WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
Does anyone know if the preamps in the Symetrix 302 (the half rack space dual pre) are the same as the preamp in the 528e Voice Processor?
Thanks!
Thanks!
D
Daisy
Banned
Basically, yes.
.
.
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
Thanks. Basically. No, seriously.
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
Alright...now your "basically" is nagging at me. Is there a difference? I really like the 528e--it's the best in my budget rig on my acoustic guitar among other things.
But I certainly don't need the voice symmetry gizmo, and I can live without the comp & eq.
So to get a couple more channels of the same sound, a 302 should deliver, huh?
But I certainly don't need the voice symmetry gizmo, and I can live without the comp & eq.
So to get a couple more channels of the same sound, a 302 should deliver, huh?
Fishmed
Well-known member
I have been told that the 302 is different than the 202. If you are to go that route, go with the 202. I bought a 202 and had Jim Williams at audioupgrades . com modify it. I tought it sounded nice before I sent it to him, but it is a totally differnt beast once I got it back.
I have been thinking about getting a second one, but have a long list of other things to get first.
Jim does mods for the 528 too.
pohaku
New member
You can check out the specs at the Symetrix site. From just a quick look, I got the impression that they were close, but, surprisingly, not the same. Among other things, The 302 apparently uses an input transformer while the 528e is transformerless.
http://www.symetrixaudio.com/repository/528E_ds_EN.pdf
http://www.symetrixaudio.com/repository/302_ds_EN.pdf
If you decide to go the SX202 route mentioned previously, I do have 2 units that I could sell (total of 4 channels).
http://www.symetrixaudio.com/repository/528E_ds_EN.pdf
http://www.symetrixaudio.com/repository/302_ds_EN.pdf
If you decide to go the SX202 route mentioned previously, I do have 2 units that I could sell (total of 4 channels).
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
Pohaku,
Thanks for that info. I'm only sorry I didn't find it first and save you the trouble. I checked out the data sheets you linked, and also the specs for the SX202.
While they claim the 302 is quieter and has less distortion than the SX202, the SX202 seems to more closely match the pre section of the 528e.
Assuming I'm understanding that correctly, I might just be interested in those 202's. I'll PM you. Thanks again!
Thanks for that info. I'm only sorry I didn't find it first and save you the trouble. I checked out the data sheets you linked, and also the specs for the SX202.
While they claim the 302 is quieter and has less distortion than the SX202, the SX202 seems to more closely match the pre section of the 528e.
Assuming I'm understanding that correctly, I might just be interested in those 202's. I'll PM you. Thanks again!
D
Daisy
Banned
Well ... one of them is incorporated in to a channel strip with a bunch of other gizmos and doo-dads and thingamabubs.
And the other is just two mic pres in a box.
Oh yea ... and one says "302" and the other says "528E" on the front.
The 202 and the 528 came before the 302 and the 528E, and there are significant differences between the earlier models and the latter.
But then again, there are also differences between one 302 and and another 302 ... depending on when it was made. The earlier ones used a mic pre chip that has since been discontinued. The latter ones use the INA / Burr Brown chips, which are often regarded as a noticeable improvement by many.
.
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
Well ... one of them is incorporated in to a channel strip with a bunch of other gizmos and doo-dads and thingamabubs.
And the other is just two mic pres in a box.
Oh yea ... and one says "302" and the other says "528E" on the front.
.
Note to self: when addressing anything in Daisyrock's direction, assume nothing lest (s)he get confused.
Seriously, I thought I was asking a legitimate question. I have a 528e so I know about the gizmos, doo-dads & thingamabubs. I'm simply trying to determine which "pre only" box uses the same pre as in my 528e. Thought it might be a bargain...
Thanks for this info. I guess I need to keep digging and figure out which is which. While your chronology makes perfect sense, I can't find an apparent "matching up" of products to eras. (There probably isn't one).
The 528e (who's pre I like) is tranformerless. The 202 that was out before the 528e seems to share that design. The 302, which is current (as is the 528e) has an input transformer.
Honestly, I don't care if it has a transformer, a flux capacitor and an inverted lobotomizer--I just want to figure which standalone approximates my channel strip.
Thanks again.
D
Daisy
Banned
Honestly, I don't care if it has a transformer, a flux capacitor and an inverted lobotomizer--I just want to figure which standalone approximates my channel strip.
Thanks again.
That would be the 302, then.
Although I had no idea they've incorporated a tranny in to the design. That's actually pretty cool.
It is well known that it's always had a flux capacitor, though.
Otherwise, how would the time travel be made possible? You're going to have to find your own lightning source (for the 1.21 gigawatts) and delorean automobile.
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
If the 202 has no tranny and the 302 does, wouldn't that mean the 202 is closer to the 528e--which has no transformer?
Or am I overestimating the effect of the transformer?
And I have a lightning source. I put it in place of the de-esser. It looks the same, but will fry the crap out of a vocalist if they hit the wrong frequency.
Or am I overestimating the effect of the transformer?
And I have a lightning source. I put it in place of the de-esser. It looks the same, but will fry the crap out of a vocalist if they hit the wrong frequency.
Fishmed
Well-known member
If the 202 has no tranny and the 302 does, wouldn't that mean the 202 is closer to the 528e--which has no transformer?
Or am I overestimating the effect of the transformer?
And I have a lightning source. I put it in place of the de-esser. It looks the same, but will fry the crap out of a vocalist if they hit the wrong frequency.
You won't go wrong with the 202, and it can be upgraded down the road.
D
Daisy
Banned
Yes and no.
Similar in the sense that they both wouldn't have trannies. But other than that, the 202 and 528 both received a makeover when the 302 and 528E were released, and have quite a few different components, not the least of which being a new instrument amp, due to both the SSM-2015 and 2017 being discontinued.
Then again, it would depend on how recently the 302 was made. The earlier 302's sure didn't have tranformers.
D
Daisy
Banned
... And I'm still looking to find any literature at all that would suggest that the 302 is tranformer-balanced.
Where are you getting this from?
Where are you getting this from?
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
D
Daisy
Banned
(Still looking for the part about the transformer) ... still confused ... still looking ... giving up ...
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
Well perhaps I'm misinformed as to what constitutes a transformer on a pre. On that PDF it lists the input type as a Low Z Transformer. Is that not it?
D
Daisy
Banned
Woops. Found it on page 2 !
I'll be damned.
I'll be damned.
D
Daisy
Banned
That's really odd that they wouldn't show the tranformer in the block diagram, and that it wouldn't be advertised anywhere within their literature, with the exception of what amounts to be a footnote on page two on the technical specs.
I would almost need to see an email from someone in engineering / design before I trust it.
.
I would almost need to see an email from someone in engineering / design before I trust it.
.
pohaku
New member
Anyone here got one that they could open up and take a look? It could be that only later models had a transformer and they added that note to the promo Data Page, but didn't bother to change other documents.