|
|
Post by ShadowK on Sept 15, 2023 22:59:43 GMT -6
As you know I don’t pull any punches in my critique of audio equipment and today is not the day to start. It’s been an interesting venture with the IAA 622 so I pulled out most of my mic’s from the locker. One of the defining factors IMO of a good amp or strip is the ability to work with any mic and the IAA 622 passed that test. Turns out I had some ISK Gem’s in the cupboard I’d forgot about too which is cool, then I moved on to a Tele 251, U67, Schoeps MK4, KM184, Gefell M.92, Beyer M88, Shure SM58 and ISK 2B. As you can see, there wasn’t a lack of variety in my monitor karaoke or Vox / guitar recording trial. What hit me first is the 622 has been, to understate, quite a fair bit better IMO than the SSL amps, it doesn’t quite have the fidelity of a Shelford but it is oh so flattering, I had a ton of fun singing through it and even live it just sounded like a record. Plus the one knob compressor a quart up actually sounded brilliant and that is honestly a first for me. I wasn’t keen on the Shelford’s bridge diode compression section for vocals or acoustic, the SSL’s one knob doesn’t even stand up to that but the VCA in the 622 I can only describe as smooth yet somehow unobtrusive. Because of this I did spend a bit of time looking at my 2A pondering its existence. However, we’re not here just to wax lyrical so I’ll focus on a few less than stellar points. The resistance of anything but the mic gain is a bit weak, there aren’t any stepped pots so I’m not sure how one could use this in a stereo pair? Then finally I didn’t often get along with the inductor EQ and I’m surprised by that, the HMF seemed to bring out the worst in a mic or the MF’s dulled them too much. The SSL really did step up to the plate here, whilst limited they actually do sound very good and worked perfectly for mic tracking fixes. Although neither alone for me beat the RND 551, in conjunction it’s a different matter but I don’t expect most to have the same chain as me. Also just to note in my neck of the woods the 551 is more expensive than the 622 strip and two 551’s costs nearly the same as my entire SSL desk. Ultimately I guess this wasn’t what I was looking for but I’m glad I found it, if the 622 was my only amp I’d be perfectly fine with that and I am going to keep it. That doesn't mean I don't see a 5211 in my future.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Sept 16, 2023 0:13:54 GMT -6
Great review - thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Sept 16, 2023 9:57:04 GMT -6
Interesting review. Which microphone did the 622 seem to like/help best?
|
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Sept 16, 2023 10:08:23 GMT -6
Stepped pots are the devil. They’re pots lying about being switches. Just say no to stepped pots, kids.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 13,849 
|
Post by ericn on Sept 16, 2023 11:11:37 GMT -6
Stepped pots are the devil. They’re pots lying about being switches. Just say no to stepped pots, kids. Stepped pots = I’ll never ever be able to recall that setting again. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Sept 16, 2023 12:18:28 GMT -6
Stepped pots are the devil. They’re pots lying about being switches. Just say no to stepped pots, kids. *Looks at the SPL Passeq that was popular for a bit* Drawmer's quad pots have better stereo matching than stepped pots. Switches cost money. If you want the cheap switched eq, you have to accept less frequency points and settings. Think the DAV BG3 but that is missing the areas around 1-2khz because of the cost and has 1.5 db steps. You have to pay a lot more for a Curve Bender. Surgical Q, reliable, and still made? An MEA-2 is 9 grand.
Then you get mastering guys complaining that +1 or +2 steps are too much and they need +.5 to boost in the mids, which is often true if they want to boost 1.5 or 3kh because there's a lot of other crap around there they don't want raise up too much. How do you solve that with the need to almost notch out other parts of the spectrum that were missed in mixing? Buy the Weiss EQ-1 or the Massenburg MDWEQ? "No way man, digital is the devil!"
|
|
|
|
Post by ShadowK on Sept 16, 2023 14:17:16 GMT -6
Stepped pots = I’ll never ever be able to recall that setting again. Well I could have said it needs a numbered-detent pentiometer for the mic & comp to use in a stereo pair if we want to be slightly more technical. Matt is super useful as always and did say that I can change the frequency ranges of the EQ with a small bit of effort which is cool. However different mic's have different problem area's and this for me seems to be not necessarily negative criticism but one of physics, real estate and unfair comparisons.
The Shelford is a $4K rackmount channel strip and I'm comparing it to a one slot 500 series channel strip costing less than a quarter. matt@IAA , I'm pretty sure that you could do a dual slot 622 amp / VCA with a cutdown version of an IAA V2 EQ inserted before the comp and some sort of matching for stereo or recall (whatever approach makes you happy in those regards). Then we're on equal footing and it might nearly double the price but it's still less than half the cost of a single Shelford.
So, my point is we do have to figure in silly things like cost somewhere and for the price I'm just happy to have a good sounding pre-amp. I've been through quite a few over the years and I didn't really like most of them. The VCA is the cherry on the cake..
|
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Sept 16, 2023 14:38:42 GMT -6
Sure, for $4k you can do just about anything. Just fyi from a pre perspective the 622 is identical to a QP5 with flicks set to 1:3 on the output transformer.
The 622 was intended to be a fast, no fuss tracking tool. We designed it for people like Fernando - loves music, does not love recording, and the options frustrate him. The idea is to quickly set levels, get something that sounds good and move on to the performance. No need to audition a ton of settings or fiddle with EQ. If you need to do surgical EQ or if the frequency points aren’t quite right, do it after or in the box. That does make it limited, of course, but that limitation can also be a feature. It’s probably not the right unit for everyone or every session for that exact reason.
I’m really glad you like the tone, that makes me very happy. We’re just trying to get useful tools in people’s hands to make music. If it checks that box, I consider it a success. Thanks for the thorough review!!
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 13,849
|
Post by ericn on Sept 16, 2023 14:57:36 GMT -6
Sure, for $4k you can do just about anything. Just fyi from a pre perspective the 622 is identical to a QP5 with flicks set to 1:3 on the output transformer. The 622 was intended to be a fast, no fuss tracking tool. We designed it for people like Fernando - loves music, does not love recording, and the options frustrate him. The idea is to quickly set levels, get something that sounds good and move on to the performance. No need to audition a ton of settings or fiddle with EQ. If you need to do surgical EQ or if the frequency points aren’t quite right, do it after or in the box. That does make it limited, of course, but that limitation can also be a feature. It’s probably not the right unit for everyone or every session for that exact reason. I’m really glad you like the tone, that makes me very happy. We’re just trying to get useful tools in people’s hands to make music. If it checks that box, I consider it a success. Thanks for the thorough review!! I’m not picking on Danny here, but one of the hardest things for manufacturers dealers and reviewers is being able to step outside yourself and being able to understand this product isn’t for me, but it certainly is perfect for….. There are a lot of undiscovered gems out there that don’t get the attention they deserve just because they don’t fit the needs of a specific set of influencers. |
|
|
|
Post by ShadowK on Sept 16, 2023 15:47:04 GMT -6
Interesting review. Which microphone did the 622 seem to like/help best? IME with a decent CS it does impart quite a bit of influence on most microphones. Every one of them sounded great, even the KM184 and I wouldn't say it really had a preference. Usually it's dynamic, FET or TLM mic's that tend to rely on what's in front but again no issues.
The Shelford is the same although the presentation is completely different. The 622 in no ways lacks clarity but the Shelford on a stereo or dual tracked acoustic with a 67 for example is niiiccee.. I'm unsure where this "more vintage" statement comes from though, maybe they're referring to the bridge diode and silk? IMV the Shelford is nothing like a 1073 + EQ and extensively modern sounding. That's great if you work with a lot of talent and you don't have many bad days, it gloriously displays everything in high resolution. If you're one who needs to obfuscate your voice then hmm.. Even an SM58 sounds rather clear through a Shelford.
I'm not trying to stroke my own ego because this relates more to the 622 but I don't think in terms of perfomance I've ever sounded as good through a strip. It was effortless, irrelevant of the mic. It's like the 622 was giving my voice a big hug.. I am genuinely impressed, although this was meant to save me money and instead now I just want both. I'll start throwing pennies in the bucket again *sigh..
|
|
