DBX mini pre

  • Thread starter Thread starter sotho
  • Start date Start date
The ART Tube MP was something to get in the last few years that would at least offer an improvement over the often shitty internal pres on most DAW's.

With the introduction of M Audio pres and the Studio Projects VTB-1, ART has fallen out of the limelight as a low-priced pre.
 
So no behringer here or what? :-) I found the T1953 very interresting... have check the specs and for the price i'm sure that will do the job! I thinks that is more important to spend more money in the mic then the preamp.... after when i will have some extra money to spend i will get a avalon VT-737sp :-)!!! This is the beast to get!! :-)
 
psmith66 said:
Look at it this way:

The gear which many of you bash as "crap" or "garbage" is actually miles ahead technically of anything the Beatles used in the early to mid sixties. EMI used primitive gear compared to their rivals.

While those recordings probably aren't sonically great by today's stds, it sort of puts things in context with respect to home/hobbyist recording.
Click to expand...

Yeah, It must have been hard to only have Neumann U47`s, U67`s, KM 54`s and 56`s, Coles Ribbons ,Fairchild compressors, Pultec eq`s, Telefunken consoles and 4-track tube J37`s available when recording...:-)
 
sotho, what are the "specs" going to tell you?

psmith:

The gear which many of you bash as "crap" or "garbage" is actually miles ahead technically of anything the Beatles used in the early to mid sixties. EMI used primitive gear compared to their rivals.

While those recordings probably aren't sonically great by today's stds, it sort of puts things in context with respect to home/hobbyist recording.
Click to expand...

Boy, that post is a great example of the blind leading the blind.
 
Dot said:
sotho, what are the "specs" going to tell you?
Click to expand...

I gotta go with Neve and Dot. A couple of months ago I was involved in a very long thread/discussion with a "technical" guy who insisted that because the specs on the Mackie preamps showed them to be at least as accurate as most of the more expensive high end pres, especially the classic ones, there was no reason to ever spend money on a top preamp. (Forgive me if my summary doesn't totally capture the nuances- it's been a while).

Some of the world's greatest engineers (Tom Jung, e.g.) have said repeatedly that there is still much of what makes a great sound that is unable to be measured or quantified. You wouldn't mix by looking only at numbers and not bothering to listen. You can't evaluate the musicality of gear by looking at specs. I would go so far as to say that if you are the type that tends to be overly reliant on technical specs, you might even be better off not looking at them at all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top