Mark IIC+ Amp and its many pull knobs

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shahar

Shahar

Experienced
I just played around with Neural's interpretation of Mark IIC+/++ and I noticed many of the knobs were of the pull variety. I tried to match the tone in Neural with the USA IIC+ amp type to just compare feel, tone, break up, chugability, etc. However, the controls in the Tone tab are missing many of the switches (Deep Switch, Treble Shift, Bass Shift, etc.). Was this an intentional omission? If the modeling is white box type modeling, the circuit must have had those controls, no?

And that made me think of other models, if they have a circuit that supports Lead/Rhythm/Clean switching, why are those separate models? Or in the case of JP2C+ the lack of a Shred switch and instead a separate model.
 
My Boogie Mk III had seven knobs on the front panel, and all of them pulled out to engage some other boost / option. That amp was amazing in a lot of ways, and was the centerpiece of my rig until I swapped it out for a Lonestar. Super versatile.
 
Shahar said:
I just played around with Neural's interpretation of Mark IIC+/++ and I noticed many of the knobs were of the pull variety. I tried to match the tone in Neural with the USA IIC+ amp type to just compare feel, tone, break up, chugability, etc. However, the controls in the Tone tab are missing many of the switches (Deep Switch, Treble Shift, Bass Shift, etc.). Was this an intentional omission? If the modeling is white box type modeling, the circuit must have had those controls, no?

And that made me think of other models, if they have a circuit that supports Lead/Rhythm/Clean switching, why are those separate models? Or in the case of JP2C+ the lack of a Shred switch and instead a separate model.
Click to expand...
What Tone Tab?
 
I downloaded the trial of it, it looks cool. I personally wasn’t impressed with the tone or controls. It’s ok I guess, but I wouldn’t use it in a serious recording context.
Just my opinion.
 
Pull Bright on the Lead Master knob and Pull Deep are both accounted for with their own models (USA IIC+ Bright, USA IIC+ Deep, and USA IIC+ Deep Bright for both).
Pull Bright on the Volume 1 knob is the same as the bright switch in the model.
Pull shift on the Treble control is the same as the Fat switch in the model.
Pull shift on the Bass control I believe is the only one that is not incorporated into the models. But IIRC Cliff posted a method to recreate it before. I'll see if I can find it.

Edit: Found it in the Wiki... (to emulate Pull Shift on the Bass) "Put a Tilt EQ before the amp block with a frequency of 320 Hz and a gain of -3 dB. Set the Level to +3 dB."
 
Last edited:
mr_fender said:
Pull Bright on the Lead Master knob and Pull Deep are both accounted for with their own models (USA IIC+ Bright, USA IIC+ Deep, and USA IIC+ Deep Bright for both).
Pull Bright on the Volume 1 knob is the same as the bright switch in the model.
Pull shift on the Treble control is the same as the Fat switch in the model.
Pull shift on the Bass control I believe is the only one that is not incorporated into the models. But IIRC Cliff posted a method to recreate it before. I'll see if I can find it.
Click to expand...
But the question remains, why separate models instead of a simple switch on the tone page? That doesn't seem to make sense.
 
That's a question for Cliff. I'd guess maybe he didn't want to add those extra parameters to the amp block and have to deal with either hiding them or incorporating them into all of the other models.
 
Last edited:
I could be wrong but I believe I have read around here that the way FAS does the modeling its basically impossible to do all of the options in the same amp model. I think this is a result of their exhaustive modeling on the component vs what many modeling companies do... If memory serves.
 
I doubt it's impossible. It's just simpler and more efficient to keep the amp block parameters pared down to those that can be utilized by the most amp models. One off features can add unnecessary overhead for all of the other models if you're using a fixed index for block parameters.
 
mr_fender said:
Edit: Found it in the Wiki... (to emulate Pull Shift on the Bass) "Put a Tilt EQ before the amp block with a frequency of 320 Hz and a gain of -3 dB. Set the Level to +3 dB."
Click to expand...
How do you add the tilt EQ in fractal land? I looked at the graphic and parametric EQ blocks, but didn't see any options for tilt EQ.

Do you just use the parametric EQ and add a shelving filter at 320 Hz, and then set the gain to -3 db and the Level to +3 db?
 
mr_fender said:
It's in the Filter block. There's also a Tilt EQ option in the Input EQ tab of the Amp block itself.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I didn't think to check the filter block. Also good to know it's available on the Input EQ tab of the amp block.

It would be nice to have more of the pull shifts, harmonic/mid gain, etc., stuff from the real Mark amps built into the main Tone page of the Fractal models so we didn't have to know these tweaks to use them, but then I'm sure it all doesn't fit neatly into a single amp model, from a design perspective. At least now I have a tilt EQ saved on all my Mark presets thanks to this thread😀

That tilt EQ definitely brings a fullness to the low end that is different from what I was getting by just messing with the bass control and 5 band EQ alone. All my Mark series presets sound even better now. Love these Mark models!
 
So many modern amps have tons of switches (particularly Mesa and Friedman), it would be more intuitive if those switches were modeled. At the end of the day, these models are supposed to replace their hardware equivalents, so these controls should be modeled as switches not additional models. I know I’m missing a point about why that tactical approach was taken, I was just hoping someone could enlighten me.
 
Scaleback said:
Thanks! I didn't think to check the filter block. Also good to know it's available on the Input EQ tab of the amp block.

It would be nice to have more of the pull shifts, harmonic/mid gain, etc., stuff from the real Mark amps built into the main Tone page of the Fractal models so we didn't have to know these tweaks to use them, but then I'm sure it all doesn't fit neatly into a single amp model, from a design perspective. At least now I have a tilt EQ saved on all my Mark presets thanks to this thread😀

That tilt EQ definitely brings a fullness to the low end that is different from what I was getting by just messing with the bass control and 5 band EQ alone. All my Mark series presets sound even better now. Love these Mark models!
Click to expand...
Now you've got my interest about the tilt EQ.

The IIC+ is my main sound by far. It’s really really really good.
 
Shahar said:
So many modern amps have tons of switches (particularly Mesa and Friedman), it would be more intuitive if those switches were modeled. At the end of the day, these models are supposed to replace their hardware equivalents, so these controls should be modeled as switches not additional models. I know I’m missing a point about why that tactical approach was taken, I was just hoping someone could enlighten me.
Click to expand...
Kinda feel this is a spot where both Neural and Line 6 are a bit "friendlier" than Fractal. Wish all these amp models could be condensed as well
 
TSJMajesty said:
I'm thinking about trying it out, but I know it's a hard amp to dial in. How are the presets?
Click to expand...
They’re actually pretty fucking great, a lot of good clean tones as well, which was a bit of a surprise to me. On many of the presets they add a layer of fuzz with the OD2 (which is fuzzier than OD1) to be honest, its probably a bit much, very noisy even with the gate. But the crunch is there, it feels really good and chunky. From what little comparison I’ve done, there is definitely more gain on the Neural side and I feel like their cabs are somewhat brighter than the Mesa Oversize 4x12 cab IR’s I’m using.
 
The unified GUI and split amp models have advantages.

Let's say you have a single Fractal Audio model for the Ecstasy amp, and/or one for the Cameron CCV and one for the Mark IV.

You would then need to have a virtual "Structure Modern/Vintage" switch in the Ecstasy model, a virtual "Gain Style" switch in the Cameron model, and a virtual Mid Gain/Harmonics switch in the MESA model.

To be able to access these virtual switches on your foot controller, you'd have to reserve physical switches on your FC (or MIDI) layout for each of them.

But since these are the only amps to provide these specific switches, the foot switches wouldn't do anything with working with other amp models. And that's a waste. And not assigning physical switches to the functions means you loose access to them when controlling you rig with your feet.

So having separate models makes things easier in some aspect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom