JoeMeek ThreeQ or DMP3??

  • Thread starter Thread starter LongShot
  • Start date Start date
L

LongShot

New member
Im considering to buy a new preamp but I cant decide between threeQ and dmp3 ..in dmp3 features it says "20Hz to 100kHz frequency response (+0/-1dB) ideal for 96k digital recording"
JoeMeek threeQ Frequency response: 10Hz to 70kHz (-3dB)
What does these mean? is dmp3 better for digital recording (I have an e-mu 0404) ..I also heard very good things for threeQ and they say m-audio cant be compared to a j.meek pre, so I want experts to help me to make my decision..

I'll record vocals; compressor and eq's will be useful but mic pre quality is a little more important for me (number of channels aint important)..

all replies appreciated..thnx..
 
Last edited:
I just ordered both of these units and I'm curious myself as to which sounds better. One tip in this industry is to not read into numbers too much, they can be helpful but don't give a an idea of the sound of the preamp. If you do a search you'll find hundreds of posts about people loving their dmp3's, heard its a very clean pre. Now the joe meek I can't hardly find anything on it, I searched this and 3 other forums for info and there wasn't much, what was there was most positive but I honestly may have found 10 posts were people were happy with it. If you can wait a couple days I'm gonna track a metal band tuesday I could probably post samples of the two.
 
yeah I heard that too about dmp3s bein clear..
a good producer I know said that take the one fits your voice much and they are not better than eachother...but I just could try threeQ and S.P. vtb-1 (not dmp3)..Between vtb1 and threeQ Id go with threeQ but I cant be sure about dmp3 without tryin'. Because of my low budget I wont be able to change it soon..

If you can upload samples it'll help a lot..thnx for your reply and interest...

also looking for more info on this..thnx..
 
I'm curious about the ThreeQ.

I have a DMP3 and I really love the thing. It's quite level, uncolored, clean, quiet, reliable, has plenty of gain, and has only two knobs so I have a chance of understanding it. For the price it's hard to beat, especially if you're just getting into the game. Even if you get a ThreeQ later, this unit will still do yeoman duty as a direct box for instruments and so forth.

I'd spring for a DMP3 first while they're still available, get to know the sound, and then shop for something with its own sound flavor - maybe a ThreeQ or a Toft....
 
The thing with the newer Joemeek and Toft lines is that the preamps are pretty much the same in all of them, top to bottom of the range. It's a straightforward, fairly transparent pre, with the 'colour' now an optional extra provided by the EQs and comps.

I really, really like my threeQ. It's given me a taste for the Joemeek EQ and comp sound, and now I want the ones higher up the range. The threeQ is limited in having three-band EQ (one sweep, plus switchable centre for HF), and less flexible compression controls (the comp is 'fixed' around 5:1 although the ratio varies with the signal anyway). So you can get the essence of the more expensive ones.

Glenn - My only reservation with the Toft is the EQ coming before the comp ... I don't usually do it that way and it may take some getting used to. But as a colouring device it's going to be fairly unique at least.....
 
Yep. I sort of sidestepped the whole issue by upgrading my mixer to an Onyx. But it's heavy to drag around... :D
 
Treeline said:
I'm curious about the ThreeQ.

Even if you get a ThreeQ later, this unit will still do yeoman duty as a direct box for instruments and so forth.
Click to expand...

It can barely drive a SM57 vocal and register in the yellow LED zone with the gain knob on 9/10ths. The level is worse when going direct on electric guitars. The preamp is fairly clean, but it has no balls. A somewhat anemic direct box, imo.
 
CCS said:
It can barely drive a SM57 vocal and register in the yellow LED zone with the gain knob on 9/10ths. The level is worse when going direct on electric guitars. The preamp is fairly clean, but it has no balls. A somewhat anemic direct box, imo.
Click to expand...
The DMP3? It's not supposed to have any balls, to be fair.
 
Yeah - but the threeQ doesn't have a high impedance instrument input, so it's not to be used for DI anyway. The impedance mismatch probably does make it sound very anaemic. :eek:
 
LongShot said:
in dmp3 features it says "20Hz to 100kHz frequency response (+0/-1dB) ideal for 96k digital recording"
JoeMeek threeQ Frequency response: 10Hz to 70kHz (-3dB)
Click to expand...

I always get a kick out of that when I read it. Most people can't hear up to 20kHz (the figure was arrived in experiments where only young children, mostly girls, were able to hear 20k), let alone 96kHz. Not to mention that 96k recording even only captures up to 48kHz. That said, the DMP3 is a solid little preamp, lots of clean, quiet gain. I don't have any experience with the ThreeQ but I bet it's got a decent pre in it too, but you're paying for an EQ and a compressor too, which you may or may not need.
 
thnx for your repliez..really appreciated..

reshp1 I was expecting some definition like yours..now it seems more solid and I think Im gonna get threeq..

all I know that ThreeQ has "Burr Brown Op Amp circuit" like TwinQ and some other popular preamps so Im sure it aint bad and its more versatile than dmp3..plus its usually good 2 apply comp. to the signal before the conversion (as I know)...
most of the folks used threeq say its kinda colored but you can travel around the sound with the compressor and eq..I think working with ThreeQ will help to develop my hardware skills too..

wednesday Im going to buy it, hope I can listen to JonnyC's samples before I buy.. :o
 
Nosiedude. You were talking about the 3Q right, even I was a bit confused.
 
Erm, the threeQ? Yes. Which post were you confused about? Now I'm confused too. :o
 
noisedude said:
The DMP3? It's not supposed to have any balls, to be fair.
Click to expand...
I heartily disagree, that is if by 'balls' you mean gain? I find the DMP-3 pretty damn hot. If by balls you mean a strong personality of it's own then I'd tend to agree but that's a bonus in some applications. Acoustic guitar for example.
 
Can't post clips because my little brother does that for me and he's at school but I just played a small drum session with my dmp3 that I got last night and there's another engineer in here with me and we honestly cannot believe how clean and clear this preamp is. I read all the hype on it and thought for 150 bucks its worth a try and honestly I'm pretty amazed, I'd even say they're a step up from my 002r pre's. I think were going to do some acoustic guitar tracks later today, but on overheads this is a great preamp. I used the 3q on kick drum and its ok, not overly impressed at all seems a little muddy to me compared to my eureka and 002r pre's, haven't used the eq or compression yet, we'll also try this out later today. I'm really excited about the dmp3, i'd recommend it over pretty much anything in that price class.
 
Kevin DeSchwazi said:
I heartily disagree, that is if by 'balls' you mean gain? I find the DMP-3 pretty damn hot. If by balls you mean a strong personality of it's own then I'd tend to agree but that's a bonus in some applications. Acoustic guitar for example.
Click to expand...
I mean tonally it's not supposed to have balls. It's supposed to have around the same ballitude that your instrument or voice has. :)
 
Ive just bought 3Q..Ill try it tomorrow..thnx for the repliez and interest.. :)
 
noisedude said:
I mean tonally it's not supposed to have balls. It's supposed to have around the same ballitude that your instrument or voice has. :)
Click to expand...

Ballitude is my new favorite word for the day
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top