MQ3 vs DMP3 vs VTB-1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Javo
  • Start date Start date

Which one do you recommend?

  • JoeMeek MQ3

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • M-Audio DMP-3

    Votes: 7 29.2%
  • Studio Projects VTB-1

    Votes: 14 58.3%

  • Total voters
    24
Middleman said:
like a Mackie pre with a variable "Big Muff Pi" attached..."

:D :D :D ROTFLMAO at that one. Fletcher hasn't exactly been known for his subtlety, I guess. I think the guy knows what he's talking about, and I respect his opinions. Still, I don't think it's that bad to be compared to a Mackie. Mackies are good, solid, inexpensive pres, as I assume the Studio Projects is as well.
 
chessrock said:


:D :D :D ROTFLMAO at that one. Fletcher hasn't exactly been known for his subtlety, I guess. I think the guy knows what he's talking about, and I respect his opinions. Still, I don't think it's that bad to be compared to a Mackie. Mackies are good, solid, inexpensive pres, as I assume the Studio Projects is as well.

That is the problem with assumptions....That is all they are. There are many people who know what they are talking about and have respected opinions. I respect Fletcher, but do not agree with him on this one, and not just because I own the company, although that is what most will look at.

Either way you assume Mackies are good, solid inexpensive mic pres, aqnd Fletcher thinks they are shit, as he now thinks the VTB-1 is. I have a different opinion, but that is based on personal experience. Until there is personal experience, assumptions is all one can have.
 
alanhyatt said:

The fact is, you can get great results with cost effective gear. You are better off spening your money on books to help you improve you enginneering skills than on more expensive gear.

If your gear is reasonable, you will get more from simply improving your recording skills.

I tend to agree. However, my "head-scratching" is from trying to understand why there is an appeal to buying another "budget" pre when the final outcome, especially camaflouged in a final mix, is also "covered over" when the recording skills are also only a 7 out of a 10. Most "starter-outers" will probably already own a Mackie 1202, 1604..whatever, and unless they don't, will the $179 purchase really even help them out either? I can easily understand buying a VTB1 as possibly a first pre if someone doesn't own one to begin with, but is "adding colors/pallettes..."...or whatever, even necessary at this part of the game? I admittedly have never heard many of these "consumer" priced pres, most notably for this conversation, the VTB1....so are they really a good replacement for the ones on "consumer" priced mixers? Or...am I just missing the subject here completely? I tend to believe that yes...there IS great gear at fantastic prices nowadays. But that the better gear does cost quite a bit more....still. And therefore....if your learning, a mic pre is a mic pre....but if you've more "advanced" you might be more suited for a "great" (yet costly) mic pre.
 
So it is very possible that that review Fletcher gave was more buisness related (Seeing how he has countless customers deposits for that RNP, and has to do something to keep them from jumping ship to get VTB-1s, because you beat FMR to market.) and the fact that it is unlikely that he ordered one in that time span.

Not to mention that the FMR RNP came out with a new price of $500.00. $150.00 more than originally suggested. Compounded by the fact that It will be a high profit piece because of the corners cut in the production of the unit, and the new higher price.
Flecher would be crazy to give a good review to anything else.

Since the VTB-1 is compared to the RNP all over the net, guess who gets the thumbs down.

Like I said , Its Buisness.:rolleyes:
 
Alan, just put a Harley Davidson sticker on the VTB-1 and Fletcher
will love it! Remember it's all in the presentation.

I called Mercenary once to order the RNC and Fletcher answered the phone.
Summoning up some courage I asked his opinion on my Aphex 107.
Instead of his typically unvarnished style he quietly told me that it was a
"usable box"-far higher assessment than what I'd expected when you take
into account the level of gear he carries.
For amusement value I started a thread on his forum about an 8 track cassette(!)
single that shot to #1 in Britain and he was a very good sport about it.
Don't be surprised if he adds the VTB-1 to the Mercenary roster.

Chris

P.S. Rest assured that the VTB-1 is superior to Mackie pre's, heck the Aphex 107
I just sold over e-bay is a notch or two above one too!
 
mixmkr said:

Most "starter-outers" will probably already own a Mackie 1202, 1604..whatever, and unless they don't, will the $179 purchase really even help them out either? I can easily understand buying a VTB1 as possibly a first pre if someone doesn't own one to begin with, but is "adding colors/pallettes..."...or whatever, even necessary at this part of the game?

Homereccers who don't record drums, who just record one instrument at a time don't start with buying a Mackie board with a battery of mic pre's just because they don't need one. And I think that there are quite a few out there who start like this.
I'm still new to the game but when I wanted to do take recording a bit more seriously, my major concern was to get one good pre, not 8. I ended up with a Joemeek VC6Q and even though I'm a recording rookie, I love all those cute black buttons that I can use to add colour to the signal. Playing with the sound may to you not be totally necessary at this part of the game but to put it in a 'greater scheme of things' having the possibility plays a big part in the whole recording learning curve.

I don't have a lot of money to spend and ignoring the question if the VTB-1 is good or not for a minute, a pre that costs roughly half of a VC6Q and has the option to flavour the signal could have been a serious contender when I was checking pre's at the time.

Well, this story was just about me but it doesn't seem like something out of the ordinary to me so I'm pretty sure that there are more people out there like me. I think that there is a market for good, cheap stand-alone pre's. Keep them coming.
 
Well, Alan... you've certainly managed to create a lot of fodder for discussion with this one!

While I probably would have say in this last post you said almost nothing that I could agree with, it was still thought-provoking and, hopefully, you won't take offense if I outline my specific areas of disagreement:


alanhyatt said:

A Steinway will not make a better player out of a piano player, and nor will a Paul Reed Smith guitar make a better player out of a guitarist who owns a Washburn guitar.

Would you also say that playing in an ensemble with better musicians would not make a particular musician a better player? I don't think any professional musician would agree. Most would tell you they are pushed to rise to the occasion, in the same way that an athlete raises the level of his game when playing with better team-mates. (Ever heard someone remark that "Michael Jordan made his teammates better?" It's not hyperbole.) Playing on a superior instrument has the same effect as playing with inspiring accompanists - it can bring out a performance that you might never have otherwise achieved. Also, putting on my jazz performer hat for a moment (although it may be true with most other styles as well) when I am improvising, the sonic feedback of the instrument (and the room acoustics) play a pivotal role in what direction the music will sponataneously take. Add into all that the fact that a superior instrument is often physically easier to play, or easier to get a great tone... more energy can be devoted to the creative process.

While this may not be exactly what you meant by "making a musician better", at any reasonably high level of playing, that is exactly what happens - you DO become better than you otherwise could have been! While the difference may be subtle to non-musicians, most other musicians would notice.


alanhyatt said:

However on a recorded track with a good engineer, the results will not be much different once the tracks are mixed and mastered. Remember, there are very few on these BBS's that make money at what they do. They all have day jobs!!! Including me!


I do make money off of both playing and recording, but I don't see what that has to do with it. No question that a great engineers can make a very high level of recording with practically any crap you might give them. But that's not to say that they couldn't make a much better one with their choice of gear, and do it with a lot less effort. To say that a great engineer can make a Kawai sound like a Steinway, at least to most people, is like saying a great engineer can make my bedroom sound like Carnegie hall. It may be true, but it misses the point that the performer in my bedroom is probably not going to be getting the same kind of acoustical enhancement and feedback during the performance that will inspire a better performance to begin with. And I guess that is where our major disagreement comes: if the performer is not inspired during the performance, all the engineereing mastery in the world is not going to matter. And while you might disagree that sound of a mic or a compressor can inspire a performer, my experience clearly has been otherwise. I've had vocalists put on the headphones for a sound check and say: "Holy Shit! This is how I sound in my dreams! Quick - roll tape!" On the other hand, if a vocalist thinks they are sounding mediocre, there's no way they are going to get the same performance inspiration.


alanhyatt said:

Sure there are those who can tell the difference and you may be one of them, but they make their living at it, or were blessed with perfect pitch or have a gift with the ears they got when they were born. If you are a concert pianist, then you make your living at it. If you don't, then you’re not that good... All due respect.

I think this last part is what gives away the fact that, while you may be many wonderful things, a musician is not one of them. Perfect pitch is completely irrelevent to this issue. Most of the greatest musicians (and engineers) in the world don't have perfect pitch. It's kind of like people who have photographic memories - it's an interesting trait that has some usefulness, but is no guarantee of any larger remarkable talent, briliance, or creativity. But perfect pitch in any case is of no help in evaluating anything else except pitch - it can't help with telling one microphone from another, or in identifying a Bechstein versus a Kimball. Think of it as analagous to someone who can tell you the exact temperature of the air as soon as they walk outside - it makes for an interesting party trick and may even be useful for something - but it doesn't make them master meteorologists, nor is it even a compelling advantage in meterorology school.

As for concert pianists, most of the very talented musicians who are pianists are, in fact, not concert pianists. Some of the greatest musical minds choose instead to be conductors, composers, teachers, choir directors, accompanists, arrangers, orchestrators, and occasionally engineers. Some brilliant musicians may not even be working professionally in the field at all, but does that somehow disqualify their brilliance? To be a concert pianist requires a certain personality (aside from talent) and is a choice of a lifestyle that is not for everyone. Plus some people are multitalented, and may chose to exploit (for money) one of their other talents. Dr. Albert Schweitzer, for instance, was a renowned violinist, if you recall.

To say then (due respect or not...), that everyone who is not a concert pianist is by definition less talented or discerning than those who are would be an unfortunate conclusion. And to imply that only concert pianists can identify, appreciate, or be inspired by a great instrument in a great room would be even more unfortunate.

But, it's cool, Alan. If I were to talk about microphone manufacturing, I'm sure i would quickly expose myself as someone who clearly had no real life experience as a manufacturer. We all can't be all things, and we all have different talents. I think in your own way you will probably end up making a far greater contribution to the world of music than most "real" musicians, and I have the greatest respect for your endeavors. Hopefully you aren't upset that I'm trying to represent the "musician's" perspective in this discussion.
 
This has sure turned into an interesting discussion!

FWIW, having the good fortune of meeting some world class singers
(in their respective genres) caused me to believe that generally they're
confident enough in their abilities where "gear concerns" are way out
on the radar screen rather than a primary concern.

It's the other 99%+ where it's different IMHO.

Chris
 
you're right, in the sense that gear concerns only become important if the singer is monitoring the vocal recording chain through headphones while recording. Obviously, if you were recording a performance without headphones, then only the room acoustics would affect the "inspiration" factor.

While it's true that many performers don't care or even want to know the technical details of engineering, if you are saying that aural feedback has no effect on the performance of a world class singer, then I guess I would have to completely disagree.
 
Well, You would be hard pressed to find a musician that wants his voice or equipment to sound bad, especially if hes the best arround.

Ill have a hard time beliving Fletchers revues from now on knowing that an agenda is behind it.:rolleyes:
 
darrin_h2000

The only one touting a theory about Fletchers motives is you. He has a right to his opinion. If he thinks the VTB1 sucks then so what? Your conspricy theory is bogus and paranoid.

If you bought one and are trying to defend your purchasing decision that's OK too. Nobody likes to feel they got stuck with a peice of junk so that's understandable.

I think you'll be eating crow on this one if the VTB1 shows up on his site in the future though.
 
Darrin, while what you stated is a logical concern, IMO it's very unlikely
Fletcher thinks of the VTB-1 in those terms.
Much more likely he's skeptical of ANYTHING with a starved plate design
because many of them sounded like junk relatively speaking.
Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with that...
(said with best "Seinfeld" accent)

Chris
 
Well Its true theres not a starved plate design pre sold by him currently, its still fairly obvious hes reviewing something he hasnt heard.

And No I havent got one, Ive been waiting to hear it for myself first. but thats just my way of doing things.

All Im accuseing fletcher of is being a salesman. So dont worry bout me because I can survive on a diet of crow if need be.

I just find it strange that all the end users liked the thing and fletcher while not having one to review, gave it a bad one , thats all.
 
Seems to me everyone is jumping just a bit to conclusions here. Alan said that he didn't send Fletcher a unit, nor did Fletcher borrow one from Alan's sales rep. So Alan's curiousity was aroused - but he didn't come out and call Fletcher a liar.

After all, couldn't Fletcher have used one in another studio that already owned one? Or maybe someone else might have lent him one? I have no idea if either of those possibilites are true or not, but it would seem worth finding out before we all start calling him a liar or a fabricator of reviews.

Personally, I think Fletcher has better things to do than to put his personal and professional ethics and credibility at stake by slamming products he has never heard. I, for one, am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt unless concrete evidence to the contrary emerges. While Fletcher hardly needs me to defend him, since he doesn't usually come to this forum it seems a bit unfair to attack him "behind his back". If Darrin or anyone else has issues or accusations to make, the proper way to do it would be to go to Fletcher's section of ProSoundWeb and question him directly.
 
littledog said:
While I probably would have say in this last post you said almost nothing that I could agree with, it was still thought-provoking and, hopefully, you won't take offense if I outline my specific areas of disagreement:

I have no problem with you not agreeing with me. Opinions are what this is all about


While this may not be exactly what you meant by "making a musician better", at any reasonably high level of playing, that is exactly what happens - you DO become better than you otherwise could have been! While the difference may be subtle to non-musicians, most other musicians would notice.

Sorry, I do not agree with this. Playing a PRS over a Fender, or a Steinway over a Kawaii does not make you a better player. It may be a better piano, but if have to rely on the best to assist your playing, then something is wrong. If you can afford the best, then fine, go for it, but I just do not agree that it makes you a better player


I do make money off of both playing and recording, but I don't see what that has to do with it. No question that a great engineers can make a very high level of recording with practically any crap you might give them. But that's not to say that they couldn't make a much better one with their choice of gear, and do it with a lot less effort.

Well this is the key. If they can afford to buy better, then fine, and maybe it is better, but by how much? To you it may be the key and that is cool, but for others who can only afford lower costing gear and instruments, well they can get great sound by applying their playing or recording skills


I think this last part is what gives away the fact that, while you may be many wonderful things, a musician is not one of them.

Well you don't know me very well, but I was in a major act in the 1970's. I toured with J. Giels Band, Yes, Mitch Ryder, Fanny, and many others. We had two albums out but no, we never made it bigtime, but as far as I am concered I did because I experienced the same crowds and pleasures of being on stage. As Elliot Easton will tell you, he copied all his licks from me! I jammed with some very well known cats out there. I play guitar very well!!


To say then (due respect or not...), that everyone who is not a concert pianist is by definition less talented or discerning than those who are would be an unfortunate conclusion.

I did not say that. I said that if you can tell the difference then that is cool. I said most can not in a real blind listening test, and that is a very true statement. It is not a dig on anyones ability, but when you remove certian knowledge in the judging of a box like the brand, you will get much different opinions in a blind test than you will in a test where they know the brand name. Its just a fact that happens because you have pre-concieved decisions when you know what your listening to compared to when you dont. For the record, I am totally cool with you're opinions. That is what makes these threads cool. As long as they don't turn into blood baths...:D
 
Middleman said:
darrin_h2000

The only one touting a theory about Fletchers motives is you. He has a right to his opinion. If he thinks the VTB1 sucks then so what? Your conspricy theory is bogus and paranoid.

If you bought one and are trying to defend your purchasing decision that's OK too. Nobody likes to feel they got stuck with a peice of junk so that's understandable.

I think you'll be eating crow on this one if the VTB1 shows up on his site in the future though.

I agree on one issue. Fletcher is entitled to his opinions. Maybe he will like the VTB-2 better, I don't know. I still don't think the VTB-1 is junk or that it sucks, but that is my opinion.

I doubt the Studio Projects will ever show up in his site, but I know that Toft Audio Designs will, and Stephen Paul Microphones will. Fletcher will still want to check them out, but its cool if he keeps away from Studio Projects. I understand the way he does business, so I take no offence that he does not carry it. Fletcher and I are friends and we are cool.
 
alanhyatt said:


While this may not be exactly what you meant by "making a musician better", at any reasonably high level of playing, that is exactly what happens - you DO become better than you otherwise could have been! While the difference may be subtle to non-musicians, most other musicians would notice.

Sorry, I do not agree with this. Playing a PRS over a Fender, or a Steinway over a Kawaii does not make you a better player. It may be a better piano, but if have to rely on the best to assist your playing, then something is wrong. If you can afford the best, then fine, go for it, but I just do not agree that it makes you a better player.

Well, I promise I won't go on beating this dead horse forever, but I'm apparently not communicating my major thesis here very well - probably because of my use of "better musician". What i meant was "better performance". Let me put it in a hypothetical way:

Let's say your studio is booked to record a solo piano album of someone like Keith Jarrett or McCoy Tyner. You also happen to have just bought that non-existent "best piano in the world" and have put it into that equally non-existent "best space in the world". Will playing in your studio make Keith or McCoy better musicians? Of course not. Will it maximize the chances that they will give an inspired performance? Of course it will! Obviously there are other factors involved that can add or subtract from an inspired performance (like an empathetic audience), but a great instrument in a great space gives you a good head start, especially in a studio where audience energy is usually not available.

Your statement that "...if have to rely on the best to assist your playing, then something is wrong." almost implies that having a great instrument is merely a luxury for those that can afford it and has no significant effect on the final musical product. Hopefyully that's not what you meant.

Ask any world-class musician what happens when they get a world-class instrument in their hands: it makes them eager to play, and it inspires them to go in directions they might not otherwise have gone. The sound of an instrument gives the musician a kind of feedback that changes what and how they play. This is perhaps a subtle concept that may not apply to thrashing electric guitars (although I believe it does at some level) - but certainly applies to acoustic music of all types. I know that if a certain octave of a particular piano is unusually rich, or unusually brilliant, my playing will be affected as i try to take advantage of that. If the natural decay of the room is gorgeous, I will also tend to utilize that as well. These are not conscious decisions or tricks of showmanship - they just happen as part of the natural feedback mechanism of performance.

Could these same musicians make a great recording on a crappier instrument in a less beautiful space? Sure they could! Look at some of the pawn-shop specials Charlie Parker used at various times in his life. But give Charlie Parker a really great Selmer in a wonderful hall and you might get something even more extraordinary!

It's the same with a vocalist. If they are hearing themselves sounding better than they ever thought possible, it will have a positive effect on their performance. It can change the way they sustain notes, use vibrato, add emotional inflections, inspire them to take risky chances, and especially change the way they incorporate space.

With all due respect to your own extensive musical experience (and I apologize for concluding from some of your statements that you were not a "real" musician), I think you would be hard pressed to find many other professional musicians who would disagree with me.

Final example: the other day i was performing with a cellist who is a grad student at New England Conservatory of Music. For this performance, he eschewed his own wonderful instrument for one he borrowed from a faculty member that was worth something in six figures. The sheer joy he got from performing on this instrument with it's magnificent tone and responsiveness unquestionably made BOTH of us give a remarkable performance. Arguing whether it made us better players or just made us play better is, I think, just semantics.
 
Im going have to jump in here and spew forth. I think the comparison between preamps and musical instruments are only slightly related. A good instrument that has been properly tuned and setup can inspire a musician and increase the ease in which to express the inspiration. A crappy instrument set up right will always perform better than a good instrument thats been neglected. A good preamp in the wrong hands destroy good performances. A bad preamp can destroy a good performance. A bad preamp in good hands gets bypassed to avoid destroying a good performance etc....See my point? Do really good musicians rely on inspiration for performing?

I also see the VTB-1 not really something I would be upset with if someone said it sounded like crap, especially if was being compared to something it was never intended to be. If I owned a Rolls Royce or had driven alot of them, what would my opinion be in comparing a Caddy to it? My gut reaction would be to say the Caddy sucks. But a further analysis would have to be more reasonable. What other cars are in that price range and have similar features. What Ive learned is that every device has its place regardless of price. I think some would remember how Ed Rei stumped some of the other "working guys" with cheap equipment. Its all relative to what you are used to hearing and its about honest objectivity. Does the word value mean anything? Is it gold plated or affordable quality?

SoMm
 
Both Alan and littledog provide excellent points to be concerned
about. You're both "mostly right" I'm sure!

The ironic thing is that the first evening I messed around with the
VTB-1 it DID inspire me to sing better.
And singing in a good acoustic area like a church, etc., does
inspire me more than singing in the master bedroom at home.

However...
If you're operating at a truly pro technical level, these "inspirations" count less and less as you're mostly on
a zen-like autopilot focusing on the SONG IMHO.

One of the most moving musical experiences was hearing my
vocal coach sing "O Sole Mio" in his studio that was converted
from a garage! Hardly the Sistine Chapel.

Chris
 
Its cool that everyone can have the different opinions without stepping on each other, and I am glad that littledog gets more out of a more expensive unit. I do understand his position and am glad it works for him.

It has always been different strokes for different folks. I am sure no one who saw Charlie Parker play with a pawn shop sax ever walked out of gig dissapointed, and then again, perhaps when he had his Selmar he did play better, or maybe it was the smack he was on...:eek: Only kidding...

This is why there is so much equipment on the market. Use the tools that you have, buy the tools that you can afford and be happy that you are up breathing air each day!!!! :D

Peace all....:cool:
 
Back
Top