Sytek MPX-4Aii pre - good enough?

Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2004 11:35 am

I own the Sytek MPX-4aii and the Sebatron VMP-2000 VU. The Sebatron has many different colors and is more versatile, but the Sebatron cannot sound as transparent as the Sytek. I use the Sytek whenever I want a clean, 'un-colored' sound. It's great for drum overheads, acoustic guitar, and vocals. I usually use the Sebatron for electric guitar because it fattens things up a bit.

My friend recently compared the Sytek to the RNP. He got rid of the RNP and purchased the Sytek. I havn't used the RNP so I have no opinion there. I hear it's a bit noisier.

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 5:56 pm

Quote:

Regarding the Great River. I've read a lot about these pres in the forums. The general feel I got is that they're best suited for acoustic instruments. But then, a great pre is good for just about anything right?

Yes and no...used to be that you recorded and often mixed an entire album on one console, using its preamps and EQ, maybe some outboard compression...to a lot of old school engineers the thought of using different preamps for different colors is still rather amusing. But we've got all these colors available, so why not take advantage of them?

As for the GR being best suited for acoustic instruments...I think that the Sytek (or other "clean"-type preamps) may generally be considered better for that sort of thing. But it's certainly a matter of opinion.

Quote:

Can anyone who has bought a Sytek really say "That's it! I will never lust for another mic pre in my whole life!"

I don't know if anyone can say that about any preamp.

Quote:

Because I hire out my studio, I want to be sure I am offering potential clients the best gear available ...not some cheap "this months buzz" blinking lights type of rack crap thing. Perhaps this is why some people get their pants in a wad when their latest purchase gets a negative response from me and others? They see it as endangering their livelihood and as a slam of their taste in gear. Others take issue because they are entrenched into a "Good Ol' Boys" network, that exploits newbie ignorance, selling their associates "rack crap" offerings.

I don't get my pants in a was when my latest purchase gets a negative response from anyone. I realize not everyone will like every piece of gear out there. And I'm certainly not entrenched into any sort of network that exploits ignorance...but I do take issue with your generalizations and assertion that there's cheap crap and good gear, and nothing in between. I've certainly used enough midrange stuff to be familiar with a lot of the stuff out there and have no problem recommending a Presonus or Platinum piece over a Mackie to someone who has the budget for it, but not for an ISA or Great River...

Quote:

Herein lies the rub as far as I am concerned. Dicreet transistors and topology on the front end is good but a compromise is made in the output stages with the use of IC's ... IC's can be inconsistant in performance

Don't API preamps use IC's as well?

-Duardo

Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2004 6:55 pm

Quote:

As for the GR being best suited for acoustic instruments...I think that the Sytek (or other "clean"-type preamps) may generally be considered better for that sort of thing. But it's certainly a matter of opinion.

I would be willing to bet that anyone who heard a Great River MPNV against a Sytek, would pick the Great River over the Sytek, anytime! It's a real no brainier as to which sounds the best. I wouldn't pigeon hole the GR as an instrument pre or a voice pre or an anything pre... It simply sounds glorious on anything!

This whole thing reminds me of the RNP threads. In the end when they were compared, members at RO picked a Mackie pre over the RNP for overall sound quality. I suspect the same will happen when I finally get the chance to record a Sytek against a Mackie. I just don't believe the Sytek is that much of an improvement. To me, these pres are both of the same type, (transparent) and both are reasonably well designed.. to be transparent. Can someone really say, "this colorless, transparent, accurate, pre amp is more colorless, transparent and accurate than that colorless transparent accurate pre amp? If one can, then I submit that these pres really aren't' that transparent, colorless or accurate at all! And if that's the case, then perhaps thin pres aren't as good a big fat mic pres?

For the second time here in this thread, Niko has attempted to misquote me.

Quote:

Interestingly, the "Rupert-Neve-designed" Amek 9098, which Kurt often holds up as one of his benchmarks for quality, is full of IC's. The "Rupert-Neve-designed" Focusrite blue series and red series are also full of IC's. The Grace stuff is IC-design. So is, I believe, the high end Drawmer stuff like the 1960 and 1969. There is a lot more stuff out there containing IC's than people realize. The difference is not in IC/discrete or in toob/solid-state, it's in good design/bad design.

The Drawmer 1960 and the 1969 are craaaap! .... and I don't care much for the Grace stuff either ...
As far as IC's go , yes Focusrite Red, API, JLM TMP8 all use IC's... in these designs the ICs are very well implemented along with transformers. Syteks don't use transformers .... also, the IC's used in the Syteks output stage are not recognized as being very good ones, unlike the IC's used in Focusrite, Amek and API ... they are adequate for the purpose but could be better. It is pretty well accepted that they are a compromise in quality for a price savings.I don't particularly like the 9098 pre and I have said so in the past. To me it is very vanilla ...I do like the EQ in the 9098, no matter what the topology is ...

In a perfect world, everyone would be talented and able to afford only the best gear and manufacturers would all strive to create the best products. On the other hand, I think some of the very best music ever recorded was done in an era where almost no one had access to these tools and artists had to undergo very difficult screening process's before they were allowed access to a studio. I leave it to you to say which is better, access to affordable tools for everyone and lots of bad recordings of bad bands and bad singers singing and playing bad songs, or a situation that is more controled by people who obviously are very intelligent, where every drop audio quality is being squeezed out in the equipment, making it so expensive only very deep pockets can afford to undertake the recording process and thereby only allowing this access to the most talented of the bunch.

I am happy to see that not everyone thinks this is as serious as world hunger.. and if you can hear enough improvement in a mid priced pre amp over a Mackie to make it a worthwhile expenditure for you, then by all means please don't let me stop you.

But on the other hand, don't ask about it in a public forum called "Pro Audio Gear" and then expect me to remain mute on the subject either. This whole marketing tactic of designing and selling to a price point sucks IMO. When I do music, whether it's playing live or recording, I don't strive for "good enough". If a gig pays $150 instead of $750, I don't perform to a $150 level. I personally view all mid priced equipment as a compromise, between quality and affordability. Some of it works ok and some of it just plain stinks! Try an old Fender Twin against a Peavey LA 400. That's the difference... the Fender has better tone and more dimension, while the Peavey works and sounds ok but just doesn't have the depth that the Fender does. That's a Sytek vs. a Great River. The LA 400 will sound better than say a Peavey Bandit ... but it still is not as good as the Great River. That's your Sytek vs. a Mackie. If you want to compromise your sound chain, fine but don't ask me to stand by and applaud you for doing it.

My experience has shown me that really great pre amps don't generate much controversy. They hit the market, people all agree that they sound great and that's pretty much it. It's the pres that everyone disagrees about that one needs to be aware of ... I am not the only person who thinks the Syteks are a bit more than they are cracked up to be. I have heard many others mention that they run out of headroom quickly and that they lack character. I can't say I have heard them all but I have not yet heard a mid priced mic pre that sounds at all good. The least expensive pres I have heard to date that are good sounding are the JLM TMP8, 8 channels for around $2200, and the Sebatron VMPe, $1850 for the 4 channel unit. There are no other inexpensive pres worth mentioning IMO. I hope as much as the next guy that this will change but electronically balanced IC based, surface mounted, robot stuffed, low power devices like the RNP, are not going to do it. Some manufacturer needs to develop a transformer balanced, Class A, variable impeadence, discreet, transistor pre that sells for under $500. If somone ever does that, the world will beat a path to his door.

I have made some inquiries and I think I have located a dealer that will let me purchase a Sytek for trial and return it within 30 days if I don't like it. As soon as I can swing the cash, I will get one and record some comparisons of the Sytek against my Mackie pres. If these trials prove the Sytek is significantly better than the Mackie pres, I will retract my comments and jump on board with those who like the Sytek ... and I will keep the Sytek. It is possible for me to change my opinion and I can keep an open mind towards anything that is quality that will make a musicians life a bit simpler.

Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2004 8:55 pm

Quote:

I would be willing to bet that anyone who heard a Great River MPNV against a Sytek, would pick the Great River over the Sytek, anytime! It's a real no brainier as to which sounds the best.

I don't disagree that most people would pick the GR over the Sytek in most cases on most sources...but anyone, anytime? Sure, I'd take that bet. It may be a "no brainer" which sounds best, alone, on any given source...but I wouldn't go so far as to say that about any preamp when you figure in the source, the microphone, how it sits in a mix...

Quote:

This whole thing reminds me of the RNP threads. In the end when they were compared, members at RO picked a Mackie pre over the RNP for overall sound quality.

That's a small group of people making a judgment based on a few recordings. There's a huge difference between A/B'ing a few recordings and getting a preamp into your studio and getting the best sound out of it that you can. There are a whole lot of people who are recording tracks with RNP's that sound phenomenal, and much better than they would with Mackie preamps.

Quote:

Can someone really say, "this colorless, transparent, accurate, pre amp is more colorless, transparent and accurate than that colorless transparent accurate pre amp? If one can, then I submit that these pres really aren't' that transparent, colorless or accurate at all! And if that's the case, then perhaps thin pres aren't as good a big fat mic pres?

I'm not sure if anyone can say whether one pre is more colorless, tranparent, and accurate than the next in every case...but certainly most would agree that some are overall more transparent than others. But sure, if you compare the differences between various transparent models from companies like Grace, Earthworks, GML, Millennia, Apogee, and so on, there are differences. I'm not sure how you would pick which one's the most accurate...what would you compare it to?...but people certainly do have their preferences and have several different options for "transparent" colors (kind of an oxymoron, isn't it?) just like you do for your various colors.

As for "thin" pre's not being as good as "big fat" pre's...if you load the question like that, sure, in most cases people would say "big fat" pre's are better...but sometimes, if you've got a mix full of "big fat" sounds you wind up trying to make the sounds "thin", don't you?

Quote:

For the second time here in this thread, Niko has attempted to misquote me.

I don't think he was misquoting you. You did say that "compromise is made in the output stages with the use of IC's"...all he did was point out many examples of good preamps that use IC's, even if he was mistaken in that you don't like the pre in the 9098.

Quote:

This whole marketing tactic of designing and selling to a price point sucks IMO. When I do music, whether it's playing live or recording, I don't strive for "good enough". If a gig pays $150 instead of $750, I don't perform to a $150 level.

Right, but when you've reached a certain level, you won't take those $150 gigs any more, will you? Or you might only bring two guitars instead of five, or a stripped-down drumkit, or one tenor sax instead of an alto, bari, and flute...but for someone who only has $150 to pay for a gig, shouldn't they try to get the best they can for the money? And isn't it possible that once in a while they might get a better performance for $150 than they do for $750?

Quote:

Some manufacturer needs to develop a transformer balanced, Class A, variable impeadence, discreet, transistor pre that sells for under $500. If somone ever does that, the world will beat a path to his door.

Only if it sounds good. The closest I can think of are Presonus's MP20 and Eureka...I know you didn't like the M80 (basically an eight-channel MP20), but their stuff does meet most of these qualifications. And they have sold very well. Peavey's tube preamp that came out about ten years ago is another one that surprised a lot of people...I recall reading lots of "how did they do that for that price?"-type comments for both of them on various boards. But not everybody liked them. I'd even say that people have beaten a path to FMR's door for the RNP. But obviously, it's not for everyone. What is?

-Duardo

Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 6:34 am

Heck, at the end of the day, its all going to be reduced to a compact studio modeling game. I foresee the adjoining sound corrected cubicle reduced recording and mastering studio of the future including 1-4 fairly flat EQ midrange mics of choice all summing to less than the cost of a single mid range Neumann, 8-16 Liquid channels (half dedicated to pre the other half dedicated to compression, a loaded CPU Mac or Intel (probably Mac if the dual platform pans out), Apogee 192 converters and Big Ben Version XXX, Endless Glyph Storage, Antares AMM-1 Mic Modeling Software or Roland or whatever bang for the buck de jour, and Pro tools will become a passe thing with external mix capabilities in the Liquid mix and futuristic boxes of sorts. All of these ‘pre- vs. pre-‘ better or worse, one ‘mfg vs. another’ better of worse, and all the gear snobbery and historical hysteria will all disappear. Guitar amps will be replaced by Live XT modelers du jour that take up no space, and the argument of real versus modeling will have no significance because folks will not care whether it sounds like a 1073 or an HV-3 as long is as its sounds good and can be tweaked on the fly mixing. And the market will correct prices on the eBay recycler and all the great companies that created the wonder boxes that the actual ‘mic, and pre and compression’ boxes emulated in the first place will take their rightful place by the way of the dodo, and the great grey old GM, and DW Hearn, and Kennedy, and Rupert, and Manley, and De Maria and the sorts will be sitting on a porch somewhere camping out in a log cabin in the mountains somewhere rocking away reminiscing about how it was-when-we-were-what –nobody-remembers-nor-cares-anymore-days. Well that’s my 1479 characters or 1792 characters with spaces-

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:26 am

Hello I own the Sebatron (great for 70s style vocals, and thats about it) and the Sytek, pro unit all the way,very versatile.I run this into a sintefex(fairchild setting) Great sound. I also own pre's-summit,apogee,DAV,neotek and believe it or not my old TL audio(Good enough for 10cc & primal scream &.. me)

I also own a lowly joe meek British channel(really cool on bass!) and an AMEK angela and I use them both.

There is so much snobbery in the gear forums, it begins to become fairly obvious it is down to opinion.

I know a very famous producer who will "only use Neve" He freely admits however, he is recording some of the crappiest music he had ever had witness to hear in his 35 years of recording.

Give me a great,amazing,bizarre artist on a tube MP...Bottom line Sytek is fine

This topic sponsored by: