The forgotten and unsupported pure MK II C

Mark I's, II's, III's and the almight IV

Moderators: Guitarzan, Grandor, ned, Platypus

Post Reply
Ronco
Bottle Rocket
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:37 am

The forgotten and unsupported pure MK II C

Post by Ronco » Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:25 pm

Schematics for the MKII C + are available EVERYWHERE and all over the internet while schematics for the original MK II C can not be found. MBoogie made around 1400 of the pure MKII C before the transition to the C+. MBoogie totally disowned and removed all documentation support for the pure II C calling it disrespectfully a "C minus) ....what bullshyte !.... Tube guys ( like me) know that the major difference between a "C" and a "C +PLUS" is that the original C signal was taken from the preamp cathode ( low noise no gain) to the next stage and then in the C + taking it off the plate ( big gain).. Big F'n deal... worth the $1000 conversion... Nah don't think so...
Anyway the argument can be made that as far as rarity is concerned , the straight original II C is now way more rare than the over hyped C+ in light of all the conversions to C+ that were made.

I have a MINT 2 C and would really love to find some documentation for it. Perhaps my biggest complaint is that the reverb on all the MKII series in general sucks...weak,,,,,with my Fender twin burying it in the reverb department. I installed the resistor change "fix" with no noticeable improvement. That aside, my II C has a sweet rhythm guitar or jazz sound that I love. I'll never be Carlos Santana or even close so I don't really care about the blow the doors down C+ lead sound that all the metal heads crave

Anyone out there know where I can get schematics for my II C ? or any info for that matter....
Thanks
Ronco

xdg999
Donating Member
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 9:07 am

Re: The forgotten and unsupported pure MK II C

Post by xdg999 » Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:02 pm

Have you tried a c+? I've had Mike B. upgrade 3 c's to c+'s. An upgraded c+ is one sweet sounding amp. I spend most of my time playing thru my Mark III+ DRG/105 because of R2 but if I could only have one amp it would probably be my upgraded c+ HR.

jrb32
Mark III
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:32 am

Re: The forgotten and unsupported pure MK II C

Post by jrb32 » Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:39 am

Ronco wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:25 pm
Schematics for the MKII C + are available EVERYWHERE and all over the internet while schematics for the original MK II C can not be found. MBoogie made around 1400 of the pure MKII C before the transition to the C+. MBoogie totally disowned and removed all documentation support for the pure II C calling it disrespectfully a "C minus) ....what bullshyte !.... Tube guys ( like me) know that the major difference between a "C" and a "C +PLUS" is that the original C signal was taken from the preamp cathode ( low noise no gain) to the next stage and then in the C + taking it off the plate ( big gain).. Big F'n deal... worth the $1000 conversion... Nah don't think so...
Anyway the argument can be made that as far as rarity is concerned , the straight original II C is now way more rare than the over hyped C+ in light of all the conversions to C+ that were made.

I have a MINT 2 C and would really love to find some documentation for it. Perhaps my biggest complaint is that the reverb on all the MKII series in general sucks...weak,,,,,with my Fender twin burying it in the reverb department. I installed the resistor change "fix" with no noticeable improvement. That aside, my II C has a sweet rhythm guitar or jazz sound that I love. I'll never be Carlos Santana or even close so I don't really care about the blow the doors down C+ lead sound that all the metal heads crave

Anyone out there know where I can get schematics for my II C ? or any info for that matter....
Thanks
Ronco
There are NO official Mark IIC schematics out there. Sorry. These are the best you'll get and probably better if there were original ones as they include component layout and no deliberate mistakes... These seem to have gone under the radar somewhat but are on here if you look:

RP10 IIC Schematic: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mpJFs ... 81rlggkt6M
RP10 IIC Board View: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Lx0Ao ... V5IgEUf5cS

RP11A IIC Schematic: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1_KWgn ... l8qHdo5nji
RP11A IIC Layout : https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CALq ... 8LQ627h54b

Ronco
Bottle Rocket
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:37 am

Re: The forgotten and unsupported pure MK II C

Post by Ronco » Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:52 am

Many, Many THANKS !!

Ronco
Bottle Rocket
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:37 am

Re: The forgotten and unsupported pure MK II C

Post by Ronco » Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:18 pm

Hard to believe that Mesa could build 1400 units ( MKII C) of any amp and NOT have a schematic for it. a huge aw shyte to Mesa. Sumthin stinks on this one

jrb32
Mark III
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:32 am

Re: The forgotten and unsupported pure MK II C

Post by jrb32 » Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:54 pm

The IIC and the early IIC+s shipped out with the IIB schematic. Not sure why but that's just the way it was historically. I haven't compared the IIB and IIC from a circuit point of view but perhaps they are similar in certain ways? There could also be an element of stopping people copying the amp or providing schematics not being a priority at that point.

I know you're critical of the C+ upgrade and price but there is a lot of work involved and a whole world of difference between the two from a sound and a circuit point of view. You'd need to check the exact price with Boogie. C+s have this reputation as being a heavy rock/metal amp but they are SO versatile. I actually prefer the clean on them compared to a IIC. The reverb sucks compared to a big Fender Twin Reverb sure, but external reverb units are easy to come by and you're not comparing Apples with Apples comparing it to a twin really. Either way I really like the IIC and IIC+s but the IIC+ blows the IIC out of the water for me personally. However, the IIC and IIBs are great amps still and if you like the sound then keep it! :D

Ronco
Bottle Rocket
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:37 am

Re: The forgotten and unsupported pure MK II C

Post by Ronco » Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:09 pm

Good response ..thanks
I think the C vs C+ thing is way overblown. All we see on this board is how great the C+ is and how shyty the straight C is..... My guess is there is/are really not enough straight Cs left out there ( that haven't been C+converted) to make a truly honest comparison. All I'm saying is that ,as a not that bad rhythm guitar player ( I hear screams of Bullshyte !! in the background ), that plays a straight MkII C ( with an effects rack with great reverb etc ) , that the badly maligned straight MK II C is an incredibly excellent guitar amplifier ! Cheers to Mesa Boogie and all of their people !!!!!

My opinion ? ........,( remember from a rhythm guitar player)

ALL Boogie II series absolutely deserve "Legend" status with the evolution well defined on this board . I'd take any one of them

The C+ mod authored by Mr Mike B at Mesa took a MK II C vacuum tube "gain" to incredible levels that only a great guitar player could play like a second instrument....only the great lead players reading here know what I'm talking about

My mint MKII C is the baaaaalz

s-fresh
Mark III
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 5:23 pm
Location: Hardwood Heaven
Contact:

Re: The forgotten and unsupported pure MK II C

Post by s-fresh » Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:10 pm

I could be misremembering, but I would swear I heard from people at Mesa directly that multiple Artists of the time wanted to return their original IICs before the plus (+) "fix" was made available. More anecdotal/second hand information, but it's been 35 years, there's more of that left than anything else at this point.

Ronco
Bottle Rocket
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:37 am

Re: The forgotten and unsupported pure MK II C

Post by Ronco » Tue Nov 19, 2019 6:22 pm

No offense

but do you know anything about tube guitar amplifier ?

xdg999
Donating Member
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 9:07 am

Re: The forgotten and unsupported pure MK II C

Post by xdg999 » Tue Nov 19, 2019 7:41 pm

The first IIc I bought was an HR. I played thru it for maybe 5 minutes if that. The lead tone was blah. I packed it back up and shipped it out that night to Mesa. The second IIc is a DRG. The lead tone was a lot better. Really close to a c+. I asked Mike B. if later IIc's had more gain. He said they did. I thought about keeping it stock but not being able to balance the volume between the channels makes the amp unusable to me. So off it went to Mesa. The third IIc is my Simul Coliseum. Same story. Lead tone blah. Off to Mesa. Returns as a MONSTER of an amp. The UNDISPUTED KING of all c+'s. A Coliseum is unlike any other c+. Is the upgrade worth it? It is to me. The upgrade takes a good amp and turns it into a great amp.

Ronco
Bottle Rocket
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:37 am

Re: The forgotten and unsupported pure MK II C

Post by Ronco » Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:07 pm

opinions are like a-holes....everyone has one..... again merely saying that the MK II c unto itself is a great amp for a rhythm guitar player...... its got 4 6L6 power tubes, and a really "clean" sound that can blow the roof off of any room ( that actually no rhythm guitar player should ever do).......add an effects rack it can not get any better. Could you give us a list of your latest hit records before you bash a mere plain ole Boogie II C ?...Seriously, you sound like another guy that thinks he's Carlos Santa ..put down the bong

xdg999
Donating Member
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 9:07 am

Re: The forgotten and unsupported pure MK II C

Post by xdg999 » Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:27 pm

There is no reason to not upgrade a IIc. Why settle for an inferior amp even though you're only a rhythm guitarist.Getting the upgrade will also increase the value of the amp should you ever decide to sell it to someone who can get the most potential out of it. Just my opinion.

Ronco
Bottle Rocket
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 11:37 am

Re: The forgotten and unsupported pure MK II C

Post by Ronco » Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:02 am

A good reason is the $1000 upgrade cost not to mention the huge PITA and cost to ship it from Boston to Mexifornia. Opinions both positive and negative for the "upgrade" are all over the internet. I'm more than happy with my straight II C and have no desire to make any changes to it. The II C + mod is all about GAIN which the metal heads and those who play at ear shattering levels crave..Not me.

User avatar
Authorized Boogie
Mark IV
Posts: 696
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 4:12 pm
Location: Petaluma, California
Contact:

Re: The forgotten and unsupported pure MK II C

Post by Authorized Boogie » Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:46 pm

Ronco wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:02 am
A good reason is the $1000 upgrade cost not to mention the huge PITA and cost to ship it from Boston to Mexifornia. Opinions both positive and negative for the "upgrade" are all over the internet. I'm more than happy with my straight II C and have no desire to make any changes to it. The II C + mod is all about GAIN which the metal heads and those who play at ear shattering levels crave..Not me.
Again, your threads are filled with so much misinformation its almost comical. Your opinions are fine, however you're certainly not lending any credible information.
MESA/Boogie - Product Specialist/Customer Service - http://www.mesaboogie.com/support/index.html

chipaudette
Donating Member
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:49 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: The forgotten and unsupported pure MK II C

Post by chipaudette » Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:12 pm

I had a IIC that I later had converted to a IIC+ at Mesa. IMO, if you're only using the clean channel, the IIC is a fine amp.

I think tat the Mark series clean sound is definitely skinnier than the classic Fender blackface sound (unless you pull shift the bass and pull fat the volume knob). I think that skinnier clean sound fits better within a band in many situations. The guitar should not always be the center of attention and the skinnier Mark sound sits in a pocket nicely. Also, I think that the medium-length reverb tank used in the Mark series is better for non-surf rhythm playing than the long tank used in the classic Fender blackface-style amps. So, by combining its skinnier in-the-pocket sound with the tighter reverb, the Mesa Mark series (IIC, IIC+, or otherwise) definitely has a good thing going on.

(With that said, I do own a reissue blackface Fender Deluxe Reverb, because even though the Mark series clean is a great thing, sometimes you really do want that Fender sound, especially if playing by oneself. Also, my IIC/IIC+ is super heavy...the Deluxe Reverb is way easier to haul to a jam.)

To me, the main thing that is really weird about the straight IIC is its effects loop. The IIC has the weirdest effects loop of any amp that I've ever seen. It has two problems:
  • First, The effects loop comes *after* the reverb, which means that your echo pedal in your effects loop won't get reverb. You'll just get dry echoes. Weird.
  • Second, the effects loop comes *before* the lead circuit. So, if you do put an reverb pedal in the effects loop, you basically can't use the amp's lead channel because it'll be your reverb-ed guitar signal that is sent to be gained up and distorted. IMO, gained-up and distorted reverbs (and echoes and choruses) sound horrible and nasty and are unusable. Ick!
Both of these problems get fixed if you get it upgraded to a IIC+. The IIC+ has an effects loop that works like every other amp's effects loop: Guitar -> PreAmp -> Lead Circuit -> Effects Loop -> Reverb -> Power Amp -> Speaker. It's the right way for an effects loop to work.

So, yeah, For the Mark IIC, as long as you don't use the effects loop along with the lead channel, I do think that the IIC is a fine amp. I'm not sure that she's worth the price if you're not using the lead channel, but she is a fine amp.

More important than all my "blah, blah, blah...", though, I am very glad that there are people out there who like the IIC as it is. It's good that we don't all want the same thing.

Chip

Post Reply