How do the mic pres and EQ compare to say a Mackie 8 bus or similar mixer?

You say you read the story so I won't go into it too much but the word from some in the "know" is the design of these new Trident pieces is not the same as the vintage Trident stuff and has more in common with the ORAM stuff, than the Trident, which btw, is ok but not necessarily the best.

(Dead Link Removed)

"Actually, this unit is not new. In fact it is over 10 years old, and not a very good design. It was released over 10 years ago under the Sound Tech name. Sound Tech was a company John Oram had but it folded up as result of bad product.

I have the old pictures of the Sound Tech board from 10 years ago, and it is the exact same thing that is pictured above. I would be very leary of this unit as it is an old design that did not work then, it is not a Trident design, but then John Oram never worked for Trident and he never had any of his submitted designs used in any Trident unit that was designed by Malcolm Toft."

To be fair, it should be mentioned that Alan Hyatt and Malcom Toft (both with PMI), vs. Ted Fletcher and John Oram have been in very contentious litigations, centered around Trident, Joe Meek name use and product design issues.

I recall a studio owner in Oakland CA I was aquainted within the early 80's, lost a sizeable deposit ($10K+) he had put down on a Trident console, when Trident underwent reorginsation and a managment change. While Trident made some great consoles, it is well known that at times, the managment of the company has been "iffy" at best.

IMO!

They are marginally better but not as much of an improvement as if you were to get a "real" pre / eq (Neve / API / boutique clone types). The new Trident line has more in common with the Mackie and its counterparts, than it does with the vintage Trident line, in terms of its design philosophy and in the way it is constructed.

You only need to examine the design to know if it is good piece or not. Contrary to others opinions, I believe you do not need to eat a sh*t sandwich to know it doesn't taste good!

:mrgreen:

Again IMO!

The things that make a great pre amp / eq, etc. are; large power supplies running within their design parameters, discreet construction with high quality parts performing within their design parameters, no large scale chips, through the board construction, point to point wiring at least in the areas that carry high voltages. I personally prefer transformer balanced across at least the input and transformers on the ins and outs is even better ... but this is not an absolute, there are pieces that are electronically balanced like the Millennia HV-3 pre amp, that are very good ... The better stuff doesn't lend itself to being produced on an automated production line however. This is why the stuff that is "affordable" is usually not as good as it could be. The automated production lines need to use surface mount components .. and they also try to keep the amount of parts to a minimum ... often parts are used that are being worked to the limit of their design instead of using a more expensive part. Parts tolerances are larger, so accuracy and channel to channel consistency can be an issue .. with the performance of different pieces sometimes varying widely.

My feeling on all the mid level stuff (not just Trident) is that if you don't have an alternative they are fine ... but if you already have a mixer like a Mackie, the improvement is not so much as to warrant the added expense. I feel the ratio of return, in terms of the cost factor, is not significant enough to justify "stepping up" to it. At twice to three times the cost (on a per channel basis) for a bit more you can get "real" pres and eq's.

Actually, this unit is not new. In fact it is over 10 years old, and not a very good design. It was released over 10 years ago under the Sound Tech name. Sound Tech was a company John Oram had but it folded up as result of bad product.

I read this a while before the S100 was released, but haven't seen anyone anywhere who has confirmed that this is the case. I've seen the SoundTech mixer as well and they do look the same, but that doesn't mean that they're the same on the inside. I'd just like to hear that confirmed by someone who has actually seen the inside of the unit and is not a big competitor to the company.

Having said that, I'd trust what Alan says about John's products more than anything John himself says, and wouldn't touch any of his products with a ten-foot pole...the nicest thing I could say about them is that if I were forced at gunpoint to track an album and all that was available was an Oram/Trident preamp and a Behringer, I'd pick the Oram/Trident. Which isn't saying much.

-Duardo

Duardo,
You make a good point ... IMO, because Alan Hyatt is involved in a litigation against Oram and Ted Fletcher and because Hyatt is a competitor, is more a reason to believe his comments than to dismiss them. It's difficult at best to make a comment like ...

Alan Hyatt wrote: "Actually, this unit is not new. In fact it is over 10 years old, and not a very good design. It was released over 10 years ago under the Sound Tech name. Sound Tech was a company John Oram had but it folded up as result of bad product.

I have the old pictures of the Sound Tech board from 10 years ago, and it is the exact same thing that is pictured above. I would be very leary of this unit as it is an old design that did not work then, it is not a Trident design, but then John Oram never worked for Trident and he never had any of his submitted designs used in any Trident unit that was designed by Malcolm Toft."

... as a competitor, without being litigated against ... and making such a statement (especially where it can be seen by millions and quoted) if untrue, would likely instigate immediate reaction from Oram if not the case. In view of the lack of a response by Oram, I tend to take what Alan Hyatt said at face value. I might add that everything I have heard Alan Hyatt say has been spot on ... so I think he has earned the consideration to be trusted.

Alan sent out a crap load of SP product to me for review a year ago in spite of my having come out publicly saying that I didn't expect them to be very good and after using and hearing the gear I had to admit I was wrong. The fact that Hyatt sent the stuff out in spite of previous displayed bias on my part, to me speaks loudly that he believes in his products.

On the other hand, when I requested product from Oram, I received this reply ...

"Dear Kurt

Carolyn
Sales Manager
TRIDENT - ORAM"

All I can surmise from this is, while Hyatt is open to critique, Oram is not. While Hyatt trusts that his product will speak for itself, the Oram organization seems to be worried that an independent reviewer might not think very much of their offerings. It seems (to me) they were asking for a tacit approval prior to a review. Does anyone else read that into it?

The thing that amuses me is, I wouldn't write a negative review if I didn't like something. By attempting to protect themselves from what they fear might be a negative review, they generate suspicion in regards to their product. There's something screwy going on, when people act that way.

In view of the lack of a response by Oram, I tend to take what Alan Hyatt said at face value. I might add that everything I have heard Alan Hyatt say has been spot on ... so I think he has earned the consideration to be trusted.

I wouldn't take Oram's lack of response as any indication of anything. He's not nearly as active in the various forums as Alan is (or was). It may have been under his radar screen entirely.

I'm not questioning whether or not Alan can be trusted. It looked to me like he was just speculating, since he was commenting on how a mixer as "pictured"...a mixer that, at that point, hadn't even started shipping yet, so he had no knowledge as to what was actually inside the box. I'd imagine that, if I were in Oram's position and had the metalwork or whatever for an old mixer that was long out of production, it would seem like a good way to cut costs to use the same exterior design, even if the inside was very different.

Again, I'm not trying to defend Oram...I have very little respect for him...but I would like to see if anyone has confirmed that the insides of the Trident mixer are the same as the insides of the SoundTech. I believe I even asked on the thread to which you're referring if anyone had, and got no response...if not that one, then one like it.

On the other hand, when I requested product from Oram, I received this reply ...

"Dear Kurt

.... We have looked at your site and seen some quite negative and mis-informed posts there also one from yourself quoting 'I have never really liked Oram's stuff' in light of this we feel that it would not be beneficial to our company to send them to you for review (unless you like us now!) ....

I can't say I blame them for that one...if I were a (relatively) small manufacturer, I'd be pretty hesitant to send a box out to a reviewer with an admitted bias...if they sent it to you and you didn't like it and therefore didn't publish a review, what good would it have done them?

Did you respond to them?

All I can surmise from this is, while Hyatt is open to critique, Oram is not. While Hyatt trusts that his product will speak for itself, the Oram organization seems to be worried that an independent reviewer might not think very much of their offerings. It seems (to me) they were asking for a tacit approval prior to a review. Does anyone else read that into it?

I think you may be reading a little bit too much into it. I do think that they wanted to see if their product even stood a chance before they sent it to you. I don't see anything wrong with that. Also, I'm sure a big part of it is that the PMI stuff is relatively low-priced high-volume stuff, and the Oram/Trident stuff is mid/high-priced low-volume stuff. I've seen many more reviews for PMI products than Oram's everywhere.

By attempting to protect themselves from what they fear might be a negative review, they generate suspicion in regards to their product. There's something screwy going on, when people act that way.

I don't disagree...there's plenty of screwy stuff going on with the company. I think that there's enough suspicious on their products already that more probably wouldn't affect things either way...

I'm still curious, though.

-Duardo

Duardo,
I am curious too ...

Unlike you, I doubt that the comments were under Orams radar .. but it's impossible to be sure. It seems the company is pretty adept at finding things people said about their products. I was surprised they were able to find one of only a few posts I had made.. and I really don't think what I had said was really that negative. I only said I never liked it much. I never said they weren't able to make a good product.

I did not respond to the reply I received from Oram ... If they don't want my help in getting the word out on their products, that's fine with me ... plenty of fish in the sea. Too much stuff out there I really want to try out.

You point out that there are not too many reviews on the Oram products, seems to me this would have been a good opportunity for them to change that. Instead of basing their response on one post on RO, perhaps they should have read a few of my reviews to see if I did a good job?

It seems to me I remember seeing a post from Hyatt saying he had seen the guts of this new mixer ... but I couldn't swear to that or even say where I saw it ... most likely in the old PMI forum, that is no longer available to see.

Keep in mind, there is no love lost between the administration of RO and Alan Hyatt ... there was a bad falling out at the end of it all, so it's not as if RO is backing Hyatt, no matter what he says.

Thanks for the replies guys,

I just hope I can get some good recordings out, so much for the new studio buzz :(