GAP 73 or Presonus Eureka

jpeele · 30th October 2009

Which is a better buy. I can get both for the same price, $300. I've read a lot about the GAP-73 heard really good results from the shootouts on the next. I haven't heard anything with the Eureka.

I like the idea of the GAP having a resemblance of the Neve sound. Does anyone have any experience with the Eureka?

Any sample recordings with the Eureka?

I've read extensively through the threads here and just wanted to get a few opinions. I've also considered the Art MPA but am a little skeptical about having to invest $300 in one and then turn around that replace the tubes. Either way, I'm buying one this weekend.

Thanks.

Tapeworm · 30th October 2009

I think the pre-73 is awesome. Forward, aggressive and slightly gritty (in a very good way) yet detailed. I don't have the eureka so I can't compare. Sorry. Try to do a search. I think the eureka has been discussed here over the years.

rty5150 · 30th October 2009

the GAP PRE-73 is going to be your best bet for a pre. if you need the features of the strip, then the eureka. keep in mind that would be at the sacrifice of the GAP's better sounding pre.

my vote is the GAP!

jpeele · 31st October 2009

Thanks for the responses so far. I'm leaning towards the 73. I've heard really great things about the GAP 73. I'm not really a fan of the features of the Eureka. I'm sure I'll be taking advantage of the software plug-ins that I have. I'll probably add some type of hardware compressor shortly. I'm looking at the art pro vla or something else to give some slight compression for vocals on the way in.

I produce r&B and hip hop, so this pre amp will be used strictly for vocals.

Jonboy79 · 31st October 2009

I can't comment on the 73 but I owned the Eureka for about a year and after the initial coolness of having a channel strip in the rack and having all those knobs wore off I really grew to hate the Eureka. The mic pre was very sterile sounding but more in a cheap way than a good way. The eq wasn't anything to write home about and I really liked almost all of my plug-in eq's better. At the same time I had the Eureka I also had the much cheaper and much more simple Joe Meek 3Q which I thought had a better comp(eventhough it had far fewer knobs)and, well, overall I thought it just kicked the crap out of the Eureka. Since I've owned other Presonus gear that has gotten the job done and I've also had several higher end pre's like the UA 610 and True Systems Precision 8 so I feel like I can tell when a preamp has something useful to it and to me the Eureka could be easily beaten by much less expensive channel strips with far fewer knobs. Man I hated all those knobs. Sorry for the rambling.

NEWTON IN ORBIT · 31st October 2009

Be careful. The GAP73 is not for everything. If you don't already have a clean modern "all rounder" preamp, grab that first. If you do, then yeah, grab the gap73, it sounds very cool, just not great on some sources imo.

I would have to say the presonus is going to be more flexible. The gap 73 is very colored.

I had a bad experience with it w/ a very loud, powerful r&b singer (female) early on, and it showed it's achilles heel. Even with a -20 pad inserted inline. The distortion is cool, but not always. When you want it very clean, you can't coax it out of that box. It kinda mucked up the "air" region of the girl's voice, which in r&b, to me is a no-no.

Please don't flame me, I love my GAP73's...just being honest here.
My two cents,
j

Sorry, I should say in MODERN r&b this is a no-no. If you want MOTOWN-ish (kinda), this might be for you.
Peace

Jonboy79 · 31st October 2009

If he needs a clean preamp he'd be better going for something like a Grace 101 or True Systems P-Solo and using plug-ins over the mediocrity that is the Eureka. Newton is right about some of the more colored pre's not working on all sources. For example my UA 610 did not work well on drums at all but was amazing on guitars, vox and bass di. I just beg you, please don't be sucked in by the Eureka's multitude of knobs and cool looking exterior. There are just too many other decently priced options out there that do what the Eureka does only better.

StarfishMusic · 31st October 2009

I have an art voice channel which is i'm sure the same pream[ in the MPA. It sounds great I haven't changed the tube. I use an avalon on a regular basis at various studios I work at. The voice channel surprisingly holds it's own and blows away my dbx 386. I've used the eureka plenty too, In general to compare the eureka to the art, the eureka is cleaner and the ART warmer. The eureka does a saturation type circuit that adds armonics, but doesn't quite sound the same as tube. Never heard the GAP-73 though.

jpeele · 1st November 2009

Thanks again for the responses. I've thought about getting a grace or true systems p, but I'm not quite sure I want an uncolored sound. I like the idea of adding a little character to the sound I'm going for. I guess you can say I'd like that "Motown" sound. When I listen to the recordings of those days, they all seem to have enough clarity and of course incredible character.

I know at the end of the day, it's about the performance. What advantages would a clean pre have over a colored pre when recording vocals? How about using both types on one recording. Maybe a clean pre for the backgrounds and a more colored tone for the lead? Is a more transparent pre better when stacking a lot of background vocals? Is it that the clean pre has more clarity or is does it's advantage come in capturing a more accurate source? Perhaps it's to not tamper with the character of the vocalist's tone by not adding any coloration? I don't know. I have a Sam Cooke kind of voice.

I guess this goes out to my engineers. If you had Sam Cooke recording in your studio, would you want a colored sound like the Neve or would you want something transparent like the Grace?

This sounds like a new thread. I'll post this question in a new thread as well.

30th October 2009	#1
jpeele Gear Head Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 43 Thread Starter 1 Review written	GAP 73 or Presonus Eureka Which is a better buy. I can get both for the same price, $300. I've read a lot about the GAP-73 heard really good results from the shootouts on the next. I haven't heard anything with the Eureka. I like the idea of the GAP having a resemblance of the Neve sound. Does anyone have any experience with the Eureka? Any sample recordings with the Eureka? I've read extensively through the threads here and just wanted to get a few opinions. I've also considered the Art MPA but am a little skeptical about having to invest $300 in one and then turn around that replace the tubes. Either way, I'm buying one this weekend. Thanks.

30th October 2009	#3
rty5150 Lives for gear Joined: Feb 2009 Location: LR,AR Posts: 2,808	the GAP PRE-73 is going to be your best bet for a pre. if you need the features of the strip, then the eureka. keep in mind that would be at the sacrifice of the GAP's better sounding pre. my vote is the GAP! __________________ rich

31st October 2009	#6
NEWTON IN ORBIT Lives for gear Joined: Sep 2007 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 2,095 2 Reviews written	GAP73 Be careful. The GAP73 is not for everything. If you don't already have a clean modern "all rounder" preamp, grab that first. If you do, then yeah, grab the gap73, it sounds very cool, just not great on some sources imo. I would have to say the presonus is going to be more flexible. The gap 73 is very colored. I had a bad experience with it w/ a very loud, powerful r&b singer (female) early on, and it showed it's achilles heel. Even with a -20 pad inserted inline. The distortion is cool, but not always. When you want it very clean, you can't coax it out of that box. It kinda mucked up the "air" region of the girl's voice, which in r&b, to me is a no-no. Please don't flame me, I love my GAP73's...just being honest here. My two cents, j Sorry, I should say in MODERN r&b this is a no-no. If you want MOTOWN-ish (kinda), this might be for you. Peace Last edited by NEWTON IN ORBIT; 31st October 2009 at 01:17 AM.. Reason: oops

31st October 2009	#8
StarfishMusic Lives for gear Joined: Jul 2008 Posts: 763	I have an art voice channel which is i'm sure the same pream[ in the MPA. It sounds great I haven't changed the tube. I use an avalon on a regular basis at various studios I work at. The voice channel surprisingly holds it's own and blows away my dbx 386. I've used the eureka plenty too, In general to compare the eureka to the art, the eureka is cleaner and the ART warmer. The eureka does a saturation type circuit that adds armonics, but doesn't quite sound the same as tube. Never heard the GAP-73 though. __________________ I mix songs from other studios. Samples here: www.reverbnation.com/starfishstudios

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

30th October 2009	#2
Tapeworm Lives for gear Joined: May 2006 Posts: 1,450	I think the pre-73 is awesome. Forward, aggressive and slightly gritty (in a very good way) yet detailed. I don't have the eureka so I can't compare. Sorry. Try to do a search. I think the eureka has been discussed here over the years.

31st October 2009	#5
Jonboy79 Lives for gear Joined: Sep 2005 Location: St. Louis MO Posts: 2,636	I can't comment on the 73 but I owned the Eureka for about a year and after the initial coolness of having a channel strip in the rack and having all those knobs wore off I really grew to hate the Eureka. The mic pre was very sterile sounding but more in a cheap way than a good way. The eq wasn't anything to write home about and I really liked almost all of my plug-in eq's better. At the same time I had the Eureka I also had the much cheaper and much more simple Joe Meek 3Q which I thought had a better comp(eventhough it had far fewer knobs)and, well, overall I thought it just kicked the crap out of the Eureka. Since I've owned other Presonus gear that has gotten the job done and I've also had several higher end pre's like the UA 610 and True Systems Precision 8 so I feel like I can tell when a preamp has something useful to it and to me the Eureka could be easily beaten by much less expensive channel strips with far fewer knobs. Man I hated all those knobs. Sorry for the rambling.

1st November 2009	#9
jpeele Gear Head Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 43 Thread Starter 1 Review written	Thanks again for the responses. I've thought about getting a grace or true systems p, but I'm not quite sure I want an uncolored sound. I like the idea of adding a little character to the sound I'm going for. I guess you can say I'd like that "Motown" sound. When I listen to the recordings of those days, they all seem to have enough clarity and of course incredible character. I know at the end of the day, it's about the performance. What advantages would a clean pre have over a colored pre when recording vocals? How about using both types on one recording. Maybe a clean pre for the backgrounds and a more colored tone for the lead? Is a more transparent pre better when stacking a lot of background vocals? Is it that the clean pre has more clarity or is does it's advantage come in capturing a more accurate source? Perhaps it's to not tamper with the character of the vocalist's tone by not adding any coloration? I don't know. I have a Sam Cooke kind of voice. I guess this goes out to my engineers. If you had Sam Cooke recording in your studio, would you want a colored sound like the Neve or would you want something transparent like the Grace? This sounds like a new thread. I'll post this question in a new thread as well.