LA2A ReIssue or CL1B (stock tubes) for vocal tracking

[Twinskin]

I'm looking at either a UA LA-2A Reissue or a Tube Tech CL-1B for tracking male folk/rock style vocals. I'm not really interested in fussing with obscure tubes so I'd like to compare these off-the-shelf. Not having much luck locating a dealer that carries both at a good price and a friendly return policy, so turning to Gearslutz to help me decide. Will be used in conjunction with a MC77 if that helps. Search results turn up so many posts with caveats about NOS / Mullard / Telefunken / whatever you almost get the impression that these things suck without modding, and I'm sure that's not the case.

[RoundBadge]

I have the originals and reissue La2A's.I like em both.
LA will be a more colorful one trick kinda vibe .
two knobs and go...although they can work on loads of sources.
The Tubetech is a more transparent[still smooth/euphonic] thing but way more flexible.
If I could only have one, it would be the Tubetech..also can be cool in stereo on drums and 2 buss.
and yeah, they are fine with the stock tubes,but the possible upgrade down the line to NOS tubes is easy and IMO,worth it..

[chandlersonic]

The Mc77/la2a combo works like a charm for vocals .

The cl1b shines on bass, better than the la2a for my taste but I doubt you could get a bad sound with any of them.

I've never heard a CL1B with NOS tubes so can't really help you on that one but the general consensus is that it does sound better. I don't own one but if I did I would get the upgrade, just to be sure I'm using the unit to its fullest potentiel.

[Rick Sutton]

I've got both.
What Roundbadge said echos my experience.

[NathanEldred]

Here is a similar ongoing thread:

******//www.gearslutz.com/board/high-...mpression.html

Roundbadge is spot on with his comments.thumbsup

[Twinskin]

Allow me to to hijack my own thread ... if different tubes would make a unit sound so much better, why wouldn't the manufacturer use those tubes in the first place? It can't be to cut costs when you look at the pricetag of high-end equipment, and there seems to be no shortage for gearslutz who buy them aftermarket.

[GYang]

Originally Posted by Twinskin

Allow me to to hijack my own thread ... if different tubes would make a unit sound so much better, why wouldn't the manufacturer use those tubes in the first place? It can't be to cut costs when you look at the pricetag of high-end equipment, and there seems to be no shortage for gearslutz who buy them aftermarket.

I hate it, but reality seems to request some additional efforts from gearslutzs in case of fine tuning.
First, Tube Tech sounds fine with Chinese/Russian stock tubes I found in several gears I bought from them. There are many gears much more sensitive to tubes than Tube Tech (kudos to designerthumbsup).
Still, reality is that in gain stage good NOS military grade Mullard tube will add very desired mid forwarded warmth and smoothness. We are talking nuances here, but nuances that might be essential to some and unnecessary to others.
In TT CL2A (that is 2 ch version, although with slightly changed design) which I use on stereo submixes, I prefer Telefunken ECC803S, that is cleaner, noise-free and in general better suited for more complex signals than Mullard which works better with guitar, vocals and some other instruments.
Given the cost of over 1000 $ per perfect pair, such cost might be essential in manufacturer's decision to use modern tubes at 8-15 USD per piece.
Also, good NOS will live much longer.

In relation to choice, I resisted LA2A for long time (having Tube Tech), still finally I took it and I'm happy with it. IMO LA2A is simply must have and re-issue is great piece of gear.

[Twinskin]

Originally Posted by GYang

Given the cost of over 1000 $ per perfect pair

Oh $&*#! I had no idea people paid that much for tubes. I figured $50 difference either way. So that answers that question. Back to my original dilemma ... (I'll be sticking with stock)

Which would you describe as more "real", "open", or "3D"? I'm a bit particular (read: anal) in that I feel that the presence or tone of a unit may actually be more important than the character of how it does whatever it does. I've been shocked to discover how plastic-y some very expensive gear has sounded to me, even when it's not doing anything more than sitting in the chain.

[GYang]

Originally Posted by Twinskin

Which would you describe as more "real", "open", or "3D"?

Tube Tech no doubt, but often LA2A's colour and character is what doctor ordered.
As seems that TT fits to your expectations slightly better (and with stock tubes, too), don't waste time, go with it and you'll be satisfied for sure

[Tony Montana]

CL1B thumbsup

[RoundBadge]

Originally Posted by Twinskin

Oh $&*#! I had no idea people paid that much for tubes. I figured $50 difference either way. So that answers that question. Back to my original dilemma ... (I'll be sticking with stock)

I paid around 220.00 for my NOS Telefunkens[Pair]

[walth]

Originally Posted by RoundBadge

I have the originals and reissue La2A's.I like em both.
LA will be a more colorful one trick kinda vibe .
two knobs and go...although they can work on loads of sources.
The Tubetech is a more transparent[still smooth/euphonic] thing but way more flexible.
If I could only have one, it would be the Tubetech..also can be cool in stereo on drums and 2 buss.
and yeah, they are fine with the stock tubes,but the possible upgrade down the line to NOS tubes is easy and IMO,worth it..

+1

[azrael kennedy]

cl1b, i paid around $180 for a pair of NOS mullards and it made a pretty noticeable difference...

[rickrock305]

I have owned a Tubetech CL1B that I put some Mullards in. Believe it used to cost around $200 and some change for the tubes. But WELL worth it. The CL1B with stock tubes does not sound bad either though. Neither does the LA2A. But the CL1B is a bit cleaner and a bit more flexible than the LA2A.

[Pred80r]

If this was a question between the Telektronix LA2a and the TubeTech for Vocal tracking this woudn't be close. There is something about the Telektronics boxes for VOCALS that no other compressor can seem to match.

The Tubetech is more versatile and I personally have no experience with the re-issue LA2A yet, so let me know how it turns out.

[bigfurry]

If this is too unrelated, ignore and forgive me, but is the reissue "worth it" in terms of delivering what the original LA2A does to vocals? Im also wondring if the Buzz can be a proper compliment to a MC 77? Like the OP, I am interested in an opto as well that can be another option for vocals and bass than my goto MC77. Sometimes the Purple is too aggressive for certain applications, bless it's heart...

[MarkyGoldstein]

I have both, and I use Fatso for tracking vocals. Then CL1b at mixtime.

[RoundBadge]

using the new Acme Opticom XLA-3 here this week so far tracking vocals etc.
wonderful sounding box.
different settings for from slower transparent to faster grab /release- aggressive rich harmonics and pump.also waay prefer to the UA reissue.
if your looking for an alterantive LA2A vibe and want something that's a little more versatile-faster etc this is the one to check out.

[waxx]

altough the UA reissue is good, i'll also go with the tubetech if i must choose... way more flexible and at least as good as the la2a

[Texum]

Originally Posted by RoundBadge

using the new Acme Opticom XLA-3 here this week so far tracking vocals etc.
wonderful sounding box.
different settings for from slower transparent to faster grab /release- aggressive rich harmonics and pump.also waay prefer to the UA reissue.
if your looking for an alterantive LA2A vibe and want something that's a little more versatile-faster etc this is the one to check out.

Looks like an interesting comp. Esp. liked what the normal and slow setting could do to drums in the VK clips.

Care to compare the Opticom to your Retros?