Joe Meek ThreeQ vs. M-Audio Tampa

  • Thread starter Thread starter jonmatthews
  • Start date Start date
J

jonmatthews

Member
Has anyone used both of these? Is the Tampa a better buy, though more costly? Tampa has certainly gotten some good reviews, though I haven't heard any chatter about the new ThreeQ. Anyone wanna give some yays or nays?

thanks,
Jon M.
 
I don't have either unit, but like you I'm in the market for a channel strip or solid pre in the $400 range. For what it's worth, Alan Hyatt said the actual preamp in the ThreeQ is exactly the same as the one in the higher-end units, including the TwinQ. But you don't have the "iron" transformer option in the Three, which really intrigues me. You'd have to go up to the Six to get that, and the Six isn't even out yet!

As far as the Tampa, what I wonder is this: Is the pre itself substantially better than the DMP2 or DMP3?
 
I think the Tampa, like the Joe Meeks, is made special more by the compressor than the actual preamp which in both, is pretty plain vanilla......

disclaimer : very amateur opinion
 
I've heard neither, but here are my thoughts on the controls and features!

The metering is better on the Tampa as it's got all the space of a full-rack unit. The Tampa also has a more flexible compressor (the Meek is a fixed 5:1-ish ratio).

However, the Tampa has no EQ ... but it does have digital conversion onboard.

So do you want EQ and the 'Meek' compression - or do you want additional metering and compression controls with AD conversion? I dunno. Sound on Sound reckoned the threeQ's preamp was, as Gidge said, pretty transparent and detailed. There's tonnes of comments on the Tampa on here.
 
Have had the DMP3 (sold it), and still have a DMP2 (really a Duo).

Anyway...

The ThreeQ is tangibly a superior (more detailed/smoother) pre than the two DMP boxes.

Does sound VERY much like a Grace IMHO, partly due to the fullness of the bottom end response. The M-Audio's are somewhat thinner in imaging, still quite nice though.

Chris
 
i'm not sure about this,
but i thought i read that the new joemeek TwinQ has a different equalizer than the threeQ-'s ?

all the "lower end" joemeek stuff has meekualizers,
and the twinq (or was it the twinqS) has something else,,,,'better' ?

can anyone refresh my memory?

thanks
earworm

ps, i got a joemeek vc8 andi LOVE it for accoustic guitar sounds,
nice for vocals... but it kills on guitar
 
I dunno whether the actual EQ parts themselves are different, but there certainly are a lot more options on the twinQ than on the threeQ.
 
Get a safe sound P1 and an ADK Hamburg and you won't have to eq anything(okay, hardly anything)
 
To whichever sadcase left me negative feedback because I commented here:

I was commenting on the features available on them. I've read enough stuff to know how these are going to work - and others can comment on how they sound. I stand by what I said - if you want AD conversion but don't need EQ - the Tampa is your option. If you want EQ and the JoeMeek sound compressor - get that one. Gidge was right when he said the preamps on both are NOT the separating factor.
 
I wish I could help... but like noisedude, I don't know squat about those two units either.
 
Who doesn't know squat? I know plenty about each but I stuck to commenting on the features rather than the sounds. I've heard both on audio shootouts as a friend has both. I've not used them myself though, so I just listed the features to make it clear that they're not quite the same thing!

So I guess it was you who left me the neg rep .... shame.
 
so which statement is true? :

a) "I've heard neither"

or

b) "I've heard both on audio shootouts"
 
Good call Gidge - I've heard them on mp3, not the highest quality and not done by an engineer I'd trust to construct a 'fair' test. I can take his opinions, I can take people's here, I can take the reviewers out of Sound on Sound. But basically my opinion on what they sound like counts for nothing, like I said.

But I can tell you what features they have, and I'll say again. If you want AD conversion, better metering and a more flexible compressor, look at the Tampa first. If you want EQ and the 'JoeMeek' sound compressor (which Paul White wrote specifically on, and I'm confident that he knows what one sounds like), then look at the threeQ.

What's so tough about that? I don't get it. I'm not claiming anything here in terms of a great knowledge - you could work these things out yourself from a JPEG in Google Image Search. You don't have to buy them both to do that.
 
noisedude said:
I dunno whether the actual EQ parts themselves are different, but there certainly are a lot more options on the twinQ than on the threeQ.
Click to expand...
However, it's also been reported that some of the TwinQ's have problems with the meter, noise, and etc.
noisedude said:
So I guess it was you who left me the neg rep .... shame.
Click to expand...
If you're referring to me... absolutely not, I still can't even get the thingy to work.
 
Last edited:
DJL said:
However, it's also been reported that some of the TwinQ's have problems with the meter, noise, and etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah I read that somewhere too. Richie seems happy enough with his though. I think the meters problem was fixed after an early production run, and the noise thing was Supercreep's digital thing wasn't it? Did anyone ever get to the bottom of that?
DJL said:
If you're referring to me... absolutely not, I still can't even get the thingy to work.
Click to expand...
Fair enough ... some people with BIG rep power have been hitting me though. Seems silly really ... why do people want to leave nasty comments?
 
noisedude said:
Yeah I read that somewhere too. Richie seems happy enough with his though. I think the meters problem was fixed after an early production run, and the noise thing was Supercreep's digital thing wasn't it? Did anyone ever get to the bottom of that?
Click to expand...


Close. I'm waiting for a new one to arrive on the 18th. I'll drag up the old thread and update the post. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top