Mark iic+ comparison by Ola

[Rex Rocker]

OK, so it is then the whole EQ of the cab that exaggerates that bottom-end on the palm-mutes and makes them pop more! Thanks!

So yeah, there goes the argument of people trying to evaluate how compressed a high-gain amp is just by looking at the waveform, LOL.

 

[Bram576]

The digital conversion process that happens when you send a reactive load signal to an interface where an IR gets applied is no different than the digital conversion process that happens when you take a fully mic'd rig and send it to your DAW.

IR's are linear. There is no additional "compression" inherently added to the signal just because you place the digital conversion stage slightly earlier in the signal chain. If anything, using a reactive load and IR's means the signal is LESS compressed than traditional setups because real speakers can compress when driven very hard, while IR's will not. At normal amp volumes though, that speaker compression is basically negligible.

Even most pros will tell you that a well made IR is basically indistinguishable from the real mic'd cab as long as you have a quality reactive load to put the amp through.

I think the reason so many amp demos show so many amps to be vanishingly similar to each other these days is because people are finally understanding how to properly eliminate variables and normalize everything BUT the amp, and when you do that, you come to understand the unpleasant truth that amps, as much as we all love them, probably simply matter a lot less than we think they do, relative to everything else in the chain.

Yeah I can say they’re almost indistinguishable. My st rock IR, I can make impulse responses of what I have micd up myself. When I compare the two, I can’t tell a difference. Hell even the null test can barely tell them apart.

 

[Bram576]

I asked Ola if he could describe the differences in feels when playing & he said "They all feel the same, they’re so similar man".

With so many of the clips coming out these days where either things are reamped (the case here), or digital speakers are being used (not the case here), and we keep seeing how there's really not much difference in recorded tone, it makes me wonder (as a pure analog guy) how much of that is because the digitization neuters the "extra". For example I know that when I use my looper pedal, the loop track totally loses dynamics over when I'm playing the same riff live. Does reamping do the same thing?

...Or, is it really that when it comes to high gain recorded tone, most of these things we care about really don't matter?

Also, the type of reamp box can make results drastically change. There’s some out there where micing up directly versus using a di then out to a reamp then out to the amp sound drastically different. Others, nowadays, you could not tell the difference. It’s crazy how transparent some of them are.

 

[Rex Rocker]

I understand wanting to like old amps and mic'ing up real cabs. I have barely any experience with old amps, but I loved throwing an SM57 in front of my 4x12, and trying to dial in good tones by cranking up my amp to different levels, playing with bias, different tubes, etc. because I just thought it was fun. And if I'm completely honest, I've always wanted to get my hands on an old Recto Rev F.

But there is a point where it just becomes romanticization. And I get it, it is music. It is impossible to separate the human aspect from it. But it's just as easy to pass out statements that are just plain uninformed as truths.

I'm not accusing anyone here of doing so, so don't take it personal. I know most of you have more experience with these kind of amps than I do. I just found it odd that some people are judging how raw and uncompressed Mark IIC's are compared to the other two based on the information provided by this clip.

Which was a good clip, BTW. To me, it just showed that the newer amps can be every bit as useable as the original in a recording of a modern heavy song.

 

[TheGreatGreen]

Also, one thing I'm curious about, you guys who record amps with reactive loads that capture what the poweramp is adding to the sound, do the palm-mutes peak higher in there at all? Because they don't when you record a high-gain preamp's signal. Or at least not nearly as much as when mic'ing a cab. So I always wondered if that effect is coming from the cab's resonance, EQ, or what? Or is it something intermediate in the chain like the poweramp?

That will be entirely dependent on the rig. That palm-mutes peak you're talking about usually happens as a result of the interaction between the poweramp and the impedance curve of the cab (or reactive load if you use one). If the impedance curve of the reactive load matches the cab you're using, the behavior of the rig should match up pretty closely though.

With a preamp-only rig, you won't get the effect of the impedance curve. Here's what an impedance curve usually looks like. It will be a bit different with every cab, but it's basically this:

That huge bump in the lows is basically the cabinet's resonant frequency, which typically aligns right about where the low E palm mutes ring out. That's very likely what you're not hearing if you're recording straight from a preamp.

 

[Rex Rocker]

That will be entirely dependent on the rig. That palm-mutes peak you're talking about usually happens as a result of the interaction between the poweramp and the impedance curve of the cab (or reactive load if you use one). If the impedance curve of the reactive load matches the cab you're using, the behavior of the rig should match up pretty closely though.

With a preamp-only rig, you won't get the effect of the impedance curve. Here's what an impedance curve usually looks like. It will be a bit different with every cab, but it's basically this:

That huge bump in the lows is basically the cabinet's resonant frequency, which typically aligns right about where the low E palm mutes ring out. That's very likely what you're not hearing if you're recording straight from a preamp.

Interesting. So that EQ curve actually comes from the interaction of the speakers and the poweramp. Or well, the load, rather, and the poweramp.

But the way I interpret it, then, is those palm-mutes are popping out more not because of how compressed or uncompressed an amp is, but rather, because of the EQ curve you get from poweramp/speaker interaction and then augmented because of the resonances inside the cab itself, correct? And well, the speaker's EQ as well. So it's just more of an EQ thing rather than a compression thing.

 

[TheGreatGreen]

Interesting. So that EQ curve actually comes from the interaction of the speakers and the poweramp. Or well, the load, rather, and the poweramp.

But the way I interpret it, then, is those palm-mutes are popping out more not because of how compressed or uncompressed an amp is, but rather, because of the EQ curve you get from poweramp/speaker interaction and then augmented because of the resonances inside the cab itself, correct? And well, the speaker's EQ as well. So it's just more of an EQ thing rather than a compression thing.

Exactly. You can sort of think about impedance curves as how much pressure the cab (or reactive load) has available to push against the tube poweramp's ability to output signal at a given frequency.

At the very highest frequencies on the graph, the plot of the curve is high which indicates it's not impeding the high frequencies much at all, so the poweramp is free to reproduce those highs as powerfully as it can. Then as you move left on the graph towards the lower frequencies, the signal gets progressively lower and lower, meaning that the cabinet is progressively impeding the poweramp's ability to output at those frequencies more and more until it dips the lowest at the greatest impedance point in the mids. That giant hump in the lows is basically the frequency at which the air in the cab resonates the most freely, meaning the speakers can then resonate at that frequency the most freely as well, so it's therefore easier for the poweramp to output signal at that frequency because it's moving along with the speaker vibration instead of fighting it.

Then yeah, after that, you have the EQ curve of each speaker impacting the tone, but that's almost independent from what's happening with the poweramp/cab interaction.

 

[Bram576]

One thing I will add to this topic is that the whole compressed versus uncompressed is so minuscule in a full mix it won’t matter really, with guitars specifically. Distorted signals are all naturally super compressed already. In the room, you may notice a difference, but that leads me to my next point.

The “in the room” thing is always tough to talk about because at loud volumes we’re all severely flawed in our hearing. Hell, when I first started reamping I thought stuff sounded great in the room, then realized it actually sounded like shit after micing it up. Then you go back and listen to it and realize, yep the mic did capture that correctly, and I made a tone that sounded like shit lol.

 

[anomaly]

It's high-gain, anyway. Try playing soft and then hard (without palm-mutes), and then see what the waveform looks like. Preeeeetty constant.

It's just the palm-mutes and the low-end resonance that makes the waveform pop in all of these amps.

Try that on an 80's JCM 800, one of the many amps people like to romanticize as raw, open, and uncompressed. Compare it to a 5150, which is an amp people often think of as really compressed, but turn the resonance high. The Marshall just won't have peaks as high because those amps just have naturally less low-end. Especially as you turn them up. So I don't think waveforms are as reliable of an indicator.

I'm not saying the compression thing isn't real, and that some amps feel more compressed than others. But I honestly don't hear that on this clip. At all.

Jcm 800's actually compress pretty decently once you get them up to band volume, put a boost in front and then they compress even more so, obviously. I think compression is a good thing to an extent, it makes the amp feel better to play. On cleans, I can't live without a fair deal of compression.

 

[anomaly]

OK, so it is then the whole EQ of the cab that exaggerates that bottom-end on the palm-mutes and makes them pop more! Thanks!

So yeah, there goes the argument of people trying to evaluate how compressed a high-gain amp is just by looking at the waveform, LOL.

So then How do you evaluate how compressed a high gain amp is? I think we perceive modern high gain amps as being so compressed because of the gain level. Vintage amps have less gain, so naturally they are less compressed because you're using less gain with them. That's part of it, anyways. Of course, they are a bit less compressed because the circuit is usually more simplified, but to what extent does that compression level differ because of that??

Have you looked at a waveform of a Mark V? Hardly any dynamics at all, it's just basically flat, even when palm muting. In extreme mode it's a bit more dynamic though.

 

[GJgo]

I think it's possible we're just all failing to come up with an accurate, and commonly accepted, description of what makes a a piece of gear different in the room. "Compression" probably isn't it.

Years ago when I first compared a JP2C to a IIC+, I learned that even though there was a pretty significant difference A/Bing in the room, when I recorded them there really wasn't as big of a difference (if you spend enough time dialing them in). So then, if 2" in front of the speaker as recorded by a mic really is not significantly different, what exactly is it that makes the experience in the room so different? How can we describe what we all experience in a measurable way?

Or, is the reason we're failing to accurately describe it because really, there is no significant difference and we as flawed humans are assigning our own biases to the experience?

...Or, is it really different when all analog and there's something about digitizing the signal that affects it?

 

[Soundstorm]

I had an '84 Mark IIC+. One thing that's probably not coming across so well in these ribbon mic recorded tracks is the raw in your face quality of the original. From what I gather the later offerings are all very compressed and filtered. The original 80's amps are very aggressive and on the bright/harsh side.

 

[midnightlaundry]

You guys are nerds.. In a mix you would never tell the difference.
However, the JP sounds a bit more polite and slightly less complex because it's not Simul-Class..
He did point out that the modern versions are quieter, benefiting from years of refinement.
I'd take the VII.

 

[midnightlaundry]

 

[Rex Rocker]

That's a great tone from the IIC+ on the vid. The JP sounds like it could've been dialed in better. Didn't wathch the whole vid, but did you try to match the settings or go from dialing them in as close as you could get them to sound?

As far as using old amps, I think 80% of it has to do with perception, honestly. And the other part of it is that yeah, they were using different stuff back then to build them. I said in another thread that I think a huge part of the magic has to do with those amps being what we associate with good tone because they've been on so many iconic recordings that that's what we expect to hear as far as tone sounding good. But someone disagreed with me, and I understood his point. I mean, after all, I don't have all that much experience with vintage amps, TBH, and that's just my theory. But I think that's exactly the same reason why pretty much everyone is using V30's and SM57's as well.

But to me, what always mattered is how well that translates to a recording, and most of the time, it doesn't. Just like Ola's clip proves, and just like you've been saying. So I'd happily get a JP2C or a Mark VII for myself. I've personally always found that the whole in the room experience of an amp is not always what works best for recording anyways. Especially if you dial in an amp to sound good loud (fletcher munson curve and whatnot) and then run it through an SM57 that greatly shifts the EQ by quite a bit. Even if you listen through it on studio monitors, 90% of the other people are going to be listening on laptop speakers or iPhone earbuds at SPL's that don't remotely resemble the volume we're playing these amps in.

JMO.

 

[pipboy90]

I remember reading in one of my mixing books (might’ve been Mixing with your Mind) that once something is recorded it becomes an “illusion” or something to that affect. Meaning how it sounds recorded doesn’t mean that’s how it sounds in real life. This is why you can mic a small combo amp with the right mic placement and mics and make it sound like a loud full stack. Inversely, it’s also possible to make a loud full stack sound small. How all of the other instruments in the mix interact with the recorded amp plays a part as well.

 

[GJgo]

That's a great tone from the IIC+ on the vid. The JP sounds like it could've been dialed in better. Didn't wathch the whole vid, but did you try to match the settings or go from dialing them in as close as you could get them to sound?

That effort was first dialing in the C+, then recording the JP, listening to both in playback, and taking the time to dial the JP in as well as I could so that the recorded tones were comparable. That's as good as I got it that day. One of the problems with the JP is it has this boxy midrange that's basically impossible to dial out (without killing the tone) hence the weird GEQ settings. It's like when you do Pull Deep on an OS cab. Except I was on a trad cab. I suppose I could have gotten them to sound closer if I would have tried to match the C+ to the JP, you can always ADD boxy to a Mark..

 

[Meeotch]

I think it's possible we're just all failing to come up with an accurate, and commonly accepted, description of what makes a a piece of gear different in the room. "Compression" probably isn't it.

Years ago when I first compared a JP2C to a IIC+, I learned that even though there was a pretty significant difference A/Bing in the room, when I recorded them there really wasn't as big of a difference (if you spend enough time dialing them in). So then, if 2" in front of the speaker as recorded by a mic really is not significantly different, what exactly is it that makes the experience in the room so different? How can we describe what we all experience in a measurable way?

Or, is the reason we're failing to accurately describe it because really, there is no significant difference and we as flawed humans are assigning our own biases to the experience?

...Or, is it really different when all analog and there's something about digitizing the signal that affects it?

I wonder if it could have to do with the distance between the speaker and microphone? For example, I vastly prefer listening to music through a quality bookshelf style speaker than quality headphones. There's just something about the way my brain interprets the soundwaves traveling through the air vs being so close to my ear.

Maybe there's something similar going on when we close mic a cab vs stepping back and letting the room interact more as well? Just spit balling here!

 

[Rex Rocker]

That effort was first dialing in the C+, then recording the JP, listening to both in playback, and taking the time to dial the JP in as well as I could so that the recorded tones were comparable. That's as good as I got it that day. One of the problems with the JP is it has this boxy midrange that's basically impossible to dial out (without killing the tone) hence the weird GEQ settings. It's like when you do Pull Deep on an OS cab. Except I was on a trad cab. I suppose I could have gotten them to sound closer if I would have tried to match the C+ to the JP, you can always ADD boxy to a Mark..

Well, sounds like Ola had better luck, LOL.

Honestly, I'm not a Mark series conossieur, so I'm not familiar enough if that's like a subtle trait of the JP's that you only hear if you're familiar enough with the amps. But it never came off as boxy on his clip. Quite the contrary, TBH. In his clip, I thought the IIC had a slight focus in the upper-lows/low mids that the others didn't.

Or maybe his version of the Mark II is different than yours. Or the JP2C. Or maybe my perception was skewed because I did think the IIC sounded slighltly louder in his clip. Who knows.

 

[PurityS.L.G]

So now we are discussing the compression behavior of these amps huh? Between the Bad Monkey thread and this thread, the guitar community has gone fucking mad and bored.

Those amps are so close to each other, yet y’all wanna still dissect on how they are far apart from each other. For what? To argue about feel? You’re not even in Ola’s shoes in that room to discuss the feel of those exact 3 amps but you can tell over a compressed YT video.

And there’s no need to argue or justify the integrity of the OG amp. Vintage gear will always fetch higher prices compared to newer counterparts so there is no need to defend for the sake of retaining its precious value.

Seriously, these discussions, arguments and debates are just getting stupid. How about playing more guitar and less bitching about parts tolerances on reissue versions of gear