Art Pro channel vs. Art MPA gold

[pikapikapi]

Anyone here have experience with these? Which is has the better pre? Or are they both the same. I've read some mix reviews on both of these models.

[Acoustic Cloud]

Originally Posted by pikapikapi

Anyone here have experience with these? Which is has the better pre? Or are they both the same. I've read some mix reviews on both of these models.

Mix Magazine reviews?

[8th_note]

I've got both and I use them both on every project. Here's my take;

As far as sound quality of the preamps, they sound the same to me with the same tubes. I would plan on upgrading the tubes of either unit. I like Mullard 12AT7's the best but it's fun to experiment with various tubes and see which you like best.

The Pro Channel has more gain and has better gain staging than the MPA Gold. This pre is great for ribbon mics, for example. I have found the compressor to sound fine but I only use it occasionally with a high threshold to tame dynamic vocals. I haven't used the EQ in the Pro Channel so I can't really comment on that.

The MPA Gold has adequate gain but not as much as I would like. I use it with the +20db switch engaged most of the time. It has a high voltage tube setting which yields a cleaner sound so between the +20db switch, the high voltage tube setting, the input gain, and the output gain adjustments you can get a range of tubiness if you're willing to spend some time futzing around. The best feature that the MPA Gold has that is lacking in the Pro Channel is a mic impedance adjustment. This amounts to sort of a tone control on the preamp side that you can use to get a brighter vs. a throatier fuller sound.

If you think you would use the compressor then I would recommend the Pro Channel hands down. If you're using plugins or other means of compression then I would lean toward the MPA Gold, especially if your not running low efficiency ribbon mics.

[pikapikapi]

Originally Posted by 8th_note

The best feature that the MPA Gold has that is lacking in the Pro Channel is a mic impedance adjustment. This amounts to sort of a tone control on the preamp side that you can use to get a brighter vs. a throatier fuller sound.

Is the mic impedance adjustment sort of like eq? Since you mentioned tone control.

[Acoustic Cloud]

Pikapiki, you need to read this, its from Crisc-o, in another thread. Its pretty darn good.

I will not disagree with the fact that not all pre's are the same, and that one may be better suited to a source than another. I also violently agree that for mos of us the differences between pre's can be subtle at best.

I am not saying that I disagree with what you are saying, but think about it; for DECADES the world's favorite recordings have been made with the same pre for every track. The notion of using a different preamp for different sources is VERY new and, when viewed in the history of recorded sound, is not the norm. It is still young enough to be considered a fad, really.

Consoles have ruled for the longest time. Every mic went into an identical channel strip, and for the longest time no one questioned this process. I will elaborate on this specific point: for decades the best technicians in the industry, who have produced the most beloved and sought after sounds, in every country in the entire world, did not give a moment's thought to whether or not they had chosen the right preamp for the source. the console had a sound, and that sound suited the entire project or it didn't.

Now, the fact that this type of discussion takes place in the Low End forum is a testament to the powers of advertising and hype. I will repeat, I will not disagree that no two preamps are the same, and some are better than others for certain sources, but if you are reading threads in the low end forum to begin with, you probably need to work on technique and gain experience before considering a different pre to improve the quality of a single recorded track. take note: I am frequently in the Low End zone and am aware that this applies to me, I am not judging anyone here.

If you are looking for a better or different sound on a single track, mic selection, positioning, instrument selection, and even choice of stings on a guitar or drums head type on drums will have a much greater impact on the final result than can be obtained from selecting the best pre on the planet over the worst.

I have more than one pre in my studio, and I use different pre's for different sources, but this is a luxury, and was not available to me for the last 8 years of my 10-year "carreer". I have never felt hindered for a lack of quality pre's, much less a lack of variously flavored pre's.

I will end my rant by stating that there is always room for opinion, and the mandatory YMMV always applies, but come on, who are we kidding? Do my ears really surpass the greats of the analog era? Do I really have the nerve to say that the reason a single isolated track is not at it's best is because I didn't choose the right preamp for the job? No, if the track is weak, it is because I have a lot to learn, not because I haven't gone out an purchased the flavor of the week preamp. Turn the mic 5 degrees in any direction on any source in any room and the pre doesn't catch you ear so much anymore now does it?

[8th_note]

Is the mic impedance adjustment sort of like eq? Since you mentioned tone control.

It works differently than an eq but it has a similar effect IMO. As you turn the impedance up it seems to reduce the highs and accentuate the lower midrange.

This is a little off the subject but if you go the Listening Sessions website and compare the various preamps the most interesting thing to me is that they have considerably different frequency responses. In other words, recordists tend to use preamps as fixed tone controls (which is great if you can afford it). I believe this explains the majority of the difference in sound between preamps but other factors such as harmonic distortion and slew rate also play a role. It's interesting that ART put a control on the MPA that allows you to go from thick to flat to bright on the same pre. It's a nice feature on a budget pre.

[pikapikapi]

do the 2 pre's mentioned above sound better than the studio projects vtb-1?

[analog modeling]

i dont know about the pro mpa but i own an mpa gold and i can tell u it is way better than the vtb1, i just bought i pair of nos ge s 12ax7a, im lookin forward of how the sound will change, ill know in a couple of weeks

[pikapikapi]

do these pre's sound better than the ones on the mbox 2?

[craigmorris74]

. . . or you kids could save up $300 more bucks and step into the big leagues. Maybe even get you a tube pre with a TRANSFORMER too!

[pikapikapi]

Originally Posted by craigmorris74

. . . or you kids could save up $300 more bucks and step into the big leagues. Maybe even get you a tube pre with a TRANSFORMER too!

and what would be big leagues to you?

[craigmorris74]

Originally Posted by pikapikapi

and what would be big leagues to you?

Something well designed and well built. For example, you could pick up one of the UA solo pre's on Ebay for that much, and a Brick for less than that. In solid state territory, you can get a brand new Grace pre for less than $600.

If you're not afraid of a soldering iron, you could buy a Seventh Circle chassis, power supply, and one of their high end units for $600ish. And if that's too pricey for you, you could build four JLM Baby Animals for les than all of the above (with input transformers and discrete opamps).

I could keep going, but I think my point is clear. Any of these options keeps you out of surface mount, ceramic cap in the signal path hell.

Craig

[willsing]

Originally Posted by craigmorris74

Something well designed and well built. For example, you could pick up one of the UA solo pre's on Ebay for that much, and a Brick for less than that. In solid state territory, you can get a brand new Grace pre for less than $600.

If you're not afraid of a soldering iron, you could buy a Seventh Circle chassis, power supply, and one of their high end units for $600ish. And if that's too pricey for you, you could build four JLM Baby Animals for les than all of the above (with input transformers and discrete opamps).

I could keep going, but I think my point is clear. Any of these options keeps you out of surface mount, ceramic cap in the signal path hell.

Craig

So any other thoughts on comparing the sound quality of the brick vs the Pro Channel? Is the Brick in a higher league? I have not heard the two but am tempted to hunt down an inexpensive good pre to have around. I already have a DAV BG1U and really dig it. Now I want a vocal channel strip sorta deal for light compresion on dynamic vocals. ART prices look good. I would sacrifice all the goodies on the Pro Channel if the Brick sounded noticeably better.
Any thoughts?

[JesseJ]

Originally Posted by craigmorris74

Something well designed and well built. For example, you could pick up one of the UA solo pre's on Ebay for that much, and a Brick for less than that. In solid state territory, you can get a brand new Grace pre for less than $600.

If you're not afraid of a soldering iron, you could buy a Seventh Circle chassis, power supply, and one of their high end units for $600ish. And if that's too pricey for you, you could build four JLM Baby Animals for les than all of the above (with input transformers and discrete opamps).

I could keep going, but I think my point is clear. Any of these options keeps you out of surface mount, ceramic cap in the signal path hell.

Craig

+1 for 100% exactly what he said.

[willsing]

Originally Posted by JesseJ

+1 for 100% exactly what he said.

Okay fine, but any direct comparisons between the brick and the Pro Channel? People having used both?

[netrom]

Originally Posted by willsing

Okay fine, but any direct comparisons between the brick and the Pro Channel? People having used both?

I've not used both, but I can tell you that the Pro Channel is a really nice piece of hardware. There's a lot of uneducated replys on this forum, so don't bother too much about whether it's gold plated (gold, iron or whatever doesn't matter...It's only current, which travel at speed of light anyway. The only problem could be corrosion, over maybe 50 years or so) components or whatever. Listen to people who actually have used the particular piece of hardware, not some voodoo-hoodoo guy who spend the day surfing for gear specs...

[sluttiedude]

Originally Posted by netrom

I've not used both, but I can tell you that the Pro Channel is a really nice piece of hardware. There's a lot of uneducated replys on this forum, so don't bother too much about whether it's gold plated (gold, iron or whatever doesn't matter...It's only current, which travel at speed of light anyway. The only problem could be corrosion, over maybe 50 years or so) components or whatever. Listen to people who actually have used the particular piece of hardware, not some voodoo-hoodoo guy who spend the day surfing for gear specs...

lol voodoo hoodoo..
the pro channel sounds like a good idea.. but so does the Baby Animal.
but the pro channel is an 'all in one' solution for a budget recorder.. including the savings on good interconnect cables.

[stagefright13]

I used to have a prochannel and it is a really good setup. I did eventually sell it tho. And the new owner loves it too. It's VERY versatile. If I wasn't desperate to pay for some of my other stuff I would still have it.

When I buy another rack and have the room I may purchase another...

[rico52]

I said it before and now again..................... I reaped great results with the ART stuff BEFORE I found out that it wasn't pro gear!!!!!!!!!

[BlueCrestAudio]

I have the pro channel and its alright, I have not used it too much yet, it sounds good on bass, but it can produce a nasty hiss if your not careful with the knobs, its not a bad choice at all but I would honestly save up a little more.

[lynyrd]

I have found that since I got my SCA preamps (N72s and A12s) my Pro Tube Channel doesn't get so much use. It is good however for getting a really smashed room mic sound, (with the compressor set to stun), and I don't mind it on snare sometimes.

[Weasel9992]

Originally Posted by willsing

Okay fine, but any direct comparisons between the brick and the Pro Channel? People having used both?

I've used both extensively...the Brick is the sonic winner in that comparison, but I'm sure that's no big surprise to anyone. It doesn't win by a mile though...the differences are subtle for sure. I have a couple of MPA Gold preamps with different tubes, and for the money, the MPA is the winner from a value standpoint.

Frank

[Popolocho]

Frank, do you find any of the extra features on the MPA Gold like the variable impendance useful? I'm torn between getting the Brick and some of the ART stuff.

[climber]

Frank

which tubes you using in your MPA Gold? inquiring minds...

[aman74]

Originally Posted by Acoustic Cloud

Now, the fact that this type of discussion takes place in the Low End forum is a testament to the powers of advertising and hype.

but if you are reading threads in the low end forum to begin with, you probably need to work on technique and gain experience before considering a different pre to improve the quality of a single recorded track. take note: I am frequently in the Low End zone and am aware that this applies to me, I am not judging anyone here.

How does budget have anything to do with experience?

Some people may have a low budget or simply choose not to spend more, this however has no direct correlation to their talent and knowledge.

[Weasel9992]

Originally Posted by climber

Frank

which tubes you using in your MPA Gold? inquiring minds...

I use Amperex AX7's in one and Telefunken AX7's in the other. I prefer the Telefunken's *by far* on most things. The Amperexes aren't bad, just much brighter than the Telefunkens...detailed at low gain levels, but a little strident at high gain levels.

The impedance feature is very useful...almost works like a tone knob in some cases. Definitely allows you to fine tune. The Brick is great...it's a cut above the MPA...tough choice. More channels of a good solid "B" preamp or one channel of a solid "A"?

Frank

[BudgetMC]

One of the advantages of the MPA is that with a couple of different tubes, it actually gives you TWO different preamp sounds to choose from. Kinda like two preamps for the price of one. That choice, combined with the flexibility in tone you get from the variable impedance and the "analog gain" output make it a very useful tool.

[6dyslexicelephnt]

I have the MPA GOLD. For the price it delivers a lot of features and very good sound.

My friend has the Pro Channel and I thought it sucked... but we were listening through computer monitors VS my A7s that I have at my place so that is completely unjustified.

Snobs will trash talk the MPA GOLD, but it is a very good pre and very cheap. A no brainer for someone starting out with no preamps other than 4 track or mbox. Works well with those chinese ribbons which are also cool for people starting out.

Good luck finding a better rackmount pre at $100-150 per channel.

[tzer0]

I just got a Wunder CM7 GT -- I wanted the Metal Tube but I couldn't justify double the price on the difference. I was considering getting this tube Preamp for it. My Gear Guy said if I was going to do it justice I should get the Universal Audio. Yes, some do use ART, but they are often modded and always change out the tubes. Rather than go that route I'll just get the 710. It'll cost more but it will be worth it in the long run.

[XirRec]

How about a comparison between the ART MPA Gold and MPA-II?

I really don't see much difference between the pres, except for the price;