|
Post by matt@IAA on Aug 22, 2019 13:20:10 GMT -6
Is it going to be different without the EQ loading the preamp? Sure. Will you notice? Maybe. The preamp is going to sound great, regardless. And, unless you've got legit vintage units, you're not likely to get all the way to a "true" 1073 sound anyway, even with the eq, due to the difference in transformers. And, even if you do have vintage units, it won't sound the same as running through an entire vintage Neve console. It's all going to sound terrific, though, so you can feel confident no matter how deep you get into the 1073 chase. I completely agree. Honestly I don't even want to a chase a sound cause it all subjective. But I was curious due to claims by few that it's not the same without the eq built into unit. At the end I would let my ears decide. To the gentleman that kindly offer to record samples with stam, that can put the controversy to rest, atleast for me. I haven't heard a clone yet that matched the original/vintage but I also heard they all sound different from each other. I also do understand that gears don't make hit records, again it's something more like curiosity to hear for myself whether i think its something worth getting the full topology. Get the full topology if you need the EQ. If you don’t, get the pre. It’s not going to magic up the sound. My opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Calvin on Aug 22, 2019 13:27:09 GMT -6
Is it going to be different without the EQ loading the preamp? Sure. Will you notice? Maybe. The preamp is going to sound great, regardless. And, unless you've got legit vintage units, you're not likely to get all the way to a "true" 1073 sound anyway, even with the eq, due to the difference in transformers. And, even if you do have vintage units, it won't sound the same as running through an entire vintage Neve console. It's all going to sound terrific, though, so you can feel confident no matter how deep you get into the 1073 chase. What do you mean the EQ loading the preamp? I linked the schematics. The EQ is a parallel load to the output amp when the EQ isn’t engaged, and series when it is. But unless someone goes through the trouble of figuring / modeling the input impedance of the EQ, it’s kind of meaningless to say it’ll load it, especially if its >>10k across the audio band. I didn't look at the schematics, but I'll happily take your word for it. I was merely parroting back what Colin at AML said (I figure he knows what he's talking about). Doesn't change the gist of my response, in that there are different levels to this chasing the 1073 sound and at the end of the day the preamp is going to sound great even without eq and/or without vintage transformers, etc. It may not be a "true" 1073 sound, but it's still going to sound fine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 13:50:24 GMT -6
I completely agree. Honestly I don't even want to a chase a sound cause it all subjective. But I was curious due to claims by few that it's not the same without the eq built into unit. At the end I would let my ears decide. To the gentleman that kindly offer to record samples with stam, that can put the controversy to rest, atleast for me. I haven't heard a clone yet that matched the original/vintage but I also heard they all sound different from each other. I also do understand that gears don't make hit records, again it's something more like curiosity to hear for myself whether i think its something worth getting the full topology. Get the full topology if you need the EQ. If you don’t, get the pre. It’s not going to magic up the sound. My opinion. Absolutely don't need the eq. Usually I just do the tracking from home and leave the job for a seasoned vet prof mixing engineer to do the rest. But after reading some of the diff posts, claiming it's not the same thing, especially after talking to this big studio owner/engineer, it did leave me wondering if I'm selling my self short.. Since stams are reasonably priced, I wouldn't mind getting the other unit OR save $$ after hearing the samples, so Ill let my ear decide for my OCD sake lol instead of depending on hearsay. Still doesn't make or break what I'm doing. I mostly use spl premium pres anyway which is more than enuff for my needs. thanks for ur opinion, its very helpful
|
|
|
Post by shoe on Aug 22, 2019 16:19:01 GMT -6
The old Stam 1073 MPA have a different gain structure than the new 1073 with EQ. Different number of three transistor gain blocks. Not quite apples to apples. wait There is more than 1 version of the mpa? Yeah, there was a MKI and MKII. I have the MKII but I used to have the SA73 MKI as well (which was a desktop unit with external power). That one sounded kind of diffuse in the top end to me, but in a good way for vocals. A bit dreamy. I'm not sure how it differs design-wise in the audio path, though. I know it had different transistors but I don't know if the actual schematic was different. Sounds like maybe it was.
|
|
|
Post by hio on Aug 22, 2019 16:23:57 GMT -6
Gearlust, be aware that Stam's specs on his website still state *old* and different information than what you get and I mentioned this in my review on this forum around six months ago.
I have no idea what he is thinking at this point. NOT!
Two, the dual MPA preamps sound identical to each other to the nth degree and I use both daily. (OCD certified).
The 1073 MPA pres sound like *REAL* vintage 1073 preamps and I would rather commit to EQ in the context of an actual mix not in some part going down.
You will hear people talk about committing to the sound going down and I think this to a degree is part rubbish.
I will say using my UA plugs the way I use them I can have a perfect mix without being committed except for the raw tracks and I want the whole body of that preamp committed and I can choose to dissect it later if I want.
I would recommend the 1073 MPA with more of that pure wire and gain with less to go wrong, and you get two preamps for the price of one. Touche'
No brainer for me IMHO especially if you have some good EQs you like, but I mix mostly in the box so your mileage may vary.
Tip: The old UA legacy 1073 *EQ* is a sleeper I am telling ya.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 16:57:07 GMT -6
Gearlust, be aware that Stam's specs on his website still state *old* and different information than what you get and I mentioned this in my review on this forum around six months ago. I have no idea what he is thinking at this point. NOT! Two, the dual MPA preamps sound identical to each other to the nth degree and I use both daily. (OCD certified). The 1073 MPA pres sound like *REAL* vintage 1073 preamps and I would rather commit to EQ in the context of an actual mix not in some part going down. You will hear people talk about committing to the sound going down and I think this to a degree is part rubbish. I will say using my UA plugs the way I use them I can have a perfect mix without being committed except for the raw tracks and I want the whole body of that preamp committed and I can choose to dissect it later if I want. I would recommend the 1073 MPA with more of that pure wire and gain with less to go wrong, and you get two preamps for the price of one. Touche' No brainer for me IMHO especially if you have some good EQs you like, but I mix mostly in the box so your mileage may vary. Tip: The old UA legacy 1073 *EQ* is a sleeper I am telling ya. you make great valid points like many others here. it's great stam updates their products sometimesto be improved. i believe there is a mk1 so im guessing mk2 is probably closer to new 73eq.. i feel same as you, to my ears, stam has one of the best vintage vibe with sowters. point taken, on not committing to sound on tracking. i once seen a rupert neve interview where stated, he feels that the less in signal path, the better, so in that contrast EQ(less) version may actually be better with pure wire analogy, who knows, its all speculation but great post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 17:01:22 GMT -6
I completely agree. Honestly I don't even want to a chase a sound cause it all subjective. But I was curious due to claims by few that it's not the same without the eq built into unit. At the end I would let my ears decide. To the gentleman that kindly offer to record samples with stam, that can put the controversy to rest, atleast for me. I haven't heard a clone yet that matched the original/vintage but I also heard they all sound different from each other. I also do understand that gears don't make hit records, again it's something more like curiosity to hear for myself whether i think its something worth getting the full topology. Get the full topology if you need the EQ. If you don’t, get the pre. It’s not going to magic up the sound. My opinion. i thought about this again, yea ill be skipping on the EQ version unless there was some over the top difference, which i highly doubt. that money can be better spent elsewhere. thanks again
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 17:05:51 GMT -6
wait There is more than 1 version of the mpa? Yeah, there was a MKI and MKII. I have the MKII but I used to have the SA73 MKI as well (which was a desktop unit with external power). That one sounded kind of diffuse in the top end to me, but in a good way for vocals. A bit dreamy. I'm not sure how it differs design-wise in the audio path, though. I know it had different transistors but I don't know if the actual schematic was different. Sounds like maybe it was. great,, looking forward for your A/B tests, cant wait! could you please make sure its the same take on both, if its not too much to ask.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Aug 22, 2019 17:25:06 GMT -6
I was bored so I modeled it in LTSpice. There is perhaps a 0.06 dB change at 20 Hz by having the EQ hanging off the mic pre vs not. This drops below 0.01 dB by 100 Hz. There may be people who can hear that, but I wouldn't worry about it - cuz I know I couldn't.
One thing, the input impedance of the EQ section is not so high - around 3k in the audio band. So I could imagine it having some impact on distortion or character. Again, I wouldn’t worry about it. If it sounds good it is good.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Aug 22, 2019 18:06:00 GMT -6
I was bored so I modeled it in LTSpice. There is perhaps a 0.06 dB change at 20 Hz by having the EQ hanging off the mic pre vs not. This drops below 0.01 dB by 100 Hz. There may be people who can hear that, but I wouldn't worry about it - cuz I know I couldn't. There would be a way bigger difference between two 1073s, with EQ switched in Cheers Wiz
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 18:19:11 GMT -6
I was bored so I modeled it in LTSpice. There is perhaps a 0.06 dB change at 20 Hz by having the EQ hanging off the mic pre vs not. This drops below 0.01 dB by 100 Hz. There may be people who can hear that, but I wouldn't even worry about it - cuz I know I couldn't. There would be a way bigger difference between two 1073s, with EQ switched in Cheers Wiz That i woudnt worry about cause that can be replaced with anything more modern like neve551 next in chain. My main concern was more about the preamp stage If the eq circuit itself contributed to the overall sound when not engaged from which I gather here is negligible but still would be interesting to hear
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Aug 22, 2019 19:20:31 GMT -6
There would be a way bigger difference between two 1073s, with EQ switched in Cheers Wiz That i woudnt worry about cause that can be replaced with anything more modern like neve551 next in chain. My main concern was more about the preamp stage If the eq circuit itself contributed to the overall sound when not engaged from which I gather here is negligible but still would be interesting to hear I had the 551, i didn't like it at all. I also had the AML1073 500 series preamp/EQ (I just sold it last week after 3 years) and I still have the BAE 1073DMP. The AML and the BAE were very different sounding, even with the EQ switched out on the AML. I just never really got on with it. I kept it mainly for the EQ, which worked good on electric guitars. Cheers Wiz
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 19:33:40 GMT -6
That i woudnt worry about cause that can be replaced with anything more modern like neve551 next in chain. My main concern was more about the preamp stage If the eq circuit itself contributed to the overall sound when not engaged from which I gather here is negligible but still would be interesting to hear I had the 551, i didn't like it at all. I also had the AML1073 500 series preamp/EQ (I just sold it last week after 3 years) and I still have the BAE 1073DMP. The AML and the BAE were very different sounding, even with the EQ switched out on the AML. I just never really got on with it. I kept it mainly for the EQ, which worked good on electric guitars. Cheers Wiz I heard the clones on various shootouts against other pres but never back to back against each other. From what ur saying here, it's interesting why would these clones sound so different when theyre technically using same parts; circuits boards, schematics and transformers or are they built different from one another? What's the catch?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 23, 2019 12:25:18 GMT -6
You’d think they’d all sound the same but they all sound different. All of them have the 1073 signature and that’s what you’ll hear, not so much the brands. Original had a little more character to it, Stam kinda nails it best. Your mixing engineer can take it the rest of the way. The EQ is very musical, it’s like a tone knob. If you are careful and use small amounts of EQ it will be fine. You’d have to be really bad engineer to ruin a take beyond repair with 1073EQ. Sounds like you want the EQ. If you want to buy once and be set for life: Stam w/EQ, BAE wEQ or vintage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 12:33:28 GMT -6
You’d think they’d all sound the same but they all sound different. All of them have the 1073 signature and that’s what you’ll hear, not so much the brands. Original had a little more character to it, Stam kinda nails it best. Your mixing engineer can take it the rest of the way. The EQ is very musical, it’s like a tone knob. If you are careful and use small amounts of EQ it will be fine. You’d have to be really bad engineer to ruin a take beyond repair with 1073EQ. Sounds like you want the EQ. If you want to buy once and be set for life: Stam w/EQ, BAE wEQ or vintage. between some shootout i heard, to my ears, the clones couldn't touch the low freq response of the vintage being bigger/present/more 3d, but they come close, it's still quiet good. im debating, if i should choose the EQ or not. i dont want to be splitting hair like i said, but I got the itch to hear for my self. Besides the reasonable cost factor, it would be Stam over BAE cause i liked what i heard. i dont plan to mix so i dont know. Would be interesting to hear wiz shootout btw, i used to live out bayarea too
|
|
|
Post by stam on Aug 25, 2019 15:44:37 GMT -6
That is quite an honor, thank you I love BAE stuff
The low end you speak about is on the output transformer
Sowter and I spent quite some months replicating it. I am very satisfied with it
Nothing else out there is quite the same in terms of transformers.
Carnhill is great, very detailed and they are a wonderful company to work with, so is Sowter, Altran and AMI
In the end, it comes down to the application.
For me the best microphones transformers are made by AMI, specially on tube circuits, however I prefer Sowter on fet microphones, 47, 87, etc..
For input transformers it is always Sowter, never heard anything that comes close. However, Altran does make an outstanding input transformer for the 312 type preamps as well as the 1176 output on the UREI stuff.
Then again, Jensen makes amazing high performance transformers. Jensen Twin servo and John Hardy's M1 sound spectacular.
You have to audition each transformers per circuit and listen dozens of times on several sources and just chose what sounds the closest to the original one.
Matching vintage pieces can be done but it is VERY time consuming.
When it comes to replicating vintage transformers Sowter is generally (or almost always) a mile above anybody else and transformers is 80% of the sound of a preamp or compressor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2019 20:47:34 GMT -6
That is quite an honor, thank you I love BAE stuff The low end you speak about is on the output transformer Sowter and I spent quite some months replicating it. I am very satisfied with it Nothing else out there is quite the same in terms of transformers. Carnhill is great, very detailed and they are a wonderful company to work with, so is Sowter, Altran and AMI In the end, it comes down to the application. For me the best microphones transformers are made by AMI, specially on tube circuits, however I prefer Sowter on fet microphones, 47, 87, etc.. For input transformers it is always Sowter, never heard anything that comes close. However, Altran does make an outstanding input transformer for the 312 type preamps as well as the 1176 output on the UREI stuff. Then again, Jensen makes amazing high performance transformers. Jensen Twin servo and John Hardy's M1 sound spectacular. You have to audition each transformers per circuit and listen dozens of times on several sources and just chose what sounds the closest to the original one. Matching vintage pieces can be done but it is VERY time consuming. When it comes to replicating vintage transformers Sowter is generally (or almost always) a mile above anybody else and transformers is 80% of the sound of a preamp or compressor. btw, as a manufacturer, what is your opinion on the original question? EQ circuit included with the PREAMP gives a certain sound/character due to complete 1073 topology? even when bypassed. Some claiming without eq is not true 73 sound, or its some rubbish
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 26, 2019 7:29:33 GMT -6
Using hardware, running through the EQ with everything set to neutral still added a nice sheen to my tracks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2019 7:45:29 GMT -6
Using hardware, running through the EQ with everything set to neutral still added a nice sheen to my tracks. Hey Martin I seen ur videos on youtube..i thought you had preamp version only
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Aug 26, 2019 8:39:26 GMT -6
That's true gearlust. I've bought and sold all sorts of different things. I wish I could afford to keep all of them ;-) I had the Warm Pultec style EQ, and when I ran through it with the EQ at default, it still added a very pleasant quality to all my tracks. I'm sure this applies to the 1073 as well. The Stam SA73 is a great sounding pre as is, but having the EQ would be cool.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2019 17:42:23 GMT -6
Screw it Ill be grabbing both, i have to find out on my own, unless they come with 1081 or 1084 hehe
One constructive criticism, stam pls fix those knobs sticking out 1073eq some asthetics justice.
|
|
|
Post by kilroyrock on Aug 28, 2019 7:08:00 GMT -6
Screw it Ill be grabbing both, i have to find out on my own, unless they come with 1081 or 1084 hehe One constructive criticism, stam pls fix those knobs sticking out 1073eq some asthetics justice. Somebody hand me my dremel
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2019 23:02:49 GMT -6
Great info, exactly the type of answers I was looking for I will have to check this out myself..i have stam 73mpa ordered, would like to compare to 1073eq myself. Again guys,.im talking about eq being in bypass mode, not engaged, regardless.of if it's set to flat I have both of those units and they do sound different. However, the EQ is not the only difference between them. The transistor types are also different between the units and my MPA is overall a little bit lower output than the 1073EQ. The MPA also is cleaner sounding, to my ear (perhaps due to lower output or bias adjustment?). They both sound quite nice, though. I should do some comparison clips. Sorry this doesn't actually answer the question, though. If they were otherwise identical besides the EQ would they sound the same? I dunno. Any comparison clips yet? Still would like to hear
|
|
|
Post by shoe on Sept 7, 2019 23:03:47 GMT -6
I have both of those units and they do sound different. However, the EQ is not the only difference between them. The transistor types are also different between the units and my MPA is overall a little bit lower output than the 1073EQ. The MPA also is cleaner sounding, to my ear (perhaps due to lower output or bias adjustment?). They both sound quite nice, though. I should do some comparison clips. Sorry this doesn't actually answer the question, though. If they were otherwise identical besides the EQ would they sound the same? I dunno. Any comparison clips yet? Still would like to hear Sorry, I haven't gotten around to it yet. I've been busy with work and mixing, lately, and then also had to rearrange my rack to accomodate a new compressor (Kush Tweaker). Hopefully I'll be recording some more in the next few weeks and I can give it a try. I may also throw in a couple other preamps. I was also debating exactly how to do this. I want the same performance but also to use mics because running line signal through is not the same thing as using these as actual mic pres. I guess I'll use a looper to feed an amp.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Sept 8, 2019 0:06:33 GMT -6
I look at it this way. How many recordings made though original Neve 1073’s were made without using the EQ? I would think very few. Therefore if you are looking to buy a 1073 because of its heritage/sound etc why would you buy 1073 without EQ? It kind of doesn’t make sense. Even more so in the case of a 1084.
|
|