dbx 386 preamp?
- Thread starter machine
- Start date
bball jones
New member
Hey Track Rat,
You got a witness here. I've had mine for a few months and am very happy with it. One versatile piece it is. Still gettin used to it.
You got a witness here. I've had mine for a few months and am very happy with it. One versatile piece it is. Still gettin used to it.
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
Hi Dobro. No, I've never used the Art pre's before but I have a DR-X and a LT-X that I like but that doesn't answer your question. I love the 386 but now I'm looking for something with more color, possibly the Joe Meek. While the tube in the 386 is a true tube circuit (235V on the grid) it's not as colorful as I'd like. Pristine is the word I'd discribe the 386 as.
dobro
Well-known member
Yup, that's how drstawl describes his 386...
...more or less, and that's why he likes it. I'm also seriously considering the Presonus Blue, because of its price and the reports about it. Problem is, I lack experience, only having heard my mics through ART Tube MPs and the solid state pres on my mixer, and don't know if I want sound that's pristine or colored. I prefer the ARTs to the mixer pres. So, colored, I suppose.
...more or less, and that's why he likes it. I'm also seriously considering the Presonus Blue, because of its price and the reports about it. Problem is, I lack experience, only having heard my mics through ART Tube MPs and the solid state pres on my mixer, and don't know if I want sound that's pristine or colored. I prefer the ARTs to the mixer pres. So, colored, I suppose.
bball jones
New member
As for the sound of the 386, you guys are right - it is transparent. But why not add a little effect for color?
A few more things not mentioned up to this point. A total of six inputs - 2 on front, 4 on back. Two preamp tubes per channel - (I am gonna hate ever having to replace 'em -
I don't think a tube tester exists on the planet anymore.)
Enough gain to record ants dancing on my neighbors floor.
A few more things not mentioned up to this point. A total of six inputs - 2 on front, 4 on back. Two preamp tubes per channel - (I am gonna hate ever having to replace 'em -
I don't think a tube tester exists on the planet anymore.)
Enough gain to record ants dancing on my neighbors floor.
I like mine a lot. The digital output is great. Type IV conversion really sounds good.
If you want more tube coloration just drive the input a little more. For a cleaner, less colored sound, back off the input drive and up the output. At the digital output the Type IV conversion really starts to become noticable (a good thing) when the output starts getting in the -4 to 0dB range where the A/D converted level operates more logarithmic than linear.
If you want more tube coloration just drive the input a little more. For a cleaner, less colored sound, back off the input drive and up the output. At the digital output the Type IV conversion really starts to become noticable (a good thing) when the output starts getting in the -4 to 0dB range where the A/D converted level operates more logarithmic than linear.
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
I suppose it depends on what context you use it in. When talking about mic pre's or compressors it would be the color that their circuitry and application would impart. Anything you do to audio, reverb, or just patching it thru a device would change it's color to some degree. Different toys, different colors.
I want one
The DBX 386 is on the top of my list as far as tube pres. (Price, features, etc.) Haven't bought one yet. The S/PDIF is very cool!!!
The DBX 386 is on the top of my list as far as tube pres. (Price, features, etc.) Haven't bought one yet. The S/PDIF is very cool!!!
drstawl
Banned
Other facts not brought into the light
Most convenient feature on the 386 is the simultaneous analog and digital outputs that are separately controllable for cut/gain and separately metered on the dual 12-segment LEDs. The digital side to my recording device. The analog side to a monitoring circuit. And like CurtG said, you can get some overdrive artifacts if you push the Type IV conversion or leave it pristine by backing off the input a tad (I think -2 dB, peak, is enough) and boosting the output. And I agree wholeheartedly with BBallJones in that there's gain aplenty. Most amplified sources (micing a live band with a drummer) require the 20 dB pad to be engaged!
Most convenient feature on the 386 is the simultaneous analog and digital outputs that are separately controllable for cut/gain and separately metered on the dual 12-segment LEDs. The digital side to my recording device. The analog side to a monitoring circuit. And like CurtG said, you can get some overdrive artifacts if you push the Type IV conversion or leave it pristine by backing off the input a tad (I think -2 dB, peak, is enough) and boosting the output. And I agree wholeheartedly with BBallJones in that there's gain aplenty. Most amplified sources (micing a live band with a drummer) require the 20 dB pad to be engaged!
drstawl
Banned
Pre and Post 386
That reminds me of a question asked of an old-timer guitarist (no longer among us) that played and arranged for the Les Brown band way back when. He was asked, "What kind of cigarettes did you smoke back then?" He answered, "Oh- Old Golds or whatever we could get our hands on."
Before the 386 I mainly used the pres built into my TASCAM Porta-07. But I've pressed into service just about any tape deck with a mic input when needed.
How does the Porta-07 compare? It doesn't. Too much noise, not enough gain. But it does have the nifty two-band EQ which the 386 lacks.
That reminds me of a question asked of an old-timer guitarist (no longer among us) that played and arranged for the Les Brown band way back when. He was asked, "What kind of cigarettes did you smoke back then?" He answered, "Oh- Old Golds or whatever we could get our hands on."
Before the 386 I mainly used the pres built into my TASCAM Porta-07. But I've pressed into service just about any tape deck with a mic input when needed.
How does the Porta-07 compare? It doesn't. Too much noise, not enough gain. But it does have the nifty two-band EQ which the 386 lacks.
bball jones
New member
Dobro,
Meant to address this issue originally but I got sidetracked. This was my first tube preamp purchase, so I could not be of much help in areas of comparison. Like you I am much happier with, than without.
Meant to address this issue originally but I got sidetracked. This was my first tube preamp purchase, so I could not be of much help in areas of comparison. Like you I am much happier with, than without.
dobro
Well-known member
drstawl, bbj...
...reason I ask is, of course, I'm looking into more preamplification now. The dbx looks like a definite step up in terms of quality from the ART Tube MPs I'm using now. Two things are holding me back (no, not the price):
1 The Presonus Blue Tube, which has just come out, cheaper even than the ART Dual, and which is getting some good comments from people, combined with...
2 ...my listening to the 3D Audio Preamp CD, which compared a load of preamps, all of which sounded pretty much equally good to me, just slight variations in color. For example, for all the difference (which, to me, was slight) between the dbx 386 and 586, I'd pocket the considerable difference or spend it on a mic.
So, the question for me is, if there's no important difference for me in preamps at the 386 price level and above, is there a similar lack of difference between the Presonus Blue/ART Dual and the dbx unit? I'm willing to believe that there *is* an AUDIBLE AND IMPORTANT difference, but I don't know. Other people might have more than an opinion - other people might know. For example, are more expensive units cleaner, especially when you start doing a load of tracks on the same cut?
BTW, thanks for your replies, home recording persons.
...reason I ask is, of course, I'm looking into more preamplification now. The dbx looks like a definite step up in terms of quality from the ART Tube MPs I'm using now. Two things are holding me back (no, not the price
):1 The Presonus Blue Tube, which has just come out, cheaper even than the ART Dual, and which is getting some good comments from people, combined with...
2 ...my listening to the 3D Audio Preamp CD, which compared a load of preamps, all of which sounded pretty much equally good to me, just slight variations in color. For example, for all the difference (which, to me, was slight) between the dbx 386 and 586, I'd pocket the considerable difference or spend it on a mic.
So, the question for me is, if there's no important difference for me in preamps at the 386 price level and above, is there a similar lack of difference between the Presonus Blue/ART Dual and the dbx unit? I'm willing to believe that there *is* an AUDIBLE AND IMPORTANT difference, but I don't know. Other people might have more than an opinion - other people might know. For example, are more expensive units cleaner, especially when you start doing a load of tracks on the same cut?
BTW, thanks for your replies, home recording persons.
386
I love my 386. Use it all the time. Wish I had another.
Drive that Type IV! and like everyone else, spdif is cool too.
I find myself using it on vocals instead of my Focusrite voicemaster.
I love my 386. Use it all the time. Wish I had another.
Drive that Type IV! and like everyone else, spdif is cool too.
I find myself using it on vocals instead of my Focusrite voicemaster.
virtual.ray
New member
I bought one that had serious operational flaws like a frying noise on one channel and brought it back and got a refund.
I read a review on the ART Pro Channel and the guy said it had tons of gain and plenty of tube coloration. I haven't heard it.
I have heard the dbx386 and thought it sounded great. I'm waiting for the dbx586 to come in so I can compare it against the 386.
Rock On
I have heard the dbx386 and thought it sounded great. I'm waiting for the dbx586 to come in so I can compare it against the 386.
Rock On