Skip to main content

Pre amp comparison/decision

Hi everyone,
I just wanted to toss this decision out to more knowledgeable minds than mine to see what everyone thinks. I am in the proceess of upgrading the front end of my recodring setup, which as of now consists of a PreSonus digimax lightpiped into 001. I am planning on purchasing a set of 4 preamps, which will be my main go to's for all my recording purposes. I am currently eyeing two untis, the sebatron v4000 and the sytek 4 channel unit. The Sytek unit I am eyeing currently has the burr/brown mod on all 4 channels, and could be had for the price of the unmodded unit bought new. This very appealing, but I am thinking that the Sebatron seems to be more flexible as far as options, with the fat and air switches, and was also impressedon how it faired on the acousticsamples Kurt posted. Either unit would have to excel on acoustic guitar, drums, and vocals. Any suggestions? All input and feedback is greatly appreciated.

Comments

Kurt Foster Sat, 06/21/2003 - 10:02
I have not had the chance to hear the Sytech pre's, so I can't really comment on them. What I have heard is they are relatively neutral sounding, clean with a lot of headroom. The impression I have gotten is, the Sytech is a step up from stock pre's found in most small format and digital consoles but not of the pedigree of a Neve, API, large format console. I feel the Sebatron is of the same quality range of API, Neve etc. If this company can gain a foothold in the audio market I predict they will dominate. It all remains to be seen. The Sebatron is clean and neutral but has an extended bottom that can make it sound dark in some applications. This is very apparent in the snippets I posted. The use of the bright and air switches along with lo cut and the ability to drive one channel into a second without sonic damage, makes the vmp a very flexible pre that you can get many different tones out of. Also the dual output scheme on the vmp-4000 makes it easy to route the output of the pre to the DAW and your mixer for simultaneous recording and no latency monitoring. Last the vmp is not only a great mic preamp design, but it is also an excellent di path for your guitars, bass’s and electronic keyboards. This thing will fatten up those skinny synth patches like there’s no tomorrow! I have used many different di schemes in my time, including Matchless, Agular (sp?) and “The Evil Twin”, and I can say that the Sebatron is of the same quality. I personally feel that a vmp-4000 is one of the best all around front ends for a home DAW rig available.

Bobby Loux Tue, 06/24/2003 - 23:59
Kurt,

A while back you stated the FMR RNP had poor headroom (due to the use of a wallwart)......and now "you hear the sytek has a lot of headroom"....just flip flop those two statements, you'd be quite suprised with the RNP's headroom! :D

as Little Dog stated, the sytek is indeed lower in headroom. probably not the best choice for vocals.

Sonicanger,

if you already have eight channels of the digimax, that really is a nice piece for micing drums and any clean flavored pre you might need. also, better A/D's than the 001....

I would start looking into single channel pre's to add different flavors to your recordings. you're gonna end up with 8 channels of the presonus and 4 channels of the Sytek or sebatron. 12 channels of pre's with only 2 different flavors??

you could get the single channel Great River ME-1NV (Neve Clone)for $950.00 (ideal on vocals, bass) and maybe a summit 2BA-221 tube/solid state blend for $550ish thats 1500.00ish for 2 different flavors as apposed to $1400.00 for 4 of the same Sebatron pre's....maybe look into the sebatron 2000e 2 channel for $800.00ish and put the rest twards a different single channel pre like the Speck 5.0 (clean transparent type) or the Great River ME-1NV

good luck bro!

FloodStage Thu, 06/26/2003 - 11:54
I can't speak for what I haven't heard but I own the following pre's as well as my console pre's.

1 - Presonus Digimax LT
1 - Sytek w/2 channels Burr Brown 2 Channels not
2 - API 512c
I have also used the Grace 101's.

The Presonus is pretty vanilla - clean - adds very little - often a good thing! It took me a while to get used to it (use the pad!) but I am able to get decent sounds through it. The 8 channels of A/D is handy (especially for you since you already have a 001 and that adds 8 channels for you! I do wish the A/D was a little better. Have you tried running the digimax through the 001's converters and comparing to the Digimax's converters? Just curious.

The Sytek is pretty clean - the Burr Browns have a little more character but it's not a huge difference. The spec's show a lot of headroom but specs are just specs. You have to be careful about headroom on the Syteks. Mine gets "fizzy" when you drive it too hard. (I'm not planning on selling it yet though.) Still, if you need 4 channels cheap ....

API's are on a different planet from the Sytek and Presonus. There is a reason they haven't messed with the API designs for years. They are great just the way they are. I doubt that I will ever record bass and snare drum with anything other that the API. Punchy, loads of headroom. Killer! And they really complement my "clean" pre's very well.

I don't own but I have used the Grace 101's. They kill the Presonus and the Sytex on clean and crispy.

If I had it to do again, I'd probably buy the 2 API's and 2 Grace Design 101's instead of the Sytek and Presonus. Less channels can be more if the quality is there!

If you have the Presonus already, I wouldn't get the Sytek. Get something with some punch instead.

(Sorry to be so long winded and basica;ly say the same thing the last posters said!)

FloodStage Tue, 07/01/2003 - 10:15
Just thought I'd drop in a good word about Presonus.

I had a recording session a few weeks back and some big galoot managed to knock the channel 6 preamp knob off my Digimax LT. They must have hit it good, because it sheared the pot's shaft off with the knob.

Anywhoo, I just got it back from the repair shop. Even though it was no longer in warranty, Presonus sent me the pot and knob no charge! They even paid for shipping! That's one way to keep your customer's happy!

Kurt Foster Tue, 07/01/2003 - 10:36
Originally posted by Bobby Loux:
Kurt,
A while back you stated the FMR RNP had poor headroom (due to the use of a wallwart)......and now "you hear the sytek has a lot of headroom"....just flip flop those two statements, you'd be quite suprised with the RNP's headroom!
Bobby Loux; This is what was said by FloodStage,

Originally posted by FloodStage:
The Sytek is pretty clean - the Burr Browns have a little more character but it's not a huge difference. The spec's show a lot of headroom but specs are just specs. You have to be careful about headroom on the Syteks. Mine gets "fizzy" when you drive it too hard. (I'm not planning on selling it yet though.) Still, if you need 4 channels cheap ....

(Sorry to be so long winded and basically say the same thing the last posters said!)
Also this is what I said;

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
I have not had the chance to hear the Sytek pre's, so I can't really comment on them. What I have heard is they are relatively neutral sounding, clean with a lot of headroom. The impression I have gotten is, the Sytech is a step up from stock pre's found in most small format and digital consoles but not of the pedigree of a Neve, API, large format console.
I stated I had not heard the Sytek. I have also repeatedly stated that I have not heard the RNP, even though I have requested a review unit more than several times. So it’s not as if I haven’t tried. I was not aware that the Sytek used an outboard power supply, but as was pointed out by FloodStage, the specs on the Sytek says it is a high headroom device. But sometimes numbers are just what they are, numbers … and in real world conditions they don’t prove out.

Sometimes I attempt to convey information on equipment I have never sampled. Perhaps this is a mistake on my part but I am trying to be of some help. Please don’t construe this as an opinion in situations when I say that I have never used a piece. I am just conveying the information I have available to me at the time. If I say I have used a piece of gear, then what I say can be taken to the bank. In any other instances, I am only telling you all what I have heard. I do attempt to make a distinction. :tu: Kurt

Kurt Foster Thu, 07/03/2003 - 10:13
Gosh, Gee Willakerz.. now I am really confused. If the Sytek has an internal power supply, what does this mean?

Originally posted by Bobby Loux:
Kurt,
A while back you stated the FMR RNP had poor headroom (due to the use of a wallwart)......and now "you hear the sytek has a lot of headroom"....just flip flop those two statements, you'd be quite suprised with the RNP's headroom! :D
Typically, devices that use 9 to 24 volt wall warts are a bit starved in the amperage that is delivered to the device. If the supply is internal or external is not the issue but rather the amperage that can be delivered to the piece. Once again, I quote EveAnna Manley,
"It's Joules man, Joules!"
The amount of current that can be delivered to the piece. Once again, for the record, I have not ever used an RNP or the Sytek pres.. However a person doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that a Ford Escort is not going to ride or last like a Lincoln will. One doesn’t have to drive them both to know that there is a difference. I have seen comments here that the RNP runs out of headroom, I have also seen comments that for the buck, it is a good value. Same with the Sytek, good bang for the buck..

It all comes down to what you want. In the prosumer arena, the Sytek and the RNP are both contenders and with careful use can deliver stellar results. Actually, I have always contended that most of the gear available these days is pretty amazing! If someone were to say that this level of mics, pres and recorders were to be available to the public someday at these kinds of prices, in the 1970’s, everyone would have thought they were nuts! The industry has come a long way baby! I think that is a good thing. Everyday, we are getting closer to the proverbial “Free Lunch”. But we are not there yet!

There is still a difference between the “prosumer’ gear and the high end stuff. We, here at RO and on other forums, are constantly asked by members “How did they get that sound?”.. Well, the answer is many times, a 10,000 dollar signal chain had a lot to do with it. You can usually get about 85% of what you hear on a big budget recording with “prosumer” gear. It’s that last 10 or 15% that costs. If you are willing to be a maverick and forge your own sounds and aesthetics, with talent, you can create your own hit sounds. But if you are wishing to emulate classic tones and textures, you most likely will have to resort to vintage technology. It’s your choice and all paths are valid. Kurt

Ferd Berfel Thu, 07/03/2003 - 20:26
Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
Gosh, Gee Willakerz.. now I am really confused. If the Sytek has an internal power supply, what does this mean?
If you're asking this question in earnest (I'll assume you are), then one interpretation is this: it's just ignorant and sometimes dangerous to be overly dogmatic on these technical topics(i.e., "JOULES, MAN, JOULES!"). If you understood the actual mechanisms involved with regard to micpre headroom, you'd know that "JMJ!" is just plain silly *AND* has no more of a necessary connection to a given micpre's headroom than the color of your control room carpet!

Let me illustrate...let's assume that a preamp circuit needs 5 Watts to do it's job well. If we feed it 2.5 Watts it will, by definition, not be doing it's job well. What if we supply it with 6 W? How 'bout 10W? If we supply it with 10W, will the preamp operate twice as well? Here's a fact to consider: a circuit cannot be "forced" to take more power than it's designed to consume. Once its 5W need is fulfilled, anything beyond that is a waste (literally...the energy is dissipated typically as heat)! So...will 10W be better? The definitive answer is: we can't say for sure without knowing what the internal operational requirements are of the specific circuit! Just because we've doubled the available power to the circuit, if it's not the correct combination of voltage/current, it doesn't mean shit.

Once again, I quote EveAnna Manley, "It's Joules man, Joules!" The amount of current that can be delivered to the piece.
Have you ever seen the movie "The Princess Bride"? Well, one of the characters repeatedly responds with "Inconceivable!" every time someone suggests that their covert activities have been discovered. The last time this occurs, another character responds to "Inconceivable!" with (paraphrased) "I'm not sure that it means what you think it means or you wouldn't still be saying it!". Ditto for EveAnna's quote...

...I have seen comments here that the RNP runs out of headroom, I have also seen comments that for the buck, it is a good value. Same with the Sytek, good bang for the buck...
Your willingness to repeat hearsay without challenge or qualification/quantification astounds me (no, I don't think "I've said that I've never used one" is a clear enough disclaimer).
I've used both in "real" studios (although the RNP only a couple of times), and the specifications for both were both confirmed on the bench and in the studio: the Sytek clips at about +22dBu >3% THD while the RNP's THD was
I just don't believe that it serves you well, or the people you're trying to help*, for you to dogmatically assert your opinions about things that you don't fully understand. Why don't you either defer to others more skilled-in-the-art or solicit some of the many numerous resources available in other areas on this board?

As always, YMMV...

Regards,
Ferd

* - It seems to me that you're very sincere and concerned about doing your best to help others.

Kurt Foster Fri, 07/04/2003 - 00:19
I think Ferd may have made a couple of good observations. He is welcome to stand by and provide answers here if he wishes. I have asked FMR to send out a pre many times and I have never heard back from them. Unfortunately that puts me in the position of having to repeat hearsay. If Ferd has used something I haven't I welcome his input. First hand experience is always best.

Kurt Foster Sat, 07/05/2003 - 12:04
Originally posted by Ferd Berfel:
. If you understood the actual mechanisms involved with regard to micpre headroom, you'd know that "JMJ!" is just plain silly *AND* has no more of a necessary connection to a given micpre's headroom than the color of your control room carpet! …………… "I'm not sure that it means what you think it means or you wouldn't still be saying it!". Ditto for EveAnna's quote...
The one thing in common to all the classic designs is large power supply. Or JMJ as you coined. API pres are relatively inexpensive.. what costs is the lunchbox rack and power supply. Some things can fall under the heading of science and some things can fall under the heading of sounds good. My experience in real studios, has led me to believe that good gear is usually associated with good power supply design and implementation.

Your willingness to repeat hearsay without challenge or qualification/quantification astounds me (no, I don't think "I've said that I've never used one" is a clear enough disclaimer) ………………….. I just don't believe that it serves you well, or the people you're trying to help*, for you to dogmatically assert your opinions about things that you don't fully understand. Why don't you either defer to others more skilled-in-the-art or solicit some of the many numerous resources available in other areas on this board?
You are certainly entitled to your opinion and the right to voice it but I am a moderator here. My duties as such are to respond to queries. When I don’t respond, I get comments like “Where are the moderators” and PMs asking why I haven’t been contributing on threads.

In this case I am damned if I do and damned if I don’t. Respond, or don’t respond. I tried to give the RNC a favorable nod but I am not going to suggest it is the last pre amp you will ever use. These things have been around for a while since they are so good, I am surprised I have never encountered them in studios I have frequented. If I had ever tried to use them on a project most of my clients probably would have questioned my choice. Most of my clients were coming to me for the MCI, Neve and vintage United Audio gear that I had.

* - It seems to me that you're very sincere and concerned about doing your best to help others.
Yes I want to enjoy the exchange of information with the music and recording community, which I have been so fortunate to have been a part of now for 40 years and which has been so good to me and my family. I have been very fortunate. So I try to give a little back.

***************************************************

(Dead Link Removed)

This is the last chance to speak with Ms. Kaye we will have for a while as she is entering the busy part of here work season so don't miss this exciting opportunity to exchange comments with this studio ledged..
Attached files

Rod Gervais Sat, 07/05/2003 - 14:30
Originally posted by: Ferd Berfel

Your willingness to repeat hearsay without challenge or qualification/quantification astounds me (no, I don't think "I've said that I've never used one" is a clear enough disclaimer).

If that isn't a clear enough discalimer then something is drastically wrong...... maybe one needs to re-examine how one veiws the written word.

I dunno,

I suppose i may be considered dense ( wouldn't be the first time) but if a person cannot get gear to sample - he can still read...... maybe - possibly...... and if he can't then he probably won't be able to write a review - so i guess.....

heck yeah - he must be able to read..... if he's a Moderator anyway.....

So dayam - do ya think it's maybe possible - just a little bit - even a smidgen - that Kurt actually reads other reviews - listens to other people's opinions - views other people's posts - and then forms an actual opinion about maybe if someone should bother to check something out?

(Note: i said check something out - not purchase - consider this a disclaimer seeing as if i don't say that some people may not get it)

Or would that only matter if HE HIMSELF actually did the review -

and if i can't trust him if he were to trust someone else - someone who's opinion he may respect - based on past histories,,,,,then maybe i'm just so damned paranoid that i shouldn't trust him either... (I am NOT paranoid - i know eveone who's out to get me)........ i mean - just who the hell is this guy - how do i even know if he's from this planet - maybe he's a plant....... mayybe some company put him here just to get us to buy their products...... hhmmmm......... he does talk about Fords a lot,,,,,,

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD ......... stop attacking the poor man for donating his time, energy and personal life to this forum.

Sometimes i think maybe he's been right in the past - and should just let everyone go to hell in a handbasket.......

Happy hunting

Rod

Ferd Berfel Sat, 07/05/2003 - 21:05
Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
The one thing in common to all the classic designs is large power supply.
What do you mean, "large" power supply? Large in physical size? Or "large" in electrical size? While you were making these observations, you may have also noticed (depending upon which decade you made these observations) that the equipment that has *REALLY* impressed you were more than likely housed in a standard EIA cabinet. Is that a cause of sonic quality or just a correlated relation? Ditto the color of the cabinet.

Originally posted by Kurt Foster: Or JMJ as you coined. API pres are relatively inexpensive.. what costs is the lunchbox rack and power supply.
Actually (from a manufacturing standpoint) the audio transformers are the most costly part--if they're of decent electrical performance. Besides, there's probably little correlation between expense and power supply "quality" anyway (we can go through an actual costing exercise if you'd like).

Originally posted by Kurt Foster: Some things can fall under the heading of science and some things can fall under the heading of sounds good.
I'm not sure what you mean here, but I'll assume that you're trying to discredit the application of scientific methods to discussing "good sounding" gear. If that's *NOT* your intent, I apologize. Otherwise, this is subterfuge.

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
My experience in real studios, has led me to believe that good gear is usually associated with good power supply design and implementation.
That's good, but as we discussed in another thread somewhere, the "weakest link" argument still applies. But your observations have nothing to do with your sound bite (i.e., "JMJ!"; do you even know what a "Joule" is and how it relates to electrical devices, in general, and micpres specifically? That's a rhetorical question...).

Originally posted by Kurt Foster: ...My duties as such are to respond to queries. When I don’t respond, I get comments like “Where are the moderators” and PMs asking why I haven’t been contributing on threads...
Your right, I certainly don't know the pressures of being a moderator here (and it looks like your plate is very full). I guess that I've supposed that no comment or "I'm working on it" is preferable to incorrect information. As you pointed out, that is *my* judgement call and yours is different! God Bless the WWW!

Originally posted by Kurt Foster: ...I tried to give the RNC a favorable nod but I am not going to suggest it is the last pre amp you will ever use.
Forget the RNP! Personally, I couldn't give a shit...I've got plenty of great preamps to use, I don't need it. It's your dogmatism, not the products! The following passage really helps illustrate my main point...

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:...since they are so good, I am surprised I have never encountered them in studios I have frequented.
Once again, if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying here, I'm sorry. *BUT* the implied logic to me as a "casual" reader is:

IF RNP's have been around a while,
AND,
the studios I frequent don't have them,
AND
the studios I frequent only have good/great gear,
THEREFORE
the RNP must not be a good/great piece of gear

The problem with this ad hominem logic is that any *NEW* piece of gear (like Sebatron) would be dead out of the gate. The four studios that I frequent here, have never even heard of Sebatron. I, for one, won't let that deter me from trying a Seb unit over several sessions to make up my own mind about it...

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
If I had ever tried to use them on a project most of my clients probably would have questioned my choice. Most of my clients were coming to me for the MCI, Neve and vintage United Audio gear that I had.
Since I've been a recording engineer for hire for about 25 years, I can understand what you mean. But the implication I see is that because it's an unknown quantity (like the Sebatron) it certainly isn't going to get used in your sessions. That's cool! I'm just glad I haven't done that or I would have missed out on some great gear (like my Great River, Cranesongs and even some DIY stuff...all "Johnny-come-latelies" compared to the classic stuff I've been using for far too long)!

Originally posted by Kurt Foster: Yes I want to enjoy the exchange of information with the music and recording community, which I have been so fortunate to have been a part of now for 40 years and which has been so good to me and my family. I have been very fortunate. So I try to give a little back.
Well, it's clear that "you like what you know and you know what you like". My apologies for assuming that maybe you'd want to know that some of your responses run quite loosely with the facts (we could actually go through them one-by-one if you'd like). It's just that you seem so earnest and sincere, it's hard to believe that:

(a) you'd be so resistant to wanting to know more factual details and principles about equipment operation/design, and,
(b) you're OK not giving other, less-experienced board members exposure to foundational principles of audio equipment operation.

Oh well...I shan't piss-up-this rope anymore! Best of luck, Kurt!


I accidentally edited this post while trying to fix a spelling mistake in my own later post. I believe all the original content of the post is here but it also contains the answers I posted in my own post. I apologize for this mistake.. Kurt Foster moderator..

Ferd Berfel Sat, 07/05/2003 - 21:49
Originally posted by Rod Gervais:
If that isn't a clear enough discalimer then something is drastically wrong...... maybe one needs to re-examine how one veiws the written word.

Many years of experience interfacing with the public--most of the time with a highly-educated portion thereof--has shown me that such "discalimer[s]" may be of legal use, but are quickly separated in the public's mind. Sort of like writing "that Joe guy was caught cheating on his wife" and later writing "I don't really know Joe or anything about him and I just got that off the bathroom wall" seems, at best, reckless. Better to just not comment...



I dunno,

I suppose i may be considered dense ( wouldn't be the first time) but if a person cannot get gear to sample - he can still read...... maybe - possibly...... and if he can't then he probably won't be able to write a review - so i guess.....

heck yeah - he must be able to read..... if he's a Moderator anyway.....

So dayam - do ya think it's maybe possible - just a little bit - even a smidgen - that Kurt actually reads other reviews - listens to other people's opinions - views other people's posts - and then forms an actual opinion about maybe if someone should bother to check something out?

Actually, Kurt's dogmatism is the issue for me and his choice to use, at best, anectdotal comments about "low headroom" (in this specific case). I read his categorization of a $500 preamp versus another, more costly, preamp as "Vega/Corvette" comparison (respectively) based upon ad hominem/a priori/dogmatic reasoning that just doesn't stand up under scrutiny. In general, my objection is that I believe some folks here who look up to Kurt's views will be unnecessarily missing-out on gear that's affordable and good for them. His prejudice was/is clear to me on this thread and others.

If I had that kind of influence over many newbies, I certainly wouldn't poisen their minds with my biases (e.g., my dislike of most tubes-based product implementations; since I take it on a case-by-case basis, one of my all-time favorite preamps happens to be a tube-design). But, if I chose to make a "public" stand on the topic, I'd certainly have a lot of data (personal experience, hard measurement and accepted analytical foundations) before I ever did so. Yes, I know, personal choice and Kurt's is obviously different. I think it's reckless...


FOR CRYING OUT LOUD ......... stop attacking the poor man for donating his time, energy and personal life to this forum.

Enjoy, Rod!

Kurt Foster Sat, 07/05/2003 - 22:34
Originally posted by Ferd Berfel:
Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
The one thing in common to all the classic designs is large power supply.
What do you mean, "large" power supply? Large in physical size? Or "large" in electrical size? While you were making these observations, you may have also noticed (depending upon which decade you made these observations) that the equipment that has *REALLY* impressed you were more than likely housed in a standard EIA cabinet. Is that a cause of sonic quality or just a correlated relation? Ditto the color of the cabinet.

I mean a high headroom large capacity power supply. On the basis of JMJ, I am sure you knew what I meant. And yes, I like black equipment best. I think it sounds better! :D

Originally posted by Kurt Foster: Or JMJ as you coined. API pres are relatively inexpensive.. what costs is the lunchbox rack and power supply.
Actually (from a manufacturing standpoint) the audio transformers are the most costly part--if they're of decent electrical performance. Besides, there's probably little correlation between expense and power supply "quality" anyway (we can go through an actual costing exercise if you'd like).

From what I have seen, APIs can go for as low as $400 per… it’s the lunchbox’s that cost ..

Originally posted by Kurt Foster: Some things can fall under the heading of science and some things can fall under the heading of sounds good.
I'm not sure what you mean here, but I'll assume that you're trying to discredit the application of scientific methods to discussing "good sounding" gear. If that's *NOT* your intent, I apologize. Otherwise, this is subterfuge.

It means that sometimes no matter what the numbers or the specs are or any of that other science stuff, something just sounds good. You know not all producers and musicians are rocket scientists. Some of us just have to use our ears.. It’s easy for you to attack me for not being a scientific type.. I do what I do and I’m going to keep doing in spite of whether you approve or not. After all you are not required to read my posts. Ultimately, you can even send a PM to Chris and complain to him. Perhaps he will make you a moderator..

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
My experience in real studios, has led me to believe that good gear is usually associated with good power supply design and implementation.
That's good, but as we discussed in another thread somewhere, the "weakest link" argument still applies. But your observations have nothing to do with your sound bite (i.e., "JMJ!"; do you even know what a "Joule" is and how it relates to electrical devices, in general, and micpres specifically? That's a rhetorical question...).

It’s a description of the rate at which resistance in a circuit converts electric energy into heat energy. (I know how to use a dictionary) :D

What I mean it to mean is a power supply and device that run at high current sound better to me that something that is designed to be more efficent and to run on lower current demands. The best sounding audio devices are often the least efficent. They put off lots of heat. You could reheat a grilled cheese sandwich on most of them.


Originally posted by Kurt Foster: ...My duties as such are to respond to queries. When I don’t respond, I get comments like “Where are the moderators” and PMs asking why I haven’t been contributing on threads...
Your right, I certainly don't know the pressures of being a moderator here (and it looks like your plate is very full). I guess that I've supposed that no comment or "I'm working on it" is preferable to incorrect information. As you pointed out, that is *my* judgement call and yours is different! God Bless the WWW!

Well, you must have missed the thread where one guy complained that there were no “helpful pros” here because I didn’t respond to a question he posted. It happens and we get all types. It seems that some people find it easy to poke and throw stones. A person doesn’t have to be ripped a new one just because you are so superior to them. Does it make you feel like a big shot or are you just trying to discredit me because you don’t like my general message ?

Originally posted by Kurt Foster: ...I tried to give the RNC a favorable nod but I am not going to suggest it is the last pre amp you will ever use.
Forget the RNP! Personally, I couldn't give a shit...I've got plenty of great preamps to use, I don't need it. It's your dogmatism, not the products! The following passage really helps illustrate my main point...

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:...since they are so good, I am surprised I have never encountered them in studios I have frequented.
Once again, if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying here, I'm sorry. *BUT* the implied logic to me as a "casual" reader is:

IF RNP's have been around a while,
AND,
the studios I frequent don't have them,
AND
the studios I frequent only have good/great gear,
THEREFORE
the RNP must not be a good/great piece of gear

I think you are putting words in my mouth. For a person who is a scientest, you seem to assume a lot of things. Or you are simply trying to make me look bad by twisting my words. I have never tried the RNP. I have said this many times. They are better than a Mackie and not as good as a Neve. Is it ok for me to say that?

The problem with this ad hominem logic is that any *NEW* piece of gear (like Sebatron) would be dead out of the gate. The four studios that I frequent here, have never even heard of Sebatron. I, for one, won't let that deter me from trying a Seb unit over several sessions to make up my own mind about it...

Any company that would like me to be familiar with their product is welcome to contact me. At that point I will try the gear. If I like it I will write a review. If a company doesn’t send a piece for me the best I can do when someone inquires is to relate to them what I have heard from the other members on the board. I’m not going to go purchase one just so I can relate to members how it sounds. I may relate to an article I saw or perhaps relate some review results. I get a lot of publications free, EQ, Mix Electronic Musician, Pro Audio Review, Audio Media. But I don’t base my opinions on only magazine articles. I will reserve judgment usually until I hear the piece in action. Until then, I will always state if I have not used the piece if someone inquires. If you have some kind of personal experience with the piece, by all means, chime in and tell us all what you have to offer. But you don’t have to make someone else look bad in the process, unless you get off on that.

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
If I had ever tried to use them on a project most of my clients probably would have questioned my choice. Most of my clients were coming to me for the MCI, Neve and vintage United Audio gear that I had.
Since I've been a recording engineer for hire for about 25 years, I can understand what you mean. But the implication I see is that because it's an unknown quantity (like the Sebatron) it certainly isn't going to get used in your sessions. That's cool! I'm just glad I haven't done that or I would have missed out on some great gear (like my Great River, Cranesongs and even some DIY stuff...all "Johnny-come-latelies" compared to the classic stuff I've been using for far too long)!


Well that’s not so… as you know. I don’t know why you would say that. Everyone knows I am always looking for a new quality mic pre, eq or compressor. If you are slamming me for not being willing to sample the latest Behringer or Rolls piece, I going to have to plead guilty. In the case of the RNP, I am very interested due to comments that have been made, some good and some bad and I would like to hear what all the hub-bub is for myself. I wish they would send me one!

Originally posted by Kurt Foster: Yes I want to enjoy the exchange of information with the music and recording community, which I have been so fortunate to have been a part of now for 40 years and which has been so good to me and my family. I have been very fortunate. So I try to give a little back.
Well, it's clear that "you like what you know and you know what you like". My apologies for assuming that maybe you'd want to know that some of your responses run quite loosely with the facts (we could actually go through them one-by-one if you'd like). It's just that you seem so earnest and sincere, it's hard to believe that:

(a) you'd be so resistant to wanting to know more factual details and principles about equipment operation/design, and,
(b) you're OK not giving other, less-experienced board members exposure to foundational principles of audio equipment operation.

In response to your comment that my “responses run quite loosely with the facts”, I do the best with what I have. If you wish to point out my mistakes or misconceptions in a polite manner through all threads, that would be most helpful. But once again you don’t need to do it in a way that seems to be intent on discrediting me. If you want to use science and math to make me look bad, your fighting an unnamed man. But I still know hat sounds good and I have done a lot of good work. I have owned and still do own a lot of nice gear. And a lot of people seem to like me and my opinions. I’m sorry this seems to bother you so much.

Oh well...I shan't piss-up-this rope anymore! Best of luck, Kurt!
The same to you!
x