Art MPA Gold Clips!

[SeanG]

Originally Posted by Track 7

YES do an A/B test and you will become a NOS freak!

Do a blind A/B test and you will not.

[memphisindie]

Tones are good, little less 5k on the vox and bring the GTR down a little or ease up on the comp. Nice tracks though.

[bussy]

Hi, any one of us using MPA gold for rap or broadcast vocals?

[Chris Lago]

I'll be posting samples of my Digital MPA with Kel Audio HM-7U microphone soon.

[Chris Lago]

Originally Posted by bussy

Hi, any one of us using MPA gold for rap or broadcast vocals?

I've used it for Rap, sounds great

[Chris Lago]

Originally Posted by BOWIE

That's a good way of putting it. Good vintage tubes have a really deep sound stage and you can hear all the detail. Plus you can push vintage tubes hard for nice saturation and harmonic overtones whereas the newer ones just crap out and get thin/buzzy.

How do Mullards/Telefunken compare to tungsol tubes? I'm thinking about getting telefunkens but I just feel that I can EQ after if a little bit of bass is missing. Depends on the mic too. Do you feel that the voice is more important than the tubes? Or are the NOS tubes really going to make a major difference?

[Chris Lago]

This is the same song with MPA/M-Audio Luna and Tungsol 12ax7. Should I change the tube for a NOS tube? I dunno, it sounds great to my ears.

Would anyone like to send me a NOS Mullard or Telefunken 12AX7? I'd like to try them out and ship them back after. I just want to try them before I buy any.

[BOWIE]

Originally Posted by chrislago

This is the same song with MPA/M-Audio Luna and Tungsol 12ax7. Should I change the tube for a NOS tube? I dunno, it sounds great to my ears.

Would anyone like to send me a NOS Mullard or Telefunken 12AX7? I'd like to try them out and ship them back after. I just want to try them before I buy any.

Vintage Telefunkens and Mullards sound VERY different from each other. One is open and accurate while the other is very dark and midrange focused (unless you're talking about special versions which complicates thinmgs). Both are excellent, just different. You should probably try a used one of each. I don't think you'll find anyone who will give you a loaner, as even a smudge on the logo can knock as much as $20 off the tube.
Regarding the differences. There is pretty much always an improvement in detail and responsiveness. That part is undeniable but tone is just a preference. Most people I talk to feel it's a very positive difference but everyone's ears are different. Just like with mics, converters, etc.

[Groberts]

Originally Posted by BOWIE

Vintage Telefunkens and Mullards sound VERY different from each other. One is open and accurate while the other is very dark and midrange focused (unless you're talking about special versions which complicates thinmgs). Both are excellent, just different. You should probably try a used one of each. I don't think you'll find anyone who will give you a loaner, as even a smudge on the logo can knock as much as $20 off the tube.
Regarding the differences. There is pretty much always an improvement in detail and responsiveness. That part is undeniable but tone is just a preference. Most people I talk to feel it's a very positive difference but everyone's ears are different. Just like with mics, converters, etc.

So which is which? Open and artiulate is the telefunken or Mullard?

Would an MPA Gold with High end tubes be a better alternative to the BLA Auteur? It's the slightly enhanced low end on the BLA that keeps me from jumping on the BLA bandwagon. The ART MPA with good tubes sure seems like a nice value.

[Track 7]

Originally Posted by BOWIE

I'm really glad to see someone post how good humble gear can sound with vintage tubes!

+1 I'm with Bowie! thumbsup

[Track 7]

Originally Posted by hakim

Wow do the vintage Tubes sound that much better than the new productions?

YES.. they do!

[dkelley]

Originally Posted by Groberts

Would an MPW Gold with High end tubes be a better alternative to the BLA Auteur? It's the slightly enhanced low end on the BLA that keeps me from jumping on the BLA bandwagon. The ART MPA with good tubes sure seems like a nice value.

from what I've read the Auteur is the way to go, but I haven't tried it so can't say personally. rumor has it though that it's incredible.

I know what you mean about the "slightly enhanced low end"..... that's not something you want to build up. but from personal experience I've found that tracking every in a big project through the same preamp, then doing something really similar all through a different preamp (eg using two very different boards and using the board pres for everything) will result in a slightly different sound in the end, but it will still be great if you know what you're doing. pres may be different in overall character, but as long as the preamps are good and fairly accurate without a lot of issues then the general eq a preamp imparts can be compensated for if you wish and even then just slightly changes the flavour of a recording in the end. too much bass is very unlikely from the BLA box, it's more likely that it just doesn't suffer from the subtle loss of bass you get from the MPA gold.

we're talking 1 or db here overall though generally, something that is pretty easy to deal with and not a big problem even if you dont' deal with it. if you record 40 bass heavy tracks with a pre it'll affect things for sure. but since most of us are recording lots of things in different ranges, the end result isn't going to be a problem.

I'm very curious about the BLA box - I really want to work with one for a bit.

I love mpa golds as well though. I also happen to like focusrite platinum preamps for that matter. they're all good, just different sounds. none of them sucks like the old crap I used when I was young sucked.

cheers,
Don

[Groberts]

Originally Posted by dkelley

from what I've read the Auteur is the way to go, but I haven't tried it so can't say personally. rumor has it though that it's incredible.

I know what you mean about the "slightly enhanced low end"..... that's not something you want to build up. but from personal experience I've found that tracking every in a big project through the same preamp, then doing something really similar all through a different preamp (eg using two very different boards and using the board pres for everything) will result in a slightly different sound in the end, but it will still be great if you know what you're doing. pres may be different in overall character, but as long as the preamps are good and fairly accurate without a lot of issues then the general eq a preamp imparts can be compensated for if you wish and even then just slightly changes the flavour of a recording in the end. too much bass is very unlikely from the BLA box, it's more likely that it just doesn't suffer from the subtle loss of bass you get from the MPA gold.

we're talking 1 or db here overall though generally, something that is pretty easy to deal with and not a big problem even if you dont' deal with it. if you record 40 bass heavy tracks with a pre it'll affect things for sure. but since most of us are recording lots of things in different ranges, the end result isn't going to be a problem.

I'm very curious about the BLA box - I really want to work with one for a bit.

I love mpa golds as well though. I also happen to like focusrite platinum preamps for that matter. they're all good, just different sounds. none of them sucks like the old crap I used when I was young sucked.

cheers,
Don

Thanks Don. THe BLA will be close to the same cost as an ART MPA Gold (With upgraded NOS Vintage tubes) So if the BLA sounds better, that makes it a nice easy solution.I do love the pristine, musical sound tubes bring to the mix, but the BLA seems to be extremely musical and sweet too!

[dickiefunk]

Does anyone have any clips of the MPA Gold with vocals using stock tubes then NOS tubes?

Thanks

[Old Goat]

Originally Posted by dickiefunk

Does anyone have any clips of the MPA Gold with vocals using stock tubes then NOS tubes?

Thanks

Yup. I posted some on another Gold thread a while back. They are here

I used JJs, A vintage RCA Black Plate (thanks, BOWIE), and the stock Chinese tubes. There is a definite difference. They are .wav, to keep as much quality as possible.

[dickiefunk]

Cool thanks!

Did you use the MPA for both the guitar and vocals? Also what mics were you using?

[Old Goat]

Originally Posted by dickiefunk

Cool thanks!

Did you use the MPA for both the guitar and vocals? Also what mics were you using?

Yes. A single AT 4050 about 18" away from me, playing and singing.

[toxostoma rufum]

I've kept my JJ Gold Pin in channel one. The test I did earlier on another thread is with a JJ High-Gain which I really don't like and don't use anymore - might be cool for guitar, but not for the MPA. Also, I think my earlier JJ v. Valvo test is faulty in that the Valvo had much more time to warm up.

I've been swapping back and forth between my Valvo NOS and my New Sensor Tung Sol for about a month because while the Valvo is better below 200 Hz, the Tung Sol is superior everywhere else...and cleaner & better gain. This morning I decided to take out the Tung Sol because I thought it wasn't sounding that great and give the Valvo one more shot thinking that the Valvo is truly the better tube. I opened up the MPA and found that the Valvo was already in there providing the sound I wasn't thrilled with. I forgot which one was in there and thought I was getting that New Sensor "lower quality"...from a pristine NOS tube.

I hear the difference from NOS tubes (mostly in the low end freq.), but I like the character of my JJs and Tung Sols for what I do and I'll stick with them. I wouldn't recommend them for everyone. The UA and LaChappelle preamps are now coming stock with JJs and sound pretty good.

[BOWIE]

Originally Posted by toxostoma rufum

I've kept my JJ Gold Pin in channel one. The test I did earlier on another thread is with a JJ High-Gain which I really don't like and don't use anymore - might be cool for guitar, but not for the MPA. Also, I think my earlier JJ v. Valvo test is faulty in that the Valvo had much more time to warm up.

I've been swapping back and forth between my Valvo NOS and my New Sensor Tung Sol for about a month because while the Valvo is better below 200 Hz, the Tung Sol is superior everywhere else...and cleaner & better gain. This morning I decided to take out the Tung Sol because I thought it wasn't sounding that great and give the Valvo one more shot thinking that the Valvo is truly the better tube. I opened up the MPA and found that the Valvo was already in there providing the sound I wasn't thrilled with. I forgot which one was in there and thought I was getting that New Sensor "lower quality"...from a pristine NOS tube.

I hear the difference from NOS tubes (mostly in the low end freq.), but I like the character of my JJs and Tung Sols for what I do and I'll stick with them. I wouldn't recommend them for everyone. The UA and LaChappelle preamps are now coming stock with JJs and sound pretty good.

Surprising. I have several of the New Sensor Tung Sols (aka "re-issue") and Valvos of various production years and they are quite different from each other to my ears. The Tung Sol reissues are ok in the upper-mids but the highs aren't there, low-mids are smeared, and low end isn't happening. Valvos are very airy, detailed tubes with deep bass. Maybe your Valvo has gone bad?

[toxostoma rufum]

Or maybe this Tung Sol is good?

This is a Seimens und Halske Valvo from the Munich factory, not the Seimens Valvo from the Hamburg factory which basically is a rebranded telefunken. The added air and low end is definitely there - the mids just aren't doing it for me at all for my application, and I've tried it with different mics. You can tell it's a quality tube, though.

[SeanG]

Originally Posted by toxostoma rufum

I've kept my JJ Gold Pin in channel one. The test I did earlier on another thread is with a JJ High-Gain which I really don't like and don't use anymore - might be cool for guitar, but not for the MPA. Also, I think my earlier JJ v. Valvo test is faulty in that the Valvo had much more time to warm up.

I've been swapping back and forth between my Valvo NOS and my New Sensor Tung Sol for about a month because while the Valvo is better below 200 Hz, the Tung Sol is superior everywhere else...and cleaner & better gain. This morning I decided to take out the Tung Sol because I thought it wasn't sounding that great and give the Valvo one more shot thinking that the Valvo is truly the better tube. I opened up the MPA and found that the Valvo was already in there providing the sound I wasn't thrilled with. I forgot which one was in there and thought I was getting that New Sensor "lower quality"...from a pristine NOS tube.

I hear the difference from NOS tubes (mostly in the low end freq.), but I like the character of my JJs and Tung Sols for what I do and I'll stick with them. I wouldn't recommend them for everyone. The UA and LaChappelle preamps are now coming stock with JJs and sound pretty good.

JJ's are great, I've been using them for the last 2 years and they are rock solid tone suppliers. I had my '91 Rectifier and '99 Pitbull completely re-tubed with JJ's and they sound better than ever.

I've also got them in an LA-610 and this year I'm going to do my 737sp with JJ's.

I couldn't be happier with the tone and reliability.

I used NOS tubes for over ten years and in this day they're overpriced and overrated, in my opinion of course.

[toxostoma rufum]

It would help if I spelled "Siemens" correctly and not as "Seimens". In German the pronunciation goes with the second letter of the ie/ei.

It's SIEMENS! Sorry guys.

[MacDaddy]

I'm thinking of getting the ART MPA Gold.
Will changing the tubes make much of a difference?

[prslespaul]

I dont think the MPA Gold Pres are a huge step up from the Focusrite ones. It would not sound any better or worse.. More like "different". Just different characteristics. I suggest just buying 1 great Pre to start out with and run everything you have through it. You can pick up a Chameleon Labs Pre for under 500 dollars on Ebay. It has an all discrete design with a balanced IN/Out Transformer design. The EQs are the best of all. There are a lot of good pres out there. But I will tell you from experiance, a Pre isnt going to make your recording. You do. It just helps to have a good Pre. Great River, Neve, API, John Hardy, it doesnt matter. Its the engineer who makes the recording. After years of experiance i am sure i could make a MPA Gold sound better then what a less experianced person can do with a Great River. The Chameleon Labs is one of the better budget Pres ive worked with. Very musical. If you want to do a little soldering, the Yamaha PM1000 modules blow the MPA Gold out of the water IMO. Although the EQ in that is no where near as musical as the Chameleon Labs. Well let us know what you decide to do.

[Chris Lago]

Originally Posted by prslespaul

I dont think the MPA Gold Pres are a huge step up from the Focusrite ones. It would not sound any better or worse.. More like "different". Just different characteristics. I suggest just buying 1 great Pre to start out with and run everything you have through it. You can pick up a Chameleon Labs Pre for under 500 dollars on Ebay. It has an all discrete design with a balanced IN/Out Transformer design. The EQs are the best of all. There are a lot of good pres out there. But I will tell you from experiance, a Pre isnt going to make your recording. You do. It just helps to have a good Pre. Great River, Neve, API, John Hardy, it doesnt matter. Its the engineer who makes the recording. After years of experiance i am sure i could make a MPA Gold sound better then what a less experianced person can do with a Great River. The Chameleon Labs is one of the better budget Pres ive worked with. Very musical. If you want to do a little soldering, the Yamaha PM1000 modules blow the MPA Gold out of the water IMO. Although the EQ in that is no where near as musical as the Chameleon Labs. Well let us know what you decide to do.

What are you talking about? The MPA Gold with NOS tubes is way better than any interface's preamp!

[hello people]

I would post some examples of my mpa Gold...but I suck at music and playing and singing...you'd all probably think I recorded with a 1987 soundblaster

[mamm7215]

"The MPA Gold with NOS tubes is way better than any interface's preamp!"


Ummm, no. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. The Metric Halo is an interface and I don't care if you put NOS quantum flux capacitor tubes in the Gold, it's not going to be better than the Halo's pres. I just spent 2 hours last night A/B'ing my Gold with the pres on my new TC Konnekt48 pres (with different mics) and as much as I love my Gold with the mullards, it may be up for sale soon... The Gold I liked for some sources and situations, not so much for others. The Konnekts pres I liked on pretty much everything, just wish they had a bit more gain for my ribbons. But the Gold was fine on those so...jmho

[Chris Lago]

Originally Posted by mamm7215

"The MPA Gold with NOS tubes is way better than any interface's preamp!"


Ummm, no. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. The Metric Halo is an interface and I don't care if you put NOS quantum flux capacitor tubes in the Gold, it's not going to be better than the Halo's pres. I just spent 2 hours last night A/B'ing my Gold with the pres on my new TC Konnekt48 pres (with different mics) and as much as I love my Gold with the mullards, it may be up for sale soon... The Gold I liked for some sources and situations, not so much for others. The Konnekts pres I liked on pretty much everything, just wish they had a bit more gain for my ribbons. But the Gold was fine on those so...jmho

I meant prosumer interface. Ever tried with Telefunkens?

[mamm7215]

No but I may have to just to see for myself

[prslespaul]

Thanks again for everyone who listened to my clip. I am selling my MPA Gold for $250OBO if anyone wants it. Comes with a Mullard and Telefunken Tube installed. Mint Condition. Still has the Plastic on the DB Meters. PM if anyones interested?