Mark IIC+ vs Mark V

Some food for a debate that has been largely talked about here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbPgr63aaQ4&list=UUyheCvi8Msep7IfESwI7ueA

Great player...... but gain on channel 3 of the Mark V wide open????? The real question is why did MESA feel the need to publish this video. Just sayin' :wink:

Hahaha, yeah, thought about that too. And yeah, the gain setting on the Mark V also surprised me quite a bit...

As was spoken about in the video, MESA chose the best voiced C+ model (in their opinion) to try to emulate in the Mark V. Is that everyone's opinion of the best sounding C+, who knows? There are some comments on the Youtube page about the Mark V being "tight". Just how "tight" do you really want to get, before you enter solid state territory? If so, why buy a tube amp in the first place? With that being said, I really love the tweed and Mark 1 channels of the new amp, that can't be had with the old C+.

Marks are known for being tight. Not sure why that's an odd attribute or suprise for you

Personally I love the Mark V. Haven't played a IIC+ but would love to. I wouldn't get a V to replace a IIC+, more to go along with a IIC+.

JOEY B. said:

As was spoken about in the video, MESA chose the best voiced C+ model (in their opinion) to try to emulate in the Mark V. Is that everyone's opinion of the best sounding C+, who knows? There are some comments on the Youtube page about the Mark V being "tight". Just how "tight" do you really want to get, before you enter solid state territory? If so, why buy a tube amp in the first place? With that being said, I really love the tweed and Mark 1 channels of the new amp, that can't be had with the old C+.

Click to expand...

More specifically, it's Doug West at Mesa who thinks that a particularly tight and bright tone is what the IIc+ lead channel should sound like. And that's why they modeled the IIc+ mode on the V on a tight&bright non-EQ IIc+. The EQ-equipped units tended to use a different coupling cap that produced darker sound and slower attack.

I certainly have no competence to challenge Doug West's experience or authority here. But that said, I'm definitely with you, personally. I much prefer the sound of my EQ-equipped IIc+ head over the V version. It is darker, more open-sounding, and bigger. Also, its high frequencies have this beautiful ringing, shimmering quality rather than the ear-piercing ice-pick you get from the V.

But to each their own. Doug West and probably many others prefer the tight, fast-attack lead tone.
And the basic timbre of the V IIc+ mode is close enough to what I get from the original IIc+ anyway.

I thought it was a cool video, but like others here, the settings seemed a tad bizarre... But, it does say in the manual, that they have to be set differently if you were to do a side by side comparison.

I've never played a C+ other than in the Mk V, but I did do a side by side with my Mk II, which can produce some wickedly overdriven tones, and while very close... The Mk II still sounded better than it's fancy little brother.

I'd love to have Doug West's opinion of this gem of Boogie history...

Most everything I've read from Doug West about the MkV as relates to a C+ mode of the MKV is marketing hype.
Marketing hype which he's done in order to sell MkV's.
A few comments he's made dissed the original C+. There's threads here discussing this.
I (and others) lost a lot of respect for Doug West after he made these comments.

Agustín Collia said:

Hahaha, yeah, thought about that too. And yeah, the gain setting on the Mark V also surprised me quite a bit...

Click to expand...

Maybe because, at maximum gain, everything sounds undifferentiated with no clear note definition?

gts said:

I (and others) lost a lot of respect for Doug West after he made these comments.

Click to expand...

I'm one of them. I cannot for the life of me understand why he would think it a good idea to insult past customers.
As for this video.......well, just another scratchy sounding Mesa clip to go with the others. For how good their amps sound you'd think someone there would be able to make a decent quality recording so new customers wouldn't be turned off by their marketing videos.

Dave Friedman knows how to demo his amps. Not sure why Marshall and Mesa's demos sound so sterile.

I didn't care much about how close the V sounds to the IiC+ as I've never played the latter and I'm not really a fan of some the tones (eg Metallica) that it's praised for.
however, while reading the manual before buying, I thought, how can a person's ears and amp dictate how the IIc+ mode of the V should be voiced..
How can Mesa be sure that everybody looking for a bit of IIc+ out the V hear things the same as Doug West?
I guess, it was the most practical thing for them to do and they got reasons to trust him.

I personally don't like the IIc+ mode of my V. I don't know if that means I wouldn't like the original too.
What I get from the manual and the "how to compare Marks" bit is that they found a set of settings on the V that makes it sound close to a set of settings on the 2c+. If that sounds truly close then good for Mesa.
For me then, it's about what each amp does in every other settings configuration of the dials. I'm guessing the 2c+ does a lot so for those that like the 2c+ Mode on the V, does it have much to offer across a broader range of settings?
not in comparison as I'm almost certain any matching attempt of the 2 amps was at a very specific set of settings.

and for those that are experienced with and love the 2c+, do you think the 2c+ setting configuration that the V manual suggest for comparing against the V is a representative one of what the 2c+ "is"?

I would expect not but don't know so I'd like to hear from you guys.
tbh, I am suspecting that Mesa did a great job in matching the 2c+ mode on the V, but possibly picked up a "wrong" 2c+ tone to do it. By wrong I mean not what most 2c+ players like.
do you think this could be the case?

I personally prefer the extreme mode of ch3 in my V as it offers a better balance between neck and bridge in my SSH strat. I love it actually.

Catthan said:

and for those that are experienced with and love the 2c+, do you think the 2c+ setting configuration that the V manual suggest for comparing against the V is a representative one of what the 2c+ "is"?

Click to expand...

Post what the "suggested 2c+ setting configuration" is in the Mk V manual.

Page 15
http://www.mesaboogie.com/manuals/MkV_100303.pdf

SET II-C+ As Follows:
VOLUME (Far Left) control Pulled (Bright On) and set to Approx. 7 ¾. (This stage in the MARK V is set to a sweet spot we found
from measuring many amps and control deleted).
LEAD DRIVE Control Pulled and set to desired setting
All Tone Controls set by ear as close as possible (we measure each pot and set both exactly with an ohm meter).
PRESENCE set to desired setting. (0 or 10 is the most fair for comparisons sake and removes any pot variance).
GRAPHIC EQ Off (Bypassed)

Is this a setting that MkIIc+ users generally like and, say, use as a starting point to tailor their tones?
(If there's an objective answer to this or a widely accepted rule of thumb on how to dial in a 2C+)

Or is it just the setting that DW likes?

Catthan said:

VOLUME (Far Left) control Pulled (Bright On) and set to Approx. 7 ¾.

Click to expand...

Wait...did I get that right? On the V version of the IIc+, they have the first Pull Bright always on...and then they have a separate Bright switch for even more treble screech? Small wonder the channel 3 highs on a V are intolerably ear-piercing.

What were those guys on? :roll:
I know Doug West likes bright and tight sounds but that's ridiculous.
When the warranty on my V expires, I'll consider modding the Bright switch into a Deep switch. That's what the amp really needs to get closer to the sounds I like to dig up from my IIc+.

Catthan said:

VOLUME (Far Left) control Pulled (Bright On) and set to Approx. 7 ¾.

Is this a setting that MkIIc+ users generally like and, say, use as a starting point to tailor their tones?
(If there's an objective answer to this or a widely accepted rule of thumb on how to dial in a 2C+)

Or is it just the setting that DW likes?

Click to expand...

Definitely the latter.

I, for one, like a GEQ on my IIc+. And as noted already, GEQ-equipped IIc+'s have a different base tone to begin with.

While a IIc+ doesn't have the plethora of different channels, modes and switches that some later Marks do, it's by no means a one-trick pony. Different combinations of dial and push/pull switch settings (not to mention the GEQ) will unlock loads and loads of very different sounds. IIc+'s are used by guitarists playing very diverse styles of music. I don't think there is - or even can be - a 'widely accepted' starting point.

What you get with a V is just Doug West's personal idea of what a IIc+ should sound and be set up like. I don't know how many players would agree with him but I know I don't.

LesPaul70 said:

Wait...did I get that right? On the V version of the IIc+, they have the first Pull Bright always on...and then they have a separate Bright switch for even more treble screech? Small wonder the channel 3 highs on a V are intolerably ear-piercing.

Click to expand...

Don't confuse your bright switches. Yes, there are two. One is engaged by pulling the Volume knob (the one on the far left of the Mark II and III), which affects both the clean channel and the lead channel. The other is engaged by pulling the Lead Master knob (the one on the far right of the Mark II and III), which only affects the lead channel. There are no "extra" bright switches in the Mark V. DW's description is complely in-line with how a Mark II/III works.

When the lead channel is active, the first Bright switch (the one on the Volume knob) is pre-distortion. It adds just a little bit of extra pick attack, but (to my ears) it's quite subtle. It's the one that is hard-wired "on" in the Mark V.

The second bright switch (the one on the Lead Master) is part of the lead circuit and has a much stronger effect. I think that the Mark lead channel is generally too dark without this bright engaged, but YMMV. This is the switch that they did choose to include on the Mark V.

It is very very common for folks to have both knobs pulled when using their Mark II and III, so I see DW's description in-line with typical usage.

Chip

Thanks for the clarification, Chip - I've never had a manual for my IIc+, so my understanding of what works for me and what doesn't is largely based on trial and error. :lol:

Still, all settings being otherwise the same, my V (IIc+ mode) is markedly brighter than my IIc+. With the Bright switch on (and more specifically, on the stock 6L6 tubes), its highs are unbearable. Not so with my IIc+, where both Pull Brights are actually usable - but not really necessary for me, I have an MXR 10-band EQ in the loop.
Granted, mine is a GEQ model, and Doug West specifically wanted the brighter sound of a non-GEQ model.

LesPaul70 said:

Thanks for the clarification, Chip - I've never had a manual for my IIc+, so my understanding of what works for me and what doesn't is largely based on trial and error. :lol:

Still, all settings being otherwise the same, my V (IIc+ mode) is markedly brighter than my IIc+. With the Bright switch on (and more specifically, on the stock 6L6 tubes), its highs are unbearable. Not so with my IIc+, where both Pull Brights are actually usable - but not really necessary for me, I have an MXR 10-band EQ in the loop.
Granted, mine is a GEQ model, and Doug West specifically wanted the brighter sound of a non-GEQ model.

Click to expand...

One important driver of the brightness of these amps is the Presence knob. The voicing of the Presence circuit (IIRC) is quite different on the Mark III vs the Mark IIC+. I don't own a Mark III myself, but I've heard comments like "Presence of 7 on my IIC+ is like a zero on my Mark III". That's a huge difference.

Sadly, I don't know how the Presence on the Mark V compares. If Mesa voiced it more "open" (ie, bright and sharp, like the Mark III), I could see how one might easily feel that it's too bright.

I also don't remember what the Mark V does with regards to the "Pull Deep" functionality of the Mark IIC+ / Mark III. If you're used to the sound of a Mark IIC+ / III with the Pull Deep engaged, and if the Mark V circuit is built to mimic the IIC+ without the Pull Deep, you'd also perceive the sound as way brighter.

I should really find someone with a Mark V and give it a spin. So many questions!

Chip

The second question I can answer. On the V, the Pull Deep is always "off" and there is no switch for engaging it. And yes, that certainly covers some of the perceived brightness. I almost always have it pulled on my IIc+. But even with it pushed in, the IIc+ mode on the V is a good deal brighter than my IIc+.

At least one of the differences is mentioned in the V manual: IIc+'s without a GEQ generally had a smaller coupling cap that produced brighter tone and faster attack, while IIc+'s that had the GEQ (like mine) usually had a bigger coupling cap that produced darker tone and slower attack

From the Mark V manual:

In our endless comparisons of many original II C+’s - both EQ and non-EQ samples - alongside this golden reference, we discovered that I wasn’t just Tone-dreaming. There was actually a difference between the EQ model and those non-EQ models. It all came down to a coupling capacitor at the end of the EQ circuit that feeds the driver. In the EQ model, it was a great big cap that let a lot of sub-low pass, slowing down the sound and making it fatter. In my amp - a non-EQ version - this cap was smaller and didn’t let as much sub-low through - which speeds up the sound and makes everything tighter and more urgent. There it was, a simple part…but it made all the difference in the time domain.
Yet there were so many more of these slower, fatter sounding EQ versions out in the world… that many more people were used to hearing as their reference. It would not do well to set the MARK V permanently to this faster, tighter way. Too many players would have a tough time adjusting and when they compared the two amps side by side, the V would sound faster and tighter yes, but also stripped of sub-low and therefore maybe not as fat in comparison to their trusty II C+ Graphic model or MARK IV - which also had the bigger coupling cap.

Click to expand...

The bottom line is, they used the smaller cap for the IIc+ circuit and the bigger one for the IV-based circuits on the V.

This all adds up to the IIc+ mode on the V sounding brighter, tighter and thinner than a 'typical' IIc+ (excepting EQ-less models with the Pull Deep pushed in). However, for me at least, it's not just the amount of brightness but its nature. On the V, the highs are very spikey, cold, harsh and piercing, like an ice-pick pricking your eardrums. The highs on my IIc+ are different. More musical and warmer, with a beautiful ringing, shimmering quality; quite enjoyable actually, unlike on the V.