Differences Of The 3 Classics?

Posted: Sun Mar 03, 2002 2:05 pm

Hey Mike:) I'm just (very) curious why he puts it under his posts.

I simply have the feeling he's a member of our club, the stubbern analog die hards Smile

Posted: Sun Mar 03, 2002 3:58 pm

YES!!!!! we are few and far betweenthese days with all the Alishah's and thier cracz and plugins.

Yes i am avid and die hard tape slut. I have an ancient Ampex MM1200 thats sounds freakin' awesome, full, round and punchy with all the discrete circuits etc. This beast is one hell of a 'Rock'.. or anything else tape machine. Soncically it eats up Otari's, Mci' and most Studers for lunch and shits them out before dinner!
Whilst eh transport is slow and a bit clunky, i andmy clients are mroe than willing to put up with it for the superior sonic advantages that it returns to my project. It cannot shuttle like an A800 or punch in like MCI-jh-24(pretty close becuase i found a heap PURC fast punch cards) it is still my workhorse an dwill beuntil it dies.... fuck it's nearly 25 years old now and the bitch still keeps going?....MOA hardware will never be able to last that long.

Although recently I have been using 'Alishad' a fair bit.. and granted it does have some really cool things going for it... SONICS Aint one of them. I have heard the demo of the new 192 HD system.. but it was in a demo studios where MOA (mother of Alishad)was boasting, brainwashing and preenig it's ausience for an upgrade. If the demo is anything to go by, it is slowly getting there but as it stands now I still like the hear the bottom octave of drums and bass which digital is not curently able to reproduce to my liking.

That having been said... the IZ (AKA Otari) RADAR is THE best digital format hat i ahve used. Operates like a 2" and sounds REALLY good for digital...yeah it actually does sound good if you can beleive it.

But sadly here in Australia stingy muso's cant tell the difference between a fantastic production done on 2" between a Alsishad production.. let alone jsutifiy the costs of 2" tape which will be getting more expensive as time goes by. So i like everyone else, sooner or later will beforced to join the darkside of MOA. But so long as the music is cool is should not matter right???????

Posted: Sun Mar 03, 2002 4:08 pm

Posted: Sun Mar 03, 2002 6:13 pm

http://homepage.mac.com/genuinechicago/

till I die... Very Happy

Posted: Sun Mar 03, 2002 9:55 pm

QUOTE: "But sadly here in Australia stingy muso's cant tell the difference between a fantastic production done on 2" between a Alsishad production."

Neve freak, perhaps you should be hanging with some better muso's.

Rolling Eyes

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:14 am

There's a lot of Aussies here isn't there Very Happy

Okay Off topic I cannot compare with 2" and actually send off work to you guys when clients want it.
I run a PT(cough cough) system and we all loose work to small ADAT/Cubase/Mackie Studios. Not that they are better, its because they around only US$10-$15/hour.
Remember that bands are cheap.
The older and better bands should know better.
The younger bands do not and a lot of them are the ones that pay the bills.

I actually left tape a long time ago as clients would not pay for it when Adats were so cheap. Now I backup the whole thing on a data tape for US$50.

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2002 1:23 am

Quote:

Neve freak, perhaps you should be hanging with some better muso's

Well this is rampant generalisation on my behalf having worked in both spectrums.. top flight studios and being forced to use 'budget 'mackie/adat type stuidos. I

I will use tape more often than not because of the sonic advantages etc, which were described in an earlier post.

Generally i am able to pick my projects these days and was speaking from past perspective and that of other friends, coleagues who still work with lower paying cleints. When i get an offer to work for a band or artist i will nearly always use tape or use 'Alsihad' for more differnt artists/electro/dance etc and then mix from 'Alishad' or print to 2" for finalmix.

I hear where you are coming from PTPerson.. the correlation between better musos and better technology runs true because they generally have 'been round the traps' and have seen, expereinced and can hear the difference.

Peace Wiggy

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2002 8:59 am

Hey THETHRILLFACTOR,
Actually I missed your comments and was referring to Julian's. Anyways, I do respectfully disagree. In fact I was just talking to a guy who has a studio out in Phonix the other day. He has both as well as some originals and much prefers the Purple to the UA. His comment was the oposite if fact. He suggested that the Purple was warmer and fatter and the UA tended to sound thin. Also The Purple tends to have a lot more gain like the originals. Anyways it is subjective and I'm not trying to point out that you are wrong, only that others opinions are different. It could be that you have a bad Purple and good UA and he has a good Purple and bad UA. Who knows. Also if you are buying an original try to find the D and E or F revisions of the black face. The others do not sound as good.

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2002 9:15 am

I had some bad Purple back in the sixties...and I'm still in a haze! Cool

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2002 10:11 am

Hey Coldsnow, As you said we agree to disagree. The Purple I had was a brand new one, it was given to me to try out and see what I thought and would I buy or reccommend. Also the same with the UA. I tried them on the three things I would normally use a 1176 on when mixing, Kick,Bass or vocals. Like I said earlier they each brought out different freq's, which I have learned to expect from an 1176. I just felt that the Purple sounded better where you would want to thin something out or make it a touch brighter. I actually thought it would work great on an acoustic guitar(maybe a pair of purple's in stereo with diferent ratios on each side), but I didn't get to try it out. I liked the UA better on kick and bass. On a vocal I think each showed their strengths and weaknesses. I think an older 1176 is actually better on vocals, but you have to find the right one for that particular vocal. With the "fatter"thing, I don't normally use an 1176 to thicken things up, its normally the opposite, to make things stay solid and command attention in the mix. The blue stripe are probably the "fatter" ones, but they suck on certain things. When it comes to the different revs and stuff, my answer is always what ever sounds good to you. I have gear that hasn't seen a recap in its life, but I am used to the sound and it works in my mixes. If I recap it I know it will change the way it sounds, and then can i use it the way I used it before?

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2002 11:23 am

Quote:

Originally posted by THETHRILLFACTOR:
to make things stay solid and command attention in the mix.

That's the best description I've seen yet! :tu:

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2002 4:10 pm

When I was deciding on which one to get, I was impressed with the improvements that Purple had instituted (prior to the "re-release" of the UA 1176) -- see http://www.purpleaudio.com/mc76improv.html -- and checked around to see what the consensus was about the sonics. I have been very happy with my MC76, on just about everything. I have not A/B'd it directly, but it seems to work/sound very much like at least some of the original (i.e., old) 1176's I've used elsewhere.I think the Purple people put a lot of thought/care in "recreating" their version. Of course, I've never found two Marshall heads or two Pro Reverbs or two 1960 Les Paul Junior Non-SG Double Cutaways that sounded and responded identically, and I'm sure that people who don't live in Manhattan have stories about the variation among "identical" Rambler American Station Wagons or Studebaker Hawks or whatever.

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2002 5:09 pm

Any one see that review Dave Martin (a chum) did of the two? Purple / UA?

I was spitting feathers at the end, he said both were good for DIFFERENT THINGS!!!! AAGGGAGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Frustrating! He was just as on the fence about them in person!!!

I bought the UA on the grounds of fashion..
Very Happy

Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2002 12:46 pm

Hi again,
Actually, I was referring to someone elses comments. To me thay are both very good and sound very similar. I chose Purple because of the 3 year warrenty and it seemed people who had both either were neutral or prefered the Purple. Anyways, I was really responding to what someone else had said:
So are we saying that of the '76 reissues, the "new UA" sounds closer to a blackface and the "Purple" sounds closer to a silver?

Trying to make the point that this was not a consensous (spelling?).
Anyways, I agree with you totally on the aspect that you use a 1176 to make something stand out in the mix and give it a certain edge. I don't believe it thin's out the source like the silver does however. But if I want to make something sound warm and fuzzy I turn to a tube el op comp. I've never had the fortune of trying a Blue stripe but in reading interviews with Lord Alge, it appears he thinks it is the ultimate vocal comp. It would be nice to have about 15 different 1176's to choose from at any one time like he does.

Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2002 3:43 pm

Any one see that review Dave Martin (a chum) did of the two? Purple / UA?
Hey Julian,
Do you have a link to this?
Thanks

This topic sponsored by: