It sure does...
When you say "it may be used as a unity gain buffer" you mean... like a Pad...?

In your personal opinion, don't you reckon that a summing box that features an amplifier with or without volume controler in every channel has more chances of emulating a console than say the Folcrom - which relies on the amp placed in the 2 bus...?
Isn't it true that one of the most important things that makes an analogue console sound the way it sounds is the fact that there is an amp for each track as opposed to an amp in the 2 bus?

No. A unity buffer provides no gain or loss.

I might like a box with a line amplifiers on every channel if I like the sound of that amplifier all the time. Part of the thinking behind the Folcrom was to create a box with no fixed sound and to let users create a wide variety of mix bus sounds through make up gain mic pre selection. I dont think that the point of external summing is purely about console emulation.

If you are trying to emulate a certain console dead-on, I would say that answer is yes and that you should track down that console. Are these amplifiers necessary for quality summing? No. By excluding amplifiers, switches, pots and other circuitry that isnt absolutely needed for summing, the signal goes through an extremely short and clean signal path. This is a very good design concept.

Jon Erickson

Jon, it seems that, when going through the Folcrom, the signal hits the Pre-Amp as Mic level...
Now... we're talking about an extremelly low level... typically around 2 millivolts...
I'm not assuming anything good or bad... I never used the Folcrom, and never heard anything bad about the quality it offers... but I would have thought that cuting off so much signal strenght comming from the DAW's balanced outputs (+4 dBm / 1.23 volts) would eventually mess a great deal with the properties of the mix...
Could you shed some light into this matter?

The thing you need to realize is that EVERY mixer circuit has that very same insertion loss caused by the summing resistors. It doesn't matter if it's an active or a passive mixer - active mixing uses series resistance to feed each channel into a "virtual ground" or low-impedance amplifier input which together constitute a large pad that attenuates the signal approximately the same amount as the Folcrom does. Every mixer requires an amplifier to make up the signal level lost by this attenuation. Most mixers have the amplifier built inside of them, but the Folcrom doesn't. As far as insertion loss goes, the ONLY difference between the Folcrom and every other mixer ever built is that the signal passes out of the box and into another box (the mike preamp) before that make-up amplification takes place. So if you're worried about the sonic impact of reducing the signal level and then re-amplifying it, then you should worry about the signal integrity of every console ever built. As it happens, it's not a problem.

There are lots of circuits in lots of audio gear that require an attenuation and re-amplification in order to work correctly. Most mixers have an internal signal level that's less than "line level" or 1.23Vrms, so your line level inputs get attenuated and later re-amplified. FET limiters have a narrow dynamic range, and so your acclaimed 1176 has a huge pad in front of the FET and a bunch of make-up gain afterward. It's a very common occurance in audio gear. The point Jon is making about the signal path of the Folcrom is that it eliminates a whole bunch of circuitry, a whole bunch of amplifiers, and a whole bunch of dynamic range bottlenecks so that the signal doesn't get re-amplified numerous times throughout the signal path. Just once.

If you want the sound of additional processing, you're free to add it to individual channels by patching gear ahead of the Folcrom, or to the whole mix by patching gear after the makeup gain preamp. It's a choice you get to make, rather than a condition you're stuck with.

Historically speaking, people have tended to dislike the sound of consoles that have a whole ****load of amplifiers in series on each input channel and each output buss, but many engineers were willing to fight with the negative sonic impact of monster consoles because they liked the power of having extensive automation, EQ, and dynamics control on every channel. The idea of performing automation tasks in the computer was very exciting because not only was it more powerful than traditional automation, but it allowed you to bypass the long signal path of the large-format console. Recently I've started to hear people talk about how they actually like the sound of consoles that beat the tar out of the audio signal, which I find somewhat disturbing. Whatever gets you through the day, I guess. If you like the sound of a signal chain with several dozen IC op amps and coupling caps per channel, then go ahead and mix on an SSL. But today we have the ability to break the process down into component parts and choose which of those parts we want to affect different parts of our mix. I think that's a good thing.

If you have any more questions about this subject, feel free to e-mail me or Jon, or start a new thread so we can allow people interested in the Shadow Hills to enjoy this thread.

I certainly didn't want to hijack the thread... but I appretiate the comments that were related to my question.
So it seems your answer to it is: "Attenuating the signal that much is common practice, and it doesn't do "any harm" to the original sound".
In my next reencarnation I'll be working with what's inside the box, as opposed to what's outside.
As for monster consoles... let's leave it for another occasion.

Oh... and that explains why the character of the pre-amp used with the Folcrom has so much influence on the summing result...

jomo,

would you mind sharing a pic & the price with us ?

Posted on August 11th, 2005What has it been.....9 months since you put your order in?

nice ppl vintageking, quick delivery. i played with it briefly just now with me singing into sm57 into pre >a behringer ub502 mixer and listen on sony 7506 headphones. also had my electro harmonix 12ay7 pre hooked up also to compare.

interesting. my electro harmonix is "wooely", actually quite wooley and i guess the mono gama has that transformer sound like a sizzly top end and thickish lows. they are deffinitely different. the eh pre is rounder and the highs don't seem to go as far as the gama. like a nice low pass filter was applied?. not sure.
i will have to post samples. i definitely like the eh pre over my firepod cuz the top end is smoother. but the mono gama three selections are cool. i think after more working with it i will discern it better but the discrete is cleaner or less hyped
sounding while the steel seems to have more high and lows. the nickel well
i think the steel might have more himids or somehting than the nickel. my first intrinsic gut feeling is the nickel is more "scooped" or smiley faced eq sounding than the steel. but you can tell it definitely sound transformerish :P. like this pre went to the gym or something and has a chiseled body.

i never really used anything else so i can't compare. i will have a chance to compare to an adl600 this weekend i think. and when i get the germanium i can post some more.
thanks
oh the build quality and the switches feel awesome. its quite heavy. the sound is like tobasco sauce to me hehe. spicy

later

Has anyone played with the GAMA and a Mono GAMA next to each other? How different do they sound (if at all)?

Jason

Man, just spoke to Vintage King and the GAMA 8 has gone up $1000 so I guess it's now $4995.

I knew it would be a matter of time before Peter had to raise the prices. I've got to hand it to him. I'm sure he did his best at those prices but when it was all said and done he may not have had enough money to put food on the table.

Even @ $4995 I wouldn't hesitate to buy a GAMA 8. It's definitely worth $4995. That's still only $612 a pre w/2 transformer options and a discrete channel.

My GAMA 8 gets used every day. I love it. I'd pay almost double what Peter is charging for a piece of this quality and versatility.

Wow, and the St.Ives option is up $75 to $225, (which $300 if you want 4).

just received 2 mono gamas. seriously love the nickel setting on the folcrom. the steel setting is reminiscent of APIs, but after comparing to API 312s it's quite different. also have a flamingo. very different also. glad i have both. when i get a chance i'll compare the discrete setting to the flamingo with no 'iron' or 'sound'.

haven't had time to record anything with it yet, but at the end of a folcrom, for rock the nickel setting is money. heh

i'd buy these things again if they only had the nickel sound. those green frankenstin lights make me wanna fill the studio with SH stuff.

a full console with VUs and motorized variac style pots would be GS heaven.

the nickel is my favorite also.

My fav's: the "nickel" and "Iron" mode on the mastering comp..thumbsup

2-buss..amazing

mono gamas don't have 'iron' wish they would've put those in, but i have some neve pres so no problemo. but man that 'nickel' deal is sweet ain't it? hats and cymbals just sit in there so beautifully.

Yep..pure sweetness..thumbsup

the Iron mode is the same deal but on the lows/low mids ..with more color
..pure love

Finally had the chance to use my GAMA 8 on the weekend, and it is seriously amazing!
Absolutely love it. Close mics and overheads on drums, sensational. The inner kick mic, on Iron, coupled with the Germanium Tone Control and 33609 totally blew me away!
Now trying to work out how I can get a hold of more Shadow Hills gear....

Does anybody have any more comments about the Gama 8? Sounds like it's really nice, but I haven't seen any comments lately. Has anybody put it up against a 1073? (cast stones now)

Likewise,
How would this compare to the UA 8110?

Frownz.

I'm also curious about this. I've been planning on picking up a 8110 for my front-end main "console" pre's over the past few months and now hearing about this Gama 8 has put a fat road block on my entire plan! Both offer switchable preamp type/style options, they're both pretty much the same price, and both look to be pretty well built (it seems that the Shadow Hills has the upper hand on construction though). Anybody used both by chance? Preference? Comparison?