Post by: Meriphew on April 22, 2004, 05:04:34 PM
Post by: Tim Gilles on April 22, 2004, 06:15:28 PM
How are you brudder?
Anyhoo.
A great box, one of the most unique and useful designs I've heard in years.
Not a lotta $$$ considering the sound.
Great on all kinds of stuff, from 'fizzy' gtrs to 'pillowy' toms... bass, some vocals... You name it....
NOT a 'clinical' pre.... But an amazingly useful one.
"Breaks-up" in all kinza cool ways if ya 'bang' the front end and attenuate the output.
The output is nominal at full clockwise.
Incredibly simple, practical, and pleasing sounding device.
Wish I had 4-5 of them.....
And someday....
I probably will...
Best regards.
Tim.
Post by: Meriphew on April 22, 2004, 06:22:10 PM
Post by: rphilbeck on April 22, 2004, 09:07:14 PM
Post by: Nathan Eldred on April 23, 2004, 12:21:08 AM
Post by: Meriphew on April 23, 2004, 01:09:14 AM
Speaking of Chandler products, I'm very anxious to hear more about the console(s) that Wade is working on. Any new info on it Nathan?
Post by: stef himself on April 23, 2004, 05:14:31 PM
why wouldn't you use it as a primary?
..obviously it depends on what you're going for, but i've started tracking with one, and it's ended up on just about everything at one point or another (havn't tried it on overheads or vocals yet, but i can see it working in those apps some of the time too)
-stef
Post by: Nathan Eldred on April 24, 2004, 04:38:42 PM
| stef himself wrote on Fri, 23 April 2004 17:14 |
hey nathan why wouldn't you use it as a primary? |
I prefer something slightly less colored, with more of an extended top frequency, a faster slew rate overall, and a bit more 'snappy' in the mids most of the time. When I need exactly the opposite of what I just listed, enter the TG-2. I have about 90% of everything at my disposal, and if I used this pre on a majority of the tracks the mix (before processing) would be too mid forward and soft sounding for my tastes. And to quantify, I use a minimum of 10 unique preamps on any production.
But the above goes for any preamp, having it's own unique stamp put on all or the majority of tracks doesn't make sense to me, some preamps more than others are further away from the general vibe I want the production to portray. My goal with preamps, just like microphones, is to custom tailor the mic/pre combination to exactly how I want it to sound with a minimal 'fix it in the mix' approach. Bring up the faders and it sounds like an album.
Through experience and subjective taste I choose the frequency curve, distortion characteristics, etc of the front end combination to achieve exactly what I'm looking for. As an analogy, if I need to haul lumber one day and street race the next I won't be using the beater truck for both applications. If I've got a hot date and all I own is the truck, you better believe I'll be renting a nice car instead of trying to justify the muddy truck to the lady.
Post by: Zoesch on April 25, 2004, 08:54:02 AM
My only two peeves are the power supply, and the fact that it's only two pres per unit... meaning? I need to buy a second one
I'd also give the TG Channel Strip a go if I were you...
I heard it...
And I went...
Post by: Knastratt on April 25, 2004, 01:58:29 PM
I bet tracking synths through it is a pleasure too.
Post by: John Etnier on April 27, 2004, 09:50:14 AM
| Quote: |
I bet tracking synths through it is a pleasure too. |
A client brought a cheap Roland "workstation" in here and transferred premixed sequences in stereo through the TG2 DI: I couldn't believe how present, and pleasant, those transfers sounded.
Post by: Jim Dugger on April 27, 2004, 10:24:15 AM
Is it worth comparing this unit to the GR NV2?
I'm putting together a shopping list right now -- finally got the cash together to add a couple of nice pres and mics to the studio. A "Neve" sounding, "slow", thick midrange kind of thing is one of the colors I don't have that I'm really thinking would be a nice thing to have.
Post by: dirkb on April 27, 2004, 12:49:10 PM
| Knastratt wrote on Sun, 25 April 2004 18:58 |
I bet tracking synths through it is a pleasure too. |
Well, that's been the only application I haven't been impressed with the TG2. I like the DI of my API better for recording things like fake piano and strings, but YMMV.
Greetings,
Dirk
Post by: m.alhieo on April 27, 2004, 03:57:48 PM
has anyone tried it with a m149, by any chance ?
Post by: stef himself on April 28, 2004, 01:36:35 AM
jim> for sure. i find them quite different. i've been using GR on distant stuff, room mics stuff like that, but close mics are chandler and api. i find this to leave more options open when mixing. my experience with the chandler is still in the fetal stage though!
-stef
Post by: Ross Hogarth on April 28, 2004, 02:46:18 AM
They are so open and musical !!!!!!!!!!
Post by: mwagener on April 28, 2004, 12:00:20 PM
The TG-channel sounds close to the TG-2 but seems to have more dynamics in the lower midrange, great pre for chunky electric guitar.
Post by: lucey on May 03, 2004, 05:23:54 PM
| mwagener wrote on Wed, 28 April 2004 11:00 |
The TG-2 is my go-to pre for electric guitar. It adds harmonics in the midrange that I haven't heard in any other preamp except the TG-channel. |
has anyone A/B'd the TG2 with the GTQ2 on guitars (or anything)?
Post by: Zoesch on May 04, 2004, 12:41:13 AM
| mwagener wrote on Thu, 29 April 2004 02:00 |
The TG-2 is my go-to pre for electric guitar. It adds harmonics in the midrange that I haven't heard in any other preamp except the TG-channel. The TG-channel sounds close to the TG-2 but seems to have more dynamics in the lower midrange, great pre for chunky electric guitar. |
My go-to pre for electric is the AMEK 9098, then the TG-2 and lastly the Presonus MP-20 if I'm looking for no character at all... the midrange boost on the TG-2 is great, but for C tuned 7/8-stringed death metal it sounds unnatural, for jangly indie its hit or miss (And that's mainly because some amps don't sound that nice when you look at their midrange), for more mainstream rock it does well... IMO it's because the low end isn't so present on the TG-2... didn't notice it too much when I heard the TG Channel so I'll have to take your word for it.
Regardless, the Chandler TG-2 and the DAV BG-2 are bound to become quite popular... they are destined for greatness!
Post by: dirkb on May 05, 2004, 09:34:35 AM
| Zoesch wrote on Tue, 04 May 2004 05:41 | ||
My go-to pre for electric is the AMEK 9098, then the TG-2 and lastly the Presonus MP-20 if I'm looking for no character at all... the midrange boost on the TG-2 is great, but for C tuned 7/8-stringed death metal it sounds unnatural, for jangly indie its hit or miss (And that's mainly because some amps don't sound that nice when you look at their midrange), for more mainstream rock it does well... IMO it's because the low end isn't so present on the TG-2... didn't notice it too much when I heard the TG Channel so I'll have to take your word for it. Regardless, the Chandler TG-2 and the DAV BG-2 are bound to become quite popular... they are destined for greatness! |
Zoesch,
Just curious, what mic are you using on (heavy) dirt guitars?
I really like the Chandler TG2 with a SM57.
greetings,
Dirk
Post by: Zoesch on May 09, 2004, 04:57:51 AM
I'm just very partial of the way the AMEK handles transients and LF sounds...
Post by: mwagener on May 09, 2004, 12:59:20 PM
I only heard the Amek 9098 on one session, when a workshop guest brought it in. We really couldn't get anything good out of it on neither source. Maybe it was broke or maybe we didn't subject it to the right source/mic. I see your point with the tuned down guitars, though.
I normally use a Royer 121 on the electric guitars, my main amp is the ENGL Savage 120 special edition (the previous version) and the ENGL vintage 30 4x12 cab.
Post by: springman on May 10, 2004, 12:32:14 AM
I should mention that the build quality of these units has been less than stellar. The faceplate is not mounted securely, and the metal can flex; seems like a design flaw they could fix pretty easily. In addition, I got my first TG-2 and within a month a channel had died. Sent it back, and when it returned it worked well for about two weeks, and the other channel died. Got a new unit from the dealer, and everything has been fine so far... I'm still gonna get another one.
Post by: rme uk on May 15, 2004, 01:43:14 PM
| Quote: |
I should mention that the build quality of these units has been less than stellar. |
I have to agree! That's something I wasn't happy at all about when I got mine.
Post by: Zoesch on May 16, 2004, 09:33:50 AM
| mwagener wrote on Mon, 10 May 2004 02:59 |
zoesch I only heard the Amek 9098 on one session, when a workshop guest brought it in. We really couldn't get anything good out of it on neither source. Maybe it was broke or maybe we didn't subject it to the right source/mic. I see your point with the tuned down guitars, though. I normally use a Royer 121 on the electric guitars, my main amp is the ENGL Savage 120 special edition (the previous version) and the ENGL vintage 30 4x12 cab. |
Michael,
Funny, we've got pretty much the same chain going... my go-to amps are an ENGL Savage and a Laney GH100L (Both modded) but I've pretty much stopped micing cabs once I got the Motherload.
The difference here is one of styles, I would agree that the Chandler would be exceptionally suited to get the right "power metal" tone (Helloween/Maiden-style) but not to get the grinding and gritty "death metal" tone (Both the cleaner Death or the grittier Entombed style tones), that's where I think the 9098 shines through.
I love both my AMEK and my Chandler, but as you (And to a lesser extent I) have pointed out, it has to go with the right mic on the right source.
Post by: mwagener on May 16, 2004, 09:28:56 PM
| Zoesch wrote on Sun, 16 May 2004 08:33 | ||
Michael, Funny, we've got pretty much the same chain going... my go-to amps are an ENGL Savage and a Laney GH100L (Both modded) but I've pretty much stopped micing cabs once I got the Motherload. The difference here is one of styles, I would agree that the Chandler would be exceptionally suited to get the right "power metal" tone (Helloween/Maiden-style) but not to get the grinding and gritty "death metal" tone (Both the cleaner Death or the grittier Entombed style tones), that's where I think the 9098 shines through. I love both my AMEK and my Chandler, but as you (And to a lesser extent I) have pointed out, it has to go with the right mic on the right source. |
Makes total sense to me. The Amek was quite a bit tighter on the bottom than the TG-2
Gotta try that Motherload...love that Savage though. There is no living organism in the same room with the ENGL cab when that thing is crancked
Post by: James Duncan on May 16, 2004, 10:40:00 PM
Post by: Zoesch on May 16, 2004, 11:26:46 PM
I'm quite sure Sequis (The manufacturers of the motherload) will be happy to demo a unit or send you one, they are a small company based in the UK after some people split from Palmer, so in case you don't have it here's the info on them.
BTW, am I the only one who likes the TG-2 on overheads? Gives this rich and bright cymbal tone that requires little EQ to fit in the mix.
Post by: mwagener on May 22, 2004, 07:57:02 PM
Yes, I use the TG-2 on overheads too. I try not to use EQ if it isn't absolutely necessary, different preamps do eliminate having to use EQ. I feel it's better to use a stereo bus EQ once, if the whole thing gets a little dark, rather than using EQ on each channel. It's a completely different way of working from what I did before. Then I just used ANY mic with any mic pre (mostly the built-in SSL ones) and then eq'd the heck out of it. By not using EQs on every track it seems the picture becomes a lot clearer overall.
Post by: lucey on May 23, 2004, 04:48:17 AM
| mwagener wrote on Sat, 22 May 2004 18:57 |
Thanx Stefan, I'll check that out. Yes, I use the TG-2 on overheads too. I try not to use EQ if it isn't absolutely necessary, different preamps do eliminate having to use EQ. I feel it's better to use a stereo bus EQ once, if the whole thing gets a little dark, rather than using EQ on each channel. |
Are you saying you're at a point of not eq-ing at all in mixing?
I have this goal, and with 4-5 pre amps in house can come close, yet even a little hi pass or mid boost is necessary most of the time...
What about compression?
Post by: mwagener on May 23, 2004, 10:10:50 AM
During the mix I use mostly the eqs in the Sony DMX to just touch up little things here and there and to get rid of anything that is not in the signal (high pass on hat track etc.). It's mostly down to a couple of dB to fit tracks into the mix a little better. The Massive Passive is on the stereo bus and I normally boost the high end 4-5 dB shelved up from about 4K. When you don't use eq during tracking it tends to end up slightly dull, but I think it's better to use only one eq on the whole mix, compared to eq'ing every track
I don't like to use compression much, so I try to keep it to a minimum, one can't get around it completely in the digital world. During the mix I use a CraneSong STC-8 on the stereo bus, which gets switched in as soon as the rough mix (without automation) is up, so I can make up for the compressor by riding faders. Then, of course there is the creative compression for drum sub-mixes, extra snare attack etc.
Post by: Ross Hogarth on May 23, 2004, 08:39:30 PM
| Quote: |
Just curious, what mic are you using on (heavy) dirt guitars? I really like the Chandler TG2 with a SM57. greetings, Dirk |
My favorite setup for detuned heavy electric guitar is as such
A Royer 121 or 122 into a Telfunken V72 (No EQ)
A Sm57 into a Chandler LTD 1 or TG2
A Sennheiser 421 into real Neve or a Tg2 or a Ltd 1
these are then brought back into a console on the insert return to bypass the eq and line amp and then
all these are blended and bussed through an API 550/ 550a with either 2 or 4 dB of 3k or 5k. I find that 1.5k is cool but usually to honky as a buss eq. These are all bussed to one track or if 2 amps and cabinets are involved there are 2 exact mic setups in stereo. Most if not all the eq and sound comes from mic placement and amp color. I rarely eq the individual mics. I really love the buss eq though after the blend.
Post by: mloomis on May 24, 2004, 11:21:51 PM
| Zoesch wrote on Sun, 16 May 2004 20:26 |
Michael, I'm quite sure Sequis (The manufacturers of the motherload) will be happy to demo a unit or send you one, they are a small company based in the UK after some people split from Palmer, so in case you don't have it here's the info on them. |
Hey, Zoesch.
Do you really prefer the Motherlode to real mics and speakers? Does the Motherlode sound that natural? I've checked out their site and the reviews and all. Just wanted the opinion of someone who owns and uses the thing on a regular basis. It certainly would solve a number of problems if it sounds that great.
Michael
Post by: Zoesch on May 24, 2004, 11:53:33 PM
I've also used it on the 2-buss and on line level signals (After boosting their gain as this thing is completely passive so it needs a REALLY healthy signal)
Post by: rusty cage on May 25, 2004, 01:18:39 AM