Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ToneLux The Quad Eight very early consoles sounded OK to almost very good. The later ones had no sound that people went after. They went into post and film because they wanted to stay in business and were not accepted by the record makers.
I have used many different models and never liked any of them. For the market that they were in, they did fine. The success of API and Neve was 100% the tone, which is why they sold so well. Neither company had the money to do anything like "placing a good product in front of a majority of people". They grew because they sounded so good. Period. QE was built with a fairly high degree of quality, but even the later ones (corinodo or something like that) sounded fair and had logic problems all the time.
I think your defence is because of your relationship with the company, which is fine, but I stand by my statement, QE did not ever sound as good. If it did, people would be restoring them instead of dumping them in the Demptsy Dempster. Sphere or Helios are very cool sounding and this has nothing to do with how many they sold. People still are trying to find them and restor them. You sound defensive, not objective. It's all over now, so it really doesn't matter. |
Well I guess personal experience and perception are everthing in the audio business. My personal experience does not completely dispute your opinion, I just have a higher opinion of the QE stuff than you, but not a lower opinion of API.
You mentioned Sphere, (which was the next audio incarnation Don McLaughlin ventured into after Electrodyne), Please note the transformers for Sphere and QE were made by Riechenbach to the same level of quality, and the discrete opamps for each were remakably similar.
If you remove the QE summing buss, (a noted weakness in larger QE consoles) you have amazingly similar sounding circuitry. (although the eq's were drastically different in sound)
Another example, the QE Coronado preamp, is nearly the same circuitry as the API 312 (before the output tranny), even down to certain component and gain values. It simply used a very high voltage discrete opamp (+/-28v) and there was no output transformer unless you were listening to the mix or direct outputs of the console. The EQ-333 used in those consoles (and some very well respected QE film desks) was modeled after the 550a. Again I don't see (or hear, more accurately) where the huge difference in audio quality comes from, just something very
different sounding.
It is well known that engineers from console companies jumped around and designs moved with them from company to company in one form or another.
Do the designs of competing companies sound the same?, Absolutely not!
Better or worse?, Completely up to the ears of the user! Your experience is different than mine.
I agree the late QE (Westar and the following QE/Mitsubishi all ic construction) consoles of the late 80,s were unremarkable.
The Coronado, Ventura, Pacifica (mid 70,s ic/discrete hybrid constuction) could be fussy if not properly maintained, But they were not reputed to be fraught with logic problems.
Comparing them as complete console systems directly against the custom API's is a bit unfair, since they were designed to compete as a step up from the Harrison and MCI "cookie cutter" consoles of the time, not a step down from the API custom modulars. The cost restrictions and build quality were not aimed there, although I am sure many sales guys tried to make direct comparisons, they are not truly comparable.
Maybe they dont' stand up to API as a whole, but there is no lack of hits and great sounding music created on them (Coronado,Etc..) and the earlier all discrete QE product.
In all fairness, the serious audio comparisons I have done are not console to console, but module to module. At that level, API, QE, Sphere, Helios, etc.. all compare very favorably to each other. Each one has strengths and weaknesses and sound different due to EQ topology, gain structure, transformer design and construction, opamp layout, component quality choices, supply voltage and myriad other factors. The idea is to use each makers product where its strengths are best exploited. Lets face it, if getting good results from audio gear was easy, anyone could do it.
Building a good sounding eq or preamp is difficult enough in itself, but is achievable with patience and hard work. Building a truly great sounding console system is another thing, and quite rare.
It is also obvious that its not "over" for you since Tonelux exists, and I would'nt have reopened Quad Eight if I thought it was over either. What does matter is that better designs are still out there, and building on the best of the past and improving on it with current technology and knowledge is what we are both trying to do.
Creating unique, quality audio is what this industry is all about, and if I have to run a GML pre into a Radio Shack stereo to get what I want,...........
I'm not going to diss what I dont' have good experiences with, but I will tell you what I like.