The REAL Mesa Boogie Mark IIC++

Clive

Experienced
Hi,

The Axe Fx III has the Mark IIC++ but "the IIC++ amp model is the same as the IIC+ with different tapers."

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...ries-graphic-eq-modeling.149223/#post-1770773

So the IIC++ is not the real IIC++ :tonguewink:

The real IIC++ is a real IIC+ with more gain.

Is it possible to simulate it using special settings ? Some months ago, I saw a video on YT comparing the JP2C with a IIC+ and a IIC++. Would it be possible, for instance, to simulate a real IIC++ using the USA JP IIC+ Red with a IIC+ tonestack but without authentic controls ? :disrelieved:

If not possible, would it be difficult to have a new amp model simulating the real IIC++ ?
 
Different tapers implies that you have the same maximum and minimum gain, but the behaviour of the control is different between the model and the real amp as you move between maximum and minimum. So 50% gain on the model may equate to 70% gain on the amp (just making up numbers here, not based on anything real). We have a "real" IIC++ model, you just need to dial it in using your ears rather than copying settings exactly from a real amp.
 
Different tapers implies that you have the same maximum and minimum gain, but the behaviour of the control is different between the model and the real amp as you move between maximum and minimum.
Does it though? The start and end points are parts of the tapers, so, technically, a taper with the same slope, but a different start and/or end point would still be a different taper, right?
 
Does it though? The start and end points are parts of the tapers, so, technically, a taper with the same slope, but a different start and/or end point would still be a different taper, right?
Start on a physical pot is zero plus some residual resistance. Different end is a different value pot, not a different taper. Taper is the curve describing how the value changes in between those two points.
 
Does it though? The start and end points are parts of the tapers, so, technically, a taper with the same slope, but a different start and/or end point would still be a different taper, right?
No. A pot/knob/dial with the same slope but different end points would be considered to have the same taper.
 
Hi,

The Axe Fx III has the Mark IIC++ but "the IIC++ amp model is the same as the IIC+ with different tapers."

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...ries-graphic-eq-modeling.149223/#post-1770773

So the IIC++ is not the real IIC++ :tonguewink:

The real IIC++ is a real IIC+ with more gain.

Is it possible to simulate it using special settings ? Some months ago, I saw a video on YT comparing the JP2C with a IIC+ and a IIC++. Would it be possible, for instance, to simulate a real IIC++ using the USA JP IIC+ Red with a IIC+ tonestack but without authentic controls ? :disrelieved:

If not possible, would it be difficult to have a new amp model simulating the real IIC++ ?
Use either the JPIIC+ or the IIC++, put gain to taste, and then EQ it the way you want it. Real in the axe fx is subjective. Just get it sounding good, that is all that really matters in the end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jon
You can always add more again by increasing the input gain or using the input boost set to neutral (or some other type). You probably want to either use the MV trim or lower the mater volume to compensate (too much gain going into the poweramp section would likely flub the tone out).

I believe that is one of the main thing the ++ version does. At least from the little I have read on it.
 
Does anybody know in what consists the Mesa Boogie IIC++ mod ? Can it be reproduced virtually changing some settings ?
 
I though the IIC++ was meant to replicate Metallica's early thrash sound, obtained by running the preamp section of a Mesa IIC+ into a Marshall JCM800 power section? Am I missing something here?
 
Apparently the 26dB boost was for the clean channel, the lead/gain channel seems to have a 6dB boost on it, but if you want more, just put more on. Use the input trim to adjust the amount of gain available on the input drive too.
 
I used to own 1 of the 12 original C++'s. This describes the differences in my opinion. "6 dB volume boost and more hair is the result of a 26 dB input boost"
I personally didn't like the huge boost. It was too much and hard to balance with the other channels. I preferred the DRG C+ much better.

Interesting story behind the amp: I purchased the amp about 15 years ago off eBay. The seller described the amp as an upgraded C to C+. The cabinet was pretty ratty looking. I pulled the chassis and sent it to Mesa and had Mike B take a look at it. Mike told me it wasn't a C to C+ upgrade, it was in fact one of the original 12 C++ they produced at the factory.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom