DBX 586 vs ART MPA Gold

[Chief Pronto]

anyone?

[Rob Coates]

I'd be interested in this as well. I have the MPA Gold (with NOS Mullards) and have been very happy with it but have often considered trying the DBX 586.

[Chief Pronto]

I guess we're not so lucky as to get some feedback on this. I guess my only choice is to keep both.

[soul&folk]

I searched this and found an amusing thread where some people thought the DBX was starved plate and that was refuted. And then they were dissing the appearance, where the tube glows from behind or something like that.

Did so few people buy the DBX 586 that nobody knows about it?

[Chief Pronto]

Originally Posted by soul&folk

I searched this and found an amusing thread where some people thought the DBX was starved plate and that was refuted. And then they were dissing the appearance, where the tube glows from behind or something like that.

Did so few people buy the DBX 586 that nobody knows about it?

People who thought the DBX 586 was starved plate were misinformed. The tube glow thing that people were dissing was because there's an orange LED in the tube socket that makes it look as if the tube is glowing brighter than it actually was. This led people to believe that the tube didn't heat up or do anything, and that the 586 was "toob". The reality of it is that preamp tubes BARELY glow as it is, even when they're working normally... so they just put the LED in there to complete the look. To the people who thought that tubes don't do anything to the sound, just swap the tube and you'll hear that the tube does have a huge influence on the colour.

I'm trying to figure out if the DBX 586 would be considered an upgrade from the MPA Gold. The 586 has awful reviews. The MPA Gold has nearly impeccable reviews. But for the people reviewing the DBX, they're reviewing it as a $1700 dual preamp, and when it sounds just a little nasty, they slam it. When the same people review the MPA Gold as a $300 dual preamp, when it sounds just a little pleasant, they praise it.

So, since I can get the DMX 586 for $200, price is out of the equation. Which one is built better, which one has a more desirable sound (subjective), which one has a greater feature set, all not considering the original price tag...

[rico52]

I have one and got good results before I found out it was not well liked around here

[ivmike]

Originally Posted by Chief Pronto

People who thought the DBX 586 was starved plate were misinformed. The tube glow thing that people were dissing was because there's an orange LED in the tube socket that makes it look as if the tube is glowing brighter than it actually was. This led people to believe that the tube didn't heat up or do anything, and that the 586 was "toob". The reality of it is that preamp tubes BARELY glow as it is, even when they're working normally... so they just put the LED in there to complete the look. To the people who thought that tubes don't do anything to the sound, just swap the tube and you'll hear that the tube does have a huge influence on the colour.

I'm trying to figure out if the DBX 586 would be considered an upgrade from the MPA Gold. The 586 has awful reviews. The MPA Gold has nearly impeccable reviews. But for the people reviewing the DBX, they're reviewing it as a $1700 dual preamp, and when it sounds just a little nasty, they slam it. When the same people review the MPA Gold as a $300 dual preamp, when it sounds just a little pleasant, they praise it.

So, since I can get the DMX 586 for $200, price is out of the equation. Which one is built better, which one has a more desirable sound (subjective), which one has a greater feature set, all not considering the original price tag...

If you can get the DBX 586 for $200, I'd say pick it up and use it a bunch. At the very least, if you hate how it sounds, you can easily flip it for the same money that you paid and find an MPA for around $200 (used). This is what I would do, simply because I've never worked with the DBX 586 before; I have both the MPA Gold and MPA II (both were re-tubed by me with NOS tubes from BOWIE) and I like them.

[philmanning]

I have a 586 which I bought new for around $1700 a number of years ago when they were new on the market (mid 90s?)

first of all, the signal is ALWAYS going through the tube - the "drive" knob does not need to be cranked to engage the tube, only if you want to be creative with tube distortion

my unit seem to have low output until a tech friend of mine found some issue and resolved it

the EQ is okay - I remember using it as a bass guitar DI and the EQ was perfect in this application as a tone-shaper (as opposed to a problem solver EQ like in a Mackie)

it is NOT starved tube - LEDs light up the tubes as a marketing thing, they have no function otherwise

I would not pay $1700 again, but at the time it was among the cheapest pres I could find - I just recently picked up another for $50

can't speak to the ART stuff - had bad early experience with their gear (too noisy for studio) so I never considered the brand after that, but I've heard good things- but like someone has said, the low price may impact the opinion

[noah330]

I remember when these were out which I am guessing was the late 90s because I remember seeing them at Mars Music when they were in business.

IIRC this was a rebranded (or redesigned) Digitech VTP-1 mic pre which was out in the early 90s and was one of the first tube mic pres I remember being marketed during those years.

I have a VTP-1 and although it doesn't get a ton of love I have always liked the way it sounds.

For $200 I would say it probably sounds ok plus it has an effects send which is kind of a neat feature.

[sonic dogg]

At that price keep em both for different flavors. And yeah, the dbx was way overpriced originally since at the time you could buy things like a Langevin DVC or even a Manley dual tube pre. Neither of them had all the features of the dbx but then neither one needed any of that.