The Brick Demo

[Morten Hjort]

There are so much hype around the GT the Brick right now so i'm wondering if anyone have some soundclips to show its potential? some raw (without effects like eq and comp) would be nice...

Regards
Morten Hjort / JunoLab

[Morten Hjort]

No one use The brick here?

[hollowteeth]

Hi, i`m using the brick for a bass DI. It has a great warm sound, slightly thickening in the lower mids which is cool for bass. It`s very well built and well worth the money. I haven`t got any time to put some sounds up at the moment though, sorry.

[Morten Hjort]

ok... If anyone have a vocal soundclip that would be really cool...

[JeffSanders]

I think it's The Balls for vocals. Just buy it, and if you don't like it, throw it on Ebay. You won't find better for under about 800 bucks or so imho.

[I <3 The Beatle]

Originally Posted by JeffSanders

I think it's The Balls for vocals. Just buy it, and if you don't like it, throw it on Ebay. You won't find better for under about 800 bucks or so imho.

I've been considering picking up one or two, but it's a little high when you compare price per channel of other units (Sytek, RNP at about $250/chan). Do you think it is definetly "better" than these units.

BTW, I know the RNP and Sytek are both transformer/tubeless, but I am talking sound quality, build quality, etc. etc.


Back to my hole

[JeffSanders]

I can't compare it to the Sytek, but bought a RNP at the same time. I was tight on cash, but wanted to compare. The RNP sounded great, but the Brick just sounded bigger and had more soul. So I sold the RNP. You're right about price-per-channel, but for what I do, mono tracks sound better anyway.

Oh...and if you love the Beatles then you will prefer this sound.

[I <3 The Beatle]

Originally Posted by JeffSanders

I can't compare it to the Sytek, but bought a RNP at the same time. I was tight on cash, but wanted to compare. The RNP sounded great, but the Brick just sounded bigger and had more soul. So I sold the RNP. You're right about price-per-channel, but for what I do, mono tracks sound better anyway.

Oh...and if you love the Beatles then you will prefer this sound.

Thanks I really have to try one of these, they seem great. I am considering some other options, but this is definetly the easiest of them all.

[warhead]

I have a vocal clip somewhere, damn now I gotta go try and figure out which file it's in!

War

[Jburn34]

I'll try to put some comparison clips up eventually. It is really nice for the price. It's big and suprisingly open (at least compared to what I was expecting).

I think one of the things that makes it such a great value is how versatile it is - being that it's a pre and a DI, and is portable enough to move around or use live. I've been using one a lot on my acoustic in a live setting and it sounds wonderful. I've got a Fishman blender system and am going straight into the Brick and then to the board.

[popmann]

I found the Brick dull and throaty. Which isn't a bad thing...it's a color--is what it is.

Now, if you've got a bunch of strident, bright mics, it balances those well.

Did well on electric guitar, although it didn't have enough gain by itself for a 57 to come close to +4.

I've used the RNP...I'd rather use it on a whole recording rather then the murky Brick, but each track may not sound as good by themselves. The Sytek is better...in about every way. Granted, if you want it to sound like a tube pre--you need a tube pre. But, with the gain stages properly set, I found nothing in the Brick I can't get from my UA610--and, IMO, the Brick was MUCH more colored and less flexible in what it's uses could be.

[moon_unit]

Posting "clips" of a mic pre isn't really going to be all that practical or revealing.

That is, not unless it's a very carefully-controlled comparison against a reference mic pre that is at least somewhat familiar ... and using mics that are familiar. And good luck finding a stranger on the net willing to do that for ya. Yea, I had an entire afternoon to myself, so I figured I'd put together a controlled listening test for that Mort guy on gearslutz.

I mean if someone posts something that sounds just stupendous, what is that going to tell you? That some guy has a great-sounding source, room accoustics, and perhaps some mad skills. And that his mic pre didn't totally suck. But with all the other stuff in place, I don't really think any mic pre is going to get in the way of that. Not unless it's just the shittiest mic pre on the planet, which I highly doubt the brick is.

Similarly, if the clip sucks, are you really going to factor that in to the equation when evaluating a mic pre from an MP3 over the internet? I just heard a low-fi clip of some guy's $50 Crate amp with the gain turned all the way up, and it sucked. Man, I sure am glad I didn't get that brick. In fact, I just had a very similar experience recently on another board and I just about crapped my pants laughing.

[twitme]

Originally Posted by moon_unit

Posting "clips" of a mic pre isn't really going to be all that practical or revealing.

That is, not unless it's a very carefully-controlled comparison against a reference mic pre that is at least somewhat familiar ... and using mics that are familiar. And good luck finding a stranger on the net willing to do that for ya. Yea, I had an entire afternoon to myself, so I figured I'd put together a controlled listening test for that Mort guy on gearslutz.

I mean if someone posts something that sounds just stupendous, what is that going to tell you? That some guy has a great-sounding source, room accoustics, and perhaps some mad skills. And that his mic pre didn't totally suck. But with all the other stuff in place, I don't really think any mic pre is going to get in the way of that. Not unless it's just the shittiest mic pre on the planet, which I highly doubt the brick is.

Similarly, if the clip sucks, are you really going to factor that in to the equation when evaluating a mic pre from an MP3 over the internet? I just heard a low-fi clip of some guy's $50 Crate amp with the gain turned all the way up, and it sucked. Man, I sure am glad I didn't get that brick. In fact, I just had a very similar experience recently on another board and I just about crapped my pants laughing.

is it not possible to get a reasonable idea of the unit's sound by recording a couple say, guitar takes with the brick, then replacing the brick with another pre, using every other part of the chain exactly how it was and recording those takes again? obviously this is completely unscientific and not a definitive* test by any means. but a rough idea none the less, don't you think?

[moon_unit]

Originally Posted by twitme

is it not possible to get a reasonable idea of the unit's sound by recording a couple say, guitar takes with the brick, then replacing the brick with another pre, using every other part of the chain exactly how it was and recording those takes again? obviously this is completely unscientific and not a definitive* test by any means. but a rough idea none the less, don't you think?

First off, if it's just one track, then it's not going to tell you how well it stacks or holds up in a mix; which is one of the very reasons you might invest in a good pre in the first place. Unless you're doing solo work or just very sparse mixes.

Secondly, it's not going to account for minute differences in performance ... which can easily trick you in to making a false conclusion about the signal chain. I've had this happen numerous times.

Third, if you're doing the comparison unassisted, then at some point, you're going to have to get up and swap out the mic pre. Once you get back to perform a second time, who's to say you're going to be in the exact same position now that you just got up and moved around? Depending on the mic, an inch can make a difference (although I suppose this wouldn't apply to electric).

Differences in mic pres are very subtle. So much so that any of these factors can account for much larger differences than simply routing your mic in to a different gain stage. If you're going to do a pre comparison and have it mean anything, it has to be done the right way; which requires a lot of planning; care and precision to the methodology. Otherwise, it can be misleading.

[I Lurk]

Originally Posted by popmann

I found the Brick dull and throaty. Which isn't a bad thing...it's a color--is what it is.

hmmm

you are the only one mentioning the dullness of this pre

could you have tried a "bad" unit ?

I mean reading "dull and throaty" aside with "surprisingly open" makes me wonder about even trying to discuss about a piece of gear in an internet audio forum

I wonder who would be able to forge an opinion about this thing now :D

[popmann]

Originally Posted by I Lurk

hmmm

you are the only one mentioning the dullness of this pre

could you have tried a "bad" unit ?

I mean reading "dull and throaty" aside with "surprisingly open" makes me wonder about even trying to discuss about a piece of gear in an internet audio forum

I wonder who would be able to forge an opinion about this thing now :D

Of course that's possible. It's also possible that everyone has different definitions. I can say that compared to every other pre I have...from cheap transformerless to the LA610 to the Great RiverNV1 to the Sytek...the Brick had less high end, and tended to add more girth to the low midrange (thus the throaty comment).

It tended to match best to mics like the ADK Hamburg which is not really thick and has "plenty" of high end. Anything that was essy became kind of spitty with the Brick as well.

57+Brick+a bit of high end(via EQ or ART DIO)...yeilded a nice thick but properly squelchy electric guitar track. That high end boost isn't really needed on electric with any other pre I have.

As always, YMMV. I was a bit confused, too...as Fletcher has often reffered to it as a clean pre versus the 610, which he dislikes greatly. No way...not the units I had/have. The UA, assuming the first gain stage is properly set, it MUCH more transparent and natural sounding than the Brick. Which isn't always a good thing. ;)

[I Lurk]

Fletcher an UA relation has not been very shinny during these last years

this is common knowledge ;)

although I'm not a big fan of the UA610 pre myself

thanks for your detailed review :)

[JeffSanders]

Now that I think of it, at http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/mo...rors_music.htm
the first song was done with an AT4047SV through the Brick. The guitar and vocals were all recorded with the same mic/pre. It was banged out start to finish in like an hour just for the hell of it...
There is no EQ. Only some UAD LA2A and EMT Plate on the vox.
It's sloppy, and not the greatest representation but it's something.

[mds]

Originally Posted by moon_unit

First off, if it's just one track, then it's not going to tell you how well it stacks or holds up in a mix; which is one of the very reasons you might invest in a good pre in the first place. Unless you're doing solo work or just very sparse mixes.

Secondly, it's not going to account for minute differences in performance ... which can easily trick you in to making a false conclusion about the signal chain. I've had this happen numerous times.

Third, if you're doing the comparison unassisted, then at some point, you're going to have to get up and swap out the mic pre. Once you get back to perform a second time, who's to say you're going to be in the exact same position now that you just got up and moved around? Depending on the mic, an inch can make a difference (although I suppose this wouldn't apply to electric).

Differences in mic pres are very subtle. So much so that any of these factors can account for much larger differences than simply routing your mic in to a different gain stage. If you're going to do a pre comparison and have it mean anything, it has to be done the right way; which requires a lot of planning; care and precision to the methodology. Otherwise, it can be misleading.

Some of this could be controlled pretty easily. Lets say you recording a guitar cabinet. The mic and the cab don't have to move at all to patch in a different pre. Performance differences will still be there, but if you did a distorted segment where a lot of amp compression was happening you'd get a more consistent source. Granted you'd only be testing one specific source.

If one were to compare a preamp with some thing like a Mackie pre and perhaps a Neve or something else everyone probably has some experience with it might be SOMEWHAT useful. Certainly not an endall, but I've conducted similar tests with certain pres and have been able to make useful decisions about how things sound.

I'm not saying these tests prove anything to anyone, but they can be useful....

[I play in a ban]

It can be the same performance....reamp the tracks.

- Bill

[moon_unit]

Originally Posted by mds

Lets say you recording a guitar cabinet. The mic and the cab don't have to move at all to patch in a different pre. Performance differences will still be there, but if you did a distorted segment where a lot of amp compression was happening you'd get a more consistent source.

... Yea, and a highly-compact source with very little dynamics is going to be a horrible test for how a mic pre handles transient-rich material. And the speaker's naturally limited bandwidth will give you no idea how extended the mic pre might be in the extreme highs and lows.

Not to mention the fact that any noise or harmonic distortion the mic pre might generate will be such a miniscule drop in the bucket compared to the self-noise and harmonic distortion already present at the source.

Your best bet would be the following:

* Get a drummer who plays really steady and consistant. Find a good spot, put a mic over him, and have him play the same beat consistantly. In the middle of his playing, swap the mic back and forth between two different mic pres.

That would give you a basic idea. Provided the player is steady, and you have the gain staging set up ahead of time to where the gain between the two pres is almost perfectly matched using a test tone.

You could extend this test by doing the following:

* Take a measure of the drums recorded from mic pre A and loop it. Do the same for mic pre B.

Now play a guitar riff on top of drum loop A using the same mic pre.

Now do the same for loop B, using mic pre B

Repeat the process for bass, vocals, or whatever else.

You now have a whole clip recorded entirely with mic pre A, and another tracked entirely with mic pre B. Compare the two, and you should have a really good idea of the character that each mic pre will bring to the table. The key is getting test subjects who can play with rock-steady consistancy.

[Jburn34]

Originally Posted by I play in a ban

It can be the same performance....reamp the tracks.

- Bill

I think that this should be done. If I ever slow down enough I'll do it. If someone else wants to beat me to it then that would be great. I think in the best case scenario we should try a few different cabs and a few different mics also.

[mds]

Originally Posted by moon_unit

... Yea, and a highly-compact source with very little dynamics is going to be a horrible test for how a mic pre handles transient-rich material. And the speaker's naturally limited bandwidth will give you no idea how extended the mic pre might be in the extreme highs and lows.

Not to mention the fact that any noise or harmonic distortion the mic pre might generate will be such a miniscule drop in the bucket compared to the self-noise and harmonic distortion already present at the source.

Your best bet would be the following:

* Get a drummer who plays really steady and consistant. Find a good spot, put a mic over him, and have him play the same beat consistantly. In the middle of his playing, swap the mic back and forth between two different mic pres.

That would give you a basic idea. Provided the player is steady, and you have the gain staging set up ahead of time to where the gain between the two pres is almost perfectly matched using a test tone.

You could extend this test by doing the following:

* Take a measure of the drums recorded from mic pre A and loop it. Do the same for mic pre B.

Now play a guitar riff on top of drum loop A using the same mic pre.

Now do the same for loop B, using mic pre B

Repeat the process for bass, vocals, or whatever else.

You now have a whole clip recorded entirely with mic pre A, and another tracked entirely with mic pre B. Compare the two, and you should have a really good idea of the character that each mic pre will bring to the table. The key is getting test subjects who can play with rock-steady consistancy.

Fair enough, though there is SOME value to knowing how it would sound on a distoted guitar compared to other pres. I was merely pointed out A way to limit some variables. I guess the point is there can be worthwhile tests that can serve some purpose, which was all I was really challenging in the first place.

The reamp idea seems like a good route for sure...