The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Great River EQ-2NV vs MAQ-2NV
Old 9th December 2013
  #31
Thanks, I'll shoot Dan an email. This thread has been really interesting, thanks everyone.
Old 10th December 2013
  #32
Lives for gear
 
herecomesyourman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiokid View Post
Thanks, I'll shoot Dan an email. This thread has been really interesting, thanks everyone.
NP! Also I just want to say that the AML stuff again, is very cool looking, and an attractive price point for sure. I just don't think comparing Great River products to Neve / Neve clones is really the best way to detail what they do.
Old 11th December 2013
  #33
Quote:
Originally Posted by datapeddler View Post
Very impressive!! Do you also use the non mastering version or have played with? So its a bit more colored right? (minus the link function & added parameters of course..)I have a great deal pending on the regular version but will save up for the maq if it makes sence.
Thanks for the great feedback!!
I have many years experience with both processors, I am a dealer and sell Great River Products.
Old 13th December 2013
  #34
member no 666
 
Fletcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by datapeddler View Post
so if I purchased their MP-2nv mic pre's unit I could send a signal from their EQ (working with lets say my mix buss) to the mic pre "patch input" & back to the eq for extra transformer thickness? (even though I may not need a mic pre that day?) or do I have it backwards??

You have a small portion [and quite a few other replies that are describing a unit I wasn't part of the process in creating... this place is very scary sometimes!!]... and are either describing a "feedback loop" or using both channels of the EQ [its been done]... but I think I have an idea of what you're actually thinking so let me try to explain the basic audio options of the MP-2NV/EQ-2NV system and some of the design criteria for the MAQ-2NV.

First off -- besides the "stepped" vs. "not-stepped" boost and cut controls [MAQ, being a "mastering unit" works in ½db steps... the EQ-2NV is continuously variable]... there are input transformer differences between the MAQ-2NV and the EQ-2NV. When we were going through the design process a decade or so ago Dan [Kennedy] found some very interesting input transformers that had some great "bite" [LOVELY for guitar sounds!!] and the decision was made to employ those transformers in the EQ-2NV [I loved the difference in transformer sound and Dan was OK with my request].

The thought process being that the input transformers from the MP-2NV are essentially the transformers used in the MAQ-2NV as they're quite a bit more "open" and "even" sounding than the input transformers in the EQ-2NV.

Why? you may ask... and it would be an excellent question. The reasoning is that when you have an MP-2NV and an EQ-2NV you now have options up the ying-yang for both units. By using the unit to unit patching system you now have the option [when mixing] to use either set of input transformers [you get 5db of additional gain when using the MP-2NV on a line level input, but you can trim that down the signal path with no adverse affect in-between]... the MP-2NV's input transformers being a tad "smoother" and the EQ-2NV's input transformers having that "bite" I mentioned before.

When tracking your input transformer option is pretty much the transformers in the MP-2NV as the EQ-2NV doesn't have the necessary gain to be employed as a mic amp... you could do it, but you'd probably add a metric fµcm-ton of noise as your gain scaling would be far less than optimal].

You ALSO have output options... you can run the signal through the MP-2NV's output transformers or the EQ-2NV's transformerless output. They do indeed sound different [and the transformerless output has better headroom... it does like +32 or something ridiculous like that!!]. The net result is that you have 2 transformer / texture options for your audio on the input and two more texture options for your audio on the output side of things as well. Me -- I like having the flexibility of 4 distinctly different textures that can be created by two units... and that's before the EQ is even engaged.

I hope this clarifies some of the issues being discussed here.

Peace
Old 13th December 2013
  #35
Lives for gear
 
herecomesyourman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletcher View Post
You have a small portion [and quite a few other replies that are describing a unit I wasn't part of the process in creating... this place is very scary sometimes!!]... and are either describing a "feedback loop" or using both channels of the EQ [its been done]... but I think I have an idea of what you're actually thinking so let me try to explain the basic audio options of the MP-2NV/EQ-2NV system and some of the design criteria for the MAQ-2NV.

First off -- besides the "stepped" vs. "not-stepped" boost and cut controls [MAQ, being a "mastering unit" works in ½db steps... the EQ-2NV is continuously variable]... there are input transformer differences between the MAQ-2NV and the EQ-2NV. When we were going through the design process a decade or so ago Dan [Kennedy] found some very interesting input transformers that had some great "bite" [LOVELY for guitar sounds!!] and the decision was made to employ those transformers in the EQ-2NV [I loved the difference in transformer sound and Dan was OK with my request].

The thought process being that the input transformers from the MP-2NV are essentially the transformers used in the MAQ-2NV as they're quite a bit more "open" and "even" sounding than the input transformers in the EQ-2NV.

Why? you may ask... and it would be an excellent question. The reasoning is that when you have an MP-2NV and an EQ-2NV you now have options up the ying-yang for both units. By using the unit to unit patching system you now have the option [when mixing] to use either set of input transformers [you get 5db of additional gain when using the MP-2NV on a line level input, but you can trim that down the signal path with no adverse affect in-between]... the MP-2NV's input transformers being a tad "smoother" and the EQ-2NV's input transformers having that "bite" I mentioned before.

When tracking your input transformer option is pretty much the transformers in the MP-2NV as the EQ-2NV doesn't have the necessary gain to be employed as a mic amp... you could do it, but you'd probably add a metric fµcm-ton of noise as your gain scaling would be far less than optimal].

You ALSO have output options... you can run the signal through the MP-2NV's output transformers or the EQ-2NV's transformerless output. They do indeed sound different [and the transformerless output has better headroom... it does like +32 or something ridiculous like that!!]. The net result is that you have 2 transformer / texture options for your audio on the input and two more texture options for your audio on the output side of things as well. Me -- I like having the flexibility of 4 distinctly different textures that can be created by two units... and that's before the EQ is even engaged.

I hope this clarifies some of the issues being discussed here.

Peace
Old 14th December 2013
  #36
nice one Fletcher.
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
Forum Jump
Forum Jump