APHEX mic preamplifiers - opinions?
Norman Lightfoot
I am interested in knowing your opinions on any of the Aphex microphone
preamplifiers. Any experience or comparisons to 02R or Soundcraft Ghost
pre's would be great, but other comparisons would be equally appreciated.
Mic pre's are a current weak link in my setup, so I am beginning my
research. I cannot afford the "big-boy" tools (Neve (omigosh), etc.), and
am sorry to say that even the Avalon gear is currently at the
barely-affordable level for me. In the end my ears will make the final
decision, but I do value some experienced guidance to narrow the field until
then. Thanks in advance for your help.
Regards,
Norm.
Scott Dorsey
>I am interested in knowing your opinions on any of the Aphex microphone
>preamplifiers. Any experience or comparisons to 02R or Soundcraft Ghost
>pre's would be great, but other comparisons would be equally appreciated.
I found the 107 to be very unpleasant sounding. The whole Tubessence
thing just seems like a really bad idea. I have, however, heard some
very good things about and some very good tracks cut with their higher
end preamps.
>Mic pre's are a current weak link in my setup, so I am beginning my
>research. I cannot afford the "big-boy" tools (Neve (omigosh), etc.), and
>am sorry to say that even the Avalon gear is currently at the
>barely-affordable level for me. In the end my ears will make the final
>decision, but I do value some experienced guidance to narrow the field until
>then. Thanks in advance for your help.
The Avalon stuff is a huge cut above the Aphex stuff that I have heard.
You might also look at the Great River and John Hardy gear.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Mylesboise
this review there is some comparison to the preamps in my Soundcraft Spirit
board, as well as many other outboard pres. More than that I can't say right
now. Watch for the article.
For an inexpensive solid state pre, my recommendation is always the Grace 101.
Myles Boisen
reddred
"Norman Lightfoot" <jumptoco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FBnk9.13576$qh1.1...@news.ca.inter.net...
The aphex won't be an upgrade at all to console pre's, but it does sound
different. It has a tube effect. I've heard five different brands of the
'tube' effects boxes and they all pretty much made the signal sound kind of
trashy. It might be kind of neat to use one here and there, but not on
everything. I think my approach would be to get the one that is the cheapest
and has the simplest interface.
The best thing on the budget side is the symetrix 302. It sounds nice and
clean and to my ears beats the low-end console pre's (mackie, behringer,
etc.,) any day of the week. Two channels cost $250.
If you want an inexpensive pre with a unique sound as an adjunct to a mixer,
get a joemeek.
jb
Rob Adelman
reddred wrote:
> The aphex won't be an upgrade at all to console pre's, but it does sound
> different.
Did I miss something? Which Aphex? They have some pretty nice sounding high end
units, as well as the cheap ones.
-Rob
Robert Hoffman
Great River, Manley, and Neve knock-off's. Don't know about the lower end
stuff though as I have no experience with it. I've got the Aphex 8 channel
unit here on loan but haven't had a chance to put it through it's paces.
Rob
Ty Ford
I'm currently using the Aphex 1100 as the front-end for my Digi 001. I like
it a LOT.
Regards,
Ty Ford
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
Mike Rivers
> The aphex won't be an upgrade at all to console pre's, but it does sound
> different.
Why don't you consider this an upgrade? Isn't a choice of two sounds
always an upgrade over no choice at all? Well, I guess it wouldn't be
an upgrade if your choice was always to use the console and not the
outboard, but then it would simply be a bad piece of gear.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Scott Dorsey
I found the Aphex 107 to be a bad piece of gear. The 1100 is not.
But for the price of the 1100 you can get a lot of other things. On
the gripping hand, the 1100 has some neat remote control features.
reddred
"Rob Adelman" <rade...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3D92A594...@mn.rr.com...
I assumd he was talking about the 107 or 207, but I misread as he said
'barely afford' avalon, I thought he said it was beyond his price range.
Even then, the 1100 doesn't seem like the first thing I'd get.
jb
Rob Adelman
reddred wrote:
>
> I assumd he was talking about the 107 or 207, but I misread as he said
> 'barely afford' avalon, I thought he said it was beyond his price range.
> Even then, the 1100 doesn't seem like the first thing I'd get.
>
> jb
I've never used one, but Ty Ford seems to have nothing but good things
to say about the 1100.
-Rob
BuickWilson
reddred
I'm pretty enamored with the UA pre's right now, but I haven't gotten my own
yet.
jb
reddred
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1033042693k@trad...
I thought he was talking about the cheap ones.
Even there, Summit has some kind of tube-stage device coming out for <>500,
I wonder if it's a good implementation of the concept. Maybe at that range,
one wouldn't have to skimp on something else to get the extra circuit to the
masses.
I don't know, I like the UA m610. I want it.
jb
Jny Vee
wrote:
> In article <73wk9.229789$216.8...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
> opa...@yahoo.com writes:
>
> > The aphex won't be an upgrade at all to console pre's, but it does sound
> > different.
>
> Why don't you consider this an upgrade? Isn't a choice of two sounds
> always an upgrade over no choice at all?
nope. a Stratocaster is definately an upgrade from a Telecaster.
A Ford is an upgrade from a Chevy and Jeff Beck is an upgrade from
...ummm
well Jeff BEck -is- an upgrade... but the other examples are ok...
--
Perspective is vital to wisdom. It is indeed a good
thing to know that for every ELECTRIC LADYLAND there
were months/years/decades of tracking The Archies.
>> Help Keep The Net Emoticon Free! <<
Jny Vee
In article <p5m6pus7cs75e43c5...@4ax.com>, Ken Zenachon
<spam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> For the record, I just purchased the Aphex 207 and I hear a definate
> improvement over the pres in my 1604VLZ in most applications using an
> AT4050. The sound is bigger, richer and smoother -- to my ears,
> anyway.
>
> To each their own.
>
>
> KZ
Jny Vee
for what it is the 107 doesn't suck.
It's overpriced for a simple preamp and I have to say what I REALLY
like is it's very lo imp front end gain stage, and since most of the
money went into implementing the whacky middle-section tube stage I;d
think they could crank out the BEST part of it cheaper... but all in
all it's usefull, and to be honest, teh folks at APHEX weren't totally
happy with what happened to it after it got thru getting into full
factory production as opposed to the prototypes...
In article <BxIk9.302556$5r1.13...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>,
"reddred" <opa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > The aphex won't be an upgrade at all to console pre's, but it does sound
> > > different.
> >
> > Did I miss something? Which Aphex? They have some pretty nice sounding
> high end
> > units, as well as the cheap ones.
> I assumd he was talking about the 107 or 207,
Chris Seifert
digitally controlled Aphex pre. The feature list is very impressive
but I too haven't checked it out yet.
Anyone know if it's the same guts as the 1100? I've demo'd the 1100
before and really dug it. Wondered if the 8channel unit uses the same
pre's or if the 1100 is it's own beast altogether?
Chris
wavetrap
Robert Hoffman <rob...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<B9B7FFA6.1DDD8%rob...@earthlink.net>...
Rob Adelman
Jny Vee wrote:
>
> It's overpriced for a simple preamp and I have to say what I REALLY
> like is it's very lo imp front end gain stage, and since most of the
> money went into implementing the whacky middle-section tube stage I;d
> think they could crank out the BEST part of it cheaper...
Perhaps the 107 fet?
Jny Vee
<rade...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
it's a chip that looks like 1/2 of a 555. Inside it's actually a whole
slew of transistor pairs stacked in parallell to average out their
specs into a reliable block unit acting as a single lo-noise (and in
this case very low input impedance) gain pair. This supplies MOST of
the gain in a 107, the tube end is there to add another maybe 10db of
gain but mostly to 'Do That Thing It Does' whatevertheheck that is.
The box gets 24vac from a wart and then the internal PS section kicks
that down to run the heaters, and up to 50vdc for the rest as well as
the phantom (volt who walks...). There's an output driver stage after
the tube but I don't have the schemo handy to remember if that does any
gain at all... I don't believe so.
APHEX is a very NotStupid company and it's really a shame the 107 got
(perhaps somewhat deservedly) its less-than-magic reputation since it's
clean and pretty inside, designed and BUILT well, and there're even
internal trim adustments for
All The Right Stuff: CMR, DC-offset-null, tube drive...
reddred
"Jny Vee" <moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com> wrote in message
news:260920021849493789%moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com...
> In article <3D93888C...@mn.rr.com>, Rob Adelman
> <rade...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Jny Vee wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It's overpriced for a simple preamp and I have to say what I REALLY
> > > like is it's very lo imp front end gain stage, and since most of the
> > > money went into implementing the whacky middle-section tube stage I;d
> > > think they could crank out the BEST part of it cheaper...
> >
> > Perhaps the 107 fet?
>
> it's a chip that looks like 1/2 of a 555. Inside it's actually a whole
> slew of transistor pairs stacked in parallell to average out their
> specs into a reliable block unit acting as a single lo-noise (and in
> this case very low input impedance) gain pair. This supplies MOST of
> the gain in a 107, the tube end is there to add another maybe 10db of
> gain but mostly to 'Do That Thing It Does' whatevertheheck that is.
> The box gets 24vac from a wart and then the internal PS section kicks
> that down to run the heaters, and up to 50vdc for the rest as well as
> the phantom (volt who walks...). There's an output driver stage after
> the tube but I don't have the schemo handy to remember if that does any
> gain at all... I don't believe so.
> APHEX is a very NotStupid company and it's really a shame the 107 got
> (perhaps somewhat deservedly) its less-than-magic reputation since it's
> clean and pretty inside, designed and BUILT well, and there're even
> internal trim adustments for
> All The Right Stuff: CMR, DC-offset-null, tube drive...
how did everybody get to run away with the 'tube drive' idea? are all the
different implementations really that different, what's the story?
jb
Rob Adelman
reddred wrote:
>
> how did everybody get to run away with the 'tube drive' idea? are all the
> different implementations really that different, what's the story?
>
True, the 107 has a tube in it, but most people agree that it doesn't really do
much. In fact there is a very low voltage is applied to it, so they are
probably right. I had this "tube" preamp, and it didn't sound too "tubey" to
me. I would assume that it is a much different story in the expensive models.
-Rob
NeilH011
>True, the 107 has a tube in it, but most people agree that it doesn't really
>do
>much. In fact there is a very low voltage is applied to it, so they are
>probably right.
AFAIK, it's a pretty typical starved-plate design... which means it's supposed
to have a low voltage applied to it.
>I had this "tube" preamp, and it didn't sound too "tubey" to
>me.
It certainly doesn't have the fullness of tone of some other tube pres, but you
can definitely hear the tube... I have one, and I like it for certain things.
It's got it's uses.
Kick drum wouldn't be one of them, however.
NeilH
Norman Lightfoot
"Jny Vee" <moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com> wrote in message
news:260920021704273522%moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com...
reddred
aphex makes a big deal about the low-voltage design and afaik they were the
first. they seem to have a patent on -something-, but just about every
low-end pre has a similair design (art, behringer, etc.,) so exactly what
did they patent and why can everybody else do it?
jb
Andre Maquera
parts are public domain.
Andre Maquera
http://www.weststreetdigital.com/
Ty Ford
wrote:
>
>
Thanks Rob,
Perhaps the key word there is "first." Were it my first preamp, I'd have to
think twice and still probably wouldn't have a clue as to why an 1100 would
be a choice.
Knowing that it has a good A/D converter, allowing me to bypass the preamps
and A/D converters in the Digi 001, is one good reason.
Toss the polarity flop circuit, MicLim circuit and unique bass rolloff
circuit, plus the fact that the 1100 outputs both analog and digital and you
begin to see it as a "value added" piece.
BTW, my first external preamp was a Symetrix 528.
Scott Dorsey
>
>how did everybody get to run away with the 'tube drive' idea? are all the
>different implementations really that different, what's the story?
I don't really understand how it happened, but first people realized tube
stuff sounded good and then a lot of companies moved in to build gear
that looks like tube gear for cheap.
The Aphex circuit is actually pretty ingenious and is different than
everyone else's. Unfortunately it still doesn't sound very good and
it still is using the tube stage as an effect device rather than as
a real gain stage. The ART was the first of the ones that I saw using
tubes actually in starvation mode, but there are a lot out there which
have been using the same general circuit as the ART. It's pretty shameful
if you ask me.
Scott Dorsey
NeilH011 <neil...@cs.com> wrote:
>>
>>True, the 107 has a tube in it, but most people agree that it doesn't really
>>do
>>much. In fact there is a very low voltage is applied to it, so they are
>>probably right.
>
>AFAIK, it's a pretty typical starved-plate design... which means it's supposed
>to have a low voltage applied to it.
No! The 107 is something weird... the tube is running with an outrageously
low voltage, but it's not operating in starvation mode. There is a solid
state I/V converter in the plate circuit taking the signal off, which means
it operates much more linearly than a starved plate stage. Not anywhere
near as linear and transparent as a real tube stage, though.
>>I had this "tube" preamp, and it didn't sound too "tubey" to
>>me.
>
>It certainly doesn't have the fullness of tone of some other tube pres, but you
>can definitely hear the tube... I have one, and I like it for certain things.
>It's got it's uses.
Tube preamps shouldn't sound like tubes... most of the coloration in a
typical tube preamp comes from the transformers. The great thing about
a good tube preamp is that it is free of annoying solid-state coloration,
not that it has a tube in there as a special effect.
Scott Dorsey
>
>aphex makes a big deal about the low-voltage design and afaik they were the
>first. they seem to have a patent on -something-, but just about every
>low-end pre has a similair design (art, behringer, etc.,) so exactly what
>did they patent and why can everybody else do it?
They have a patent on the I/V stage in the plate circuit. It's a kind of
ingenious idea, and it is NOT similar to the stuff ART and Behringer is
doing. It's actually worth looking their patent up on the online uspto.gov
database.
reddred
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:an1kgc$ido$1...@panix2.panix.com...
It seems like you'd have to skimp on other components to reach the price
point that these things are selling for.
jb
Scott Dorsey
>
>It seems like you'd have to skimp on other components to reach the price
>point that these things are selling for.
Well, of course. The reason the ART doesn't have a real tube stage with
an input transformer is that a good input transformer costs as much as the
whole ART sells for. We won't even TALK about power supplies.
reddred
If they ditched the tube thing, could they realistically improve the sound
of the unit - to where it would be a pretty good leap in quality- at the
same price point? Because that's kind of where I feel like the 'rip-off'
aspect comes into it, not that one would expect much for 200 bucks, just
that it seems you could actually get *more* than what they give you if they
didn't spend a certain amount just to say theres a tube in there.
jb
Kristian Svennevig
completely crappy preamp.... as a matter of fact it works fairly well with
dynamic mics. and if you upgrade the tube to a good european 12ax7 or 12AT7
(like siemens, Telefunken or Amperex) then it is markedly better... it is
when you use condensor mics through it that it rather sucks. I actually
thought it sounded better than my focusrites with dynamic mics in an a/b
comparison. I think because tubes compress the signal a little that it is
beneficial on dynamic mics and the lower plate voltages tend to increase the
compression effect slightly.
Kristian Svennevig
Producer/ Engineer
Mobius Productions/ Evolution Recording Studios
in article OO3l9.264719$216.10...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com, reddred at
opa...@yahoo.com wrote on 9/27/02 4:10 PM:
reddred
"Kristian Svennevig" <sven...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:B9BB3D56.3D28%sven...@mchsi.com...
> At the risk of an onslaught of replies I will say that the aphex 107 isn't
a
> completely crappy preamp.... as a matter of fact it works fairly well with
> dynamic mics. and if you upgrade the tube to a good european 12ax7 or
12AT7
> (like siemens, Telefunken or Amperex) then it is markedly better... it is
> when you use condensor mics through it that it rather sucks. I actually
> thought it sounded better than my focusrites with dynamic mics in an a/b
> comparison. I think because tubes compress the signal a little that it is
> beneficial on dynamic mics and the lower plate voltages tend to increase
the
> compression effect slightly.
>
> Kristian Svennevig
> Producer/ Engineer
> Mobius Productions/ Evolution Recording Studios
>
I see it in a lot of pro racks. but theres always something better there
too.
jb
Scott Dorsey
>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:an2bto$c30$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>> reddred <opa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >It seems like you'd have to skimp on other components to reach the price
>> >point that these things are selling for.
>>
>> Well, of course. The reason the ART doesn't have a real tube stage with
>> an input transformer is that a good input transformer costs as much as the
>> whole ART sells for. We won't even TALK about power supplies.
>
>of the unit - to where it would be a pretty good leap in quality- at the
>same price point? Because that's kind of where I feel like the 'rip-off'
>aspect comes into it, not that one would expect much for 200 bucks, just
>that it seems you could actually get *more* than what they give you if they
>didn't spend a certain amount just to say theres a tube in there.
I think it would sound better, but it wouldn't sell anywhere near as well.
And from the manufacturer's perspective, that's a step down.
Jny Vee
"reddred" <opa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> how did everybody get to run away with the 'tube drive' idea? are all the
> different implementations really that different, what's the story?
A real tube circuit has 500v running around in it. This doesn't come as
cheap as 9vdc. that is only ONE element of a real tube design, there's
also just plain GOOD DESIGN... that covers everything from parts to
layout and plain old build quality. You can indeed build a fair tube
preamp at a reasonable cost... I think the Peavey fits that bill...
the Manley and other top-end tube boxes pay attention to that last 10%
of every aspect that takes another 300% of effort.
Jny Vee
In article <sqSk9.21038$u7.9...@news.direcpc.com>, " Andre Maquera"
<w...@direcway.com> wrote:
Jny Vee
"reddred" <opa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Again, yeah 'except for teh APHEX'... which is as well-layed-out, clean
and packed inside as anythign else I can think of at that price
range...
Jny Vee
"reddred" <opa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
at the time it came out, it was one big selling ploy adn they really
must be given some points for going to the trouble to come up with
something decent to do with a lo-voltage tube in there... they sold a
LOT of those because of the tube... and that was teh
marketting-leads-engineering thing and they have said since it came out
that they weren;t really happy to have done it that way rather than
build a majorly better mouse trap.
Jny Vee
<sven...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> At the risk of an onslaught of replies I will say that the aphex 107 isn't a
> completely crappy preamp.... as a matter of fact it works fairly well with
> dynamic mics. and if you upgrade the tube to a good european 12ax7 or 12AT7
> (like siemens, Telefunken or Amperex) then it is markedly better... it is
> when you use condensor mics through it that it rather sucks. I actually
> thought it sounded better than my focusrites with dynamic mics in an a/b
> comparison. I think because tubes compress the signal a little that it is
> beneficial on dynamic mics and the lower plate voltages tend to increase the
> compression effect slightly.
>
> Kristian Svennevig
this last fascinates me since by the time the signal hits the tube
section, it's been thru several SS sections including the pads and gain
adjust.
Scott or Mike (or anyone else in the mid-atlantic) would'st be
interested in running some in/out/distortion charts on one?