realistic. I have this set and have started the tweaking process. Thank you for the in depth explanation crustyB, and agree that it’s the setup logic is similar to my iii…just that post was confusing me. After accepting this post level at a lower setting than recommended, I’ve achieved some really great high gain tones that make more sense when dialing in up front. I do agree that for the most part tube changes can be subtle, but for some reason I fall for it lol. The 415’s are a clear winner over the 448’s though. I don’t know what TF, but those things are HOT. May try them in my IV.

I did read in a long lost post that someone felt like pulling the vol 1 bright had an effect when playing lead after the loop mod. I can’t really confirm this though…


I think I have the big pieces where I want them, now just a matter of eq and speaker. The V30 in the 2x12 is boxy and harsh with this IIb. I appreciate the speaker selection advice…looks like I’ll be falling down a speaker rabbit hole next. The ****** part is I’ll get this thing dialed in perfectly at home then take it to our practice space and have to start over. My buddy just shows up and plays…completely oblivious! He seems to not suffer from this tone chasing disease lol.

Thanks all!! Very appreciative of this forum and all the input. We have some great sources of info here through you all!!
 
FedWar, this is true. the "pull gain" was the tone stack lift in the earlier B revisions. To my knowledge, it was changed from the original switched open to one with a resistor to make it less of a gain/volume jump when tapping the foot switch. and then took the later purpose as described. As Appleridge mentioned his was a 9C preamp, I was speaking to his particular amp. That unlabeled change did not behave the way I expected it to based on experience with other MkI and MkIIs and was a point of frustration until I understood the change and how to leverage it.

Presence circuits have been a revolving merry-go-round for for Randy's amps. Never assume that they all work the same--some are not even NFB based presence controls at all--the Mark 1 Reissue and others come to mind where the pot is actually a pre- or post- treble gate to drain highs anywhere below "10." A subject for another thread or graphic novel! Main thing is that the Marks of this era had output tone control in mind to manage the artifacts of multiple gain stages up front.
Nice point GJgo, I don't usually give the configuration much notice, since I am reaching behind the amp and twiddling the knob by ear rather than looking at the number and associating the sound with a position. I just know from looking at it later that the various Mark version sound the "rightest" at different number ranges on the knob.

Appleridge, you mentioned bright control and the loop mod. I have not noticed that the bright behaves any differently because of those changes, but keep in mind that the bright's effect is strongest with a low volume position on the first volume control, the more you turn up the front end, the less signal is bypassing that pot. Now if you use the amp with the post FX volume down and then open up that volume pot to a higher setting, because you can, then pop the bright switch on and off, you will percieve less brightness difference from that control.

Also, another difference you may or may not be aware of on the 9C board is that the treble boost is no longer setup as anstand alone switch, the circuit is made with the relay so it activates only in lead mode, not in both modes. This is mentiontioned in the release notes that came with the amp, but may have dissapeared by the time you got it. So you are choosing whether to activate it when you punch the foot switch, or not.

It could be possible that the poster you referred to had an earlier amp and this feature was then retrofit during the loop mod or some other time. Don't know if that might be what he/she was referring to?

If you prefer to revert it it, its is quick work to take the relay out of the circuit and make it effective regardless of mode selection. However, I would say that as a rule, if Mesa make such a change, it was a refinement or change of function that had good purpose during the evolution of the series, so it may not be worth the experiment to change it.
Although, sometimes it was just to make way for some other idea or because some part was no longer available or parts that would not hold up in the amp (the MarkIII discontinuation of the flyback diodes on the output sockets comes to mind)
 
I do agree that for the most part tube changes can be subtle, but for some reason I fall for it lol. The 415’s are a clear winner over the 448’s though. I don’t know what TF, but those things are HOT. May try them in my IV.
The thing with the 415s is the ones I've had ran a super hot bias compared to Mesa's current offerings. IMO that's why they sound like they do, more so than magic fairy dust. To be fair I do think they're a fantastic tube, and, tubes are wear items so paying top dollar for 415s that have been in use for 40 years speaks to the power of nostalgia. Now if you can find NOS, awesome!

For example, I have a Orange valve tester as well as a DVM bias probe. I have some 415s on hand now that in the valve tester test "9", which is the same as modern Mesa YEL test. When I put a modern Mesa YEL in (just picking one) the Class A slots on a Mark V, at idle it reads around 35 mA. However, when I drop the 415s in the same slot they measure around 52 mA.

I've measured tons of Mesa tubes in tons of Mesa amps and it's been a theme that the 415s idle far hotter than the valve tester rating will suggest when comparing to modern tubes. If we had some modern Mesa tubes in BLU or WHT that matched the idle bias I bet we'd find the tone & feel not to be all that different.
 
Maybe what my ears perceive as hot is actually the opposite then? I don’t know, but I just don’t like the 448’s in the II or III at all. I watched several of your videos and we have similar taste in music… What tubes are you running in your older marks?

Thanks for the comparison videos by the way! They were very helpful when choosing to go with a + or ++ mod on my Mark three.
 
The 448 is (as you likely know) the TAD Redbase which is based off the 415 design. Same story with The Tube Store Preferred Series 6L6, kind of has Sylvania & RCA roots. I use both of them in different amps.

That said if I'm going for pure aggression I just use JJs / 445s. They're the angriest.
 
I have a MKIIB with RP9C board that I like to do the effects loop mod to. Does anyone have the info for the mod or know where I can find it? Thanks for any help-

It’s on its way to Mesa soon
 
Last edited:
When I had my 1978 Mark I with that mod, I used the front Master Volume knob to blend the mids, and the rear knob to adjust the overall volume. With a BOSS OD-1 into the input of the amp. But I was not using any effects through the loop. Just a loud-*** 60/100 played through a 4x12.
 
I have an 81 IIB RP9B HRG with the loop mod. It was done by a previous owner, I’m not sure what all was done. I’ve found with the typical Metallica type settings from Flemming’s notes, the “gain boost” pulled sounds like I’m switching to the neck pickup, it’s pretty dramatic. Pushed in is much closer to my III’s, but thinner and different distortion characteristics (but still about the same amount). My only other experience is with III, IV, and V’s. Is this description more in line with the “gain boost” or the “pull deep” characteristic?

I also noticed the other day that the 2200 slider works intermittently. So I’ll be sending it back to Mesa for at least some maintenance. Maybe see if MB can do some additional tweaks.

For anyone that has experience with both, have you found a noticeable difference between loop modded RP9B and RP9C II’s? Is anyone familiar if a 9B can he modded to 9C specs?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top