Metallica Amp

brokenvail said:
[...]I get why they referred to it as the Metallica amp. I don't get why it is now called a c++ though. [...]
Click to expand...
It's a modded IIC+, the modded version is referred to as the IIC++.

Metallica use a(t least one) IIC++, and this popularised it - it's commonly referred to as the "Metallica mod" and so on as a result.

Cliff referred to it as the "Metallica amp", which is not at all untrue, but you can see why people ran with that and interpreted it as "Metallica's amp", given the fact that Cliff has been personally given famous amps to model before.

The truth is that it is an amp Metallica is known for (or vice versa), but it is not the exact unit used by Metallica.

Let's all get back to playing now, shall we?
 
Last edited:
VanHalen said:
The model named IIC++ should not be named like this, IMO.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but I try to not obsess with the name thing.

When the first news of a new IIC++ in the axe came in I went to the boogie board and there it was said that this mod was a boost (http://forum.grailtone.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=49577), then I was taken aback because Cliff would not make a new modeling for a simple boost mod, you can achieve the same result with a Drive(boost) block before the amp.

When I updated the firmware I confirmed that C++ had a different voicing than C+, definitely not a boost thing...

I purchased my Axe2 in the early days of Quantum and didn't knew that pre-FW18.08 sim of the C+ , but the fact that no one recognized the new C++ as the old C+ says a lot about how modeling has evolved since the original C+ felt from the amp list.

Zaemo explanation makes things clear: "ported" and "now" are the keywords.

But the truth reveals that the C++ inside the axe is not a real C++, is the original sim of the C+.

IMHO the best solution would be rename this model for accuracy, but please don't obsess...the change would be really necessary at the time that Cliff would add a new sim based on a real C++.

Anyway in my insight this is the Metallica amp for 2 reasons:
1. This is the amp that Het uses live
2. Zaemo asked this model back, thanks to this we can enjoy it in full Quantum glory
 
Last edited:
brokenvail said:
I don't get why it is now called a c++ though. Do I need to know? No. I have never tried any of the mark amp sims
Click to expand...

Cliff is a developer - and let me tell ya that C++ is way easier to work with than C or C+ ;-)

I'm thinking its a C+ with extra badassery. Therefore C++

The model is killer! Thanks Cliff and FAS regardless of the amps provenance ... You folks do a fantastic job with an amazing product.

Disconnector
 
Wolfenstein98k said:
The truth is that it is an amp Metallica is known for (or vice versa), but it is not the exact unit used by Metallica.
Click to expand...


But if its the amp model Metallica is using in their Axe units, and my Fractal unit has the same spec as their units, and we load the same amp model, then I essentially can have the "same" rig as Metallica.

If Chad were so cool as to share a patch, one could have the identical virtual rig/settings as James uses, provided one also matched guitar, pups, had similar technique etc.

That is as close as it gets to having the "exact" unit as Metallica, with regards to a 2016 digital copy. Hardware amp specs are going to vary unit to unit, so even if you bought the same amp, had the same mods done, its probably not exactly the same amp as James has, just the nature of things, not going to happen.

I can though have an exact digital copy of his amp model in the Axe Fx, which is pretty cool.

At the same time, doesn't mean the end result is going to sound the same. I've watched guys video's like Tyler Grund's, where you makes a patch, it sounds amazing, and then he shares the patch, I load it, grab my similar strat, and low and behold, sound quite different than he does. Also the nature of the thing I guess
 
bognerfishing said:
With Cliffs Mesa IIC++ amp model and Jon Symons Tonematches, we can now pretty much nail James Hetfields rhythm guitar tone which is pretty amazing.

However, let’s not forget about Kirk Hammett's lead guitar tones on their best selling albums AJFA and the Black Album, which (as far as I know) was not a Mesa IIC++.

Kirk used an ADA-MP1 preamp with a Mesa Power Amp and an Ibanez Tube Screamer for all his lead tones on AJFA and the Black Album. I own an ADA-MP1, and have been trying to find out what presets or settings he used for these recordings. After reading Flemming Rasmussen notes on the recording of AJFA, Kirk used presets 100, 101, 102 on his ADA-MP1 preamp, however, the ADA-MP1 only comes with 29 presets?

Does anyone know Kirks ADA-MP1 settings? or know if he got his preamp modded to add more presets?
Click to expand...
Wasn't The Black Album a mix of a CAE 3+ and a Marshall blended for leads? I remember reading that in an interview somewhere.
 
Does anyone remember the exact version of the IIC+ amp that was taken to model the ancient IIC+ model in the Axe (the new IIC++ model now) ? Was it simulclass or not ?
 
Last edited:
bognerfishing said:
Seemingly he only used the CAE for lows and mids, lead guitar was ADA-MP1
Click to expand...

No ADA on that album according to this:

" Kirk: "VHT power amp with Bradshaw preamp through Marshall cab for lows. Straight Marshall for highs. I didn't use the Boogie gear I used on Master of Puppets and Justice for All. I also stopped using the ADA preamp. "

Taken from Guitar Player according to this: http://www.amptone.com/g153.htm

There is also this, that states the same thing:

Kirk Hammett: "I used a Bradshaw because the mids were clean and the low end sounded real percussive. The harmonic distortion also sounded nice and dirty. For the highs we used two Marshalls. We combined all the sounds and put the Bradshaw pre-amp through a VHT power-amp. We put it all through Marshall cabinets with 30-watt speakers and blended all the room mikes. My sound is a lot thicker and punchier than before, and I think it's better than ever.

http://www.encycmet.com/equipment/khiseq.shtml
 
VanHalen said:
Does someone remember the exact version of the IIC+ amp that was taken to modeled the ancient IIC+ model in the Axe (the new IIC++ model now) ? Was it simulclass or not ?
Click to expand...
I don't that info ever being public. It was actually from the ultra then was in the ii with new g2 modeling technology. Cliff did not have position of it to G3 it and bought his C+. G3 did not last long though because the Quantum revelation was shortly after
 
VanHalen said:
Does someone remember the exact version of the IIC+ amp that was taken to modeled the ancient IIC+ model in the Axe (the new IIC++ model now) ? Was it simulclass or not ?
Click to expand...


I believe the original IIc+ model was based on a schematic, and not an actual physical amp (not that that helps any;)). I could very well be mistaken about that though. :rolleyes:
 
lqdsnddist said:
If nothing else, its an interesting psychological experiment in human perception as based on expectations.

I'll tell you what; Cliff could take an old Axe Ultra, and stick the guts into a rough "mock-up" enclosure of the Axe III housing, write a few paragraphs about some new "breakthrough" in modeling he had, and I'd wager 9 out of 10 guitarist would all say how it sounds "more real" than their current Axe II units.
Click to expand...


LOL!!! I've often wondered how many firmware versions were released with no changes, and wondered if it was a grand sociological experiment with researchers studying the responses here.

Wouldn't it be something if, like your scenario above, the Axe II was just the guts of the Ultra in a new box? Guess I fell for it. :-D
 
VanHalen said:
Does someone remember the exact version of the IIC+ amp that was taken to modeled the ancient IIC+ model in the Axe (the new IIC++ model now) ? Was it simulclass or not ?
Click to expand...

In this thread Cliff mentioned in his OP that it had an incorrect tonestack that was based on the IV

READ POINT 1.
.....Mark IIC+ Tips
 
qjawz said:
In this thread Cliff mentioned in his OP that it had an incorrect tonestack that was based on the IV

READ POINT 1.
.....Mark IIC+ Tips
Click to expand...


Cliff is talking about when he revised the IIc+ sim currently in the Axe-Fx that was modeled off of his Simul-Class combo. It replaced the original IIc+ model (now back as the IIc++) that VanHalen is asking about.
 
Wolfenstein98k said:
By who though? Cliff hasn't said it, I suspect that's a rumour. The IIC++ is a different amp (factory or aftermarket modded) to the IIC+.
Click to expand...
Lol by Metallica's guitar tech. He is a member here. After him stating what he said a long talk has come up about why is it named c++ instead something else. Cliff has yet to chime in why they choose that name
 
brokenvail said:
Lol by Metallica's guitar tech. He is a member here. After him stating what he said a long talk has come up about why is it named c++ instead something else. Cliff has yet to chime in why they choose that name
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I had a quick look at Zaemo's posts and got a similar impression but I'm still not sure if something is being lost in translation or not - Cliff definitely called this amp "new" in the firmware post. He could be lying as a way of checking if people appear to love it more than they used to (testing the old placebo), but I wouldn't expect him to actually lie in order to do so. So you may well be right, I think the water's too muddy to tell anymore :p

We'll see!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom