Originally Posted by Acoustic Cloud ➡️

I will not disagree with the fact that not all pre's are the same, and that one may be better suited to a source than another. I also violently agree that for mos of us the differences between pre's can be subtle at best.

I am not saying that I disagree with what you are saying, but think about it; for DECADES the world's favorite recordings have been made with the same pre for every track. The notion of using a different preamp for different sources is VERY new and, when viewed in the history of recorded sound, is not the norm. It is still young enough to be considered a fad, really.
. . . . .

Originally Posted by Acoustic Cloud ➡️

Now, the fact that this type of discussion takes place in the Low End forum is a testament to the powers of advertising and hype. I will repeat, I will not disagree that no two preamps are the same, and some are better than others for certain sources, but if you are reading threads in the low end forum to begin with, you probably need to work on technique and gain experience before considering a different pre to improve the quality of a single recorded track. take note: I am frequently in the Low End zone and am aware that this applies to me, I am not judging anyone here.

If you are looking for a better or different sound on a single track, mic selection, positioning, instrument selection, and even choice of stings on a guitar or drums head type on drums will have a much greater impact on the final result than can be obtained from selecting the best pre on the planet over the worst.

Originally Posted by dkelley ➡️

agreed.

however, a note: the pro channel is, technically, starved plate. it does still sound similar though, basically like an mpa gold with the voltage set to low. and if you've used an mpa you know it sounds better with voltage set to high, but it's a subtle difference over much of the dynamic range while max headroom is reached sooner and, imho, is less golden sounding, in the pro channel. They do certainly sound similar though and that effect of cozying you speak of is very true.

:-)

and I wouldn't trade my cheap pro channel for anything...

Originally Posted by nathanp ➡️

That's interesting to know. It makes sense though since there is no selectable voltage. Same goes for the original Pro MPA. It does not have a selectable plate voltage, and according to ART, it's voltage is the same as the MPA Gold or MPA II set to low voltage.

I still think that these units, operating at low voltage, still sound a lot better than other low end tube units such as the presonus bluetube or the lower line pres made by art (the tube MP for example).

Originally Posted by Acoustic Cloud ➡️

I will not disagree with the fact that not all pre's are the same, and that one may be better suited to a source than another. I also violently agree that for mos of us the differences between pre's can be subtle at best.

I am not saying that I disagree with what you are saying, but think about it; for DECADES the world's favorite recordings have been made with the same pre for every track. The notion of using a different preamp for different sources is VERY new and, when viewed in the history of recorded sound, is not the norm. It is still young enough to be considered a fad, really.

Consoles have ruled for the longest time. Every mic went into an identical channel strip, and for the longest time no one questioned this process. I will elaborate on this specific point: for decades the best technicians in the industry, who have produced the most beloved and sought after sounds, in every country in the entire world, did not give a moment's thought to whether or not they had chosen the right preamp for the source. the console had a sound, and that sound suited the entire project or it didn't.

Now, the fact that this type of discussion takes place in the Low End forum is a testament to the powers of advertising and hype. I will repeat, I will not disagree that no two preamps are the same, and some are better than others for certain sources, but if you are reading threads in the low end forum to begin with, you probably need to work on technique and gain experience before considering a different pre to improve the quality of a single recorded track. take note: I am frequently in the Low End zone and am aware that this applies to me, I am not judging anyone here.

If you are looking for a better or different sound on a single track, mic selection, positioning, instrument selection, and even choice of stings on a guitar or drums head type on drums will have a much greater impact on the final result than can be obtained from selecting the best pre on the planet over the worst.

I have more than one pre in my studio, and I use different pre's for different sources, but this is a luxury, and was not available to me for the last 8 years of my 10-year "carreer". I have never felt hindered for a lack of quality pre's, much less a lack of variously flavored pre's.

I will end my rant by stating that there is always room for opinion, and the mandatory YMMV always applies, but come on, who are we kidding? Do my ears really surpass the greats of the analog era? Do I really have the nerve to say that the reason a single isolated track is not at it's best is because I didn't choose the right preamp for the job? No, if the track is weak, it is because I have a lot to learn, not because I haven't gone out an purchased the flavor of the week preamp. Turn the mic 5 degrees in any direction on any source in any room and the pre doesn't catch you ear so much anymore now does it?

Originally Posted by 6dyslexicelephnt ➡️

I have the MPA GOLD. For the price it delivers a lot of features and very good sound.

My friend has the Pro Channel and I thought it sucked... but we were listening through computer monitors VS my A7s that I have at my place so that is completely unjustified.

Snobs will trash talk the MPA GOLD, but it is a very good pre and very cheap. A no brainer for someone starting out with no preamps other than 4 track or mbox. Works well with those chinese ribbons which are also cool for people starting out.

Good luck finding a better rackmount pre at $100-150 per channel.

Originally Posted by deliver ➡️

Would you recommend either of the above over the mic-pre's in the 002 rack?

Originally Posted by rico52 ➡️

I said it before and now again..................... I reaped great results with the ART stuff BEFORE I found out that it wasn't pro gear!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Elmbeatz ➡️

Got a pro channel Mk 1 today.
Checked it out a bit - think I like it very much. Also the eq, which grabs tight.

P.S.: @ filmnmusicman: Did you change all 3 tubes? What were your choices?

Originally Posted by Dogoth ➡️

I don't mean to be so nuts and bolts about this as music IS an art form but remember that the "art" part comes from the musicians.

Originally Posted by Acoustic Cloud ➡️

I will not disagree with the fact that not all pre's are the same, and that one may be better suited to a source than another. I also violently agree that for mos of us the differences between pre's can be subtle at best.

I am not saying that I disagree with what you are saying, but think about it; for DECADES the world's favorite recordings have been made with the same pre for every track. The notion of using a different preamp for different sources is VERY new and, when viewed in the history of recorded sound, is not the norm. It is still young enough to be considered a fad, really.

Consoles have ruled for the longest time. Every mic went into an identical channel strip, and for the longest time no one questioned this process. I will elaborate on this specific point: for decades the best technicians in the industry, who have produced the most beloved and sought after sounds, in every country in the entire world, did not give a moment's thought to whether or not they had chosen the right preamp for the source. the console had a sound, and that sound suited the entire project or it didn't.

Now, the fact that this type of discussion takes place in the Low End forum is a testament to the powers of advertising and hype. I will repeat, I will not disagree that no two preamps are the same, and some are better than others for certain sources, but if you are reading threads in the low end forum to begin with, you probably need to work on technique and gain experience before considering a different pre to improve the quality of a single recorded track. take note: I am frequently in the Low End zone and am aware that this applies to me, I am not judging anyone here.

If you are looking for a better or different sound on a single track, mic selection, positioning, instrument selection, and even choice of stings on a guitar or drums head type on drums will have a much greater impact on the final result than can be obtained from selecting the best pre on the planet over the worst.

I have more than one pre in my studio, and I use different pre's for different sources, but this is a luxury, and was not available to me for the last 8 years of my 10-year "carreer". I have never felt hindered for a lack of quality pre's, much less a lack of variously flavored pre's.

I will end my rant by stating that there is always room for opinion, and the mandatory YMMV always applies, but come on, who are we kidding? Do my ears really surpass the greats of the analog era? Do I really have the nerve to say that the reason a single isolated track is not at it's best is because I didn't choose the right preamp for the job? No, if the track is weak, it is because I have a lot to learn, not because I haven't gone out an purchased the flavor of the week preamp. Turn the mic 5 degrees in any direction on any source in any room and the pre doesn't catch you ear so much anymore now does it?