Here's the REAL difference between the Mark IIC+ and all the other OG Mark amps..

  • Thread starter Thread starter GJgo
  • Start date Start date
GJgo

GJgo

Well-known member
Hey guys, so yeah I've put way too much time into preparing this one but it's shown me something I wasn't expecting. If you've ever wondered what the MAIN difference is between a IIC+ and the other OG Mark amps, once you've corrected all the levels and kept everything else as equal as possible including the performance (via reamping), here it is. It's just HOW MUCH of the clean channel is mixed in with the lead channel tone. Check this out! First half is in a full mix & second half is repeated guitars only. That's where it really jumps out at you. I have a lot more thoughts & comments in the writeup at the YT link.

Also, a shout out to @Tone Monster for providing the Mark IV!!! Thanks again man.

YT with all the detail-

Raw WAV files on SoundCloud-
 
Last edited:
I've been anticipating your posting of this. Going to have to wait until I'm back home and have my good headphones to listen though.
 
Thanks guys. It was really challenging to try & strip them all back to what the fundamental differences are, and I think this capture shows it pretty well. There are definitely things I dig about each of them for their own reasons. The IIB+is the most aggressive. The C+ has the best liquid lead. The III+ is surprisingly balanced. The IVb handles lower tunings better. Any of them would get the job done!
 
Thanks guys. It was really challenging to try & strip them all back to what the fundamental differences are, and I think this capture shows it pretty well. There are definitely things I dig about each of them for their own reasons. The IIB+is the most aggressive. The C+ has the best liquid lead. The III+ is surprisingly balanced. The IVb handles lower tunings better. Any of them would get the job done!
IIB for most agressive? WAIT. How?
 
Tonnes of work went into this I'm sure, thanks for sharing. Will have a proper listen when I'm back in the studio.
 
High end Sennheisers, I forget the model number though.
Oh, I see. I was thinking to get decent headphones in the end. Thought about Sennheisers Massdrop HD6xx and AT M50x. Just don’t know what to get and I also don’t want to buy a headphone amp.
 
Great job, Jeremy. I dig the III for rhythm and C+ for lead.
 
I'm also digging the III most. The IV almost sounds sick or bad tubes or something...I dunno...I just don't remember IVs sounding so thin in comparison.
 
I'm also digging the III most. The IV almost sounds sick or bad tubes or something...I dunno...I just don't remember IVs sounding so thin in comparison.
Ya, they got a pretty thick tone if you use the "pull fat" in the presence pushed mode. I'd say at least as thick sounding as a III, probably more so.
 
Ya, they got a pretty thick tone if you use the "pull fat" in the presence pushed mode. I'd say at least as thick sounding as a III, probably more so.
I am saying it in a good way:
I can't understand comparisons between amplifiers when they weren't using the same tubes when comparing Mark 2C+, Mesa V 2C+ mode and Petrucci 2C+ or the same model with it too.
Pre amp tubes make the same amp sound different, imagine it with different amps so.
 
I can't understand comparisons between amplifiers when they weren't using the same tubes when comparing Mark 2C+, Mesa V 2C+ mode and Petrucci 2C+ or the same model with it too.
Pre amp tubes make the same amp sound different, imagine it with different amps so.
In a close mic reamp scenario, any difference in tube brands can be negated with adjustments to gain, tone knobs or level matching.
 
Ya, they got a pretty thick tone if you use the "pull fat" in the presence pushed mode. I'd say at least as thick sounding as a III, probably more so.
In this example the IV is set to Harmonics mode with Pull Fat & Pull Bright engaged, and Presence pushed.

In a prior test while I was working it out I tried everything pushed in mid gain mode but I didn't care for it as much in this context.
 
Back
Top