ART PRO MPA vs ART MPA Gold

[Track 7]

Originally Posted by river

When I get a chance, I'll post samples of the same acoustic guitar with the same mic through all three versions. They all sound unique, completely different coloration. I stand by the statement.

+1 my experience also... completely different coloration... distinctly different characteristics. thumbsup

[RARStudios]

So any tube you buy for this unit is going to be a cost effective way to "test" new sounds you like/dislike?

[RARStudios]

i am probably buying a presonus blue tube(with black lion mod) and a ART MPA gold

Should i just replace the tubes in these units? or buy a crap load of paired tubes to try them out?

[Chris Lago]

Originally Posted by etcd32

i am probably buying a presonus blue tube(with black lion mod) and a ART MPA gold

Should i just replace the tubes in these units? or buy a crap load of paired tubes to try them out?

Yes you should definitely replace them, you will hear a major difference. I suggest you try out some NOS Telefunken 12AX7. Check out Bowie on Gearslutz, he has one to sell for $60, that's pretty cheap, and it sounds great!

[RARStudios]

on one site it was like $5 per...

[dickiefunk]

Originally Posted by etcd32

on one site it was like $5 per...

A NOS Telefunken 12AX7 for $5 !!!!????

[RARStudios]

i must have been reading it wrong haha

[Scoundrel1]

This is a minute old, but only goes back to July.
I couldn't help but pipe in. I have a hard time understanding how the guy with the opinions and skepticism on tube-rolling because of modern manufacturing had no idea that Tele's and Amperex were old tubes . . .? I must commend you all for being so polite. I have to wonder why, though, with all the API's and the Manley, you would want to put what was left of what I think you said was a dwindling budget at the ART MPA? I dunno . . . the whole thing just seems a bit fishy.
I, too, have skepticism about tube-rolling, but I also have a small tube collection. In certain units, I just prefer what would seem to be the wrong tube. Yeah, well, then again, with all the cheap-ass, low-end stuff that I have, it doesn't ever make that much difference which 12AX7 I run in 'em. (Ye ol' starved-plate scenario). The MPA is not a starved plate, but I don't think it is what we would call a "true tube design." I can't remember what I read on the actual circuit. I believe the users here when they say it sounds different. Why wouldn't I? Ok, so I'm not that skeptical.
I was curious about it because for me at this point it should be a step up from what I am using, which is the stock pres in the digi 003 and the presonus TubePre.
Let me just say now what I find with most of my guitar amps: I am going to get whatever it is that I get with that amp, no matter who made the tubes. Although, I have noticed some tubes complimenting certain amps this again is subject to my subjectivity. One of my cleaner and brighter vintage amps (you know the one, no not the Twin the other one) in particular doesn't like the Mullards, go figure, and I am not a fan of overly bright amps. Everything else but what came in it just dampens what is great about it in an unflattering way. Who ever had it before me already knew something about that I had learn. I find that with tube swaps, I seem to get more of what that amp does or less. You could say these are different sounds but it's like saying mismatched impedance is a different sound.
I should just post that last bit to a Vintage guitar amp BB, but I have begun to loathe those threads.
Ok, so anyway, yes the Mullards have made no difference in many of my amps that sported other decent tubes. Seems a bit like the tail wagging the dog at times. My opinions are still subject to my subjectivity and there just is no objectivity in existence, (simple physics).
Y.M.will.V. for sure, as you roll stronger and weaker tubes. Which is why some people just do fresh re-tubes all the time and say things like "Gee these Electro-harmonix/sovteks are great!" It happened to me too once while pulling Sylvanias and dropping in JJs. Some tubes may sound better than others but there is no magical brand and NOS means next to nothing in tubes, but it could be your best bet or a nice place to start.
Hey and by the way all those different cheap IC chips in your green pedal make no difference either.
The problem is, there no way to sincerely test a tube, other than believing your ears. It's been tested time and time again that users and listeners will decide with out a doubt that the tubes that they already think are the best, sound the best. This is why I just cant get enough of the blind test shoot outs. Oh it's so great on mics, pres, compressors, monitors, everything, soooo fun. It's amazing what people will choose when they don't know what it is.
This being said, I still prefer my mullards because.. well, they are mullards... I can't help it.
I just got a Rode NTK swapped a real NOS bugle boy. I couldn't really hear much of a difference between that and the Russian tube that came in it. Not on my rig anyway, but when I put up a 40 dollar condenser, yes I said 40 dollars. the 40 dollar beat the living day light out of it.
Well I think the Rode is broken, it works but I'm going to have to pay someone to take it all apart and look at the diaphragm because I just can't believe a 40 dollar mic beat it.
But I will gladly trade you a fist full of 'em plus and Bugle Boys and a funken for the one of your API pres.

[Chris Lago]

Dude, listen to my tube comparison between the Telefunken 12ax7 and Tungsol 12ax7 for vocals... There is a major difference, so I dunno what the hell you are ranting about. Just hear the clips, you'll notice right away.

[BOWIE]

Originally Posted by chrislago

Yes you should definitely replace them, you will hear a major difference. I suggest you try out some NOS Telefunken 12AX7. Check out Bowie on Gearslutz, he has one to sell for $60, that's pretty cheap, and it sounds great!

Thanks for the plug Chris! Just so that none of my customers freak-out, not all are $60. The ones with nice logos go up to $90 (which is still a helluva lot cheaper than the $160 some places charge).
As far as $5 is concerned, I don't think you could find a fake one for $5.

[bibleboy3]

you might want to try a 7025 these are the low noise version of the 12ax7


Bill

[Scoundrel1]

Yes Teles and Tungs have an inherent character different from each other, that mostly just dogs and classical listeners can hear. If you have played in front of any celestions, especially 75s and V30s or even Jensens, if you have been bumping demos through NS10s for any amount of time or even if you have been on the club circuit blaring SonyMDRs into your head the chance of hearing most of that character is diminsihed. What is always apparent is the differecne is the strength of the tube. What some people favor is NOS seems to coincide with what tubes were built to last, no tube or IC chip was ever built to actually SOUND good. Take for example any JAN tube. Although I really have no history on Burr-brown but I have a feeling someone is going to tell me that they were just built to be quiet, probably for nasa or other military listening devices.
So it could be the sonic charater or it could be just the strenth of the tube. I really dont know shit about tubes although I have read what what a hundred tube gurus say they know and I have read the old RCA tube manual. Talk about geeking out!

[Chris Lago]

I think Bowie would know more, I just don't get why you're talking about the fact that you don't hear a difference with tubes, and then you say it's about the strength of the tube or character, but then you say you don't know anything about tubes... You seem to be contradicting yourself? I have NS10s and I hear a difference, so maybe you're in the wrong field man.

Bowie, can you back me on this? I just feel like that guy is talking from his crapper, which means he doesn't know anything about tubes. If you can't hear subtleties of gear/tubes, then I don't suggest that you become a producer, recording engineer or mastering engineer.

So would you say that a Behringer B-2 sounds like a Neumann U-87?!? Please!

Ps: I go to clubs very often and I can tell that good Club songs were recorded through amazing gear.

[BOWIE]

Originally Posted by chrislago

I think Bowie would know more, I just don't get why you're talking about the fact that you don't hear a difference with tubes, and then you say it's about the strength of the tube or character, but then you say you don't know anything about tubes... You seem to be contradicting yourself? I have NS10s and I hear a difference, so maybe you're in the wrong field man.

Bowie, can you back me on this? I just feel like that guy is talking from his crapper, which means he doesn't know anything about tubes. If you can't hear subtleties of gear/tubes, then I don't suggest that you become a producer, recording engineer or mastering engineer.

So would you say that a Behringer B-2 sounds like a Neumann U-87?!? Please!

Ps: I go to clubs very often and I can tell that good Club songs were recorded through amazing gear.

I try to not even get into it with people who claim that there is no difference because everyone hears things differently and if someone has different or lesser hearing ability, I certainly won't rag on them for it. However, it is blatantly true and can be proven that there are sonic differences between tubes. It has to do with the design, materials, crastsmanship, etc. Most people in the audio engineering industry find these differences to be easily perceptible. In my business, I work with people who hear enough of a difference that they are happy to spend their money of high-end tubes. Many of these are studio owners and professional engineers who are putting out hit records, some are voice actors whose voices you hear on commercials every day, and others are hobbyists who just want to make their music sound as good as it can be. They all pick up on many kinds of sonic nuances and characteristics in different tubes. It would be rather ballsy to say that these folks are imagining the difference.

For anyone whose interested in hearing another comparison, here's something that Johan of World Studios put together. It doesn't show as big of a difference as you'd normally hear in recording because these tracks are all run after the music was already recorded to disk.
Different Tubes In A Tube Tech CL1B
The mix at the end of each clip is very telling. Listen to the lows, highs, subtle details, etc.

[Chris Lago]

Exactly, and it's the same when it comes to cables, I switched regular XLRs to Mogami Gold and the difference is definitely noticeable, the sound is so much more clearer.

[Weasel9992]

Originally Posted by Scoundrel1

Yes Teles and Tungs have an inherent character different from each other, that mostly just dogs and classical listeners can hear. If you have played in front of any celestions, especially 75s and V30s or even Jensens, if you have been bumping demos through NS10s for any amount of time or even if you have been on the club circuit blaring SonyMDRs into your head the chance of hearing most of that character is diminsihed. What is always apparent is the differecne is the strength of the tube. What some people favor is NOS seems to coincide with what tubes were built to last, no tube or IC chip was ever built to actually SOUND good. Take for example any JAN tube. Although I really have no history on Burr-brown but I have a feeling someone is going to tell me that they were just built to be quiet, probably for nasa or other military listening devices.
So it could be the sonic charater or it could be just the strenth of the tube. I really dont know shit about tubes although I have read what what a hundred tube gurus say they know and I have read the old RCA tube manual. Talk about geeking out!

I completely understand what you're saying. This issue comes up in acoustics all the time: the relationship between objective data and subjective experience. The issue is that where music is concerned (and, arguably most other forms of art), the experience is the important factor; the science, i.e., measurements, graphs, plots, etc., are important, but not *most* important.

I'd be willing to bet that my Tele and Amperex tubes wouldn't measure much differently, but I'll tell you what...they do sound completely different. I just got a new Les Paul yesterday and my buddy and I were listening to all my different preamps, and he couldn't believe the difference between the two. The Tele's are way darker...much more low end to them. I'm thinking of doing some clips with my ACMP pre's...maybe I'll do an A/B with the MPA's too.

Frank

[EricF]

Just responding to some earlier posts...

Originally Posted by river

It is not a starved plate design. The ART MP is the only starved plate pre they make.

I believe the ART Pro Channel also uses a starved plate design.

Originally Posted by pongki

since we are talking about ART, have anyone tried ART DIGITAL MPA?

The Digital MPA is the exact same pre as the MPA Gold, but adds a digital ouput section.

[jaz49]

I'm also wondering what the difference is between the MPA gold and the pro MPA. Other than the variable impedance on the MPA gold are they essentially the same? Does anyone know? I seriously doubt the pro mpa is a starved plate design.

[Chris Lago]

Originally Posted by jaz49

I'm also wondering what the difference is between the MPA gold and the pro MPA. Other than the variable impedance on the MPA gold are they essentially the same? Does anyone know? I seriously doubt the pro mpa is a starved plate design.

The Digital MPA has variable impedance too.

[dkelley]

if you use condensors mostly then variable input impedance is pointless.

if you use certain dynamics and ever use ribbons, you can alter the overal tone a bit by changing the input impedance (it's sort of like the difference in tubes, that amount of a change, it's there but not like OMG EVERYONE HAS TO HEAR THIS sort of a change... something engineers pick up on easily but not the average joe).

and actually, it is quite a valuable addition that the mpa gold has. continually variable is also a huge boon over the switchable type. I also doubt it's as simple as adding a pot to the existing circuit, although I havne't bothered to check the schematic on that part of the design to know for sure.

many expensive preamps don't have the feature because they're transformer coupled - not quite as easy to change the circuit if you're using purist passive input coupling!

and +1 on the mpa gold (and pro mpa which do sound basically the same). amazing units.

great to hear of a studio that's using so many of them to such a professional level. totally cool.

I love how cheap gear can match exotics in tone quality. I love expensive gear too, high end rocks, but I laugh all the way to the bank in my home studio.

Cheers,
Don

[Alxi]

Interesting discution

I have just bought new tubes for my ART Prochannel, some Tung Sol 12AX7
at 20$ US each. I have been told that upgrading the stock tubes would make a big difference. I was also told not to spend more then 60$-80$ total on tubes on that unit.

So guess what

I receive my tubes today.

While making the replacement i found out that 2 of the 3 tubes were Electro-harmonix 12AT7EH ( comp and EQ ) and that the preamp tube was a Sovtek 7025/12AX7WA

the tung-sol i have bought are Matched and balance.

Will i notice a big difference between the Tung-sol and the electro Harmonix ???

And wich one would you recommend using ???

Thanks

-Alxi-

[gtrscott]

Anyone who thinks tubes are the same just because the plate sizes are the same, unfortunately must not hear the difference in different brands. Even if different brands are made in the same factory, the design specs of each brand can be individualized. The material the plates are made of enters into the equation as well as exact dimensions. I own the MPA gold and have Svetlana and Tung Sol tubes in the different channels. Given the same settings if someone can't hear the difference between the two, that is unfortunate, but they should at least consider all of the tube parameters. I prefer the Svetlana 12ax7, however that depends on the microphone being used.
Being an original owner of Mesa Boogie Mark IIc+ and Mark III red stripe amps, I have experienced the differences different tubes make, preamp tubes included, for many years. I don't understand the popularity of Groove Tubes at all - my favorite 12ax7's were Tungsram though I haven't seen those available as NOS.
I have had good experiences recently with Svetlana, and Tung Sol preamp tubes. My suggestion is, try a few different tube brands. The mic you are using will factor into the equation, it does with any
preamp / mic combination.
Every link in the chain matters !

[BudgetMC]

I recently rolled a Telefunken into my ART MPA Gold (Thanks Bowie!!!), and I've gotta say it sounds absolutely fabulous. There's a Mullard 4024 in the other channel, and it has a different flavor. Love this pre and it's cool flexibility based on tube choices.

[ivansc]

Originally Posted by stevetgn

I started in this game in the Mid 80's

You kids...!

1961 did my first studio recording.

There may be some dirt around that is older than me, but I doubt it....(grin)

[nathanp]

Originally Posted by Weasel9992

Because in order to do better you'd have to spend five times as much as a pair of tubes are worth.

Frank

yo man, talkin' 'bout that dangol'... amen...

-boomhauer

[icecubeman]

Just bought ART MPA II and going to switch tubes for JJ 12AX7 (gold pinned). I will give try to our domestic tube manufacturer (I am living 170 kilometers from JJ Electronics fabrique ) And definitely I am going to do some shootouts with stock tubes so I can upload it here... If you would like to hear specific instrument through MPA II, let me know....