dbx 376 vs. PreSonus Eureka?

[anton foxx]

[QUOTE=Lunatique;1869407]


Anyway, I don't want to spend too much since it's a project studio, but I want to get the most bang for the buck. Between the dbx 376 and PreSonus Eureka (same price), which is the better buy?

Hi Luna,
Definitely try out both before you buy; you really need to get everything on your side with these kinds of decisions; do you want/need digital outputs?Wordclock in/out? Valve vs. Solid state? How do they sound?
The knobs on the Presonus look quite small, (which doesn't necessarily matter), but they may be kinda fiddly to turn/read in low light. It also has an analog VU meter, which might not be as helpful as the dbx's metering (dbx has led's), especially in critical monitoring situations. (just a thought)
They are both single channel units, if I remember correctly, which might be a limitation if you want to record stereo keyboard tracks also.
I would say they would be pretty similar for quality, someone here will be able to give you more valuable information on them, I'm sure.
Whatever you decide, good luck with your recording...and Rock on!
Anton.

[macleodgrant]

i have the DBX 376 and it's not a very good preamp in my eyes though it's not bad for some things like snare or other percussion! it was my only 'decent' preamp for a long while but for many things i just didn't like it and i only realised that when i got other preamps

i recommend either going for the Universal Audio Solo 610 (tube) or 110 (dicrete class-A)

i bought the LA610 (same preamp as solo) and it's a great preamp though it's a lot of tube much like the 376 though much better quality imo but tube doesn't suit everything.
the 110 is a cleaner option that you could probably use on everything and get away with it!

otherwise, an onyx mixer with the onyx preamps could be a good choice too. i have the onyx 800r; it's the same preamps as the mixers and it's really good and could be used on everything and get away with it.

good luck

[rodreb]

I have a Eureka and I love it! It's been a great unit.

[Lunatique]

For those of you that have used those units--what percentage of improvement will I get compared to the preamps I currently use on the Line 6 Toneport UX2 and the Behringer Xenyx 1622FX? Will I get much more headroom and much cleaner signal? If the improvements are just marginal, I might not bother spending the money--I'd rather just do a noise-removal process after tracking.

[Lunatique]

Any more feedback would be much appreciated. I really would like to find out more about these things since it's not like I have any way to testing these units out.

[Lunatique]

I'm now also considering Grace Design Model 101, UA SOLO/610 or 110, although they are not channel strips. I might get one tube and one solid-state for maximum versatility. Any comments about these?

[chrysb93065]

I can't do an opinion on the dbx, although their stuff is top notch, but I own a Eureka and a Grace 201. The Eureka is a channel strip, including preamp, EQ and compressor - very useful for fine-tuning your source material. The Grace is a preamp only, and has guitar and mic inputs. The Eureka is a fine, great-sounding preamp with good compressor and eq modules. The Grace is a high-end preamp - really clean, but it's very neutral in tone. You will get exactly what you put into it - no color. Hope this helps.

[chrispick]

If you're looking for a channel strip, budget of around $500, for a small project studio, then the Eureka is a good bet.

My take on it:

Decent enough preamp. Won't inject any "wow" factor into your recordings, but it's okay. Same with the compressor. Keeps most dynamics reigned, by and large. Light in the mojo department; wouldn't recommend driving it hard for effect. EQ is serviceable at best. DI is pretty good. I used to run bass guitar through mine on occasion and it held up well enough.

Now that may seem like a less-than-enthusiastic review, but we're talking a $500 channel strip, right? At that price point, I think you get a jack of all trades, master of none -- which may suit you well if your needs are modest. I imagine it'd be a noticeable step up from your existing preamp set-up.

[macleodgrant]

i don't know the eureka but i definitely recommend going for something cleaner rather than very flavoured

if you've you've got a low budget then rather invest as much as you can just on a preamp. if you're still newish to engineering then i don't think you necessarily have a need for EQ & Comp while tracking but i may be wrong

these below are very good preamps

Universal Audio SOLO/110 | Sweetwater.com

Grace Design model 101 | Sweetwater.com

focusrite have also released an interesting new comer which is worth checking out
Focusrite ISA One | Sweetwater.com

[Lunatique]

Can anyone comment on the level of improvement the mentioned preamps like the Grace Design 101 and UA Solo series (or the channel strips mentioned) have over the included ones on typical audio interfaces/low-end mixers? Just how drastic is the improment?

Another angle is that I can tweak the recordings ITB with plugins--EQ, compression, analog warming emulation (PSP Warmer), and if that is enough to get me great results, I'm fine with it. But since I've never used a dedicated preamp/DI box, I don't really know if I'm missing out on anything.

[chrispick]

Originally Posted by Lunatique

Can anyone comment on the level of improvement the mentioned preamps like the Grace Design 101 and UA Solo series (or the channel strips mentioned) have over the included ones on typical audio interfaces/low-end mixers? Just how drastic is the improment?

Another angle is that I can tweak the recordings ITB with plugins--EQ, compression, analog warming emulation (PSP Warmer), and if that is enough to get me great results, I'm fine with it. But since I've never used a dedicated preamp/DI box, I don't really know if I'm missing out on anything.

Can't comment on the Grace, but I have the UA 610 (in my 6176) and the Eureka. Both would be an improvement on your current set up. A drastic improvement? Too subjective to assess. I do doubt you'd regret making the advancement though.

I think that, unless you can afford a really nice outboard EQ, that plug-in EQs are the way to go. There are many third-party options available, some of which are really good. I do think it can beneficial to have an outboard compressor for tracking, however, if for no other reason than to tame the odd dynamic peak.

As for the clean vs. colored or tube vs. solid state arguments (many of which are bunk): I wouldn't concern yourself with that at this price point. Only after you've used a variety of mics and pres on different source will you have a meaningful opinion on this pretty subtle issue.