The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Neve 1073 DPA vs BAE 1272 vs Aurora GTQ2 vs Avedis MA5 Dual-Channel Preamps
Old 8th July 2009
  #61
Lives for gear
 
gutr2's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim vanBergen View Post
They are all great sounding preamps. Part of me feels like we are fighting over font size, y'know? But it's all flavor and preference. I am madly in love with my GTQ Mk3. I took it to a studio with one of my mics and loosely compared it against 1073 and 1066 preamps- to be fair, each with a different of the same type, but NOT the same mic! and I just thought that each had it's own mojo...but each one sounded amazing in their own way. The preamp and EQ are a killer combination, and I fell in love with it the first time I ran a vocal track thru it, and loved it more the first time I tracked with it.

But I know people who feel this way about each of these preamps.

Find what sounds like what you want, and go do what you love with it.

I would love to have 24 channels of Aurora...maybe one day. But I wouldn't turn down 24 channels of ANY of the preamps being touted, either. :>)

We're gearslutz. One guys Maserati is another's Ferrari is another's Porsche is another's Corvette.

Andre, I think you'll love the Aurora. Let us know!
Thanks Jim!!
Old 10th July 2009
  #62
Lives for gear
 
Jim vanBergen's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gutr2 View Post
Hi all, just for some resolution here.
I received my Aurora GTQ2 mk3 a couple of days back and although I feared disappointment, I was and still am VERY impressed!!!

I won't post samples but to my ears it's without doubt better than either the MA5 or the BAE 1272. It's certainly the same character, but just better, smoother, thicker, bigger, more focused, more pleasant, etc.. I don't think I will ever sell it..

Thanks for everyone's help!
Gearslutz rocks!
I'm so glad you like the GTQ Mk3! The EQ is really amazing on top of a great preamp right? And TWO channels for the price?? I love Geoff's work. Great stuff! (Sorry, not trying to pimp here...)
Old 10th July 2009
  #63
Lives for gear
 
gutr2's Avatar
 

Yep I haven't even started playing with the EQ yet..
Amazing unit, just like my Forssell SMP-2.

I have a feeling I have 2 of the best preamps ever made!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim vanBergen View Post
I'm so glad you like the GTQ Mk3! The EQ is really amazing on top of a great preamp right? And TWO channels for the price?? I love Geoff's work. Great stuff! (Sorry, not trying to pimp here...)
Old 13th July 2009
  #64
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gutr2 View Post
Yep I haven't even started playing with the EQ yet..
The EQ is wonderful... while limited in frequency choices, they are very musical choices.... it has a ton of balls!
Old 13th July 2009
  #65
Lives for gear
 
KEYBEEETSSS's Avatar
 

Kool Gutr2... I've been following this thread b/c I got a GTQ2 from Tony back in May but just hadn't said anything... Anywayz, I have quite a few pres but the GTQ by far is my FAVE... Also, as some others do, I stick it on the mix bus @ times & JEEEEZZZZ
Old 13th July 2009
  #66
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KEYBEEETSSS View Post
Kool Gutr2... I've been following this thread b/c I got a GTQ2 from Tony back in May but just hadn't said anything... Anywayz, I have quite a few pres but the GTQ by far is my FAVE... Also, as some others do, I stick it on the mix bus @ times & JEEEEZZZZ
Glad you are enjoying it.
Old 13th July 2009
  #67
Lives for gear
 
gutr2's Avatar
 

Awesome! Thanks man.

Thanks everyone.
Thanks mum.
Thanks Jesus! :o)

I'm so glad I got the Aurora, I hate the feeling of knowing you settled for second best and that you might have to upgrade later.

I will be doing lots of recording with the GTQ2 in the next 3 weeks, which I'm very excited about.

Old 13th July 2009
  #68
Here for the gear
 

Hello, are the preamps in the GTP8 the same as in the GTQ2 ?
Old 13th July 2009
  #69
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matze View Post
Hello, are the preamps in the GTP8 the same as in the GTQ2 ?
Yes, they are identical minus the EQ.
Old 13th July 2009
  #70
Lives for gear
 
gutr2's Avatar
 

For high end gear, you should use the word "sans" EQ.
Old 15th July 2009
  #71
Lives for gear
 

why so set on a neve?
i know its very popular and for some reason people think it will turn recordings into something magical. personally i think it sounds like ass. i have one for about 5 years. bought it because everyone hyped it and told me that you basically "need" one to make rich sounding recordings. bullsh*t if you ask me.
now that i have benchmark and gml i would never ever use the neve on any important track. it has unfocused bass, muddy low mids, nasal mids and weird sounding high end. i know a lot of people will bash me for this - but getting away from neve was the best move i ever made. a v72 or v76...now thats real vintage magic. do your self a favour and try something transparent as well. if you have really good mics you will get a much better result.
Old 15th July 2009
  #72
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by salomonander View Post
why so set on a neve?
i know its very popular and for some reason people think it will turn recordings into something magical. personally i think it sounds like ass. i have one for about 5 years.
What exactly did you own for 5 years that sounded like ass? A vintage Neve preamp?
Old 15th July 2009
  #73
Lives for gear
 
Geoff_T's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by salomonander View Post
why so set on a neve?
i know its very popular and for some reason people think it will turn recordings into something magical. personally i think it sounds like ass. i have one for about 5 years. bought it because everyone hyped it and told me that you basically "need" one to make rich sounding recordings. bullsh*t if you ask me.
now that i have benchmark and gml i would never ever use the neve on any important track. it has unfocused bass, muddy low mids, nasal mids and weird sounding high end. i know a lot of people will bash me for this - but getting away from neve was the best move i ever made. a v72 or v76...now thats real vintage magic. do your self a favour and try something transparent as well. if you have really good mics you will get a much better result.
Hi

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment and with decades association with the design and manufacture of vintage Neve products (that weren't vintage when I was there), what spurs you to write such venom on the product?

Has it occured to you that a poorly maintained, poorly racked Neve module might indeed sound like crap, but I don't think you could apply your descriptions to a well maintained module.

So which module was it and how was it racked?

Old 15th July 2009
  #74
Lives for gear
 
gutr2's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by salomonander View Post
why so set on a neve?
i know its very popular and for some reason people think it will turn recordings into something magical. personally i think it sounds like ass. i have one for about 5 years. bought it because everyone hyped it and told me that you basically "need" one to make rich sounding recordings. bullsh*t if you ask me.
now that i have benchmark and gml i would never ever use the neve on any important track. it has unfocused bass, muddy low mids, nasal mids and weird sounding high end. i know a lot of people will bash me for this - but getting away from neve was the best move i ever made. a v72 or v76...now thats real vintage magic. do your self a favour and try something transparent as well. if you have really good mics you will get a much better result.
Hi there, nothing wrong with stating your opinion and I respect it. But completely disagree. I don't care about hype or the name Neve, but Geoff's Aurora GTQ2 is just WONDERFUL, words can't begin to describe it. Your description sounds exactly the opposite of what any Neve sounding pres I tried sound like.
I do have other pres, including VERY transparent ones, which I also love.
I don't know about you, but I like to keep an open mind and think ten times before bashing anything..

Thanks Geoff for contributing here! And also for designing such an amazing piece - because it inspires me and makes me want to make music.
Old 15th July 2009
  #75
Lives for gear
 

first of all...i cant comment on aurora. i never used it. it might be a great preamp.
i used a vintage 1073 in perfect condition for two years. before that i had a 1073 dpd. i dont like either. but i guess this is my personal taste. i did not want to offend anyone. but it is a highly coloured preamp - i guess its just normal that some people (including myself and some highly respected engineers) do dislike this heavy colouration?
it killed my recordings for 5 years. to my ears they can not compare to a gml or benchmark - but this is my opinion. i do not record rock music but folk/singer-songwriter material. for my productions it just always sounded awfully wrong. nothing sounded real - it was like a special effect all over the tracks.
today i use ribbons into very transparent preamps and im finally happy with the results.
Old 15th July 2009
  #76
Lives for gear
 
gutr2's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by salomonander View Post
first of all...i cant comment on aurora. i never used it. it might be a great preamp.
i used a vintage 1073 in perfect condition for two years. before that i had a 1073 dpd. i dont like either. but i guess this is my personal taste. i did not want to offend anyone. but it is a highly coloured preamp - i guess its just normal that some people (including myself and some highly respected engineers) do dislike this heavy colouration?
it killed my recordings for 5 years. to my ears they can not compare to a gml or benchmark - but this is my opinion. i do not record rock music but folk/singer-songwriter material. for my productions it just always sounded awfully wrong. nothing sounded real - it was like a special effect all over the tracks.
today i use ribbons into very transparent preamps and im finally happy with the results.

Hey man, no offense taken. That's fair enough.

I understand you completely. I've used UA preamps for years (back when I had no time to research :o) and I definitely started disliking its excessive color. I'm not sure I would ever tire of the "Neve" color though. But it's a possibility..

I wouldn't want that "film" or "color" over everything. But that's the beauty of it for me. I have tried many preamps for vocals and none I have tried does what the "Neve" sound does. I'm not saying it's always the best sound either. But when it is, it just can't be beat.

On the other hand, my Forssell SMP-2 beats the crap out of anything else I tried for things like acoustic guitar, API, Neve style, Pacifica, etc.. nothing came close, the Forssell really is FAR superior for that, also for most applications using ribbon mics.

But for the sake of completing my point, The Forssell can not offer me what the Aurora does for vocals and I'm sure other sources too.
thumbsup
Old 15th July 2009
  #77
Lives for gear
 

yes mate, i guess its all down to personal taste and the source you are recording.
im happy for you that you love your aurora so much tough :-)


Quote:
Originally Posted by gutr2 View Post
Hey man, no offense taken. That's fair enough.

I understand you completely. I've used UA preamps for years (back when I had no time to research :o) and I definitely started disliking its excessive color. I'm not sure I would ever tire of the "Neve" color though. But it's a possibility..

I wouldn't want that "film" or "color" over everything. But that's the beauty of it for me. I have tried many preamps for vocals and none I have tried does what the "Neve" sound does. I'm not saying it's always the best sound either. But when it is, it just can't be beat.

On the other hand, my Forssell SMP-2 beats the crap out of anything else I tried for things like acoustic guitar, API, Neve style, Pacifica, etc.. nothing came close, the Forssell really is FAR superior for that, also for most applications using ribbon mics.
thumbsup
Old 15th July 2009
  #78
Lives for gear
 
Geoff_T's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by salomonander View Post
first of all...i cant comment on aurora. i never used it. it might be a great preamp.
i used a vintage 1073 in perfect condition for two years. before that i had a 1073 dpd. i dont like either. but i guess this is my personal taste. i did not want to offend anyone. but it is a highly coloured preamp - i guess its just normal that some people (including myself and some highly respected engineers) do dislike this heavy colouration?
it killed my recordings for 5 years. to my ears they can not compare to a gml or benchmark - but this is my opinion. i do not record rock music but folk/singer-songwriter material. for my productions it just always sounded awfully wrong. nothing sounded real - it was like a special effect all over the tracks.
today i use ribbons into very transparent preamps and im finally happy with the results.
Hi

I don't want to go into details because it's history now and the source of the modules is best left undisclosed...

Many years back I was called to a studio that had Bruce Swedien producing an album. He has a pristine pair of 1084's in a wooden lunch box that he takes around with him (one guy who doesn't hate the colouration! heh).

He had complained that the rack of Neve 1073's the studio owned did not sound like his 1084's. I took the rack back to my shop and, despite the fake 1073 type and serial number plates on their rears (plastic instead of foil) it became quickly apparent that the whole module(s) were fake... cobbled together out of old Neve correction unit parts with the wrong pcb numbers inside.

They sounded like s**t and Bruce correctly picked up on it.

Now.... I note from your post that you have English spelling and could well live in the UK. The scoundrel (now retired, thank God) that fabricated those modules lived in the UK and was rather famous/infamous/notorious for the tricks he got up to with his sales.

It might just be that the 1073 in perfect condition that you owned was one of a similar batch to that which I discovered. The 1073 colours sound but not as much as those fakes.

There's a lot of fake Neve modules out there... you may have been unlucky. Just because it says 1073 on the back, doesn't make it a 1073.

Old 17th July 2009
  #79
Lives for gear
 
gutr2's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by salomonander View Post
yes mate, i guess its all down to personal taste and the source you are recording.
im happy for you that you love your aurora so much tough :-)
Cool, we're good then... :o) the next step would be for you to try a GTQ2!!
Old 2nd October 2009
  #80
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by GYang View Post
GTQ2 won my ears and heart.
Over vintage 1073, new 1073, Vintech, Chandler and MA5.
It's type of sound and character in general that I find preferred due to nice smoothness and clarity of top end while retaining all fundamental strength of legendary 1073 qualities.
I've owned 1084's, 1081's, MA5, Chandler, Great River..........recently bought GTQC. Lots of great preamps here..........but I agree with GYang, the GTQ is magical. thumbsup
Old 2nd October 2009
  #81
Gear Maniac
 
Upfront2K's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Musician View Post
I have heard that the built quality of the Aurora units leaves a bit to be desired. Several units to be repaired after some time...
I was recommended the BAE
I would say that statement is more than accurate.

Though they do sound fantastic.
Old 4th October 2009
  #82
Lives for gear
 
loveinoctober's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gutr2 View Post
I know.. another Neve thread, but I searched I found nothing this specific.

Like with every other piece of gear, there's a minority of people that claim a certain preamp is the best they've ever used, bla bla..

There's not much, but generally positive comments about the Neve 1073 DPA (or DPD for that matter).

But... has anyone compared it directly with a BAE 1272, Aurora GTQ2 or Avedis MA5? I don't care about how close to a vintage Neve 1073 they sound. I'm not asking which is better either, just descriptions of sound differences as in brighter, bigger, darker, etc..

I've only had access to compare BAE 1272 and MA5 so far.
I do believe Aurora GTQ2 may be a superior preamp, based on its reputation but no personal experience. Possibly cleaner top while retaining the bigness?

Please I'm interested in sound differences between the preamps only. Forget EQ and the other features which I'm aware of. I don't care for DI's (I have a REDDI) don't care much for line input either or EQ (I have a Hammer by A-designs).

I preferred the BAE 1272 over the Avedis.
It sounded bigger and more focused. The Avedis was instantly more impressive, but after a while, it was not as pleasing. Slightly too bright and emphasized the sibilance on the voice I was working with. I now this is particular to that voice and mic used (Korby U67). The Avedis also had a looser bottom in comparison.

This is highly subjective though, since it seems most people prefer brighter vocals, so they may lean towards the MA5. I love dark and mellow, yet focused.

Using a 47 type of mic, the Avedis was ok, but I still preferred the BAE 1272, followed by API 512C.

Thanks and advance!
Andre

The Neve 1073 DPA is really good! Many times if I mic things correctly I don't have to use any (or at least not much) Eq. Things just sound "right" with it. It's worth the money.
Old 7th December 2009
  #83
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont View Post
The fascination with samples on this site is mind numbing... People don't know what they are hearing, but they don't care as long as they get to hear something.

It's basically an exercise in futility... but, worse. How is it worse? Because listener's feel they know what they are hearing is the preamp, when in fact it almost never is. It's because the singer moved a half inch... or sang it just a little bit better (or different), etc... or a little louder, etc.

I've gone into detail about this in the past. If the comparison isn't reproducible, it is useless.
I think samples are great ways for people to get their feet wet so to speak... I think they can also aid in giving you a general idea of what the sound of a piece of gear might be like. There's my two cents/sentences
Old 7th December 2009
  #84
Red 1 vs Forssell on AG

Quote:
Originally Posted by gutr2 View Post
Hey man, no offense taken. That's fair enough.

I understand you completely. I've used UA preamps for years (back when I had no time to research :o) and I definitely started disliking its excessive color. I'm not sure I would ever tire of the "Neve" color though. But it's a possibility..

I wouldn't want that "film" or "color" over everything. But that's the beauty of it for me. I have tried many preamps for vocals and none I have tried does what the "Neve" sound does. I'm not saying it's always the best sound either. But when it is, it just can't be beat.

On the other hand, my Forssell SMP-2 beats the crap out of anything else I tried for things like acoustic guitar, API, Neve style, Pacifica, etc.. nothing came close, the Forssell really is FAR superior for that, also for most applications using ribbon mics.

But for the sake of completing my point, The Forssell can not offer me what the Aurora does for vocals and I'm sure other sources too.
thumbsup
Andre, we should shootout the RED 1 with the Forssell! I am really curious to hear the difference on acoustic guitar specifically. Maybe when you get back hehe.
Old 7th December 2009
  #85
Moderator
 
James Lugo's Avatar
 

If samples are useless then written opinions are even more useless.
Old 7th December 2009
  #86
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimosamusic View Post
I think samples are great ways for people to get their feet wet so to speak... I think they can also aid in giving you a general idea of what the sound of a piece of gear might be like. There's my two cents/sentences
In "general", I think they do a better job of miseducating people... especially because nobody wants to take the time, or knows how, to do an accurate comparison.

A lot of people probably think like you do, but with experience they realize the truth.

There are ways that people can make accurate samples that would fall in more with your line of thinking, though. The problem is that people don't do it in these proper ways... and they don't want to take the time to learn how (ignorance is at the heart of this).

Anyway, I've argued this point for years... I'm tired of trying to teach people how to do things the right way, and why their way is wrong. People will continue to miseducate others on the internet everyday, anyway... whether it's through comments in posts, or these samples.

It's truly miseducation through ignorance..
Old 7th December 2009
  #87
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by James 'LA' Lugo View Post
If samples are useless then written opinions are even more useless.
Poorly done samples are worse because they force others to form their own potentially false opinions of things which are not accurate. That individual may feel differently about a piece of gear under proper conditions.

It's like someone posts a sample of a recording done with a 1073 and "X" preamp. Everyone agrees that "X" sounds better... But, the 1073 had ten things wrong with it that no one is aware of and the guy was 3 inches further away from the mic. Will that effect your opinion on the 1073?

This combined with variables like separate performances, etc contribute to a conclusion that samples are not only useless, but in many ways much worse than useless.

The key is doing things the right way, and eliminating variables... only then do they have any use or value whatsoever.
Old 26th March 2016
  #88
Lives for gear
 
IkennaFuNkEn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by salomonander View Post
first of all...i cant comment on aurora. i never used it. it might be a great preamp.
i used a vintage 1073 in perfect condition for two years. before that i had a 1073 dpd. i dont like either. but i guess this is my personal taste. i did not want to offend anyone. but it is a highly coloured preamp - i guess its just normal that some people (including myself and some highly respected engineers) do dislike this heavy colouration?
it killed my recordings for 5 years. to my ears they can not compare to a gml or benchmark - but this is my opinion. i do not record rock music but folk/singer-songwriter material. for my productions it just always sounded awfully wrong. nothing sounded real - it was like a special effect all over the tracks.
today i use ribbons into very transparent preamps and im finally happy with the results.
Very true, I don't understand how some people can have neves as their only pre. If You you have a really good mic. I'd lean towards something a little less coloured. The DPA got annoying after a while, sometimes you just don't wanna hear neve all the time lol if that makes sense. Phoenix audio gives you kinda the same color but a more open sound. You can record everyone on it without fighting against heavy coloration in the time when you can create. With that said, the 1272 was better for me than the DPA, had both at the same time, still have the files. I sold the DPA instantly. Keep in mind! My 1272s had marinairs on both input and output, so I got a really nice one. I had 2 stereo racks of 1272s. The other was a marinair st. Ives combo..: didn't like it at all. Another very important thing to note, all four channels sounded different, I just picked my favorite one and kept it moving. Getting vintage 1272s are a crap shoot, it's playing the lottery, and if you recap, it might sound different. Tested all three pres with Phoenix audio DRS, and I sold everything including my compressors lol. If I had a big studio I would have kept the 1272, but someone offered me money that I could not refuse. What I liked about the 1272 was that it wasn't quick yet didn't sound too hot like a 1073, maybe it's the wrong word... Sounds kinda like if a 1073 and a tg2 had a baby. I had an Aurora gtq2. I didn't like that it was focused but I recorded one of my best recordings on it. I didn't like that it had a jumpy sound, a little quick for my taste, but with ironically A thick mid and tight low end. Sounded musical though. Once you stop thinking 1073 and thinking what you need, you'll be happy. Lachapell has a very interesting line you might wanna check out. The perfect pre for me would be something like 33415, that's something you might wanna look into. There's a shootout here with it, amongst a vintage 1073
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Krubbadoo / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
0
Krubbadoo / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
1
Johnkenn / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
0
SoniqKwality / So Much Gear, So Little Time
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump