I bought a Mark III based completely off clips I heard online. Most of which were youtube clips. Even though you cant "feel the g forces" you can sure use what you hear as a good baseline. Im not going to get into any hype over mark III vs Mark IIC+ but i will say that "based" on what recordings I heard based on MY experience, there isnt THAT much of a difference, at least one that keeps going on like this. While its true that it takes a good guitarist to make an amp sing, that same type of guitarist will be able to make ANY amp sing. As far as comparing those 2 amps, ANY good guitarist will make each one of them sound good, just like any crappy guitar player will make them both sound like crap. This constant comparison is like beating a dead horse because it is a fully subjective topic. Comparing an amp where there are such minute differences in the lead channel is getting rediculous if you ask me.
Me, I could have bought a IIC+ when i was looking for something different from the Bogner Fish I had. I was looking at something more aggressive (both IIC+ and III were) that still had the note definition when playing chords (again, both the IIC+ and the III do that). Now, Im not a great player by any means but I do like a usable clean and usable distortion. I liked the tone I was hearing from BOTH the IIC+ and the III as they were both VERY similiar. The III seemed like the better choice because...
1. It sounded a bit more aggressive than the IIC+ in a Slayer type way instead of a Metallica type way.
2. It was 3 channels and not 2. While I heard both amps makes the clean unusable when dialed for searing heavy distortion on the lead channel, I heard more clips where the lead was dialed in heavy and still had usable clean on the III. I didnt really hear anything like that from teh IIC+ but instead another amp was used for clean, which means throwing even more money at a rig.
3. and most importantly of all, the pricetag. While I saw most of the IIC+s in the $2000+ range, the III was under a grand in just about every ad I saw.
4. I will be able to buy a new guitar with the cash I save if I go with the III.
So, to me, the choice was simple. Do I need to spend an extra 1500-2000 bucks on an amp that has only slight differences in feel and tone or do I save a little, I mean aLOT of cash and take a chance on the III? I did jsut that, did my research on the most aggressive stripe of the bunch and found a 1 owner, fully loaded blue stripe head for under a grand that came with ALL pedals and original paperwork AND had recently had a 20 yr service by Mesa. I couldnt be happier with the III as it has pretty much all the qualities I need for the style of music I play (thrash). While the IIC+ would probably be able to give me the same satisfaction, the III was cheaper and still makes me smile from ear to ear every time I plug into it. Dont really see the need to spend thousands more on a rig that wont make me smile any bigger as there isnt any room left on my face for that.
So, as a IIC+ cork sniffer once told me on a different forum, "Dont overlook the Mark III as it is a VERY underrated amp and can do just about everything the IIC+ can do, and then some."
So, in short a clip will only give you a taste of what an amp can do. THis goes for both the IIC+ and the III. Both have more to offer than the clips suggest so why fight over it. Seems to me both sides of the railroad track will defend what thier amps can do "in person" so why argue about this? Lets just leave it at this. Both amps are great for what they can do, whether they can do what the other can do is besides the point. When saying the IIC+ is better is rediculous. What exactly is it better at? Like me, the III gives me what I want so to ME the III is better because of this. Better at what? Its better at matching what i hear in my head, just as the IIC+ matches what some of you hear in your head. Its all the same. As long as they make you happy, who cares.