Tone wise what makes the IIC+ more desireable than a III?

[dmaneleven]

I've never played a IIC+ only heard some recordings. I'm curious as to what makes a IIc+ more coveted than a III? I mean Boggie has always strived to improve tone with every design(and revision) right? So, you'd think the III is better, but apparently not. Why?any thoughts?
Also, is the clean (r1) on the III considered an improvement over the IIc+?

thanx -dman.

 

[JOEY B.]

Oh HELL, here we go again. :x If you are a METAL player, buy a Mark III and save yourself lots of money. 8)

 

[dmaneleven]

Oh HELL, here we go again. :x If you are a METAL player, buy a Mark III and save yourself lots of money. 8)

-

(geez hostile much eh? )

Sorry to upset you but I'm a noob.please be patient with me. maybe someone else wouldn't mind sharing some thoughts with me? BTW just got a III and it's a great, great amp. I rarely play metal tho..

 

[igfraso]

I suggest you do the R2 Volume mod on your Mark III and also the reverb mod (if it doesn't have an "R" at the back of the chassis).
Both mods are recommended by Mike Bendinelli.

 

[okgb]

I have a mk III , which i will tell anyone , any time
was a poor investment buying it new
[ it was good in the 80's when i didn't know much
tough to get it sounding good , o.k. but NOT great]

A friend brought his IIC+ over and to me the first
most obvious quality was a more saturated , slightly
compressed midrange when overdriven , more of a
loud amp sound , some may say more vintage or classic
Didn't spend allot of time listening to the clean though

 

[JOEY B.]

(geez hostile much eh? )

Sorry to upset you but I'm a noob.please be patient with me.

Sorry for my blunt response. The problem is that this topic has generated some very heated and nasty discussions in the past, most of which ended up being deleted by the forum moderators. It's a can of worms that I wish to never open. The METAL crowd will be using active pickups, lots of gain, super scooped mids, and dropped tunings. When you add all those together, a IIC+ will not sound any different than a Mark III. You will have to play a IIC+ yourself to decide if it is a better fit for you, as videos and audio clips can be misleading. If you cannot find a IIC+ to try, your only choice might be a "leap of faith". The amps hold their value really well, so you won't likely take a beating if you decide to sell it. 8)

 

[dmaneleven]

I'm not interested in getting a IIc+, at the moment since I got my III purple stripe wide head a few weeks ago and I love it for hard rock, 80's sounds etc. Clean is awesome too and I've managed to get a cool clean(r1) and lead at the same time.I use an OCD as a 3rd channel through the clean.I'm just curious as to the thoughts Mesa had in mind when designing the III. Like, is it based on the IIc+ or is it a whole other design. what are the similarities etc. thanx.

 

[holy-diver]

I have a mk III , which i will tell anyone , any time
was a poor investment buying it new
[ it was good in the 80's when i didn't know much
tough to get it sounding good , o.k. but NOT great]

A friend brought his IIC+ over and to me the first
most obvious quality was a more saturated , slightly
compressed midrange when overdriven , more of a
loud amp sound , some may say more vintage or classic
Didn't spend allot of time listening to the clean though

Wha....

Nevermind. Op, I wouldn't listen to this post,
1: It is confusing and lacks a coherent thought
2: It is wrong

 

[bigmouth]

I've never played a IIC+ only heard some recordings. I'm curious as to what makes a IIc+ more coveted than a III? I mean Boggie has always strived to improve tone with every design(and revision) right? So, you'd think the III is better, but apparently not. Why?any thoughts?
Also, is the clean (r1) on the III considered an improvement over the IIc+?

thanx -dman.

... as for improvement in tone that strive would basically be the same with any manufacturer, wouldn't it ? compare with marshall and the various generations produced over the years, yet a "plexi" still remains one of their benchmarks they keep reissueing and integrating in one new generation after the other ? pretty much the same with the MKIIC+ and boogie. no offense meant, but down to the bone the boogie benchmark tones (so far) are pretty much the MKI, MKIIC+ and Recto. its not a question of better or worse, just that these sounds somewhat created benchmarks and helped inspire new musical standards, which before did not exist.

 

[holy-diver]

The main difference I found when comparing the 2 is the clean to mid gain, which the iic+ excels at and the mark iii is just good. Playing the iic+ with clean, edge type sounds, lower gain crunch, or rock amounts of gain, that is where it really is "magical." Mark iiis are stiff feeling in comparison, they lack the smooth, gritty flow feeling and sound. For high gain though, the mark iiis hard edge is better imo.

 

[swbo101]

In regards to the IIC+..some say that the R2 of a Mark IVA is closely related to that sound. Is that true or just BS.

'Thanks

 

[gonzo]

back in the day, a year or so after i bought my IIb, i played a buddie's IIc+, and got to compare them..

i prefered the IIb, and still do.

YMMV


but it all boils down to what you like.

i'll never understand the elitism directed towards the IIc+, to me, it's just another flavor.
but it IS, another flavor.

something about my IIb sounded more BALLSY to me, at the time.....
but you're really splitting hairs here, tho others will tell you it's splitting logs.
i just disagree.

 

[fusionbear]

What I like about the IIC+ is that it is similar to a Soldano SLO in feel and articulation. It responds more to pick angle, attack, and your volume knob. The MKIII is a little more gainy and compressed, but still sounds awesome. It is a matter of taste. The IIC+ also seems to be less forgiving in the OD side. Junk in= Junk out.

YMMV :mrgreen:

 

[okgb]

okgb wrote:
I have a mk III , which i will tell anyone , any time
was a poor investment buying it new
[ it was good in the 80's when i didn't know much
tough to get it sounding good , o.k. but NOT great]

A friend brought his IIC+ over and to me the first
most obvious quality was a more saturated , slightly
compressed midrange when overdriven , more of a
loud amp sound , some may say more vintage or classic
Didn't spend allot of time listening to the clean though

Wha....

Nevermind. Op, I wouldn't listen to this post,
1: It is confusing and lacks a coherent thought
2: It is wrong

It IS my Experience , having bought one new
never has sounded great [ and i believe never will ]
near useless dirty rythym ch

Not compared to my friends IIC+
or when i got my original 70 's Marshall back
[ what's incoherent about saturated slightly compressed mids ? ]


I did say " bought New " the less you pay the more you
tolerate , get a good used deal , get some good uses out of it
BUT it's the thing that stops me from buying a boogie again
and Of course YMMV or maybe my boogie really was a Dog

 

[Anonymous]

Post removed.

 

[JOEY B.]

This subject is taboo. It is only a matter of time before someone gets their toes stepped on, or feels the need to stir the pot full of turds. :roll:

 

[zodiac272]

or how about:

IIC+ = Indiana jones raiders of lost ark

III = Indiana Jones, Temple of Doom

I have no idea why, just putting it out there

Scott

 

[Anonymous]

Post removed.

 

[JOEY B.]

In the end, we watch them all, starting with our favourite.

Geek, you say. I am not a fan of Star Trek, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, or Metallica. Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry" is one of my favorites. Is that anti-geek, or what? :lol: :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Post removed.