kmetal, post: 453220, member: 37533 wrote: Yeah I think pluggins touting the sound of hardware is a joke. I

I don't find that to be the case of all
Plugs. I've used some - where I've also used the hardware it's based on - and if I turned my back I'd never know the difference. The new Slate FG Stress falls into this category for me. If you A/B'd it against a real Empirical Labs Distressor I would not be able to hear the difference in a blind test. Acustica Audio's Gold VST, which is a collection of 3 different Neve console series channel strips, including preamp section, EQ and inline compressors are having Neve veterans questioning which is which. We're talking about guys who have serious time on the hardware ... and many are saying they'd not be able to tell the difference. Modeling technology has grown in leaps and bounds. I no longer think it's impossible to model hardware to ridiculously close accuracies.
I think a lot of what makes certain gear what it "is" bends towards the popularity of its use. You'd be hard pressed to hear a song recorded between 1970 and 1990 that didn't incorporate LA2's, or 1176's, etc. somewhere in the mix.
Are they used because of their sound? Or were they used because that's just what everyone used?

Tough to answer.

Yeah not having been fortunate enough to actually use the ssl, or neve, or tape machines my pluggins emulate I can’t say for sure. I also wonder about whether or not these guys opinions are super truthful. Not saying they aren’t, and a lot of guys are ITB, but it’s interesting when they’re saying the “can’t tell the difference” and there’s $500k rack behind them. Could be used mainly for tracking too.

The thing that pluggins tend to miss is the (non-linear?) saturations, and interactions that you get with hardware. Also perhaps some element of analog summing for better or worse. I’m not saying one Is better, ideally everyone has both at their disposal.

I’ve heard very few, if any pluggins that overdrive like hardware, or “add depth”.

When I did A/b the API 550b vs the waves plug at Normandy, it wasn’t even close. The pluggin was far more drastic and sensitive to the selections, and a lot brighter. Admittedly it’s not one of my fav pluggins anyway. The silverface 1176LN again, not even close to the BF or CLA renditions. Again w the pluggins being for more exxhaggerated, the BF being good in general, and CLA being good but bright as most waves stuff tend to be. Perhaps the ‘76 was burnt out, maybe it needed new caps. And after all, waves of BF wasn’t moddeling that particular model either.

I’m not saying the settings should match, it’s fine if you have to tweak the setting on the virtual ones or vice versa, I just haven’t experienced the “can’t tell a difference” thing myself. I like both, and maybe even couldn't tell you which one was the hardware or not upon the first blind test, but to me they are surely different animals. And also I did this in a relatively casual non-scientific way for curiosity, not to prove a point. If anything, I’d love my $30 CLA to smoke the hardware lol.

I think a lot of the hardware was used because their wasn’t the ton of options out there back then, and more so, it’s what worked on the hits, so why try and mess w success. Plus a lot of gear was modified. I know Phil immediately modded his McIntosh amps, and LA3, and ssl, for more headroom.

kmetal, post: 453220, member: 37533 wrote: My reason was for pointing this out wasn’t to call it a fake, rather to show just how different something could be, and how marketing wording can be misleading. Like the “based on the design of” or “uses the same t4 opto cell”, or naming it “LA”. I think it’s up to the buyer to beware, but really it’s lame to be selling gear of some other gears reputation. I mean are all dynamic mics “inspired by the sm57?” Lol.

I get you ;) I pray we don't all end up as sheeps and buy anything we've been told to be good !!!

pcrecord, post: 453227, member: 46460 wrote: I get you ;) I pray we don't all end up as sheeps and buy anything we've been told to be good !!!

The best thing to do is to try before you buy. I can't think of any VST manufacturer anymore who doesn't offer fully functioning trials of their software. Try them for yourself, forgoing any endorsements or advice, apply them to what you do in your situation with your own workflow and then decide for yourself. It's all relative to the individual. What works for one person might not for another. And use your ears and not the power of suggestion laid out by advertisers. Also, keep an open mind... so, okay, maybe that 550 or 1176 plug doesn't sound exactly like the hardware you've worked with in the past - but if you like what it does, and you like the result of using it on your mixes, does it really matter if it's 100% accurate to the hardware or not?
;)

DonnyThompson, post: 453229, member: 46114 wrote: The best thing to do is to try before you buy.

Agree Donny !

Thing is, when starting off many won't have our trained ears to discern the subtle differences.
Good Thing RO exists !! ;)

DonnyThompson, post: 453229, member: 46114 wrote: so, okay, maybe that 550 or 1176 plug doesn't sound exactly like the hardware you've worked with in the past - but if you like what it does, and you like the result of using it on your mixes, does it really matter if it's 100% accurate to the hardware or not?

I do t think it matters one bit. Which is why I wish manufacturers would stop piggy backing the hardware so often. Fabfilter makes no claims of analog anything, and they’re prospering as a company, and well acclaimed by many engineers top and bottom.

My two favorite waves pluggins are the R-Series, and the H-Comp. H-comp is highly underrated and sounds great. Both pluggins are original waves creations. R stuff may be inspired by hardware sound, but they’re not piggy backing.

Lol it’s ok to be original and unique, this is the business of art.

pcrecord, post: 453233, member: 46460 wrote: Agree Donny !

Thing is, when starting off many won't have our trained ears to discern the subtle differences.
Good Thing RO exists !! ;)

THIS is so very important to remember. And is a major reason for much buyer remorse or the phenomena known as G.A.S. What a lot of beginners and even those with a number of years don't seem to 'get' is it takes so much time to acclimate your hearing and the brain to know what to listen for when getting into a dense mix of differing sounds.

Train the brain to translate what the ear hears. THEN buy new stuff.

Davedog, post: 453235, member: 4495 wrote: THIS is so very important to remember. And is a major reason for much buyer remorse or the phenomena known as G.A.S. What a lot of beginners and even those with a number of years don't seem to 'get' is it takes so much time to acclimate your hearing and the brain to know what to listen for when getting into a dense mix of differing sounds.

Train the brain to translate what the ear hears. THEN buy new stuff.

Part of the reason it takes so long I think is the rooms, and source material people work on are usually very compromised in the beginning. Working on good gear or in a good room can really excel things quickly. I wish more beginners rented a few sessions at well built rooms.

I feel it took me my first 15 years to really start knowing what I’m hearing. My stuff only started to get truly pro sounding quickly in the last couple years. Then I took hiatus from overworking lol. Ahhhhh cycles.

kmetal, post: 453220, member: 37533 wrote: That’s an interesting g perspective. Perhaps it is the scarcity, and of knowledge of working on these things that is balancing the relative simplicity of the circuit. Certainly with the modern incarnations your getting diligence and care component choices.
Yeah I’m in no way saying the LA610 is somehow compromised as a unit, I like them very much and have been interested in them since they came out. They sound very nice.

My reason was for pointing this out wasn’t to call it a fake, rather to show just how different something could be, and how marketing wording can be misleading. Like the “based on the design of” or “uses the same t4 opto cell”, or naming it “LA”. I think it’s up to the buyer to beware, but really it’s lame to be selling gear of some other gears reputation. I mean are all dynamic mics “inspired by the sm57?” Lol.

I wish companies would be more transparent with this stuff. There’s plenty of people who won’t care about the subtle differences, plenty who can’t afford the “original”, and some who’ll just wait and save for the other unit.

Yeah I think pluggins touting the sound of hardware is a joke. I find there’s good pluggins everywhere and even the Lofi and cheesy sounding stuff has a creative place.

I wish companies like warm would let go of the nastalgia and just market their products as their own, and forget the piggy backing. From
What I’ve heard about warm stuff, it’s very good and can stand on its own.

I think there’s a great misunderstanding about just what it is that makes certain gear what it is. Not claiming i know a whole lot, but certainly find it interesting.

Compare the schematic of the LA-2A and LA610. There are a lot of similarities. There is a thread somewhere on here about repairs to a LA610. I own LA2A's and my schematics are from 1965 but I did check the LA610 schematic before offering my $0.02 worth to someone trying to fix a LA610...

I wish I had the ability to read schematics, i’m slowly learning the electronics/componentry side of things.

In a unit like the La-610 is it possible that some of the parts from the pre amp section can make up for some of the parts omitted from the compressor section. Like say the input transformer?

I’m thinking this is the thread about the La-610 repair. Just linking for reference.

https://recording.org/threads/fixing-ua-la-610-compressor-need-schematics-with-voltage-points.59520/

From what I understand, the LA610's compressor section doesn't share the same tube-transformer routing... The LA2 had(has) a 12ax with a transformer following stage that the 619 apparently did not. (?) and that is a big part of the sonic vibe of the 2A.
I've used LA2's many times, but never the 610. Those who I've talked to say that the 610 is a really nice preamp, and not a bad compressor, sounding pretty decent, but at lower GR settings, but when pushed, it starts clamping down pretty hard, resulting in it sounding "thin"...and losing depth ....unlike the LA2, which sounded great no matter how hard you drove it, and in fact could open up and sound really nice at higher GR levels.
Those people I know who love and own UA gear claim that the 6176 - a pre with an 1176-ish compressor built in, sounds better, in that it's compressor section reacts and sounds much more similar to the 1176, than the 610 did against the LA2.
Of course, if you're looking for the LA2 vibe, the 1176 isn't going to sound like it, either.
I'm very curious to try the Warm Audio WA2; I wish there was a place locally that I could rent one, or even buy it and then return it after I got a chance to use it for a week.

Interesting. Gear design is fascinating.

Ya know D, just about every retailer has a return policy. I think vintage king also has units of some gear available for loan to try. GC doesn’t allow mics to be returned if opened.

For things like speakers and most pro audio gear, it really is necessary to take it and use it wherever it’s gonna live. When I was shopping for monitors I got both Mackie and Yamaha 8’s and decided on one pair after a couple weeks. Woulda kept both if my budget allowed. It’s perfectly legal to buy something and return it. We can’t be expected to shell out hundreds and thousands on something without knowing what it’s gonna do in reality.

kmetal, post: 453260, member: 37533 wrote: I’m thinking this is the thread about the La-610 repair. Just linking for reference.

https://recording.org/threads/fixing-ua-la-610-compressor-need-schematics-with-voltage-points.59520/

This is the correct thread.

kmetal, post: 453259, member: 37533 wrote: I wish I had the ability to read schematics, i’m slowly learning the electronics/componentry side of things.

In a unit like the La-610 is it possible that some of the parts from the pre amp section can make up for some of the parts omitted from the compressor section. Like say the input transformer?

The input transformer is required. The LA-2A uses a UTC HA100X input transformer to the input stage (12AX7) and the output transformer is a UTC A-24. UTC has been out of business quite a while so I have to assume a Jensen or other transformer is used in the LA610. Jensen is a good product, don't get me wrong. The "sound" of a piece of gear effectively is the composite of ALL the components working together, not just an individual component. However, using questionable quality tubes can "trash" the sound of a piece of gear quickly....

DonnyThompson, post: 453261, member: 46114 wrote: From what I understand, the LA610's compressor section doesn't share the same tube-transformer routing...

True ! But they both use an opto cell which is mostly responsable of the behaviour.
I suspect ; Same action, different sound...
In the end, different does mean bad vs good !

BTW UA never claimed it was an LA2A in the LA-610, just that it is similar. (It says T4 optical compressor)
The LA-610 came 30 years after the LA2A, it's normal that the design is different, the technology has changed a lot since them.
They also had to reduce the amount of parts to keep the price down.

I'm sure the 610 preamp itself also had some design modifications along the way, but if the combinaison put in to the LA-610 works... Why making it a fuss ? ;)

Here's the text from their website :

Toneful Tube Compression
The LA-610 Mk II’s T4 tube compressor provides the same ultra-warm limiting that has made the Teletronix LA-2A the king of fat opto compression. The electro-optical detector, or "T4 cell,” is the heart and soul of the Teletronix LA-2A. Its photo resistors are the crucial circuit components, giving the compressor its signature warmth, making it a “go-to” for tracking vocals, bass, or acoustic guitars. Taken together, it’s impossible to get a bad sound out of the LA-610 MkII’s legendary preamp and compression circuits.

Again, the LA-610 is a great value in gear, and I nice unit reguardless of price. But it at its price your certainly get a lot.

If you change transformers, and alter or omit the “12ax7 + 12bh7 cathode follower stages” as, it’s seems to me you could be altering the sound and behavior of the compressor in a fairly significant way.

Perhaps maybe because it’s based on a well loved classic unit, or maybe because tube gain stages are more suseptable to alterations vs transistor based stuff?

I know I had 2 different Mesa Boogie Triple Rectifier heads, manufactured a year or two apart, and sounded significantly different. Those are handmade amps. And I think that hey make them even if they have to substitute certain components.

I’m just wondering if perhaps UA is overstating the role of the T4 opto cell, or not, in their marketing material.

Having never used a true la-2 I wouldn’t be able to tell. Also interesting is with the reissue La-2’s, are they using NOS transformers, or have they been supplemented with something available today. I could see this as a potential difference on sound or snobbery with regard to the la-2’s.

kmetal, post: 453182, member: 37533 wrote: Scott LaChapell are you the owner of LaChapell audio? Just wondering. Either way, welcome to RO. There’s a great bunch over here.

Do you have any thoughts on the state of tube gear currently? They seem to be alive and well in the LaChapell designs, even the 500 series, which isn’t common.

Boswell also curious if you could shed some light on the topic bos.?

Yep, that's me :)... Thanks for the welcome! It's hard to state where tube gear is at the moment, actually. There will always be ups and downs but, IMO, the quality units will withstand troubling seasons. Either way, I don't think the industry will ever abandon tube gear. It's just too good at capturing the organic nature of sounds and provides incredibly pleasing harmonics. Period. While it is odd that the ADL600 was discontinued along with (I think, not totally sure) the Manley dual mono (can't find it new anywhere and their web page for this product is gone...). The Manely dual mono was my second high end tube preamp I ever used (first was the Summit TPA-200). It was great. I used an older one that was rated for either 40 or 44db w/out Hi-Z. There were several iteration over the years. Not sure what the reason is but you've got the M2-b, ADL 600 and dual mono all out. As a fellow tube company, I consider that an opportunity .

My late father and I started building the 992 tube amp back in the early/mid 1990's when he was still at Lawrence Livermore. He was a genuine vacuum tube man. He made his first tube amp when he was in Jr. high from a kit; brought it for show and tell. His job in high school was as a TV repair man. He would go all over Turlock CA in the 60's with his tube caddy filled with USA made spare tube. The 992 might have a modern look but I can assure you that the topology is old school quality ... without old school noise :)

A warm welcome to you Scott, glad to have you onboard at RO !!

Scott LaChapell, post: 453318, member: 50858 wrote: Yep, that's me :)... Thanks for the welcome! It's hard to state where tube gear is at the moment, actually. There will always be ups and downs but, IMO, the quality units will withstand troubling seasons. Either way, I don't think the industry will ever abandon tube gear. It's just too good at capturing the organic nature of sounds and provides incredibly pleasing harmonics. Period. While it is odd that the ADL600 was discontinued along with (I think, not totally sure) the Manley dual mono (can't find it new anywhere and their web page for this product is gone...). The Manely dual mono was my second high end tube preamp I ever used (first was the Summit TPA-200). It was great. I used an older one that was rated for either 40 or 44db w/out Hi-Z. There were several iteration over the years. Not sure what the reason is but you've got the M2-b, ADL 600 and dual mono all out. As a fellow tube company, I consider that an opportunity .

My late father and I started building the 992 tube amp back in the early/mid 1990's when he was still at Lawrence Livermore. He was a genuine vacuum tube man. He made his first tube amp when he was in Jr. high from a kit; brought it for show and tell. His job in high school was as a TV repair man. He would go all over Turlock CA in the 60's with his tube caddy filled with USA made spare tube. The 992 might have a modern look but I can assure you that the topology is old school quality ... without old school noise :)

Thanks for the reply Scott, good to have you here. You got great reviews in tape op.

I was wondering if you could comment on some of the design challenges, hurdles, or reasons, that keep most tube based gear, particularly (non hybrid) at the higher end of the price spectrum, even with many of the designs their based on relatively well known vintage/classic topology? Or maybe comment on some things that are omitted or compromised in some of the entry or mid level tube offerings?

This is in no way a complaint or anything negative, I’m just wondering about the reasoning behind it is. My guess would be QC, and the inherent danger of working w tube voltages, and pure labor?

I’ve spent many hours tracking just about anything with the Manley dual mono, and found the summit tla-100 compressor to be just right for certain things that need some silky darkening. I’ve never heard a thin sounding tube unit, but beyond that, they seem to have a large range of sonic qualities.

Welcome to RO! :)

kmetal, post: 453322, member: 37533 wrote: Thanks for the reply Scott, good to have you here. You got great reviews in tape op.

I was wondering if you could comment on some of the design challenges, hurdles, or reasons, that keep most tube based gear, particularly (non hybrid) at the higher end of the price spectrum, even with many of the designs their based on relatively well known vintage/classic topology? Or maybe comment on some things that are omitted or compromised in some of the entry or mid level tube offerings?

This is in no way a complaint or anything negative, I’m just wondering about the reasoning behind it is. My guess would be QC, and the inherent danger of working w tube voltages? ...

Thanks! And, great question...

There are a lot of reasons why high-end tube gear is typically priced higher. The biggest reason stems from the low quantity production numbers. Pro Audio tube gear isn't made by the thousands. Boutique pro audio gear is sometimes not even made in the hundreds. Take the chassis for example; it's very expensive to design a metal box and have a reputable sheet metal shop fulfill orders of 50 units without the final unit price coming in 2 to 3 times higher than if the order was for 500 or 1000 units. Then that chassis heads to a paint booth... and a silk-screener all with their own set up fees for "small orders." Sourcing good tubes and pre-testing/burning them in takes a lot of time and usually generates reject tubes that end up in the trash. Then there's the time to hand assemble the units. Again, these are low quantity units so most of the work ends up being performed by hand (which I prefer) because of the minimum quantity issues mentioned above. Labor in these situations is much higher.

Add to that the cosmetic touches that guys like me enjoy adding to the design like LED tipped toggle switches, large VU meters, CNC front panels milled from solid 5/8" stock... Those details add up. And, I would argue that they're necessary in order to stay competitive with some of the other beautiful gear out there. But in the end, we hope people would also notice a difference between driving a Mustang and a Porsche (no offense Mustang owners!!). If something looks like time went into the layout and feels expensive, it's a safe bet that the internal design received the same level of precision and scrutiny.

Sorry for the book!

I have one of the last Manley DMMP's. One of the ones that goes from 40-60db of gain. It really does sound great on anything. Plus it's stoopid/simple.....You can add the Aspen Pittman tube pres to the boneyard. I also have a ViPre which I have yet to find ANYTHING that does what it does. Especially to a great vocal chain.

I think there's a misconception to a lot of people about what a tube circuit can do besides providing distortion ala guitar amps being driven hard. Some of that misconception might have been continued with the advent of the 'starved tube' designs of which most had an actual distortion adding knob which had nothing to do with driving a tube into the type of distortion that is actually pleasant to the ear and musical in its content.

Davedog, post: 453329, member: 4495 wrote: I think there's a misconception to a lot of people about what a tube circuit can do besides providing distortion ala guitar amps being driven hard. Some of that misconception might have been continued with the advent of the 'starved tube' designs of which most had an actual distortion adding knob which had nothing to do with driving a tube into the type of distortion that is actually pleasant to the ear and musical in its content.

I played guitar for over ten years before using a tube mic pre, and was under this very misconception. I was shocked at how clean the Manley was.

These days I assimilate the distortion of transformer based stuff with the way a tube guitar amp breaks up.

I’m curious to try the retro 176 remake since I love the 1176 distortion characteristics on its own with all buttons out and no compression. Very much interested in how the tube circuitry affects that type of thing. I would guess bigger and smoother?

Scott LaChapell, post: 453324, member: 50858 wrote: Thanks! And, great question...

There are a lot of reasons why high-end tube gear is typically priced higher. The biggest reason stems from the low quantity production numbers. Pro Audio tube gear isn't made by the thousands. Boutique pro audio gear is sometimes not even made in the hundreds. Take the chassis for example; it's very expensive to design a metal box and have a reputable sheet metal shop fulfill orders of 50 units without the final unit price coming in 2 to 3 times higher than if the order was for 500 or 1000 units. Then that chassis heads to a paint booth... and a silk-screener all with their own set up fees for "small orders." Sourcing good tubes and pre-testing/burning them in takes a lot of time and usually generates reject tubes that end up in the trash. Then there's the time to hand assemble the units. Again, these are low quantity units so most of the work ends up being performed by hand (which I prefer) because of the minimum quantity issues mentioned above. Labor in these situations is much higher.

Add to that the cosmetic touches that guys like me enjoy adding to the design like LED tipped toggle switches, large VU meters, CNC front panels milled from solid 5/8" stock... Those details add up. And, I would argue that they're necessary in order to stay competitive with some of the other beautiful gear out there. But in the end, we hope people would also notice a difference between driving a Mustang and a Porsche (no offense Mustang owners!!). If something looks like time went into the layout and feels expensive, it's a safe bet that the internal design received the same level of precision and scrutiny.

Sorry for the book!

That’s some interesting insight there. I was wondering if you have any thoughts on if tubes are more effective or important in certain pieces of gear like say a pre amp vs an eq or compressor?

Also, are there places where there not effective like say in the old digitech RP-7 or something like the ART pre amp? Are designs like these ‘incomplete’ for lack of a better word, or are there designs or units (like stompboxes for example) where tubes are unnecessary or ineffective? In other words are there certain elements to a tube design that are required, to realize the full effect of what makes great tube based stuff so cool or magical?

Again not looking to trash anything, more just to better understand the design philosophy behind nice tube based stuff. Thanks in advance for any insight.

Scott LaChapell, post: 453324, member: 50858 wrote: if something looks like time went into the layout and feels expensive, it's a safe bet that the internal design received the same level of precision and scrutiny

Well said. While the sound is obviously the first priority, there is certainly the added attraction to something that feels solid, with an outward aesthetic that is appealing. If attention to detail is apparent on the outside, that's a pretty good indicator that attention to detail and quality is also on the inside.
Slate Digital recently released a very transparent sounding preamp, as the front load to their Virtual Mic System. Reviews have been great for the most part - but every single review I've read mentions that the pre itself "feels cheap". The switches, even the weight, feels "inexpensive" to many of the users. Apparently, it's not an accurate indicator of the sound, as many reviews have been very favorable, and have mentioned how clean and transparent it is, and that the sound is definitely a 'pro'; but obviously, the overall feel of the device mattered - or at least mattered enough for the various reviewers to mention it as a "con".
FWIW
-d.

I agree that sometimes appearances can be deceiving. I don't find it too obvious however. I think the 'feel' of a product can, in most incidences, hint at it's internal quality. I'm a fan of the well designed front panel of a piece. There are lots of iconic designs from the past which are to this day, interesting and exciting to admire. I love the look of the Painton fader groups on the REDD consoles. It's like Buck Rogers controls on the rocket ship! And whether they were controlling the V72's or the REDD 47 mic amps they are obviously meant to do their job without fail.

Some of the problems with mid-level gear is the money goes into the front and the box and not what's inside. Could be a great theory and idea for what is supposed to happen electronically, but won't ever achieve simply because of the cheap components housed internally. Marketing? Yep. The Avalon gear is a good example of an overreach on looks and stylistic design and a bit of a disappointment in performance.> My opinion only at this juncture.<

And then you have pieces without a lot of fancy scrollwork or knobs with a basic screening of what and how much on the front and the sounds are sublime. John Hardy, the older Manley stuff, API, etc....Take away the iconic knobs on the Neve stuff and it's pretty bland......

I’ve never used a piece of gear that felt expensive, but wasn’t. Probably the closest experience to that I’ve had is the nice feeling faders on the digidesign command 8 control surface. Which imho felt better than any live mixer I’ve used, a trident 24 console, and a mackie d8b. The C-8 was a nice feeling control surface.

Guitars are interesting from appearance point because they’re graded by the wood, which is graded by how straight the grain is. So that AAA maple top does means it’s visually appealing, but has nothing to do with the sound, all other things being equal. Guitars are one of the few things in audio where price or looks don’t necessarily correlate with the sound in all cases.

Great built brings confidence that's for sure..
One I had that was deceiving was the DBX silver series. I had the combo preamp/comp for a few years (when I didn't know better)
It was better than my mixer's preamp but not what it claimed to be... I later learned that the tubes was all looks. Everything sounded nazal on it. (good on guitars but bad on vocals)
It felt well built, knobs case and meters, but I opened it a few times ; was all cheap built. (specially the push buttons).
Far from the LA-610 design and sound that's for sure !!

http://www.inwardconnections.com/tree500.htm

pcrecord, post: 453425, member: 46460 wrote: Great built brings confidence that's for sure..
One I had that was deceiving was the DBX silver series. I had the combo preamp/comp for a few years (when I didn't know better)
It was better than my mixer's preamp but not what it claimed to be... I later learned that the tubes was all looks. Everything sounded nazal on it. (good on guitars but bad on vocals)
It felt well built, knobs case and meters, but I opened it a few times ; was all cheap built. (specially the push buttons).
Far from the LA-610 design and sound that's for sure !!

I almost bought one of those instead of an ART. The salesman said the Dbx was better. Years later at the studio I used a dbx unit and found the same nasal / over bright upper mids as you. Made me glad I didn’t spend the extra money.

There seems to be a trend in gear with tubes in the power or amplifing stages that is where the magic lives. I’m trying to wrap my head around it from a technical standpoint.

according to Coil Audio's website most tube mic pres are based on one of two different types, the first "a two-stage amplifier based on circuits used by Langevin, Collins, Gates, and Telefunken during the 1950s and 60s. It utilizes a unique Negative Feedback/Tone shaping circuit that allows the amp to be voiced from smooth, dark, and distant to very bright and forward" and the second being "a two stage circuit designed by Western Electric in 1913. Between the 1930s and 50s, RCA, Gates, Langevin, and Western Electric all utilized this elegant and simple single ended design."

Interesting Kurt!

Here’s a couple pics from the cool audio site. First is the “two stage amplifier”, second is the “two stage circuit”. It’s amazing to me how few parts/components there seem to be. Very cool.

And interesting 30 min. presentation.

I tried to post a youtube video presentation with Aspen Pittman and his explanation of all things ViPre as well as tube preamps through digital media in general. It was unavailable apparently. However if you go to youtube and type in Aspen Pittman it will come up. It's very interesting. Anyone with greater computer skills that I have, which is most of you, can probably post this in the thread. A very useful thread indeed.

pcrecord, post: 453425, member: 46460 wrote: I later learned that the tubes was all looks

Marco... are you saying that it had "tubes" that actually weren't? Or that weren't connected to the staging? Like it was just 3 glass components that lit up like tubes do, but didn't serve any purpose?

Davedog, post: 453449, member: 4495 wrote: I tried to post a youtube video presentation with Aspen Pittman and his explanation of all things ViPre as well as tube preamps through digital media in general. It was unavailable apparently. However if you go to youtube and type in Aspen Pittman it will come up. It's very interesting. Anyone with greater computer skills that I have, which is most of you, can probably post this in the thread. A very useful thread indeed.

Not sure if this is the one.

After watching these vids, it really makes a lot of gear out there seem pedestrian. It’s amazing how much time variance can be achieved with these things. I’m starting to understand where I need to go in the next phase of my audio journey. As lucky as I have been so far, I’ve yet to use gear on this level. 200 soldering points on the switch of the virpre. Lmao!!!

I noticed the tree audio console has tubes in the PSU, does anyone know what purpose they serve?

power amplification. solid state power supplies have transistors.

Kurt Foster, post: 453469, member: 7836 wrote: power amplification. solid state power supplies have transistors.

Cool thanks Kurt!

Are there any potential advantages or disadvantages to this design? Sonically or technically?