|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 2, 2015 15:37:31 GMT -6
They're both coming line out of the Apollo into the FC526's and then back into the converters.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on May 2, 2015 15:41:49 GMT -6
In this context I like the burl.
It s vanilla vs chocolate.. Both are ice cream
Cheers
Wiz
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2015 17:54:37 GMT -6
I guess you can do nothing to get the transients back that the burl takes away.
If you want to have a transparent converter, the svart is very obviously the better one, if you like built-in transformer saturation and transient round-off as well as a roll off in the highs, obviously the burl has it.
Actually, they are very different, i can hear it instantly through cheap speakers.
With the right tools, before or after, you can make probably the svartbox sound like a burl, but neverever the other way round...
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on May 2, 2015 18:00:11 GMT -6
I was listening to the thunk of the burl and diggin that but thinking hmm what would the svart box sound like through the warm pultec eqs ?
John what level were you driving the burl transformers - 16 -18 ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2015 18:16:57 GMT -6
And i second John's words about which one to prefer in which genre of music.
The burl could obviously speed up the working process for rock stuff, and i would prefer also clearly the open and transparent sound of the svartbox for genres with lots of acoustic instruments like jazz, classic etc. and most probably also for modern pop or country. Especially since nowadays the highs get more important in actual mixes, i think there the openness of the svartbox might be an advantage....
|
|
