Mesa Mark IIC+ prices?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jakem
  • Start date Start date
Racerxrated said:
That 10 or 2% may seem small; but it's all the difference in the world to many.
Click to expand...
I agree at this.

I’ve owned a MKIII Red Stripe, Blue Stripe, and Red Stripe.

When I got my 1st MKIIC+ 60 Watt combo non reverb or graphic EQ,the difference was obvious.

I ended up selling all my MKIII’s, and have never looked back.
 
Bxlxaxkxe said:
Isn’t that the damn truth. Name of this entire game lol
Click to expand...
It’s the reason why I think many of us become gearheads. If I didn’t chase down that last few percent better sound I really wouldn’t have reason to go on forums or the internet to figure this stuff out

I think it’s a similar case with players that try to be the best. I think often times (at least in my field of classical) there are players out there that are 90 something percent as good as the one that makes it, but it’s the difference between a great career vs little to no career as a guitarist. That little difference seems to be all the difference in price/demand
 
frontline205 said:
T

Theres a quad for sale near me but the lady wants 2k for it. At one point I offered to trade an 84 corvette for a Mark IIC+… no takers lol. The lady even has a strategy 500 for 1000. I’m thinking of just offering 2500. But yea IIC+ prices are insane right now.
Click to expand...
If I were you I’d be going to her house and offering $2500 in an instant. If you don’t like it, you could sell it next year for a couple grand more.
 
pipboy90 said:
In my experience the 2-10% difference vanishes live or in a mix.
Click to expand...
I’d agree with that. But if I recorded, I’d get an FM3 and use it direct. Live, maybe I’d bring that vs my tube amps. But at home it is definitely noticeable. Played out for 30yrs; nowadays I’m happy to be sleeping when I’d normally be pulling in my garage @4am.
 
Racerxrated said:
I’d agree with that. But if I recorded, I’d get an FM3 and use it direct. Live, maybe I’d bring that vs my tube amps. But at home it is definitely noticeable. Played out for 30yrs; nowadays I’m happy to be sleeping when I’d normally be pulling in my garage @4am.
Click to expand...

If you record(ed) and wanted only a modeler, and live you want a modeler, but you keep the guitar gear for at home playing only, then why have the high wattage amps if you’ll never crack them open to be used live or recorded and hate them for what they were intended to be used for?
 
Last edited:
braintheory said:
It’s the reason why I think many of us become gearheads. If I didn’t chase down that last few percent better sound I really wouldn’t have reason to go on forums or the internet to figure this stuff out

I think it’s a similar case with players that try to be the best. I think often times (at least in my field of classical) there are players out there that are 90 something percent as good as the one that makes it, but it’s the difference between a great career vs little to no career as a guitarist. That little difference seems to be all the difference in price/demand
Click to expand...
Ya, but you think a guitars finish makes a difference tonally. You also think vintage guitars sound better. Is it because wood was different in the 50's 60's and 70's? and possibly the 80's?? Or was it the finish?
 
anomaly said:
Ya, but you think a guitars finish makes a difference tonally. You also think vintage guitars sound better. Is it because wood was different in the 50's 60's and 70's? and possibly the 80's?? Or was it the finish?
Click to expand...
This video blew my mind when I saw it. I've never heard any good rebuttals against it.

 
anomaly said:
Ya, but you think a guitars finish makes a difference tonally. You also think vintage guitars sound better. Is it because wood was different in the 50's 60's and 70's? and possibly the 80's?? Or was it the finish?
Click to expand...
With vintage guitars, my guess is it's more the age, but I'm not a scientist or technical guy. They say the nitro back then had certain ingredients that can't exactly be duplicated the same way today, but I have a feeling they could've possibly sounded even better anyway if they went with shellac finish instead like on classical guitars and violins

I find with vintage guitars, whether it's a good or bad example (plenty aren't great too) or even if it has poly, still without exception IME has that raw and more mature/warm sound that just isn't there the same way in any recent made guitars I've tried. The poly vintage guitars I've have from the '70's & '80's (like the Charvel's, Yamaha SG's, some Schecter's) still have that choked, homogenous sound, but still also have that unmistakable rawness to the sound. I've got some awesome sounding recent made guitars with shellac finish with thin nitro over it that sound exceptionally wet and harmonically rich, more so than even most of my vintage guitars, but not warm or at all raw the way my vintage guitars are. I like them in their own way similarly well to my vintage guitars. A vintage equivalent would've been amazing, but I don't know if any vintage guitars used that sadly

Most guys on here I'm well aware won't care about this at all and give answers to justify it like in a mix it doesn't matter, but I personally care about these differences. YMMV. I'd say others here should just try it for themselves, do similar comparisons I've done and see what they think

TLDR version: vintage guitars IME sound more interesting, newer guitars tend to sound more bland, with all else being roughly equal shellac or nitro seems to help also get a more interesting/nuanced sound vs poly or oil IME. If these differences are too subtle, then to each their own. To me they are important
 
Last edited:
pipboy90 said:
This video blew my mind when I saw it. I've never heard any good rebuttals against it.

Click to expand...

That's a very eye opening video. I did a much more rudimentary version of that test similar to the one he did with the 2x4 plank and that was enough for me to toss out all ideas of tone woods/finishes/etc. but I still slip into the habit of using those marketing buzz terms around certain things. Hard to overcome such learned behavior after all this time.
 
glpg80 said:
If you record(ed) and wanted only a modeler, and live you want a modeler, but you keep the guitar gear for at home playing only, then why have the high wattage amps if you’ll never crack them open to be used live or recorded and hate them for what they were intended to be used for?
Click to expand...
Very good point...I guess as I get older, my back has started to occasionally remind me of work I used to do lol....So, if I did play out again I may have to grab a modeler for that reason. But, rest assured I will always open up my amps at home, when I know I'm able i.e. alone.
So I won't ever be that person who doesn't ever use tube amps, even if I did get an FM3. I'd just add it to my gear.
Kids though, may never feel the need to hear/play the original amp that inspired their fav preset on their modeler.
Sad.
 
Racerxrated said:
Very good point...I guess as I get older, my back has started to occasionally remind me of work I used to do lol....So, if I did play out again I may have to grab a modeler for that reason. But, rest assured I will always open up my amps at home, when I know I'm able i.e. alone.
So I won't ever be that person who doesn't ever use tube amps, even if I did get an FM3. I'd just add it to my gear.
Kids though, may never feel the need to hear/play the original amp that inspired their fav preset on their modeler.
Sad.
Click to expand...

Honestly I like that modeling is so popular. Less competition for the real specimens. I selfishly hope the trend in popularity continues ?
 
glpg80 said:
If you record(ed) and wanted only a modeler, and live you want a modeler, but you keep the guitar gear for at home playing only, then why have the high wattage amps if you’ll never crack them open to be used live or recorded and hate them for what they were intended to be used for?
Click to expand...
Consider these things. When I record, I've found through testing that the cleanest tone / signal (at least with my gear) happens when the peaks are around 100 dB. Not loud at all. Also, the wattage of the amp while it's huge in the room, not really a big deal on the mic. It's there, but not significant.

When we gig, all the stages are micing the cab these days and we actually play live quieter than we rehearse in my garage, where we'll regularly be 110-115dB peaks. Maybe 105 on stage?

So the loudest I regularly play is jamming at home or band rehearsal. With the big power section amps I'm not playing any different volumes than with the smaller amps, however the difference in the movement of air & the girth of the sound is immense. There, the Coli is the ultimate bedroom amp! Ha!

On the wood plank guitar video- this guy & that other guy are showing us that on the close mic, the speaker is the only thing that makes a significant difference with maybe the amp making a modest difference. Everything else either doesn't matter or could be normalized with EQ / gain changes pretty easily. These things are quantifiable.

The hard part is that we haven't come up with a good way to quantify what human ears hear in the room. I've been thinking about this lately and the best I can come up with is a parallel between fluid dynamics with pressure & flow. They are related, but not the same thing, and both can be measured. However in the sound world while we can measure recorded noises, I do not believe we have a good way (or no one has tried) to record the movement of air and that to me is the third dimension that could explain the reasoning behind what we experience "in the room" vs. what we can record on a microphone.

For example, one night at band practice I set up a Coli and then set up a Helix direct. Both were dialed to the same volume. The band guys & I all agreed that the Helix, even though the tone was decent, was thin & weak, while the Coli was full & powerful. At the same dB it simply moved more air which made it easier to hear & clearer in the mix.
 
GJgo said:
Consider these things. When I record, I've found through testing that the cleanest tone / signal (at least with my gear) happens when the peaks are around 100 dB. Not loud at all. Also, the wattage of the amp while it's huge in the room, not really a big deal on the mic. It's there, but not significant.

When we gig, all the stages are micing the cab these days and we actually play live quieter than we rehearse in my garage, where we'll regularly be 110-115dB peaks. Maybe 105 on stage?

So the loudest I regularly play is jamming at home or band rehearsal. With the big power section amps I'm not playing any different volumes than with the smaller amps, however the difference in the movement of air & the girth of the sound is immense. There, the Coli is the ultimate bedroom amp! Ha!

On the wood plank guitar video- this guy & that other guy are showing us that on the close mic, the speaker is the only thing that makes a significant difference with maybe the amp making a modest difference. Everything else either doesn't matter or could be normalized with EQ / gain changes pretty easily. These things are quantifiable.

The hard part is that we haven't come up with a good way to quantify what human ears hear in the room. I've been thinking about this lately and the best I can come up with is a parallel between fluid dynamics with pressure & flow. They are related, but not the same thing, and both can be measured. However in the sound world while we can measure recorded noises, I do not believe we have a good way (or no one has tried) to record the movement of air and that to me is the third dimension that could explain the reasoning behind what we experience "in the room" vs. what we can record on a microphone.

For example, one night at band practice I set up a Coli and then set up a Helix direct. Both were dialed to the same volume. The band guys & I all agreed that the Helix, even though the tone was decent, was thin & weak, while the Coli was full & powerful. At the same dB it simply moved more air which made it easier to hear & clearer in the mix.
Click to expand...

When I play live I use the tube amps and acrylic sound guards to satisfy FOH and prevent feedback into mics. I learned you can’t assume FOH has something as simple as peavey feedback ferrets. It lets us turn up to get a reasonable stage volume without mucking with FOH. I also always pointed a cab directly at our drummer which benefited him and FOH even more.

I don’t see a place at all for a modeler. The fact they sound so thin and weak makes me scratch my head as to why I’d even consider investing in them for anything other than direct FOH or studio use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top