Quad 8 .... whats the skinny?

[ToneLux]

Originally Posted by Orphan Audio

This is my first post here, although I have been reading for years.
I am amused and gratified to find the industy is still filled with engineers of such passion and conviction.

This thread has provided the most entertainment I have had in years.

I have to disagree slightly with Pauls statement (quite some way back in this thread) that the Quad Eight gear did not compare in quality to its competition and as such was discarded by the industry.

More likely is that QE was engaged so strongly and successfully in the film and tv post business, and was so outnumbered by API and others in the music business, that the few custom music consoles that QE built did not make the same impression that the far more prevalent API,s did.
Lets face it, API did a hell of a job selling their product to their market and they deserve their reputation because the gear performed as advertised. If QE had been more agressive and courted the music market as strongly, with a comparable product to the API line, the balance of power might be somewhat different today and we might be valuing the QE stuff as highly as API.
Add to this, the fact that the preferred mode of disposal of a retired post production console is tipping it into a dumpster, and most of those consoles were 15 to 27 feet in length, there was little opportunity to pass those classics on the the next generation and educate them about how cool they were. Classic API and similar desks are still passed down from person to person to this day. But every once in a while I see API gear being pushed onto the scrap heap by a local tv station or film studio, and I grab it as fast as any QE, ADM, WBS, Neve, Langevin, Electrodyne or Sphere gear suffering the same fate.

The QE gear did,nt suck, it just missed the opportunity to outlast the passing of time in the same manner as others who targeted the same market as API.
Does Sphere or Helios suck just because they did'nt sell as many consoles or last as long as API? Probably not.
The music industry is geared to produce hero,s and consoles are no exception. API has rock star status.
But ask anyone who owns one of the QE consoles specifically marketed to the music industry (Coronado, Ventura, Pacifica) about how much they like their classic? You will find they value and rave about it as much as anyone who might be lucky enough to own an equivalent API or Neve. Or talk to one of the many film mixers who has posted hundreds of box office busting films on a QE film console about their fond memories.


Understand I am not looking to start another "Spirited Discussion" or faulting Paul for anything he has stated, just putting forth the opinion that placing a good product in front of a majority of people will simply make it more popular and respected than another equally qualified one with far less exposure.

Ken Hirsch / Orphan Audio , Quad Eight Electronics LLC
www.orphanaudio.com
www.quadeightelectronics.com


"Knowledge is free,.... It,s what you do with it that gets expensive"

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.

[ToneLux]

The QE gear did,nt suck, it just missed the opportunity to outlast the passing of time in the same manner as others who targeted the same market as API.

That's like saying "she's fat and ugly, but has a great personality"... or "she's not old, she is experienced" or maybe "He's not gay, he just prefers men"

Spin it any way you want.

The only reason the broadcast industry throws things away is because they can then write off the residual value that is left on it. They have to pitch it without telling anyone because of tax laws. Once it is in the trash, anyone can have it.

[Velvetfreddy]

Yeah, but is the 990 any good?

[Silvertone]

Much of the history will be put to rest when the Tape-Op article comes out. It took over a year to research and I got the story from the guys who built, owned and sold these great old consoles. Most are still active in the industry today in one form or another.

I did listening tests with engineers, musicians and producers, many had the same thing to say "they sound somewhere in bewtween a Neve and an API" or "it's like the best of both worlds". Hell I said the same thing when I got my first Q8's (Warner Bros. console) from Danny McKinney (Requisite Audio), he'd been recommending I listen to them for years.

Electrodyne & early Quad Eight consoles are pretty much one in the same just rebranded (Q8 was a sales company owned by Bud Bennett) with slight versions on the op-amp over long periods of time. Sphere is the same as Electrodyne with a different name and a couple of improvements. Keep in mind that Electrodyne was out of business before the recording indusrty started buying 'maufactured' consoles. They sold the parts and you built your own consoles.

As for the sound, we've all heard these consoles, every Clint Eastwood Speghetti western, Gone With The Wind, Smokey & The Bandit, etc, etc, etc... Just about every classic movie went through an WE, Electrodyne or Quad Eight. As well as many of the great classic records. People will decide what sounds good for themselves in the long run. As it should be.

[ToneLux]

Those were the old ones. When they went to IC's so did the sound.

All those consoles sounded really good. They all worked for each other at differents times.

[NathanEldred]

Originally Posted by TheSoundSteward

Paul,

I am indeed parsing words. It was my mentor Deane Jensen that first taught me that when addressing scientific issues, the words one uses are critically important to successful communication. Deane always insisted that he see the final print galley of any article he wrote in order to prevent editors from botching it. In one article he was discussing an IR drop (which is the voltage drop that happens in a wire when current flows through it). Some non-technical editor who was apparently unfamiliar with Ohm's Law, in the desire to be helpful, substituted the word "InfraRed" for "IR", which made the whole sentence into nonsense.

I believe that most "laymen" can understand a lot about all kinds of technical stuff if the person who really understands it well can explain it simply, but accurately. There is no need to mis-state what is really going on in order to "simplify" it. Usually the gory details (like the math) are not necessary to convey the principles. The book "The Art of Electronics" by Horowitz and Hill is a great example of how complicated electronic subjects can be explained in simple, understandable language.

I will once again try explain clearly for you and anyone else interested that the chokes in the emitter circuit of the 990 have no influence on its high-frequency compensation. They do NOT serve the same function as the RC network between the collectors of other opamp designs. The chokes bypass the high frequency compensation in order to make the 990 perform better in the audio band.

Your comments about high frequency instability of opamps, including overshoot, ringing, and oscillation degrading their sound quality are exactly correct. That is the reason that Deane worked so hard to adjust the internal compensation in the 990 so that it did not have overshoot, ringing and oscillations. The 990 is a great sounding amplifier precisely because it is so stable. In addition, its high gain in the audio band gives it superior distortion performance to amplifiers with lower gain. The trick with high gain amplifiers is that they take a lot more design skill to properly compensate than lower gain types.

To say that "high gain" as a property, makes any opamp better or worse for audio is like saying all audio transformers are bad, when in fact some of them are bad and some of them are good. It depends on how well they are designed and made.

The truth is that some high gain opamps are notoriously unstable and some, like the 990, are very stable and exhibit no overshoot, ringing, or oscillations. IMHO the stable ones sound much better.

I have no beef with your preference for lower gain opamps. You're welcome to that preference with my blessings. My desire in responding on this forum is hopefully to help those who read it distinguish between preferences and facts.

Best wishes,

Hi Steve, great to see you here!!

[Larrchild]

http://www.recordingconsoles.net/consoles/consoles.htm

pretty pictures of some Q8's


Re: Olive.. I'm searching the Larrchild Documents Archive for an ad for that automation that never was.

I have worked on the Q8 Virtuosso console pic'd here:

http://nextlevelrecordingstudio.com/index.php

This cosole has a very clean, very large sound. I didn't mix on it. I just used the pres's comps and EQ and tracked to my PT HD rig. I wish that I could find a Virtuosso myself.

I haven't read every post, but you can find parts and info from fellow owners here:

http://www.quadeight.net/index.html

[Bob Olhsson]

The 20 input Electrodyne and Quad-Eight consoles pretty much ruled in the US during the brief 16 track era. Everybody I knew preferred them to Neves. We had 20 input Electrodynes in each of our three mix-rooms and our LA studios all had first generation Quad-Eights. The APIs became common as people upgraded to 24 track because everybody loved the 550 equalizer. It was arguably the first built into a console that was considered comparable to the best outboard eq. API was also supposed to be about to deliver an automation system that, to the best of my knowledge, never materialized.

[brianroth]

Larrchild, I have various Olive brochures with date markings of 1970 and 1971. One 4 page flyer describes their "automated remix programmer", but since there are no actual pix of the"computer" nor automated faders, it's a wordy vaporware flyer (dated 5/71). Sheesh...I was just getting out of the 11th grade in High Skrewl in May of 71!!!

Their 2000 series desk looks pretty advanced for that era, with a "central section" to do the program buss (all 16 of them) assignments, much like the "audix" section of later ADM desks. The EQ was four band, using thumbwheel switches. Each strip included a noise gate. Three pots (one a short throw slider) could be routed to 11 (!?) send buses.

The input module construction looks very hip as well...a large, enclosed metal "container" for one entire module (including the main slidewire fader) with a bunch of plug-in cards inside.

Bri

[I Lurk]

Originally Posted by slipperman

PS. Also wonderful to see the Sphere/ED/Q8 family of "LeftCoastFilmDesks" getting some recognition. It's long overdue. There were some VERY good sounding and both practical and innovative designs from this bunch/era.

That makes two of us

[stereomixer]

I made my first record as an artist in Toronto in 1978 at a studio there called Thunder sound on Davenport road. They had the Olive there at that time. I worked on it for three months as an engineer and an artist. It was one big pain in the ass trust me. I spent the mix holding wires together at the back many times. There were so many bells and whistles it was crazy. It broke down every day. It was also HUGE in size. Finally the guy that made it came down from Montreal and tried to fix it, he could not. There were 6 made I think, One was in Montreal at Perrys place and there was one in New York and one in Nashville. I havent seen one since 1979, THANK GOD!!

[Larrchild]

Bri: "Larrchild, I have various Olive brochures with date markings of 1970 and 1971. "

Popeye: "Woah..Olive-g AK AK AK AK AK!"

You and David Kulka are the writ of Recording Knowledge. That 1971 date certainly predates "Memories Little Helper" or whatever actually worked in Automationland.

The center section made me think of SSL when I saw it later. And like ADM (made 3 miles from my house in Detroit as a lad ).. It had that crosspoint assign biz, yeah.

11 sends eh? Olive knew re-mixes would be popular in 25 years I guess.
W.Wittman's interest in the proto's whereabouts equals mine. SSL"s first effort had 5534's or such i think. So this might have sounded better. Bet it had a sea of routing fets, tho.

And as far as I know, the Coronado was the first board to use front-wheel drive.

[brianroth]

Originally Posted by stereomixer

I made my first record as an artist in Toronto in 1978 at a studio there called Thunder sound on Davenport road. They had the Olive there at that time. I worked on it for three months as an engineer and an artist. It was one big pain in the ass trust me. I spent the mix holding wires together at the back many times. There were so many bells and whistles it was crazy. It broke down every day. It was also HUGE in size. Finally the guy that made it came down from Montreal and tried to fix it, he could not. There were 6 made I think, One was in Montreal at Perrys place and there was one in New York and one in Nashville. I havent seen one since 1979, THANK GOD!!

By 1978/79, Olive was long since dead, so I can only imagine the headaches.

After looking through the old brochures, I noticed they sold their frames in 2 foot long chunks, with 12 modules per bucket. Wowzer..a 2" wide moduels is HUGE, indeed!

Bri

[tonystl]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

The 20 input Electrodyne and Quad-Eight consoles pretty much ruled in the US during the brief 16 track era. Everybody I knew preferred them to Neves. We had 20 input Electrodynes in each of our three mix-rooms and our LA studios all had first generation Quad-Eights. The APIs became common as people upgraded to 24 track because everybody loved the 550 equalizer. It was arguably the first built into a console that was considered comparable to the best outboard eq. API was also supposed to be about to deliver an automation system that, to the best of my knowledge, never materialized.

Wow...comparable to the best outboard... I have a pair of electrodyne 610L eqs (2 band, 4 way switchable freq. +/- 12db) that I've never heard. I have yet to have a power supply wired up. Do these compare to the 550?

[brianroth]

Originally Posted by Larrchild

Bri: "Larrchild, I have various Olive brochures with date markings of 1970 and 1971. "

Popeye: "Woah..Olive-g AK AK AK AK AK!"

You and David Kulka are the writ of Recording Knowledge. That 1971 date certainly predates "Memories Little Helper" or whatever actually worked in Automationland.

The center section made me think of SSL when I saw it later. And like ADM (made 3 miles from my house in Detroit as a lad ).. It had that crosspoint assign biz, yeah.

11 sends eh? Olive knew re-mixes would be popular in 25 years I guess.
W.Wittman's interest in the proto's whereabouts equals mine. SSL"s first effort had 5534's or such i think. So this might have sounded better. Bet it had a sea of routing fets, tho.

And as far as I know, the Coronado was the first board to use front-wheel drive.

LOL...I should get off my lazy ass and scan some of the Olive literature and post it, but scanning and mucking with graphics software is right up there with a root canal to me! But, I do it anyway....please send over the dominatrix with her whips and chains and Great Danes!

I have a bunch of file cabinets (sheesh...20 drawers at last count) plus file boxes stuffed with stuff ranging from brochures to service info... simply because I believe that after a tree died, I needed to save it from the landfill!

ADM actually had a patent on the centrally controlled crosspoint assigns, which is odd since Olive seems to pre-date them with "prior art". However, I believe that ADM's system actually worked, with reed relays vs FET switches. Olive seems to have been just too far ahead of the available technology of the era.

On the Olive, as best as I can glean (there are no block diagrams) is that three pots are each assignable to a 12 position thumbwheel switch with probably "off" as one position, hence the 11 aux buses they mention.

5534's were a GODSEND back in the 70's compared to what else was available. I used them in that desk I built in 1977.

Re. the "Coronado" and front wheel drive...tis late, I'm tired after Dad's Day, so the comment passed me in both lanes.

Bri

[Larrchild]

Bri, 5534's were either the most ubiquitous gain block to enter pro audio, or the spawn of hell, depending on who you talk to.

I think that they helped the true mass-production of consoles, but at the cost of a lot more TIM and more junctions of silicon to plow thru with your waveform. And consoles started to sound similar.

but more importantly, as in earlier posts here, I 've never seen 2 Industry Titans discussing what the emitter inductor truly does in a 5534.

'Cause there is just no place to connect them.

Remember MCI's "Swinging Opamp"? Strap-on solid rocket boosters.

Hey, you can all blame these guys:
<img src="http://www.globalnetvillage.com/images/crystal_triode2.jpg">

[Larrchild]

Originally Posted by stereomixer

I made my first record as an artist in Toronto in 1978 at a studio there called Thunder sound on Davenport road. They had the Olive there at that time. I worked on it for three months as an engineer and an artist. It was one big pain in the ass trust me. I spent the mix holding wires together at the back many times. There were so many bells and whistles it was crazy. It broke down every day. It was also HUGE in size. Finally the guy that made it came down from Montreal and tried to fix it, he could not. There were 6 made I think, One was in Montreal at Perrys place and there was one in New York and one in Nashville. I havent seen one since 1979, THANK GOD!!

kinda curious...when it did work...how did it sound?

btw the AES paper on the Olive automation is here: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=1864 but I ain't payin 5 bucks to find out=)

"A system has been constructed to allow up to 64 dynamic functions to be encoded on a real time basis into a single complex signal. The signal can be recorded and subsequently played back, decoded and used to program the mixdown of a multitrack tape. Operation, function ad digital technique will be discussed." 1971

[brianroth]

Originally Posted by Larrchild

kinda curious...when it did work...how did it sound?

btw the AES paper on the Olive automation is here: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=1864 but I ain't payin 5 bucks to find out=)

"A system has been constructed to allow up to 64 dynamic functions to be encoded on a real time basis into a single complex signal. The signal can be recorded and subsequently played back, decoded and used to program the mixdown of a multitrack tape. Operation, function ad digital technique will be discussed." 1971

I'm curious if Olive ever got one of those contraptions to actually work in the fileld, or if it was just vaporware.

Bri

[Orphan Audio]

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.

[Larrchild]

Regarding the first use of the emitter choke I could find: 1966

http://www.analog.com/library/analog..._ChH_final.pdf

I guess that would have affected the Jensen Patent if this company patented it. Not sure. Probably didn't.

[ToneLux]

Originally Posted by Orphan Audio

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...........
..........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.

I'm talking about console to console, as most modules from even the early SSL stuff sounded real good. It's when they all got put into a system, that they sounded bad because of the lack of knowing about logic control, internal operating levels, summing impedance, etc.

In the days when people compared consoles becaused they used consoles, they didn't sound good. In the above page of info, you make a statement and then offer an excuse for each stage (...If you remove the QE summing buss...). Well if you remove the power to anything it sounds different. If only I had signed the Beatles instead of turning them down (famous last words) For me it's very simple. It either made a good sounding record or it didn't. They didn't.

Now days, when people buy modules only, they probably sound great.

[ToneLux]

Originally Posted by Larrchild

Regarding the first use of the emitter choke I could find: 1966

http://www.analog.com/library/analog..._ChH_final.pdf

I guess that would have affected the Jensen Patent if this company patented it. Not sure. Probably didn't.

I have tried to patent things several times. If you state it correctly, the idiots at the patent office might just buy it. I could never convince them. The Jensen patent, after seeing the above op-amp, was probably worded in such a way that it went over the examiner's head. I'm going to look into it now and see if the above designer is listed in the "prior art" section. If it isn't, then the patent is pretty much worthless.

[ToneLux]

Originally Posted by John Hardy

Paul Wolff said:

Deane did NOT use the emitter inductors to lower the gain at higher frequencies. The emitter inductors have absolutely nothing to do with lowering the gain at higher frequencies. They increase the gain at lower frequencies to reduce the noise voltage in the audio bandwidth. It is the emitter resistors that determine the high-frequency gain and stability of the stage.

To quote from Deane's paper about the 990:

Thank you.

John Hardy
The John Hardy Co.
www.johnhardyco.com

Now that you got me started again, here is a QUOTE from the patent (4287479 if you want to read it yourself, you will need a quicktime viewer. It is on the 1st image page):


...Each reactive network in the emiter circuit comprises an inductor and a resistor, arranged in a shunt configuration, whearby at low frequencies the first stage has a relitively high gain and generates reletively low noise, and whereby at high frequencies the first stage has relitively low gain and the amplifier circuit has sufficiant phase margin to insure stability...

Am I new here?

Also, the patent really is about the way the inductor is wound, as the ADI circuit designed by Dick Berwin in 1966 clearly shows a reactive network and a resistor in the emiters to lower the noise by lowering the gain at higher frequencies. Kind of hard to beat that unless you include a special way of making a choke, which then makes it unique. So in other words, if someone were to put regular chokes in the emiters, they would not violate the patent, because of proof of prior art. The earliest reference to prior art by Dean is in 1968, but no reference to the unpatented use of inductors to lower noise and gain in 1966. Berwin was a well known designer in those days.

From Dean's patent:

"...the inductor in each of said first and second reactive networks includes a ferrite bead having a succession of spaced, substantially parallel holes formed therein, and a wire wound in an alternating fashion through the successive spaced holes of said ferrite bead, and..."

By specifying the "requirement" of the custom choke, he gets the patent. If the examiner had known about the Berwin op-amp, the patent scope would have been reduced to only the choke.

If any of you have ever written a patent, you know what I mean. If you haven't, you should so you can see how poetic you have to be to fool the examiners.

Oh well.

boy am I going to get a lot of sh*t for this one...

[pan60]

bump

[bsteeve@ozemail]

I think some guys who mixed Star Wars, the Empire Strikes back, on an MM quad eight in 1980, won an Oscar for best sound! Pretty good for someone mixing on a "bad" console isn't it! Just got a mm312, from the actual Star Ward desk... and it just does not get much better than this!

[ToneLux]

Originally Posted by bsteeve@ozemail

I think some guys who mixed Star Wars, the Empire Strikes back, on an MM quad eight in 1980, won an Oscar for best sound! Pretty good for someone mixing on a "bad" console isn't it! Just got a mm312, from the actual Star Ward desk... and it just does not get much better than this!

I am referring to hit records, not hit movies. They made one of the best film mixing consoles in their day. It was for the function, not tone. I didn't say "bad". As it was said by Orphan Audio, I agree the late QE (Westar and the following QE/Mitsubishi all ic construction) consoles of the late 80,s were unremarkable. I pointed out that they were not at the top of the list. Congrats on your purchase. Having a large console is fun to mix on.

[Wiggy Neve Slut]

Originally Posted by ToneLux

Having a large console is fun to mix on.

Hi paul... just wandering if you are planning to release a Console of sorts other than your rackmounted range?

Cheers
Wiggy

[Seamus TM]

Originally Posted by ToneLux

I am referring to hit records, not hit movies.

Yeah, that "Wall" album is the only one that sticks out, in my mind....

Oh, wait.. that was a movie, too, though.

[ToneLux]

Originally Posted by Mumblesound

Yeah, that "Wall" album is the only one that sticks out, in my mind....

Oh, wait.. that was a movie, too, though.

Have you ever heard of the term "BEATING A DEAD HORSE"?

If you think that console is the greatest one in the world, then it is.

Now stop.