Mesa Boogie - Current Market Buzz?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Strandberg Junkie
  • Start date Start date
Bossman415 said:
If you’re looking at it from a price point, need flexibility for live use, and don’t want to drop $5k+ for a IIC+, then yes.

If you’re looking for straight up tone and reliability… IIC+. That’s not a knock on the JP-2C IMHO.

All of the newer Mesa’s get me nervous when it comes to longterm reliability/longevity. They seem to get more compact/cramped internally with PCB’s on top of PCB’s. I can only imagine how expensive they’ll be to repair later on down the road.
Click to expand...
Yes exactly, the newer one & new amps in general win in practicality, while the older ones win in tone. To me the choice is easy. Practicality alone is boring and doesn’t make for a product likely to stand the test of time
 
D9C76F82-23B7-47AE-AD51-DE997060C1F2.jpeg
728A2F0B-C916-442D-9258-F7A2275F6C39.jpeg
CE26BFC0-333C-4D6D-BBE7-AA6FDD4FA240.jpeg
 
Racerxrated said:
In the end though, simpler always=better tone. Looking forward to what they come up with. It'd be nice to know even a little about the few Mk VIs that went to artists....
Click to expand...
I disagree with that statement. Having more command over your tone means you have a better possibility of finding that tone in your head, but there is a point where too much complixity does kinda make an amp suffer. A lot of it is just switching in and out parts of the circuit that would already be there in the first place, well that's all it is... an example of complexity equaling better tone, well i'm one of those that think the Mark IV was a big improvement over the III. The III was just kinda grating tonally... and a bit honky unless you brought that 750hz WAY down.
 
anomaly said:
I disagree with that statement. Having more command over your tone means you have a better possibility of finding that tone in your head, but there is a point where too much complixity does kinda make an amp suffer. A lot of it is just switching in and out parts of the circuit that would already be there in the first place, well that's all it is... an example of complexity equaling better tone, well i'm one of those that think the Mark IV was a big improvement over the III. The III was just kinda grating tonally... and a bit honky unless you brought that 750hz WAY down.
Click to expand...
Well most of the amps that have the tone in my head seem to have fewer controls. The more feature laden multi-channel amps IME tend to have less complexity/detail to the inherent tone (vs more complexity in controls lol) that isn’t fixable by any knobs tweaking. I much prefer to have an amp that does one or 2 sounds 10/10 good vs another that does many 7/10 good or even 9/10. I think it’s just a matter of practicality vs less of that for better quality tone. I prefer the latter

Practicality is boring, but well… practical lol. Exceptional tone is very addictive & inspiring. To me it’s well worth the extra for it. Sadly only a small handful of current made gear (not just amps) have imo exceptional tone that goes beyond just “nice” or functionally good
 
Last edited:
braintheory said:
Well most of the amps that have the tone in my head seem to have fewer controls. The more feature laden multi-channel amps IME tend to have less complexity/detail to the inherent tone (vs more complexity in controls lol) that isn’t fixable by any knobs tweaking. I much prefer to have an amp that does one or 2 sounds 10/10 good vs another that does many 7/10 good or even 9/10. I think it’s just a matter of practicality vs less of that for better quality tone. I prefer the latter

Practicality is boring, but well… practical lol. Exceptional tone is very addictive & inspiring. To me it’s well worth the extra for it. Sadly only a small handful of current made gear (not just amps) have imo exceptional tone that goes beyond just “nice” or functionally good
Click to expand...
This.

It would be interesting if all the multi channel amps with all the bells/whistles, each of those builders made a single channel amp based only on the lead channel (or whichever channel was most famous, i.e. ch3 of a VH4) and stripped down without a loop, Midi, etc and then compare it to the multi channel version of itself. I'd bet 9/10 times the single channel amp would just plain sound better.
 
braintheory said:
Well most of the amps that have the tone in my head seem to have fewer controls.
Click to expand...
Racerxrated said:
I'd bet 9/10 times the single channel amp would just plain sound better.
Click to expand...

Multi-channel / featured amps do have a certain appeal, use and purpose. A few years back that’s primarily all I played. Then I went down the rabbit-hole of “simpler“ single channel amps and had an awakening. I find myself playing my NMV, no loop single channel amps more than anything else these days. The tones seem more like what I hear in my head, and the ability to go from clean to grind and beyond at the twist of your guitar volume is awesome. I still have a few channel switchers, however the purity of tone and the responsiveness of the SC amps is more satisfying to me.
 
Fordman65 said:
Wondering how this reissue of the C+ and IV are different than what's on the V. The Mark series, once an iterative and progressive line, seems to have become just a regurgitation of approximate reissues. There's what, now 3 reissue versions of the C+? The previous examples don't cut it compared to the original, so if this is no different, why bring out a new model? Simply to add a 2B that few are interested in?
Click to expand...
Most companies these days put a new model when used are selling more than new.

They had to put the new Mark 7 mode on something.
 
Can't wait for this announcement! Looking forward to it!
 
1678128227165.png


Just saw this post on FB. Thought it may have been fake but it looks pretty convincing.
 
Kinda a letdown.
It's basically a Mark V, version II.
Not worthy of its own designator imo.
 
Fordman65 said:
I'd have more interest if it was just clean, rhythm and Lead. 2 channels with GEQ. Don't need yet another meh C+ regurgitation or the 2B or IV for that matter. I'm happy to reserve judgment until I hear it, but on paper this is a big nothing burger for me.
Click to expand...

That's the JP-2C.
 
braintheory said:
Well most of the amps that have the tone in my head seem to have fewer controls. The more feature laden multi-channel amps IME tend to have less complexity/detail to the inherent tone (vs more complexity in controls lol) that isn’t fixable by any knobs tweaking. I much prefer to have an amp that does one or 2 sounds 10/10 good vs another that does many 7/10 good or even 9/10. I think it’s just a matter of practicality vs less of that for better quality tone. I prefer the latter

Practicality is boring, but well… practical lol. Exceptional tone is very addictive & inspiring. To me it’s well worth the extra for it. Sadly only a small handful of current made gear (not just amps) have imo exceptional tone that goes beyond just “nice” or functionally good
Click to expand...
All Marks are pretty complex amps, and if you look at the features of a Mark III for example, those pull pots, the tone gets better with pretty much all of them pulled (except the bass control). All of that extra circuitry adds to the tone in this case. So it's just not ALWAYS true. Older, simpler amps are not ALWAYS going to be better. Maybe in a lot of cases it's true, but not ALWAYS, lol.

Think about when you add a pedal in front of your amp, you're adding circuitry and it's enhancing your tone... making it tighter, more saturated, whatever. Simpler does not ALWAYS mean better.
 
Last edited:
anomaly said:
Mark III for example, those pull pots, the tone gets better with pretty much all of them pulled except bass
Click to expand...

Yup. They should have just come out with a simple re-issue of that.
Mesa Mark IIIP.

:giggle:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top