ramsa analog recording console. Good Console?
Alan Sealey
number, but it starts with WT and I believe it is about 5 to 8 years old. It
has 20 channels, 8 busses (actually 16 by flipping a switch), 2 eff sends
per channel, full meter bridge (20 leds for the channel, 8 VU's for the
busses and two VU's for L/R), 3 Band parametric EQ per channel (all 3 bands
sweepable), individual phantom power on each channel, in line monitoring,
phase switch for each channel, talkback mike, 2 phones outputs yadda yadda
yadda.....
My question is: Are these good consoles? Relative to say, a Mackie 1604 or
my current Alesis Studio 24? I am relatively new to this game, but there
seems to be some school of thought out there that says that some of the
older analog boards are "warmer" than current analog or digital models.
Personally, I have found Mackies to be "dry" sounding in live situations,
and found some people's recording mixes to be lacking "oomph" from these
boards (I realize that this is VERY dependent on the engineer).
I would appreciate any and all advice anybody can offer me on this.
Thank You
Dennis4JC
>I am looking at a Ramsa Recording console. I don't remember the exact model
>number, but it starts with WT and I believe it is about 5 to 8 years old.
<snip detailed description>
>My question is: Are these good consoles? Relative to say, a Mackie 1604 or
>my current Alesis Studio 24?
>Personally, I have found Mackies to be "dry" sounding in live situations,
>and found some people's recording mixes to be lacking "oomph" from these
>boards
It sounds like you might refer to the WRT 820. It was this model that prompted
me to coin the term "Rots-O-Shit-a electronics" in reference to Matsushita,
the parent company of Ramsa and Panasonic.
Hey, I like their cordless phones, tv sets, and maybe a Dat or two, but this
sled epitomizes lack of "oomph".
It is mixers like these that have enabled Greg Mackie to live in a big house.
(Assuming he does. I know....never assume) IMO, a Mackie puts a stake in the
heart of this piece.
Now, let me tell you a little about how I feel about it. :)
The preamps are lackluster and remind one of "cardboard'...the eq is
virtually non existent...and the summing can best be described utilizing the
descriptive term.."mud".
If this (the wrt 820) is *not* the model referred to here...disregard my
indiscretionate remarks and carry on.....
Dennis Garapic
The Lions Den
Cleveland
216-265-8254ph
216-267-8660fax
Mike Rivers
> I am looking at a Ramsa Recording console. I don't remember the exact model
> number, but it starts with WT
Many of them do. Possibly a WT-840, or is that 820? Or both? Geez, I
don't know why people fire off potentially good questions without first
doing at least enough research to know what they're asking about.
> My question is: Are these good consoles? Relative to say, a Mackie 1604 or
> my current Alesis Studio 24?
It's probably not as quiet as a Mackie, you might like the EQ better (or
you might not know enough to care) and if you're doing what most pop
music people are doing, you'll probably find that two effect sends is
far too few. But it's bigger, feels nicer to operate, is easier to
understand the routing (not a lot of "layer" tricks), and the faders are
longer and smoother, if they're in good shape.
Buying a used console is something that you should only do if you know
how to check out a console or can have someone do it for you. It's full
of mechanical switches and pots that are subject to wear and can give
you headaches and heartaches if they're not replaced.
--
Mike Rivers (I'm really mri...@d-and-d.com)
Alan Sealey
I had a chance to plug a mike into the Ramsa and A/B with a mackie 1604vlz
pro. Well, sort of A/B it. I had to move the headphone from the Ramsa to the
Mackie. Anyway, I grabbed a SM58 as it was available and handy and tested it
out by listening to the headphones.
The verdict? The Ramsa sounded instantly warmer, fuller and not as harsh.
There is also 3 band parametric EQ on the Ramsa board. The EQ in general had
a much better sound and feel to it. I could focus on a particluar high
frequency and zap it or pump it up. Very cool.
The way I look at it, it comes down to comparing the
advanatages/disadvantages of this versus newer boards.
The advantages of the Ramsa are: Tone control, (3 band para) channels (20),
#of groups (8/16), full meter bridge (combo of LED for individual channels
and VU's for groups and main L/R),phase switch for every channel, separate
48 volt phantom for each channel,in line console (vs mackie), 2 headphone
outs, talkback mic, modular construction, retro cool
The advantages of Mackie/Alesis are:
Possibly quieter with greater headroom, portability and multiple purpose
(Ramsa is about 3 ft by 3 1/2 ft, wieghs about 80 lbs), more sends on Mackie
1604 (only 2 eff sends on Ramsa, but also 2 mon sends), separate eff return
level on each channel (Ramsa - must patch effects back to an unused track
and then assign to a group - no "loop"), newer so there s/b fewer potential
problems such as static in the old pots etc.
Decisions, decisions.
I would appreciate any comments from anybody regarding my list of
advantages/disadvantages
and any suggestions from the more seasoned pros about which features s/b
considered more highly when building a project studio.
Thank you
Alan
Alan Sealey <ase...@videon.wave.ca> wrote in message
news:xxp_3.7753$1J5.6...@typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca...
> I am looking at a Ramsa Recording console. I don't remember the exact
model
> number, but it starts with WT and I believe it is about 5 to 8 years old.
It
> has 20 channels, 8 busses (actually 16 by flipping a switch), 2 eff sends
> per channel, full meter bridge (20 leds for the channel, 8 VU's for the
> busses and two VU's for L/R), 3 Band parametric EQ per channel (all 3
bands
> sweepable), individual phantom power on each channel, in line monitoring,
> phase switch for each channel, talkback mike, 2 phones outputs yadda yadda
> yadda.....
> My question is: Are these good consoles? Relative to say, a Mackie 1604 or
> my current Alesis Studio 24? I am relatively new to this game, but there
> seems to be some school of thought out there that says that some of the
> older analog boards are "warmer" than current analog or digital models.
> Personally, I have found Mackies to be "dry" sounding in live situations,
> and found some people's recording mixes to be lacking "oomph" from these
Dennis4JC
>I thank you all for your replies. There is some excellent advice there.<snip>
I only see two replies....mine, insinuating that this still unknown model of
Ramsa is most likely a P.O'.S., and Mike Rivers, being his usual diplomatic
self, allowing the mysterieux console to remain as a viable option....<g>
>I had a chance to plug a mike into the Ramsa and A/B with a mackie 1604vlz
>pro.
I>The verdict? The Ramsa sounded instantly warmer, fuller and not as harsh.
Well, perhaps I was a bit *harsh* (at the least presumptuous) myself in
assessing this unknown Ramsa...( I was posting through a Mackie channel strip
<g>)
I mean, one mans " warmer" could very well be another mans "lack of zip......"
Some guys like to cuddle with fat chicks.
Some don't.
It's a very subjective thing...
>There is also 3 band parametric EQ on the Ramsa board. The EQ in general had
>a much better sound and feel to it.
Sorry, I realize now that I overlooked the fact that you wanted a comparison w/
a 1604. I was distinctly thinking of the Mackie 8 bus, IMO a better
comparison, featurewise. I don't know about costwise, as you didn't tell us
what you had to give for the Ramsa. The Mackie 8 bus has 4 band eq w/ shelf
hi/lo, sweep mids, bandwidth on the upper mid, and high pass filter.
>The way I look at it, it comes down to comparing the
>advanatages/disadvantages of this (Ramsa) versus newer boards.
<Snip listed Ramsa /mackie 1604 features comparison>
Again, in comparing the 8 buss Mackie to the 8 buss Ramsa...( a comparison you
admittedly did not invite) The Mackie has a lot more features/
sends/returns/comprehensive eq (and, potentially, inputs,depending on the size)
then the Ramsa. Of course, as always, your own subjective listening test should
be your guide.
Seeing that the products mentioned are "mixers", if I were you I would attempt
to mix something on these consoles as opposed to only listening to one strip
before you make your final decision. When a mixer sums the channels it imparts
a great deal of its signature on the final outcome.
I am not a huge fan of the Mackie 8 bus either, but as I believe many would
agree, it seems like it offers a lot for the price, undermining the market for
a lot of older, mid level boards. A category which I believe this Ramsa 820, if
this is what we're talkin about here, sits squarely within.
Also, the caps aren't gettin any younger in that Ramsa.
I have a cool idea for a new game we can play...You think of a piece of gear
but don't tell me what it is...and I'll think of a piece and I won't tell you
and then we can compare.......<g>
Seems like this is what I've inadvertantly done here....But all I know is, the
Ramsa wrt 820b sure didn't put any breasts on *my* head.....( in reference to
another, seemingly bizarre, and yet somehow normal, r.a.p. thread) :)
In any event, I hope you are pleased with your final choice and, above
all....Have fun!
Oh yeah...if you get a round tuit...Let us know the model and the price you'd
have to pay to get it..........So's I can commence with some *informed*
contemplation....with something other than my navel as the object of
same....... ;-)
Cheers,
Will Gallant
experience in a local budget studio -- and I've only used a Mackie 1604 a
couple of times when helping a local singer/songwriter set up her home
studio (and fought like hell trying to get something remotely usuable out of
it),
My recollection (and with the CD in the player at the moment, mixed on the
Ramsa, to refresh my memory) would personally have me opting for the Ramsa
without question -- providing you can do your own maintenance and don't mind
the scratchy pots, etc. that come with the territory.
FWIW, I will say that the Ramsa model in question did not come anywhere
close to the older Ramsa WR8816, which is still being used to make some
pretty good records in studios around this part of the country. (A mutual
acquaintance told me recently that Eric Johnson likes to track his guitar
though a WR8816 and owns a couple.)
Might want to keep an eye out for one of those.
Just my .02
Willg...
Alan Sealey wrote in message ...
hank alrich
> Seems like this is what I've inadvertantly done here....But all I know is, the
> Ramsa wrt 820b sure didn't put any breasts on *my* head.....( in reference to
> another, seemingly bizarre, and yet somehow normal, r.a.p. thread) :)
Well, now that you've finally come around to a topic _I_ can get my
hands on, the 820b won't grow tits anywhere simply because its ass end
is covered with RCA connectors. With the right equipment you can make
mountains out of molehills, silk purses out of sow's ears, put cleavage
where none previously existed and chrome on a turd, but even looking at
it through a GTQ2 there's no way to start with RCAs and wind up with
tits, unless it's in an audiophile's listening room.
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
Alan Sealey
I posted a nice long ranting reply this afternoon ia Deja Com and it didn't
show up. Here we go again...
Yes,it is the now fabled WR820 I am referring to. The reason I was comparing
to a 1604 is because of price and availability. Since the price of the Ramsa
is approx $1100 little Canadian dollars ( I can get this to $1000 or approx
$680 US), the closest available Mackie product is the 1604 (I need to be
able to get at least 8 ins and outs). This is also the one that local store
personnel show when asked for a comparison to the Ramsa (or any other
competative model). Indeed it is the standard at local project studios
around town. The cost for a Mackie 8 buss here is around $4,000 ($3,000 US)
w/o meter bridge option. Budget has to be a consideration (wife - not fat),
partially because I spend a fortune on guitars already. And I don't sleep
with fat chicks.
I really like the 3 band parametric and meter bridge on the Ramsa. It might
well be the 3 band para that made me perceive the warmth of the Ramsa,
because I could immediately nail down annoying sibilance and honky midrange
by adjusting the sweeps. On the 1604, I have sweepable mid only. When I
wanted to add some high end for clarity to my low muddy voice, it thinned
out terribly and became harsh on the Mackie - to the point where the hiss
was far to evident.
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Mackie, and I appreciate the point you made
when you suggested I mix an actual session before I buy it. All of this
perceived warmth might sum up to pure mud. I use a Mackie 1202 for our live
jams. I like the clarity of the vocals in the mix, but it sounds horrible
with the piezo pickup on my Brian Moore C90P. So brittle it shatters teeth.
I have to add a Fishman pre to smoothe it out. It actually sounded better
(not muddy either) on an old Peavey powered mixer. But I digress as this is
a live application.
Part of the reason I'm somewhat biased against Mackie is because of the end
product I have heard from many project studios around town.These "engineers"
loudly trumpet the virtues of their flat, sterile lifeless mixes. I realize
that these people may be tone deaf, and also probably overcompressed the
shit out the mix with their 3630's (yech!). Invariably though, when I hear a
lifeless project studio recording, and I dig around to find out what mixer
was used and it is a Mackie (usu a 1604).You can tell these are bush league
recordings instantaneously. The first dead give away is usually the
laughably sterile bass drum. I heard a mix done locally where the console
was an older Soundcraft (not a high end one, I believe it was the Spirit
line) and it sounded so full and punchy. Even the acoustic guitars had
punch. This guy did not have a lot of outboard gear either, just a good ear
and good board.
In my brief tenure in the recording medium( I've been into recording
semi-seriously for a whole 5 months now), I have quickly gathered that you
are only as good as your source. I had a shitty snare drum sound with my
cheap Premier snare. Replaced it with a mint 70's Gretsch maple snare and
VOILA! I have a god like snare drum sound. Duh! That is why I would like to
find a better input source to my ADAT - to digitally capture fat analog
sounds. This is why I am looking a reasonable lo cost alternatives to my
current Alesis Studio 24. It isn't horrible, it's just not giving me the
sound I am looking for. Especially on vocals.
If you are not a fan of the Mackie 8 buss, I am curious what you like in
that arena of price/performance. We would ALL like to have a Neve or SSL,
but I have a mortgage, wife, job etc. Is there any "diamond in the rough"
boards out there I should be looking for (good boards that lack notoriety
and hit the market cheap)?
I appreciate any and all suggestions, and will continue to indulge my
passions and have fun making and recording music.
As they say in Quebec....
Salut!
Dennis4JC <denn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991126111624...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
> "Alan Sealey" writes:
>
> >I thank you all for your replies. There is some excellent advice
> Seems like this is what I've inadvertantly done here....But all I know is,
the
> Ramsa wrt 820b sure didn't put any breasts on *my* head.....( in reference
to
> another, seemingly bizarre, and yet somehow normal, r.a.p. thread) :)
>
Dennis4JC
>In response to Dennis4JC :
<trim>
>Yes,it is the now fabled WR820 I am referring to. The reason I was comparing
>to a 1604 is because of price and availability. Since the price of the Ramsa
>is approx $1100 little Canadian dollars ( I can get this to $1000 or approx
>$680 US), the closest available
>Mackie product is the 1604......
(Now that I know that we are indeed speaking of the furr-balled 820 which, at
least in my case, has been moth- balled <g>).......
680 bucks? It seems as though the Mackie 8 buss has indeed done its dirtywork
to the Ramsa, to your benefit.
>The cost for a Mackie 8 buss here is around $4,000 ($3,000 US)
Well, I believe I have seen used 24in ones for around $1500, but thats still a
lot more than $680.....
>Budget has to be a consideration (wife - not fat),
Good work....
>And I don't sleep
>with fat chicks.
I said *cuddle*. Nobody likes to *sleep* with them......( Do they? Take up
too much room :)
>I use a Mackie 1202 for our live
>jams. I like the clarity of the vocals in the mix, but it sounds horrible
>with the piezo pickup on my Brian Moore C90P. So brittle it shatters teeth.
Is that an acoustic guitar? If so, lose the pickup when you record..piezos are
a somewhat harsh alternative which can be worth the tradeoffs when some gain
before feedback is required in a live situation...Use a mic (mike,mice,mace...)
> I'm somewhat biased against Mackie is because of the end
>product I have heard <trim>
>These "engineers"
>loudly trumpet the virtues of their flat, sterile lifeless mixes.
I find the Mackie stuff to be a bit sterile myself..Although I have limited
recording experience with them, more live..I do own a 1202 which I use like a
swiss army pocket knife from real small live gigs to mixing my wet stereo
effects whenever I put together the monster guitar rig from hell. I personally
would not buy an 8 buss mackie for my main recording console.
But I have been afflicted with the desire (disease) for better audio quality
for a lot longer than you, it seems, and have moved through a lot of different
stuff.....
<Trimmed>
>In my brief tenure in the recording medium( I've been into recording
>semi-seriously for a whole 5 months now), I have quickly gathered that you
>are only as good as your source.
True....then you are limited by your pickup medium (mics etc)....then your
preamp....then your MT storage medium.. then your summing, and finally your
mix
storage. A chain with a number of links indeed....I feel that it behooves you
tho',to get the best poss. sound to tape. Another of your options is to pick up
one or two higher quality pre/eq's for use with the best mixer you can afford,
even just your 1202 if you can get by recording less tracks at a time.
I remember a long time ago I bought a one inch deck from a guy and he gave me
a roll or two of used tape with it. I could not believe the punchy sounds
contained on that tape came from his console, or that the rig I had at the time
was capable of that kind of reproduction. I later found out he had tracked
with an excellent preamp/eq.
Once the sounds are on the tape, many mixers are capable of maintaining most of
that quality...its in the origination of good tones that they seem to struggle.
>We would ALL like to have a Neve or SSL,
>but I have a mortgage, wife, job etc.
Just because you can't afford surf and turf, I would never tell you not to
eat......
Achieve the goal as well as possible with the tools available for the job....
My grandfather was in the concrete business...his crew didn't sit down and wait
until a 50k backhoe showed up to dig out and prepare the driveways.
They started out with picks and shovels.
They graduated to a single blade plow chained to the back of a pickup to loosen
up the dirt. Some years later....the backhoe. But the work still got done
before that ...it was just a little tougher.
>Is there any "diamond in the rough"
>boards out there I should be looking for (good boards that lack notoriety
>and hit the market cheap)?
I liked the Neotek series one a lot better than the Ramsa, but I dont think you
can get one for $680...prob more like between 1-2k for 16/8.
>I appreciate any and all suggestions, and will continue to indulge my
>passions and have fun making and recording music.
>
>As they say in Quebec....
>
>Salut!
As we used to say in the concrete bizz..
Noss Drahv-way!
hank alrich
> I use a Mackie 1202 for our live
> jams. I like the clarity of the vocals in the mix, but it sounds horrible
> with the piezo pickup on my Brian Moore C90P. So brittle it shatters teeth.
> I have to add a Fishman pre to smoothe it out.
This is not surprising and does not reflect on the Mackie. Those piezo
pickups want to see a very high load and the mic or line inputs on a
console don't offer that. So you need a preamp specifically designed for
those transducers, or you need a DI to convert their unbalanced high
impedance output to a balanced low impedance mic level signal that will
work nicely with any mic preamp.
I feed pickups, all kinds of pickups, to an Alembic F2-B tube instrument
pre or a Phoenix GTQ2 pre or to Jensen-based DIs and then into any mic
pre, usually the Great River MP2-MH.