Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[littlehat]

It is obvious to anyone who's worked on any record that the character of a single channel strip or preamp is only part of understanding its sound and role in a recording. I don't think about working on an old Neve console with a tear in my eye. I'd much rather have 8 channels of Neve as outboard. BUT, to prove that something sounds "just like a...", the Fletcher Test is obviously going to prove any "clone" to be accurate or not. It's the simple difference between using a ____ channel to record guitar tracks through and mixing a record through a board full of ____ channels. AND IT'S A BIG ONE.

[rankus]

I would be very interested in such a test.

I have used Dallas's Vintech gear in studio right beside an 8 pack of N 1073's and was extremely impressed... We have never rented the Neve's again.... The Vintechs were bought, and sit in the rack, in use every day...

Did they sound excactly the same? ...  No... the Vintechs sounded "better" to our ears... Less "mushy"..

[Fletcher]

Bubblepuppy wrote on Wed, 11 January 2006 00:35

Give it a rest, we exist in a industry that constantly sells  hype (oxygenfree copper)/ bullshit(how to play like insert name)/ bling bling(MTV Sucks) and fantasy (win a date w/Pam Anderson).

Exactly why I really fucking hate it when people throw around the "N word" as a buzz word that says that their shit is a magic bullet.  You've made my point... sell the steak as steak instead of selling the sizzle.

Many of the people I consider to be some of my dearest friends are brilliant designers.  I find it offensive when someone tries to earn off their sweat and hardwork when they've done damn little work of their own.

Now you're going to say "but isn't the MP-2NV and EQ-2NV from Great River from a 1073 and a 1083 drawing? [respectively]"  Yes, that's where they started... and then they were advanced into the 21st century.  It was a "starting point", not the end point.  Both units are indeed fresh designs that started from a point that was achieved in 1970-something.

The fact that the stuff that is supposed to "sound exactly like the N-word" doesn't irks me.  Market it as a cheap copy of an N-word piece [like an "Epiphone Les Paul"] but let's not call the Epiphone a Gibson.

Please?

[rankus]

Wasn't the Neve  circuit "lifted" from a "Baxandahl (sp?) circuit"?  Common to most tone control sections in home stereo equipment of the day?

A circuit is a circuit... There are only so many that will work... It's about the components...

Rupert Neve did not "invent" this circuit...

[George_]

Quote:

A circuit is a circuit... There are only so many that will work... It's about the components... Rupert Neve did not "invent" this circuit...

damned rankus.. blasphemie in Fletchers forum..
you will be stoned to death (or something similar     )

damned, but you are right;)

[Fletcher]

Baxandall's work was the basis on which many early designers built their new designs.  I know Barry Porter's work at Trident originated with Banandall's original drawings.

What was unique to the "Rupert Neve Company" at that time was the design and construction of the input and output transformers and the design of the input and output amplifiers.

Mr. Neve was a major portion of the design team there but he was not the only designer.  While Mr. Neve designed many of the "bits" that went into making a full module [most importantly the input and output transformers and the amplifier circuits] that was very likely the majority of his input... other people within the company took those "bits" and turned them into input modules, line amplifiers, routing, compressors, etc.

These modules had [and have, and add] a unique tonal and textural "mojo" to the audio which I have found lacking in many [OK, most] "clone" designs.  

In a conversation a while ago with Robin Porter [head of AMS/Neve design if I remember my titles correctly] we got to talking about the output transformer and how the current version of the Marinair LO 1166 built by Carnhill has increased low frequency distortion characteristics not found in the original Marinair.  

These distortion characteristics are why AMS/Neve has had Carnhill build them a different transformer than the ones you'll find in the output sections of the units released by "the cloners".  These distortion characteristics are just a symptom of the lack of 'attention to detail' many of the 'Epiphone level' cloners have employed in their offerings... offerings that I dare say lack the emotion and "mojo" found in some of the originals [I say some because there are so many "original N modules" is such a shitty state of repair that they suck even worse than some of the clones].

There is all kinds of other shit that isn't "right"... like the circuit board layouts [each component with have some interaction with every other component... so if the layout strays from the original, so will the sound], power supplies [ability to deliver proper 'current on demand' for creating bass waves and passing transients]... though again I dare say that the vast majority of the original 'N word' modules in various frames are woefully underpowered which does indeed compormise their performance.

There's a whole lot of shit going on besides pulling some similar components and putting them in the same order as was done 30 something years ago.

If you're going to create something new from an old design... all I ask is that you call it what it is... a new design based on something old... I don't think that's asking too much, but apparently I'm wrong.

[Jeff Goodman]

here, fuckin, here.

Jeff

[jb_studio]

Hey Fletcher,

I agree with much of what you've said in this thread, but I just want to point out one thing...

In my opinion (again, just one man's opinion here), there are the "epiphone cloners" as you would call them -- and then there is Brent Averill. Without making comment on the Neve cloners and Neve-inspired manufacturers/designers, I just want to make this distinction, as I would hate to see Avedis & co lumped in with the rest, especially when this thread is titled "AMS vs BAE". (Marcel eloquently referred to this as "tarring with the same brush" ...)

The bottom line is that Avedis makes a phenomenal product with wonderful attention to detail, and yes, he uses the exact same transformers that AMS-Neve uses (I spoke to Carnhill about this and they confirmed it).  Moreover, BA are the only ones out there (apart from AMS of course) who are currently making actual 1073 modules that slide into 80 series consoles, which is a great thing for Neve console owners.  The stuff is hand-wired, hand-tested, built to the same spec, and it sounds great.  

As you mentioned in another post, there's only one "outlet" for the BA stuff -- and it's rare to see them involved in the forums -- so it's down to passionate users like myself to speak out.  So here's another thumbs-up from a satisfied customer.  Just wanted throw in my .02...Cheers -- JB

[rankus]

Thanks for the clarification above Fletcher.

For the record I am in 100% agreement with Mr. Fletcher....

Don't try to sell me an Epiphone by telling me it's "like" a friggin Gibson!!!

[Madguitrst]

I don't know if Gibson vs. Epiphone is such as great example because, while theoretically the Gibson should play and sound better, that's not always the way it works out.

I have Gibsons and Epiphones.
I have an Epiphone SG that I would (and did) put against any SG I've ever had my hands on. I didn't need an SG, I just happened upon one so perfect I couldn't walk away in good conscience.

But we're talking apples to oranges.
For all of the reasons we all know, there are no two guitars alike.

As for the N-esque kinda thingys, here's one to really rumple the feathers:



These are really a clone of a wanna be, obviously aimed at the home market who lusts after N gear but can't justify (or afford) using it for what amounts to demo work (my viewpoint, anyway)

Yes, I bought two. I like them for me and my home studio.
I don't know how they compare to anything, other than my Sytek and Sebatron, nor do I care. I'm sure they're not a N.....nothing is but a N in good repair.

FWIW, I'm not an engineer nor will I ever be, I just play one when I need to at the home studio or while dispensing misleading advice on music forums. Yes, I have played through N and A gear but don't exactly have every nuance stored in sonic memory, especially since I was mostly listening on the other side of the glass (except when I was secretly twiddling the knobs while the engineer was hanging out in the bathroom, etc).

Over on a Gearslutz thread, we all got kind of silly, came to our senses (well, not me but.....) and are now pondering what sonic benefits might or might not be derived from actually replacing the caps and transformer, etc in the latest N-killer.....and whether it would be worth it $$$ wise, since these things street at about $750 per channel and pumping lotsa money into them would defeat the purpose, other than maybe to enagage in a lustful soniscieince experient.

I offerred to send one of mine to a member to try next to a 1073 if he had or could get one. He referred me here.

Anyway, although I'd rather only buy American (sorry Geoff) engineered and manufactured music gear, clothes, TVs, computers, and maybe even cars....that's not happening. I almost even hate to have copy of a clone but how can I care when a cloner has been cloned? I dunno....I'm all mixed up. Anyway, I'd rather own a real N and a 56 LP Goldtop too. But the desire to spoil my child (and even save for college), pay the utilities and have enough $$$ left over for chicks (well, only one, but they're really expensive ) has it's price to pay.

Anyway, a couple of 7602 are here in Phildelphia if anyone is interested in a zerox of a print of a masterpiece, which IMO, is another useful tool that I am happy to have.

[Geoff_T]

Madguitrst wrote on Wed, 25 January 2006 14:33

Anyway, although I'd rather only buy American (sorry Geoff) engineered and manufactured music gear, clothes, TVs, computers, and maybe even cars....that's not happening. I almost even hate to have copy of a clone but how can I care when a cloner has been cloned? I dunno....I'm all mixed up. Anyway, I'd rather own a real N and a 56 LP Goldtop too. But the desire to spoil my child (and even save for college), pay the utilities and have enough $$$ left over for chicks (well, only one, but they're really expensive ) has it's price to pay.

Hi

There isn't "a" 1073... there are multiple renditions of them... something like 20+ issue numbers that I recall through my flu - ridden head.

Might the one copied be the version pre the anti-click mods that added extra resistors that, besides bleeding unused switch contacts to 0v, also changed the loading on the input transformer which drifted up and down with gain settings anyway!

Or might the one copied be post that mod, but pre the mod where the EQ selection circuit was changed, removing a contact but adding an extra capacitor and bleed resistor that loaded the EQ output differently.

Or might it be one of the many small changes like change of transistor type, change of capacitor type, and change of either input or output transformer type?

The only way of guaranteing that two would sound alike is if they came out of the same console, manufactured in the same batch.

This doesn't include post Neve maintenance and repairs. I've even seen fake 1073's made out of Neve bits but with the wrong cards in them.

One thing you can guarantee is that the 7602 won't sound exactly like a 1073 (whichever variant) because it uses Chinese manufactured transformers. If Carnhill couldn't initially make an acceptable copy for Neve, what chances a third party with even less knowledge of the design parameters?

The thing is, a lot of folk have never heard a 1073 and it might suit them just fine... the differences may be tiny.

You pays your money and gets what you pay for!

[Madguitrst]

Very interesting....thanks Geoff!

It makes me wonder how more than a select few can really know the Neve sound. It seems more like Neve-ish sound would be a better discription. Of course, I don't really know.

Geoff, this has already been addressed, sort of, but if I may ask.
In your personal opinion:
How close can reputable transformer makers get to their intended target by reverse engineering?
How far away from that is Asian manufacturing?
How much of a difference might tantalum caps make in sound over electrolytics, which was pointed out are used by Chameleon?

BTW, if you look at the innards of the 7602 and the Chandler LTD-1, it's obvious just what the 7602 is cloned after; their layout is just about identical.

7602:
http://gearslutz.com/board/attachment.php3?attachmentid=1462 9&stc=1

7602 power supply
http://gearslutz.com/board/attachment.php3?attachmentid=1463 0&stc=1

LTD-1
http://gearslutz.com/board/attachment.php3?attachmentid=1464 6

Of course, I realize that it's not a matter of "parts is parts".
I'd imagine Chandler isn't too thrilled either.
Then again, didn't they do the same thing to Neve.....and others?
Do they produce anything from orignal designs?

And now, I must apologize. In so many ways it must be galling to see a great product (considered a masterpiece), that you had personal involvemnt in, get bastardized in so many ways. Yet, it all started with the first guy who pulled out a module and racked it up (was that you Fletcher?   j/k).

Also, that someone like yourself and others handcraft their products from the finest materials, all of which costs money....as does keeping the lights on and soldering stations fired up.....and someone using the cheapest technical labor force can come along and clone for so much less money.

Really, Idon't know that it hurts sales.
Anyone with a good reason or desire to have something will buy accordng to their needs/desires and ability to afford admission.

Unfortunately, I am a part of it, for all of the usual reasons - excuses maybe? For that, I apologize. Also for my questions if they are galling. Still, I can't help but wonder. And how lucky I get to ask you in a forum such as this? Very, IMO.

In other ways, I feel like there has been gear price goughing going on forever, especially with mics, with Neumann leading the way. Of course, I really know nothing about the manufacturing process of any pro audio gear, other than what I've read.

Those reasons/excuses are:
Everything's made in China - my shoes, shirts, computer, etc. so why not gear? But maybe that's equivalant to - "hey, why not let China clone my CDs and sell them for $3.00!". It's sort o a sacriledge to every thing myself and those I grew up with felt about our art, whatever art that may be.

I wish there were more studios around and that I could afford a good one. Overall, I'd rather just have a Roland VS1680 (which I still keep), use it to work out tunes, and go to the studio where we can all concentrate on what we do best.

And have art for art's sake.............

In any case, thank you Geoff.

[Geoff_T]

Hi

It's very, very difficult to reverse engineer a transformer besides the obvious wire gauge and sorting out the tricks involved with the manner of wiring... which indeed was the case with the LO1166 and LO2567... because there are tricks one can do, and I have done, to improve the performance but are not easily detected.

It's not that difficult to design a transformer from scratch, given the parameters are specified like turns ratio, matching impedances, mutual inductance, perfomance specs, etc.

But it doesn't follow that transformer will behave exactly the same way as the original.... ask Carnhill!

Even the layouts shown do not resemble the innards of a 1073 that uses two internal interpanels to accomodate the pcbs in two rows,

The distance from the pre-amp stages to the gain switch affects the reactance of the cables and also the loading on the transformers. The boards in the 1073 are very closely coupled by wires that thead between the two inter panels. Mounting a "higher level" output fader next to a "lower level" gain switch risks HF stability. The sound difference is miniscule but difference there will be.

Crocodile tears for the cloner copied by a cloner!




PS I can vouch that, if you swap the tants in a 1073 for aluminum electrolytics, the sound is NOT improved.. quite the contrary. They were put there for good reason.

[Geoff_T]

Madguitrst wrote on Wed, 25 January 2006 17:46

Yet, it all started with the first guy who pulled out a module and racked it up (was that you Fletcher?   j/k).

Hi

I somehow doubt it. I was rack mounting Neve modules in racks I built myself and with power supplies I etched myself in the early 80's, well over 20 years ago.

[marcel]

Fletcher wrote on Mon, 23 January 2006 13:39

... sell the steak as steak instead of selling the sizzle. ... Now you're going to say "but isn't the MP-2NV and EQ-2NV from Great River from a 1073 and a 1083 drawing? [respectively]"  Yes, that's where they started... and then they were advanced into the 21st century.  It was a "starting point", not the end point.  Both units are indeed fresh designs that started from a point that was achieved in 1970-something...

Umm...  While this thread has been going on, I managed to get ahold of some 'real' N-modules, and to A/B the GR stuff that I was test driving against them (and the API gear that I mentioned at the top of the thread...)
I decided to buy the MP-2NV and the EQ-2NV after I did this...
Did they sound like (insert N-word here)?  No.  Much closer than they did to the API, but not 'the same'.  Did they sound 'better'?  No.  They sounded different, not distinguishably better or worse, just different...  
I decided to buy them because I thought the EQ was more flexible and varied, which I realized I wanted in something that I will probably do about 90% of my tracking here through.  I also liked the features of an unbalanced insert point in between gain stages in the preamp and the unbalanced output option - because I use and have come to like the FMR RNC.  
I also came to see the sense of what Fletcher is saying (actually prior to having read the above quoted post) - a well designed piece of gear that, while it may borrow from a past design, is an original engineering effort, will almost always be more valuable than a 'clone' to me.  The stuff I purchased does not seem at all gimmicky.  It just sounds good (in a wide variety of applications) and appears solid and built to last.
I do appreciate everyone who has contributed their opinions and knowledge to this thread, and I have learned a lot about the history and design of this element of recording hardware, which is, I guess, what this is all about for me.  And I would still like to hear some head-to-head tests at some point between the various wanna-N's...
Anyone who owns a white lab coat would probably be qualified (!)
Best, Marcel