Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted 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: 16,099 
Member is Online
|
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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted 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!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted 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..
|
|
|
|
IAA 622
Sept 16, 2023 14:38:42 GMT -6
via mobile
ericn likes this
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: 16,099
Member is Online
|
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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted 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..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2023 16:42:49 GMT -6
Why is there not much more interest in this? Yeah I announce it how it is but the pro's aren't hyperbole I swear, between the amp / 622 VCA I have never sounded better. Maybe this isn't the specific amp for you but believe me get something from IAA..
Matt might not think he makes miracle amps from their specific thread likes but I do.. I am an IAA convert, this is coming from someone with $4K channels and a big ass up-charge on imports. Do it, IAA is a no brainer.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Oct 4, 2023 17:05:26 GMT -6
IAA is rad
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2023 17:31:33 GMT -6
Yeah, ask me about the Shelford channel and I've got a train full of issues with that. Nothing is perfect, just because they both have some issues it doesn't detract from the opinionated fact that they are both fricking awesome. Once I find I latch, it's either RND or IAA for me... matt@IAA I'm not even sure you realise what you've done but I ain't complaining. Well done, hand on heart. |
|
|
|
Post by gwlee7 on Oct 4, 2023 17:58:55 GMT -6
I have a couple of QP5s and love them.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Oct 4, 2023 18:58:56 GMT -6
PSS, LH95 & V2 are all stellar to me! I’d be shocked if anything IAA makes wasn’t great. Awesome dudes as well, glad to see them getting so much love!
|
|
|
|
Post by robo on Oct 4, 2023 23:49:30 GMT -6
I have the four-channel preamp with stock transformers and op amps. It’s my favorite preamp for drums, and probably what I would choose to fill a console with if I win the lottery. I love how smoothly the pres drive into thickness.
I also have the V2. It sounds good on everything.
They make rad gear and I’ve been curious about the 622. Sounds like a great little strip! If I need some more channels I’ll probably go that route.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Oct 5, 2023 5:31:16 GMT -6
Matt's preamp architecture is fabulous. Really stiffens things up.
Microphone viagra™.
|
|
|
|
Post by enlav on Oct 5, 2023 5:59:14 GMT -6
Why is there not much more interest in this? Yeah I announce it how it is but the pro's aren't hyperbole I swear, between the amp / 622 VCA I have never sounded better. Maybe this isn't the specific amp for you but believe me get something from IAA.. Matt might not think he makes miracle amps from their specific thread likes but I do.. I am an IAA convert, this is coming from someone with $4K channels and a big ass up-charge on imports. Do it, IAA is a no brainer. I think the 622 is just their least popular product. I have one from... uh... a year or two ago, and I think my serial is something criminally low.
It's currently my pre-AD problem solver, if something is just off for one reason or another, the preamp is great and the EQ is broad, fast, and quick to dial in, and compression is just right for that sort of light touch // switching between feed forward and feedback gives just enough control over the attack when coupled between that and the comp knob, it's surprisingly flexible.
I'm not going to pretend I know why, but sometimes I'll skip the LH95, hit the line switch on the 622 and use that in for separate EQ. I think I'd rather have another LH95, but the 622 is just different and more suitable sometimes. Did I just forget to disengage the the compression on the 622? Who knows, but I like it.
I think I can understand why the 622 doesn't get as much love, though. The QP5 and LH95 are more flexible in various ways, but the 622 is so great for such a small foot print.
I'd be curious to see if Iron Age Audio ever does a dedicated compressor. I sure as hell don't need another channel, but... hey, I could open up a slot or two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Oct 5, 2023 7:54:01 GMT -6
I'd be curious to see if Iron Age Audio ever does a dedicated compressor. I sure as hell don't need another channel, but... hey, I could open up a slot or two. [/div][/quote] I'm curious what matt@IAA might do as well... a hybrid comp that uses something besides VCA architecture would be sweet. Two of the following options? • Optical T-Cell • tube based Vari-Mu • Bridge Diode • VCA limiter • FET limiter Perhaps something like the old UREI BL40 where you have a linear algebra circuit (LA4?) going into a hard limiter? |
|
|
|
Post by enlav on Oct 5, 2023 8:22:26 GMT -6
Matt had that thread talking about the channel dynamics in a console, but maybe with enough interest that could become a separate product...
This all reminds me if I really want that QPP, I should figure out which preamps I currently have I could part with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Oct 5, 2023 9:05:56 GMT -6
Matt had that thread talking about the channel dynamics in a console, but maybe with enough interest that could become a separate product... This all reminds me if I really want that QPP, I should figure out which preamps I currently have I could part with. I almost followed you until I read the words "I could part with" . . . does not compute. Do you mean 'sell'? oh dear . . . . |
|
|
|
IAA 622
Oct 5, 2023 13:01:25 GMT -6
via mobile
Ward likes this
Post by gwlee7 on Oct 5, 2023 13:01:25 GMT -6
Matt had that thread talking about the channel dynamics in a console, but maybe with enough interest that could become a separate product... This all reminds me if I really want that QPP, I should figure out which preamps I currently have I could part with. I almost followed you until I read the words "I could part with" . . . does not compute. Do you mean 'sell'? oh dear . . . . I think he meant to type which preamps it would complement. |
|
|
|
IAA 622
Oct 5, 2023 16:01:28 GMT -6
Post by Ward on Oct 5, 2023 16:01:28 GMT -6
I almost followed you until I read the words "I could part with" . . . does not compute. Do you mean 'sell'? oh dear . . . . I think he meant to type which preamps it would complement. I like the way you think, sir! |
|
|
|
Post by enlav on Oct 5, 2023 16:14:44 GMT -6
I almost followed you until I read the words "I could part with" . . . does not compute. Do you mean 'sell'? oh dear . . . . I think he meant to type which preamps it would complement. Y-yeah, that's it exactly. I meant... pair with.
*slides off stage*
This whole thread is inspiring me to try the 622 on some lead/feature tracks. I sort of feel bad for not trying that yet...
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,099
Member is Online
|
IAA 622
Oct 5, 2023 17:47:22 GMT -6
via mobile
Ward likes this
Post by ericn on Oct 5, 2023 17:47:22 GMT -6
I think he meant to type which preamps it would complement. Y-yeah, that's it exactly. I meant... pair with.
*slides off stage*
This whole thread is inspiring me to try the 622 on some lead/feature tracks. I sort of feel bad for not trying that yet...
As you should sir 😁 |
|
