I totally agree. The 2C+ has more clarity and different response than the mark iv. I have yet to try the DRG versions but I feel my SRGX is somehow faster and definitely crunchier than my HRGX, with the latter being ballsier.
“Different” as in a polite way to say better lol. Sorta similar differences with things like a ktr vs Centaur or ‘60’s Alnico blues vs silver, but it seems like maybe some don’t hear it or just don’t care about the differences and that’s fine too. That’s what I’ve heard others too say about SRG’s vs HRG’s. I find those differences you describe are often the case with lower vs higher wattage counterparts of the same amp types. Similar differences to when comparing to my coliseum counterparts also
Yeah the mark iv excels at recording!
Yes they are more raw and that crunch & clarity in the uppermids (like in your clip) just aren’t in the cards for the Mark IV’s
I compared a rev A Mark IV with my rev B and to be honest I couldn't really tell a difference between the two, they both sounded like mark IV's to me... maybe it's because I have an earlier rev B, i'm not sure?? if there was a difference it was VERY subtle. Even the compression level seemed the same to me. Anyways I'm not doubting that the IIC+ is a superior amp for that sound, but the Mark IV is more of a chamelion so to speak as it's got a lot more tones in it and it's capable of more modern tones as well. Also, the best lead tone i have ever heard was John Petrucci with his band Liquid Tension Experiment and he was using a Mark IV. It was just pure awesomeness. He used them at a pretty loud volume too, like 3 on both masters and I think that's when the amp really delivers the goods.
Pull the presence on a IV and it gets that crunch and clarity in the upper mids, definitely not as raw though. More refined.
Even though I'm a die hard K guy, I still maintain that the S have the best Mark II/III tone. Those little fuckers rip hard. I miss mine.
Yes it does. There are times where I think I should have kept my IVb for recording the album rhythms.
Yeah I did like it pulled out, but still doesn’t have the clarity, crunch or complexity in the upper midrange of the c+‘s, just not in the cards for it, but I remember the iv’s sounding fatter, which I liked. I think when guys say refined they often mean less raw, more homogenous sounding, but to me that’s not what refined really is. To me, refined is more about nuance/detail, complexity of tone, hi-fi, and so that’s why I easily consider the c+ the more refined sounding amp. I don’t like that guys use that word as a euphemism for less raw or ballsy. In my background, more in classical guitar, we use the word refined more in the way I use it and only mean positive things by it
I’d think if it’s a good enough quality recording with legit mics (like you said before) there wouldn’t be much use for a iv over c+ anymore, but I don’t know enough about recording to be too confident about it
Yeah I’m sure I’d like them a lot. There are a bunch of amp types where I prefer the lower wattage versions. I did try years ago a SR C+ that sounded great, but of course didn’t get that metal sounding without the GEQ
Well to my ears the Mark IV does sound more refined, at least my definition of the word. The IIC+ is more raw and vintage sounding, while a IV sounds more polished, more produced. That's how it sounds to my ears anyways. I disagree that a IIC+ sounds more hi-fi. Doesn't mean a IV's better, it's not, just different in those subtle ways. Also, the IV has more low end to it... not that that means much, but if you're into modern metal it's a bonus.
Yeah I think the IV’s had more low end or low mids maybe and that’s why I said I remember them being fatter. Rather than polished or produced, I’d phrase it as more uniform/even/homogenous sounding and I’m not a fan of that direction in sound nor in recordings either. I generally prefer a more dynamic sound that allows for more expressive playing and nuances to come through. I don’t really consider either amp too vintage or dated sounding despite their age. I think if hypothetically the c+ never existed until today I wouldn’t necessarily hear it as being too old school or dated, but others may feel differently
Did you hear that clip that ultimatemetalguitartones made comparing the IIC+, the IVa and the IVb recorded? They sounded so similar you'd have a hell of a time deciding which one was the IIC+. To my ears the IVb had just a little more presence to it than the other two. Also, if you look at the wav files, the dynamic range was very similar as well, it's not like the IIC+ is way less compressed than a IV with high gain settings, it's not.
I did not, I will give it a listen for fun, but I’ve done the comparisons myself numerous times in person, so that’s what I care about. I believe the recordings are also with IR’s rather than real mics (someone correct me if I’m mistaken)
The IVb does this one thing with chest crushing metallic rhythm PM chunking that no other Mark I've had can do quite as well. See here. Aside from this, I agree the IIC+ is much more complex & enjoyable to play.