I believe it will be difficult to beat the Safe Sound P1 in that range. Check out Front End Audio who carries it. Built by former Neve employee yadda yadda. But it sounds good and has a LOT of good features. Sometimes I run signals through it just for the expander or limiter. I use it for my headphone amp too, because the headphone out on the Multiface is WEAK.

Later

not trying to hyjack the thread, but how do you like the multiface......im looking between that, the fireface, the motu 896hd and the 828mkII, I think i would prefer PCI to firewire after some stories ive read about firewire, but the jury is still out.....

There's a horrifying thread on one of the forums about the Fireface. I was going to buy it for my less important channels, but I think the Multiface might be safer. At least it has its own interface card.

John Stafford

Thanks for the help after continuing research I have chosen the Prosonus Eureka. I was told by all studios that had one that 95% of people could not notice anything better intill you reached the 2000.00 range. Many also said in shootouts they stood well up against 2,000.00 Pre's ! I'm In!
(if you have already bought a 2,000.00 pre you are not going to listen to this I belive)

Yeah the Eureka probably would have been my second choice for you. But wow, you checked ALL studios that had one?

imagine - I dig the Multiface. I definitely don't think it is holding me back any. Although it is smaller than it looks in the pictures. I suppose there are better converters for more money, but I didn't feel like spending $3000 on Apogee or whatever. If the Fireface is compatible with your computer, it is probably better; but it is around twice as much moolah.

Logic wrote: I have chosen the Prosonus Eureka. I was told by all studios that had one that 95% of people could not notice anything better intill you reached the 2000.00 range. Many also said in shootouts they stood well up against 2,000.00 Pre's ! I'm In!

Of course they will say that! What do you expect them to say? That the Eureka runs at a nomilal 0dB level, doesn't reach +4db without breaking up and that it sounds flat and dimensionless? That it pretty much sounds the same as a Mackie Pre? Of course they won't say that! They are already invested in the PreSonus so they want people to think it is as good as a Neve or an API, (which it ain't) .... so they can sell studio time ...

A large difference can be noticed in mic pres that cost a lot less than $2000 btw, Sebatrons are very nice and can be had for under $1000, and some of the Langvins from Manley are under 2K as well .... there's a few "real pres" out there for under $2k ... I think you can get a Hardey for less than $2K! A lunchbox and a single API pre can be had for less than $2K and you have room to expand!

Check the price range dawg.

BTW, are you sure about that +4db headroom thing? That sounds rediculous.

I've recorded a few tracks with a Eureka. I did NOT find it to be lifeless or flat...its generally true with 'iron' in the input that this will be the case.I suggest you get one to try and look over the specs carefully as it does in fact get up to +4...The reviews in Tape Op, Mix,and others have been favorable. I would say it sounds at least as good as some intermediate sized consoles...Its very flexible...The compressor is very good...I thought the EQ was a bit lacking...as in 'not surgical' but a nice tone control... but I never really needed it. I recorded several accordian tracks and used it as a DI on a Martin acoustic bass.So I did spend some time with it. My bassist partner uses it as his front-end in his live rig and it sounds very good...even aggressive depending on the settings.In its price range there are few pieces that can compare.Just my opinion...based on actual usage.FWIW....Logic's statementabout his contact with 'studios' using one was a reach, but in the long run it does what it says it does and does so without hype bring it to the the level of the next GreatWhiteHope.....BTW....I believe that some PreSonus pieces are fitted with chip-sets that plug in...And there are several upgrades that can be had the change the way they sound. Much like the Sytecs.

I'm sorry all studios I checked said the same thing, Along with some
Industry professionals but I won't name drop!

Also I'll bet 99% of normal ears would favor the "sound" of Faith Hill
through an ART than a bad singer through an API.
It takes a good engineer to get great sounds from midline gear & it can be done.
Some people buy more and more expensive things to get better sounds (sometimes to try to make up for lack of engineering ability) when all the would have to do is use what they had correctly /better.
Money doesn't buy great recordings but helps to get them I think.

Logic wrote:

It takes a good engineer to get great sounds from midline gear

It also takes a good engineer to get great sounds from great gear.

Sadly 99% of 'normal' ears probably couldn't tell the difference either way; hence the rise of MP3.

John Stafford

All I'm saying is if your going the cheap route ... fine .. Get what you need that has the features you want ... but don't think that by spending two or three or even four times as much, you're going to realize any significant improvement ... because you're not. You may think you gained improvement (I just spent $400, it has to be better) but if you do a blind test like I did with the Mackie and the RNP, you may be surprised at which one you pick ... I'll bet that at least 50% will pick the cheap pre.

I'm just trying to save you guys some money ... why the hostility? There's good pres (usually very expensive) and there's the affordable pres ...(cheap) and they have nothing to do with each other for the most part. So don't shoot me ... I'm only the messenger.

I recorded with PreSonus pres too and I did not hear one ounce of dimension or depth using them. If someone has a recording of a PreSonus doing this, I would love to hear it ... perhaps someone will send me a CD demonstrating this? I would be more than happy to reciprocate with some recordings done with top flight pres.

To me PreSonus pres have more in common with Mackie pres than with a API or Neve types ... and I think it would be difficult for anyone to argue that. In this respect I think the Mackie pres get a bum rap ... No they aren't as good as a Trident, Manley, United Audio, Neve, API pres but they are not really any worse than some of the pres like the PreSonus, RNP and Focusrite Platinum's, being pushed as a "improvement" at a price premium. I'm not saying these pres don't sound waaaaay better than the cheap pres of 25 years ago did but they still do not even approach the quality of the time tested standards.

If you look at the designs of all these cheaper and mid priced pres, you will find that they all have more in common with the Mackie than differences. I suspect that the $100 PreSonus pres are almost the same thing as the M80s, which sell for +$2200. It's all marketing and packaging with no added substance. A few more features and some new packaging same guts ...

... The nominal levels of the PreSonus pres do run at the lower 0dB, just like a Mackie mixer .... and an email from PreSonus confirmed this, while acknowledging that a lot of pro gear needs to see +4 to record at average levels.

Saying that one cheap pre sounds any better than another is IMO, ridiculous ... they may sound different but not better. It's like saying a cat sh*t sandwich tastes better than a dog sh*t sandwich. I'll take a roast beef and swiss please...

"Better" comes from large power supplies to provide the voltage swings needed to handle transient peaks without choking.

"Better" comes from discreet designs that will be repairable 20 years from now.

"Better" IMO, often from comes expensive transformers and tubes. These things cannot be had in a design that takes as it's first criteria, the price point. All the great designs were done without regard to costs. The second you place a limit on what you can do due to expense, you've compromised the design process.

Some people buy more and more expensive things to get better sounds (sometimes to try to make up for lack of engineering ability) when all the would have to do is use what they had correctly /better.

A lot of people will say they think that cheap gear sounds great when used with experience and great engineering chops ... but how much better would that experience and those engineering chops sound with good gear? That's why you won't see the pros messing around with cheap gear for the most part.

Anyone who can hear ... (remember ear training for audio comes only with time, just as it does with music) will be able to hear the depth and 3D effect a great mic pre can provide ... and many who obviously cannot hear, will assert that their table top mixer or budget tube pres can compete with the best. Now really, think about it for just a minute. Why do the pros always insist on the best gear?

Oh! Free lunch in the bar! (just kidding).

What hostility??!!............I detect none in anyones posts.If someone disagrees with a concept or an opinion does that mean its hostile?I personally could care less what you think about any piece of equipment.As I'm certain no one really gives a crap about my opinion.I was simply giving my personal experience with the piece in question and wasnt aware that this was being hostile to anyone. BTW the topology of the Eureka is somewhat different than the M80 as is the price point. I too feel the M80 was never as good as was advertised and as such did not buy one when I could have. But thats just my opinion.Based on my experience.Which in no way reflects on anyone else in the universe that I know of. Oh yeah...isnt this the 'Budget Gear' forum?

Dave, your post was not what I was replying to when I asked about the hostility. That comment was more general as to all the replies I have got over the years when I say something that seems to be unpopular. Some people do not want to be told there is no such thing as Santa Claus.

But when you make comments like ....

I personally could care less what you think about any piece of equipment

.... then, I do sense hostility ... and you know Dave, all I have ever done was to extend generosity towards you. You have not been very gracious in return ... so in the long run, the best I can come up with .. no big loss.

Yes, this is the "Budget Gear Forum" and as such I feel we should do our best to insure that people don't get the wrong idea regarding what makes for an improvement and what doesn't. The last thing I want is for this forum or any part of RO to become part of the lie that manufacturers spread in order to cash in on the ignorance of people who do not know the difference, have never heard the difference and as such are incapable of hearing the differences in good pres vs. not so good ones.

I will see if I can find some additional info on the mic pre section of the Eureka ... however what I have learned from exchanges with the reps at PreSonus, I believe the pre is the same as in the M80 with the inclusion of the eq circuits and the compressor.

OK .... here's what I was able to find ... According to PreSonus, the Eureka is the same twin topology pre as used in the VXP with a modification they claim increases the S/N and headroom, and the addition of impedance switching. I found these remarks on the PreSonus site .... please note the underlined sentences ..

PreSonus website wrote:
"The input stage features an updated version of the Class A, transformer-coupled, dual servo-controlled circuit found in the VXP. In the Eureka the noise floor has been reduced, while the headroom has been notably increased. In addition to a full compliment of features, a mic impedance selector has also been added to the Eureka, further distinguishing it from other mic preamps in its class."

There was also this, in regards to the topology of the VXP .... please note the underlined sentences ..

PreSonus website wrote:
"Your all-in-one, easy to use, set and forget, total microphone solution! The VXP is built with the same design parameters as our critically acclaimed MP20 and M80 preamplifiers. The VXP provides a high quality mic preamp, compressor, expander, de-esser, semi-parametric EQ and peak limiter all in one beautiful, user-friendly unit."

So it seems the Eureka is an updated version of the M20 M80 pre circuit, as my previous comments related ... how updated it is is anybody's guess but I suspect that if someone were to compare the two, there would be more similarities than not ... I think they just put some fresh lipstick on the pig and sent it back out to turn a few more tricks.

OHH JEEZUS!...youre right Kurt forgive me for ever using anything that you say might be a piece of crap or suggesting to anyone that it might possibly be okay to use in their home or budget studio. We all know that you are without a doubt the GURU of the recording world and we should all submit to your opinion and never ever think to have one ourselves.

All of that underlined phraseology that you are pinning your opinion on is sales hype 100%....What ???No one else can read?Do I need your interpretation to see what has been written? SHIT.

"Design Parameters"....this could mean anything....and in AD-Speak it usually does. "Updated version".....so? What parts?Every manufacturer puts out these blurbs on their sites.All of them.Not one word written by an AE or a tech.Its the Ad department that writes that stuff.And it says the same thing on Millinias site as well as Fostex,Grace,SSL,RNP,etc etc.adnauseum...And you want to call me a liar with it....

I'm sick of it.Theres no disguising how little respect you have for anyone who isnt doing things like you suggest.Theres a lot of very talented people out there without your version of gear who are making recordings that merit listening to. Its not up to you to call them out on their choices they sometimes HAVE to make due to restrictions of budget and or lifestyle choices.At least they're still willing to put an effort into doing the best they can with what they have.They come here asking for help and support and they get you telling them how all they're doing is perpetuating some ungodly manufacturers secret effort to sell them gear. Most folks are adults and they can spend their money anyway they like.Its their choice and in your continuosly boring rant about some personal vendetta you have, you continue to berate instead of encourage and fortify their desire to learn and improve.Sure, everyone would love to have better gear....the best and most elegant that money can buy.Some folks simply cant wait with recording the music that drives them to this in the first place.It takes too long to save a couple grand just for a piece of interface that will give them ....what? A better sound? Sure, but at what cost to the creative urge?

None of this matters a bit. Theres no way that there'll ever be something that touches you to see how it sounds.You're just NOT WRONG.....EVER. So while you sit in your little converted dining room full of nice gear with your decent set of skills and rant over the internet at people who'll never see you but think your some kind of god, you and I will both know the truth.And you wonder why I'm no longer your friend.

Now kick me off of RO like you did Steve.Big time arent you.

And yeah, I'm breaking one of my own rules....I'm doing you in public. :twisted:

Davedog wrote: OHH JEEZUS!...youre right Kurt forgive me for ever using anything that you say might be a piece of crap or suggesting to anyone that it might possibly be okay to use in their home or budget studio. We all know that you are without a doubt the GURU of the recording world and we should all submit to your opinion and never ever think to have one ourselves.

Dave, you and everyone else who wants to can do and use anything you all want ... I really don't care. I'm not a GURU and I don't say I am ... I offer advice based on my expierence ... on the records I have made for well known artists, the operation of a real studio in San Francisco for almost ten years, and doing almost nothing except music almost all my life, that's all.

I don't kiss gear dealers and manufacturers asses by telling people that the crappy gear they make and sell is any good ... all I can do is say it like I see it. If I think somthing sounds good I say so ... if I don't I will comment if asked ... I'm trying to keep some people from buying a bunch of useless crap that they don't really need. If I were trying to convince them to go out and buy stupid sh*t, I could understand your animosity ... but this? Dude you must be ready to blow a tube or somthing ... you used to be pretty nice.

Davedog wrote: All of that underlined phraseology that you are pinning your opinion on is sales hype 100%....What ???No one else can read?Do I need your interpretation to see what has been written? SHIT.

You said I had said somthing that wasn't correct and I went to the website and found evidence to support my comments and now you are complaining? Where should I look for the info? PSW? I don't think so ....

But I am not pining my opinion on just that info I found at the PreSonus site .., I had the M80 here for quite a while and I really did not care for the pres. That's what I base my comments on, that and the communications I had with PreSonus reps during the review process ...

First off....I'm not complaining...I would have to give a rats ass to complain about something that most high-school english students could read for them selves.Secondly, that same set of statements you are now swearing by are the ADMAN hype that goes along with any website that any manufacturer puts up. I agree with your assessment of the M80.I've used that unit also and it was less than the quality of the pres in my console.I have said so in many posts before. I LIKE the Eureka because it works well enogh to warrant its price point.Thats all I said and you went out of your way to call me a liar and also to discourage anyone from ever wanting to try(those that might believe you)...I dont give a fuck about your track record or anyone elses for that matter.Or whether you owned a studio in Pahdukah or Alaska..Theres a lot of people who have done what you've done and that doesnt make them some kind of expert.Its true that you do have recording skills.Its true you have some nice gear.You have a LOT more of it since you became a reviewer.More power to you.That doesnt make you right about everything and it doesnt mean because someone else has had a good experience with what you deem to be an inferior product that it cant be true.

Heres the crux......This opinion is pure conjecture. You've never tried a Eureka preamp.Never. When we were friends, we got one here and I was going to loan it to you but was never able to due to the Doc using it in his live rig.I wish I had but chances are you would have poo-poo'd it anyway.because youre a snob.

As for doing music your whole life....so what. Lots of others can claim that too.maybe they should be administrators on RO since they have the juice too....and isnt that what this is all about.

Its about your juice.Not helping people or giving them something to look forward too but whether you are right or not.

Well fine.You're right.Remember people...Kurts the only one here that is allowed to be right.

But seriously dude, trolling around the budget gear forum to spread your message of truth about high dollar pres isn't going to help much when a guy has a stated budget of $500. In many cases, waiting to save up $2000 for whatever will in many of these cases mean not recording; which would be unacceptable.

Or....you could just close the budget gear forum to posting, except for a giant disclaimer that says:

BUDGET GEAR Forum
"Don't waste your time/money"

I will say this:
BUDGET GEAR Forum, "Don't waste your time/money looking for the magic piece of gear that is cheap but really sounds good because there ain't no such animal!"

Please go back and re read the threads and for that matter all of my posts. I do not tell people not to record ... I do say that a Mackie pre will give about the same performance level as any of the mid level pres. So will the pres in a Yamaha mixer or for that matter Behringer or Samson stuff ... it's all pretty much the same ... I say repeatedly that the features are the criteria to base these purchase decisions on .. and I recommend occasionally a budget mic pre like the SP VTB1 ...

What I resist and will continue to resist is the concept that any of these pres sound any better than the others ... because IMO, they don't ... they sound different a little (very little) and I have proved this to myself in the past by posting clips blind and letting people choose which they thought was better ... in most cases people choose the Mackie over the RNP ... so now you're here to say the Eureka is a better pre than the RNP?

It was not my idea to even have a budget forum ... but just because we do have one doesn't mean RO is going to jump on the band wagon with other forums and tout how wonderful this cheap pre is and how that cheap pre is not as good ... because that's all a huge load ... Most of these pres have more in common with each other than not.

So I think a budget forum should take the path untraveled .. to help people by telling them a 150 dollar pre is pretty good and not to waste that extra $300 on something that is for the largest part the same thing. You got spend a lot of cash before you see an improvement over your generic table top mixers pre amps, because in reality .. they are not too bad.

Save money and spend it on room treatments, different mics, outboard ... and work on recording techniques ... and hopefully save your dough and get some good gear. That's the message I think the Budget and Home Recording Forums should be spreading, instead of constantly pushing the next best, repackaged and "improved" useless sameo-sameo stuff that manufacturers try to convince us we can't do without like some of the other BBs that are owned by dealers and manufacturers.

I agree with you 100% about improving the techniques.The room first. And yes you do suggest that from time to time.Its not an issue here.
When you've used all of these midlevel pres to a certain extent and have 'put them through the paces' then you may have a cause to champion. I personally only comment on things I've actually used in sessions and on several different sources.Its under these conditions and at mix with these sounds in place that the true nature of their usefullness resides.Be it good,bad,or indifferent...I do not mean this as a flame but as someone once said to me...."walk a mile in these shoes...etc etc"

I agree with that Dave ... but on the other hand, as I have said many times before, I don't have to eat sh*t, to know it tastes like sh*t .. and I generally do not make comments on gear I haven't used or at least heard in action, although I do admit that I have a few times ... In my own defense, I will say that the times i did, I was proven correct ... like here and about the RNP.

Just by knowing the topology of a pre amp and checking out the power supply will usually give some huge hints about how you can expect it to perform ... hmmm, 8 volt power supply? It's going to run out of headroom! Surface mount, large scale integrated chip, op amps? I don't think so, channel to channel consistency is a problem often ... Surface mounted connectors? It's gonna break sooner, than later and when it does it will be cheaper to buy a new one than to repair it.

You seem to think that all I have ever recorded with is Large Format consoles and expensive outboard and mic ... This is not the case ... until the late 80's and early 90's I was still doing work in a room with a Soundcraft Spirit console and AKG C1000's ... I have recorded with everything from cassettes through a BI AMP board to Teac 2a mixers and a 3340 to Fostex or Tascam cassette 4 tracks 388's 1/2" 8 and 16 tracks to Yamaha MLA7's to ADATs .... whatever I could beg or borrow ... I know all about midlevel gear..

In fact for a project I am currently working on I am using the Yamaha MLA7 pres into an ADAT recorder to do basics which I load in to my DAW and do overdubs.

All I advocate is buy quality .. and if you are forced cheap out, don't spend a bundle doing it. The one exception is the pres in the potty studios like the KORG D1600 .... those things are awful ... I really do believe that just about any inexpensive mic pre is as good as the next until you get to the Sebatrons and JLMs ... that's where quality starts. If I ever find something else as inexpensive that does the job, I will mention it ... believe me. Don't forget I was the one who broke the news first on the Sebatron line.. Record on, but don't go for "the banana in the tailpipe".

"you seem to think....." as a truth, I dont think that at all...and I dont care.Dont forget I've seen all you garage gear.....but that is old stuff...the newer stuff is ...uh....newer.

My expierences are not limited to "old gear" I have used some modern gear as well. Your suggestion that I try all this stuff is impractical ... I can't listen to every piece of crap that the manufacturers come out with ... and after I do one "it's not so great" review, the supply from the manufacturers dries up. So I don't bother with the stuff I don't think I will like .. and there's a lot of stuff I never comment on at all, because I do not know anything about it. You don't see that side of the coin.

I have tried the PreSonus pres ... the M80 and the Eureka is essentially the same pre according to the PreSonus site ... That this is sales hype I agree ... but why would they say that if it weren't the truth? ..The M80 has a bigger power supply so I assume it could conciveably have better headroom in spite of what they say. I haven't bothered to compare the specs of the M80 abnd the Eureka, but I bet they spec out pretty close. I tried the RNP ... I did a blind test of the RNP against a Mackie and posted audio samples. Most RO readers chose the Mackie. I have used the Art Pro Channel, good tone, no 3 d effect to spek of like with better pres. ... I used it on a couple of tracks on a gospel record a long time before I met you, so the whole time you were telling me about it, I knew what you were takling about. I rented it from a friend of mine in the Bay Area, along with some 1272's and some APIs ... oh yeah, I've used the 1272's several different times in different situations, live, at my studio and at Studio Apogee in San Jose .. as well as having used a Neotek console (Sytek type pres) on various ocassions .. so don't go saying I haven't heard what I'm discussing, because I have. I wouldn't comment on somthing if I didn't think I had somthing valid to offer.

BUDGET GEAR Forum, "Don't waste your time/money looking for the magic piece of gear that is cheap but really sounds good because there ain't no such animal!"

Hmm I have a 57 Fender tweed super,($50.00) a '69 les paul goldtop(300.00) & a chandler digital delay All were cheap and sound great. Money will buy better gear for sure but I have recorded some great sounding vocalists on my "cheap" ART TPS and some sound so good I would put them up against many bigtime studio tracks done with super expensive gear and that is not just my opinion. CD's are 44.1@ 16 bit and the sound can only be so good.
I would belive the cheap gear thing more if the guys touting their API's and Tridents did blindfold tests with things without seeing pricetags!
Also I would never be "hostile". discussion can be heated without being hostile. That is what is so cool about forums... Speak your mind and your opinions! That is what I initially asked for.
Just don't be so sure your $3000.00 PRS & Bogner will blow away my goltop and fender so to speak!

Kurt, I really wish you would not keep spouting Neotek and Sytek in the same sentance as if they are even close to the same thing. The only thing they have in common is that Neotek is now owned by Sytek, Anything and everything Neotek has made was done well before Sytek and it's products existed. And as someone who has owned an Neotek console and currently owns the Neotek no holds bared limited edition rack mount mic pre version the MicMAX, I can vouch that it is a FAR superior product with a much better sound. And yes I have heard and had to use the Sytek before so I know.

You comment on them all the time, but have you even used or heard a Sytek for any length of time?

Hello all! I have not sent many posts here as my input is going to be very limited, but wanted to ask a couple questions!
And whilst I hate to drag this out even further, can I just say that I'm so glad someone finally put Kurt in his place about his bragging of hi-end gear.

For all who have experience with these pieces of kit or anything similar, are the Joe Meek twinQ or the Presonus Eureka realistically good for a first preamp for recording a mix of instruments? I'm very serious about recording, but I believe a good song has more to do with the creative idea and the performance of the musician rather than the performance of a bloody preamp! So PLEASE understand that my budget, my recording room and my mics do not warrant anything hi-end like UA, Neve, API etc.

Any reply is greatly appreciated,
Peter

are the Joe Meek twinQ or the Presonus Eureka realistically good for a first preamp for recording a mix of instruments?

Yes.

AudioGaff wrote: Kurt, I really wish you would not keep spouting Neotek and Sytek in the same sentance as if they are even close to the same thing. The only thing they have in common is that Neotek is now owned by Sytek, Anything and everything Neotek has made was done well before Sytek and it's products existed. And as someone who has owned an Neotek console and currently owns the Neotek no holds bared limited edition rack mount mic pre version the MicMAX, I can vouch that it is a FAR superior product with a much better sound. And yes I have heard and had to use the Sytek before so I know.

You comment on them all the time, but have you even used or heard a Sytek for any length of time?

Audio Gaff ...

As I said before, no I haven't used the Syteks .. I always thought they were the same pre as what was in the Neoteks.

You have brought somthing new to the table that I did not know ... I have been wrongfully assuming that the Syteks were the same pre I have heard in Neotek consoles ... this is what I have heard others say and I believed it ..

Now you are saying that they are not the same thing, and I believe you .. so it seems I will need to take a listen to the Syteks to hear how much worse they are than the Neoteks pres (which i didn't care for either) ..

Thanks for pointing that out .. I stand corrected ..

Mmmm - interesting thread.

As one, whom, for many years, believed the writeups in the trade mags etc. and spent many thousands of dollars on various sub standard gear, I wholeheartedly support Kurt's position.

The thing that most reviewers forget to mention is "this unit performs very well - for the price".

The biggest mistake I've ever made regarding recording is not booking time in a really pro studio to hear the difference good gear makes.

I have spent a lot of years on budget gear - I've learned a lot - but no matter what tricks I try , I cannot come up with that "classy sound" - perspective, dimension and getting the vocal to sit on top.

To many outsiders, my stuff sounds good to them.
For me - my results do not compete.

Yes, I've tried lots of plugins and got really excited when one actually was able to get the vocal on top, but the sound of that track seemed to suffer.

I've really had it with plugins and I've had it with budget gear - I'm looking for a top quality frontend that does the job beautifully.

I agree with Kurt's assessment - if you're going to buy budget gear - don't spent too much money.

If possible buy second hand.

In my opinion, Kurt's first statement in this thread was one of the the most valid one's I've come across in the budget vs. pro area.

Thank you Kurt - it seems much thought had gone into your statement.

cheers

omaru

My apologies - it was Kurt's 2nd post that had the meat.

cheers

omaru

I dont see what the big deal is. The only reason this escalated into a full scale "war of words" is because everyone went on the defensive immediately. Opinions are opinions. Facts are facts. It isn't surprising to think that a $2k pre wil produce a better or more desirable sound than a cheap one. Neither is it surprising to think that a company might be force feeding crap to the consumer with fancy words and run-a-round advertisement, but thats where research comes into play. When you are on a budget, research is your only safe ticket and this forum is an excellent place to help you in that area. There are a lot of experienced people here! Ive found that out first hand! (A lot of the people in this thread have been very helpful in the past!)

I think the best advice I would give is: If you are going to be operating a budget studio, understand first off your limitations. This is where everyone seems to be running into the problems. Everyone wants their recordings to sound like it was done in a multi million dollar studio, but its almost certain that wont happen unless it is actually done in one of those studios. Do the best with what you have! I use a Firepod, Behringer compressor, Aphex 204, and a small collection of decent mics from Shure and A-T. I am very satisfied with my results, and the reason is that I know what I am doing sounds good considering the money invested. Don't forget to listen in context. Its much more satisfying to hear a finished product in that manner.

petethomaslyons wrote: I'm so glad someone finally put Kurt in his place about his bragging of hi-end gear.

PLEASE understand that my budget, my recording room and my mics do not warrant anything hi-end like UA, Neve, API etc.

I do understand that .... I came from the same background and I empathize. But you want "the best you can get " for as close to nothing as possible ... that's the problem. After you buy your cheap pres your next post will be "How do I get this sound" ? You want to take the trip but you don't want to pay the plane fare.

Does your art warrent it? How about your talent level? If all you are interested in is "good enough", then a Mackie pre amp will do ... If you want a sonic improvment and the bragging rights that accompany that, then somthing from the high end is called for. All the mid level gear will do for you is seperate you from your hard earned cash faster ...

Now if you want to call that "bragging of hi-end gear." fine by me ... but I regret that it comes off that way, because that's not how I intend it. I'm just trying to keep you and others from spending more than is necessary.

Interesting indeed.......
Don't know what happened between Davedog and Kurt, but it kinda took over the discussion. I have to say, towards the phenomenon preamp Kurt is basically right. Things will only improve dramatically when using highend (and thus more expensive) gear. That doesn't mean you couldn't get good results with the Behringer etc. A good engineer on a Behringer is to be preferred over a lousy one on an API. For the Budget Forum, a lesson would be to better buy (sort of) highend gear secondhand, than cheap things new. Maybe the word preamp should be banned from this forum?? I mean, there is always the Pro Audio Forum.
I think the budget forum is much more usefull with things like microphones and outboard effects. I doesn't need to be expensive to sound good. What's the point of an Neuman mic on a distorted guitar cabinet?
Lastly, I hope this item isn't going to be the role model for discussions around here. Great thing about forums is people who disagree. If they wouldn't, there is obviously no need of forums.
Please discuss and disagree in a respectfull way (you may think someone is a gearsnob, but there is no need to put that statement here, nobody is helped with that).
Cheers, Gomp

WoW! Freakin' Paul McCartney is playing the Super Bowl half time and he ROCKS!! I have never heard a half time show that sounds that good ... he's a geezer but he still blows the doors off of a lot of the competition..

Gomp hit the nail on the head IMO ...

There have been leaps and bounds in technology and the benefits have trickled down to the recording industry. There are mics, speakers outboard gear and digital recorders that outperform their predecessors ... at much lower costs.

Unfortunately, these benefits have not affect pre amp design because much of what makes a really decent pre amp has nothing to do with the scaling down of circuits large scale integration and miniaturizing of electronics ..

It takes a lot of voltage (robust power supplies) to take a very low mic level signal and amplify it to line levels .. and you need voltage and large traces on the boards or point to point wiring to handle that ... LSI chips can lack channel to channel constancy .. there's a lot that enters the equation .. more than I can relate as I am not an electronics engineer ..

I will say this :
BUDGET GEAR Forum, "Don't waste your time/money looking for the magic piece of gear that is cheap but really sounds good because there ain't no such animal!"

Maybe you shouldn't generalize like that until you've heard everything...and if you haven't heard a piece in particular, don't be surprised if people disagree. Don't be surprised if they disagree even if you have heard the piece in question. This is all subjective stuff.

in most cases people choose the Mackie over the RNP ... so now you're here to say the Eureka is a better pre than the RNP?

Why couldn't it be? It's the kind of pre you typically like...Class A, transformer balanced, internal linear power supply, etc...

Maybe that was the case with the samples that you posted...but most of the people I've talked to who have actually used both do feel there's an improvement with the RNP, some quite significant.

That's the message I think the Budget and Home Recording Forums should be spreading, instead of constantly pushing the next best, repackaged and "improved" useless sameo-sameo stuff that manufacturers try to convince us we can't do without like some of the other BBs that are owned by dealers and manufacturers.

Is it PSW you're talking about? If it is, remember that they're not owned by Mackie as you thought...and if anything, it's snobbier over there than it is over here...or are you talking about a different forum?

Igenerally do not make comments on gear I haven't used or at least heard in action, although I do admit that I have a few times ... In my own defense, I will say that the times i did, I was proven correct ... like here and about the RNP.

You weren't "proven correct" in either case. Again, you can't be "proven correct" in something that's for the most part subjective. And again, the fact that people weren't able to pick the RNP over the Mackie in your blind test doesn't say much either. The only way to prove something like that is to do it for yourself. I'm not saying that listening tests can't be helpful, but they're really only good for a given microphone on a given source with a given engineer. There are plenty of people using the RNP who hear a significant improvement over the Mackie, especially with certain types of microphones on certain sources. As for the Eureka, you haven't proved anything either. You haven't heard it, and simply quoting specs from Presonus's website doesn't prove anything. Mackie's preamps spec out better than most in some ways, but there are very few people who would say that they're better than most. And even what you did quote...that it's an "updated" version of the M80 etc...if it's been updated, why couldn't it sound better? Shouldn't it? Again, it does meet most of your criteria for a good preamp design.

Especially since Dave...who is familiar with both the M80 and Eureka and shares your feelings on the M80...notices such a difference. Why do you find it so hard to believe that it might sound good? I tried the Eureka out briefly and was very impressed with it. Unlike you, I like the M80, but I like the Eureka's preamp better. I thought that the compressor and EQ were also significant improvements over anythign else I've heard in its price range, although the EQ I didn't find as good specifically as the one in my ISA220. But if someone had only $500 to spend on a single channel, I'd recommend the Eureka in a heartbeat.

-Duardo

One of the problems I encountered with PreSonus gear is it runs at a nominal level of 0dB ... to low to use correctly with +4 pro gear and too high to use with semi-prosumer -10dB gear ... In fact, the only thing the PreSonus pres match up correctly to, is a Mackie mixer.

PSW was owned by Mackie who sold it to LOUD Corp. ... the parent company of Mackie ... :shock:

Regardless of what you think, I feel I was proven correct with the RNP. Just because you say so, doesn't make it true. I posted blind samples and let everyone else choose which they thought was best ... and I welcome a similar blind test from anyone else who wants to make the effort. I have always encouraged that. Instead of being negative and poking holes in other peoples work, I suggest you do something proactive and positive to prove your point. BTW, I am willing to send anyone a CDr with wave files of the comparisons if you feel mp3's are insufficient for comparison purposes. All I ask is you pay for shipping and handling. Send me a PM if you are interested.

Anyone who will claim a significant improvement over a Mackie using an RNP or a PreSonus pre, is either suffering from placebo effect (a very real phenomenon) or in my estimation, due to making such comments not capable of hearing or experienced enough to make the judgment. I cannot come up with any other explanation. I do not question that they are hearing a difference, I do too ... but I would hardly call it an "improvement". It's just different. But put either up against a Millennia, a Grace or an API (just to name a few) and then you will hear improvement.

Regarding the Eureka, again I will repeat ... it's exactly the same topology as the M20 / M80 etc. I suspect they have changed nothing in the actual pre as I have seen nothing that says they did. The website says that it's the same thing. The addition of a transformer that can be tapped for different impedance's is responsible for the reported tonal change I suspect, and whether that is an improvement or not is really subjective ... Again, tone alone isn't what it's all about ... it's also about dimension, headroom, phase response and a power supply that delivers enough juice to form a bass wave and deal with transients. Listening to something and making a call based on only the tone is a silly thing to do. There's other things to consider as well.

Your saying you like the RNP and PreSonus pres leads me to believe you must not be listening for these things ... :roll: My .02 is while these pres are fine (but not great) for what they are, they are way overpriced ... It's all marketing. The pres in the Mackie while leaving a lot to be desired, are IMO really just as good.

PSW was owned by Mackie who sold it to LOUD Corp. ... the parent company of Mackie ...

Where did you get that information? As far as I can tell, it's owned by Huge Universe Inc, whose parent corporation is Universal Concept Inc...the only tie I can find to them is that the Live Audio Board, which is also part of PSW, was started by a guy from EAW, which Mackie bought out a few years back...but in any case, I do spend quite a bit of time there, and I have never seen any push towards any Mackie products there, nor a push towards repackaged budget gear in genearl.

Regardless of what you think, I feel I was proven correct with the RNP. Just because you say so, doesn't make it true.

Sure, and just because you feel that you were proven correct doesn't make it so either. Nothing was proven, except that on those particular examples, people couldn't tell the difference.

Instead of being negative and poking holes in other peoples work, I suggest you do something proactive and positive to prove your point.

I don't have a point to "prove". And I'm not trying to poke holes in your work. If I were looking at an RNP mainly to use with a pair of C4's recording acoustic guitar, then I think that your comparison would be very helpful. But to jump to the conclusion, based on the fact that most people couldn't tell the difference in a particular set of recordings, that one preamp is "no better" than the other is very premature. You'd get much more telling results using a wider variety of microphones...like dynamic or ribbon microphones, which tend to reveal a preamp's strengths and weaknesses very easily, or microphones with less of a "signature", like Earthworks or other similar omni's, which also allow more of the character of a preamp to shine though...on a wider variety of sources. And even then, the results you get will vary greatly from one engineer to the next. There are so many variables involved that you can't "prove" anything based on a few simple comparisons...and even then, what you've proven to yourself may not hold for the next person. Based on the number of happy (and experienced) RNP users out there, I'd say that's the case in this situation.

Anyone who will claim a significant improvement over a Mackie using an RNP or a PreSonus pre, is either suffering from placebo effect (a very real phenomenon) or in my estimation, due to making such comments not capable of hearing or experienced enough to make the judgment.

Again, that's a huge presumption to make on your part, and is also quite insulting and condescending to those who do hear an improvement. You've said yourself that you hear a difference. Just because one doesn't sound "better" than the other do you doesn't mean that the same holds true for everyone.

I cannot come up with any other explanation. I do not question that they are hearing a difference, I do too ... but I would hardly call it an "improvement". It's just different. But put either up against a Millennia, a Grace or an API (just to name a few) and then you will hear improvement.

Regarding the Eureka, again I will repeat ... it's exactly the same topology as the M20 / M80 etc. I suspect they have changed nothing in the actual pre as I have seen nothing that says they did. The website says that it's the same thing.

Why would you suspect that? It's obviously not exactly the same. As you quoted yourself, from their website..."In the Eureka the noise floor has been reduced, while the headroom has been notably increased"...that says to me that something has been changed, aside from the variable impedence thing (which, depending on how they've implemented it, could simply be the addidion of certain resistors based on the setting selected...unlike the ViPre, which does take separate taps off of the transformer, most of the preamps that offer variable impedence work this way) which wouldn't make those differences. Again, why do you assume the worst when their website says otherwise and Davedog, who has used both preamps, does as well?

-Duardo

I know whay I try to steer people to the high end, what puzzels me is why you and others want to encourage people to buy cheap crap that will be obsolete sh*t in a couple years .. or that when it fails, will be cheaper to replace rather than repair, which is the case with all the less expensive gear ...

I refuse to run out and buy every cheapo piece of sh*t pre that comes down the pike ... I also refuse to waste my time listening to them, even if the manufacturers were to send them all to me for reviews. I've got better things to do ...

The Eureka is the same topology as it's predicessors from PreSonus (twin servo) and as such I don't see that it's going to sound any "better" than them. Again, different? Yes ... better? Very subjective. It's interesting you don't see the top engineers and studios using this kind of gear ... I think there's a reason for that.

The addition of the output stages in the Eureka may be where they get the added headroom ... there could be a dozen other explinations ... it still remains the stuff is designed to a price point, and they are useing cheap transformers, surface mount technology and they run at 0dB levels, not hot enough to get a decent level on a +4 input.

I will say one more thing and leave it at that .. if you wish, you can have the last word.

You asked me ;

why do you assume the worst when their website says otherwise and Davedog, who has used both preamps, does as well?

I have had numerous exchanges with PreSonus and I believe I have an understanding what they are doing ... that's why ... same with Dave ... He and I do not see eye to eye as to what sounds good and what doesn't for the most part ... I'm not saying he's wrong and I'm right, just that we don't seem to like the same things, including production values.

I make my own desicions and judgment calls. I suggest others do the same. I am not here to tell people what to do, only to give my own impressions and opinions.

I stand by my comment, "Anyone who will claim a significant improvement over a Mackie using an RNP or a PreSonus pre, is either suffering from placebo effect (a very real phenomenon) or in my estimation, due to making such comments, not capable of hearing or experienced enough to make the judgment.", whether you think it's condecending and presumptous or not ....

HEY!...Dont include me in ANY of this.

And dont be telling people what I may or may not like when YOU are the last person on Earth to really know whats true for me.

And since you dont have a CLUE as to what my production values are dont include these in any discussions you may have with others.

Just for the record....here in public....Kurt knows what he's talking about with regards to gear. He has NO idea what my likes and dislikes are and has no idea how I work in my studio or how I obtain any sounds that I get. The opposite is also true and I will not be making assumptions here or anywhere else about what he knows or how he works. This entire thread is a miserable misuse of this site and I will not participate in any further discussions on these particular pieces of gear.My experiences with the piece in question is documented and I have several tracks printed onto disk that is currently being shopped. It sounds fine in the context that I used it.Thats all I know. Thanx for reading. Now go back to your regularly scheduled program.