DBX 586 Mic Preamp
Brad Sarno
beware. This is NOT a professional quality unit. It's perhaps a nice
improvement over your Mackie's inputs, but it's not in the category with
real mic preamps. It has a very bright, brittle, undetailed sound. It is
NOT a tube preamp. It is a non-transformer coupled solid state preamp
with a tube drive stage (and an eq and peak limiter). To be fair, the EQ
is decent as is the peak limiter. I have a cheap Rolls tube preamp which
is at least a real tube preamp on its front end. My Rolls sounds worlds
better than this DBX mistake. I dont know how DBX let this thing out the
door. Perhaps it will be a useful sound effect for some people. If
you're a professional looking for good mic preamps, keep on looking.
Sincerely,
Brad Sarno
Joe Kasko
I purchased one and took it back. I was using it on drums and it clipped
way to easily and the mid-range was very muddy and undetailed. The 576
isn't an improvement either. Never could seem to get a very nice sound out
of the box. Although they did look nice in the racks.
-Joe
Brad Sarno wrote in message <369156...@stlnet.com>...
Mike Rivers
> beware. This is NOT a professional quality unit.
Please define "professional quality" so we can understand your basis for
judgement.
> it's not in the category with
> real mic preamps.
What, in your humble opinion, qualifies something as a "real mic
preamp"? In my book, any amplifier that has a microphone level input
and a line level output is a real mic preamp. Given the same mic on the
same source, with careful enough listening, all will sound different.
How can you, or I, determine which one is "real"?
> It has a very bright, brittle, undetailed sound.
Some people find that's just what they want to hear.
> It is
> NOT a tube preamp. It is a non-transformer coupled solid state preamp
> with a tube drive stage (and an eq and peak limiter).
So? Does it make a mic level signal louder?
> To be fair, the EQ
> is decent as is the peak limiter.
Well, Mr dbx sure thanks you for this pronouncement.
> I have a cheap Rolls tube preamp which
> is at least a real tube preamp on its front end.
The ART is also a cheap real tube preamp on its front end. So?
> My Rolls sounds worlds
> better than this DBX mistake.
So?
> Perhaps it will be a useful sound effect for some people.
Isn't that the reason why people buy "mic preamps" today?
Thank you for your clear and fair evaluation. I will take it under
advisement should I ever decide to shop for mic level effect processors.
--
Mike Rivers (I'm really mri...@d-and-d.com)
Not A Speck Of Cereal
believe that the specific competitors (features, price, target market,
etc.) would be the Peavey VMP2 and the Digital VTP-1. The Peavey has
the least features, but it seems to be regarded well in this group as
a decent mic preamp as well as (when driven) a "tube effect" mic
preamp... but it lacks VU meters and sweepable mids on the EQ.
Chris
"Joe Kasko" <jka...@perfectsolutionsinc.com> wrote:
[] Brad,
[]
[] I purchased one and took it back. I was using it on drums and it clipped
[] way to easily and the mid-range was very muddy and undetailed. The 576
[] isn't an improvement either. Never could seem to get a very nice sound out
[] of the box. Although they did look nice in the racks.
[]
[] -Joe
[]
[] Brad Sarno wrote in message <369156...@stlnet.com>...
[] >In case anyone is looking into the DBX 586 "tube" mic preamp, well,
[] >beware. This is NOT a professional quality unit. It's perhaps a nice
[] >improvement over your Mackie's inputs, but it's not in the category with
[] >real mic preamps. It has a very bright, brittle, undetailed sound. It is
[] >NOT a tube preamp. It is a non-transformer coupled solid state preamp
[] >with a tube drive stage (and an eq and peak limiter). To be fair, the EQ
[] >is decent as is the peak limiter. I have a cheap Rolls tube preamp which
[] >is at least a real tube preamp on its front end. My Rolls sounds worlds
[] >better than this DBX mistake. I dont know how DBX let this thing out the
[] >door. Perhaps it will be a useful sound effect for some people. If
[] >you're a professional looking for good mic preamps, keep on looking.
[] >
[] >
[] >Sincerely,
[] >
[] >Brad Sarno
[]
----
"In the midst of winter, I finally learned there was within me an
invincible summer." - Albert Camus
..............................................................
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
Xchr...@microsoft.comX -- Seattle, WA.
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
Schoenfeld
Inside info: (Utah/DBX?Digitech) accuratly state that indeed, the 586
and the Digitech unit are Indentical for all intents and purposes.
My advice:
1- Save your sheckles;
2- Save a few more sheckles.
3- Call a reputable dealer such as Klay Anderson (Utah) or Mercenary
(Never bought anything, but the attitude is fabulous).
And buy a HIGH quality Micpre that will outlast your momentary impluses.
I bought an used Avalon 737SP. I have never regreted the decision.
All my love,
Michael Schoenfeld,
Michael Schoenfeld Studio
560 West 200 South
Salt Lake City, Utah
Ericb
> If the DBX is so bad, how do the competitors stack against it? I
> believe that the specific competitors (features, price, target market,
> etc.) would be the Peavey VMP2 and the Digital VTP-1. The Peavey has
> the least features, but it seems to be regarded well in this group as
> a decent mic preamp as well as (when driven) a "tube effect" mic
> preamp... but it lacks VU meters and sweepable mids on the EQ.
>
> Chris
Chris, for many years I thought "the more features the better" ..That was
why I used to buy the old ART and Digitech fx processors, and why I bought
channel switching guitar amps with push/pull pots. After years and years,
I started realizing many units cram huge amts of features into them and
each feature is ok but not excellent. In the past few years I've come to a
realization that's it's not always about features, but the bottom line is
quality and sound. I tend to use rather simple guitar amps now. As for the
PV VMP2 I don't miss any mid control at all. I bought the PV for it's
stereo tube preamp capabilities and actually got a hell of a useable 2
band tube eq! Also, I don't miss meters at all as I use the meters on my
recording device or on the board. The PV, imo has a huge amt. of headroom
and I've yet to have a problem with distortion, overload, or whatever.
What you get with the PV is an excellent sounding tube pre and tube eq.
Not a mediocre sounding unit w/ loads of features. OK, obviously this is
just my opinion and I hadn't compared it to the Digitech, Bellari, or DBX.
I did seek alot of opinions from folks on these groups and a few local
studio owners and never looked back.
Good luck
ERIC
Blind Joni
>believe that the specific competitors (features, price, target market,
>etc.) would be the Peavey VMP2 and the Digital VTP-1. The Peavey has
>the least features, but it seems to be regarded well in this group as
>a decent mic preamp
First, the DBX and the Digitech are the same piece as far I know...Harman
crossover the same as the new BSS Opal series are close to DBX pieces. The
Peavey on the other hand in my eyes every day becomes more of a real piece than
most things I own..used it today with a C-12VR on a mono drum track and it was
Slammin' !!!
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
351 Central Ave.
Albany,NY 12206
"Survivor of the Slums"