After dealing with a variety of frustrations with various audio interfaces, I decided all I really wanted was for my audio interface/soundcard/whatever to act like a good woman. I wanted reliable I/O (in/out), a large quantity of I/O and I wanted route the I/O to wherever I chose. (har har)

I decided that I didn't care about preamps, headphone outs, DSP, or any other feature they are thinking of right now. In fact, I'd be content with a good ol' PCI card. To some this is going to be a foreign concept but as my rig has evolved over the years, I've found out more and more that I'm rarely pleased with integrated features (especially when those features die) and it would be best just to have an interface that let me do whatever I wanted.

I'm cool with PCI because I decided a while back that I DO NOT want portability. All that does is opens the door to hours of wasted time hauling gear and every time I end up breaking something. It's not worth $1,000 of broken gear for me to go record drums in a castle. That's another issue, but basically I like recording at home. If the band wants to rent a big ol' drum room, great. We'll use that studio's computer.

I'm happy to say that the RME HDSP9652 is the ideal mate for me.

What Is The RME HDSP9652?

The HDSP9652 is a PCI card (with an extender that allows for the last ADAT in and out) that has three ADAT Lightpipe ins, three outs, S/PDIF ins/outs, and MIDI. That's about it. (It has some other digital options that I don't use, so you may want to take a look at the manual if that's your bag.)

In Use

Latency is super low. CPU usage is super low. Reliability has been ultra-high. The damn thing just works. There isn't much to say. In fact, I think I had a glitch that required a restart one time on the first or second day. Since then I've had zero problems with it. It's a great product.

I can't explain why this product just works, but I have to say I am impressed. Maybe it's RME and all their gear is rock solid. Maybe it's because I went the PCI card route. Maybe it's because the HDSP9652 has been around a long time.

It has no sound, so I can't really comment on that. It simply passes digital signals to it and from it. That's kind of the idea.

Either way, I should have went with RME a long, long time ago. Their drivers are outstanding. The control panels allow you to do whatever you want. I can route any signal anywhere I'd like. They were designed to be totally modular. This means you can give whatever mix you want to whatever output you want. For beginners, this may seem like a bit much. Personally, I find it much more frustrating to need to do something and then find out this need is impossible than to have to tinker/read a bit to understand to solve a problem.. So when in doubt, go with the gear that let's you do everything in recording land. You can always not utilize those features.

What About The Missing Features?

For all those other features, I rely on my hardware gadgets. With the ability to send signals where ever I want, I've found I can always change my system around to suit my needs. For example, on previous interfaces I've owned, it's been hell getting X signal to the headphone output. Only specific signals were available at specific times.

The RME HDSP9652 doesn't work that way. It just says, “Here are all the signals, do whatever you want with them”. So I just send a stereo signal to my trusty Behringer headphone amp (9+ years without a hitch). Headphone mixes are a breeze whether I choose direct monitoring or monitor from Cubase.

Headphone FX are also a breeze. I use the control panel to send the vocal to my hardware reverb, a Kurzweil Rumour. Done. This allows me zero-latency headphone mixes that the singers love. It rarely takes me more than 8 seconds to find the right reverb using the Kurzweil. Plugins were never so quick for me.

Because direct monitoring is latency independent, I can use higher latency times in my recording software. In the event that I'm using a ton of virtual instruments, I can simply use direct monitoring, crank up the latency to ease up the CPU usage, and go. This isn't much of a factor when recording live rock bands as they use minimal plugins. However, when I'm doing a techno production (particularly when we are arranging it as we record the vocals), it's nice not having to freeze or render the wav files of the synth tracks. Direct monitoring is nothing new for most interfaces. It's just that only a small proportion have effects or even ways to get effects in there.

I Love Modular!

No, that's not a French dude. I love the fact that I'm not stuck when using the HDSP9652. For example, I actually started out with Behringer converters. They didn't sound bad at all, but I had the opportunity to score an Apogee AD-16x and (2) Apogee DA-16 converters at low, but still unreasonable prices. It's great being able to easily swap the converters in my entire system without dealing with the interface in any way. Not being forced to use stock converters has been great!

If I decide I want to ditch this old PCI version of the 9652, it won't disrupt my system either. I'll just toss in the new PCIe version, plug in my ATAT cables and be done with it. If I decide to ditch the Kurweil reverb, I can. I'm not forced to use anything. For me, that has huge value.

This method costs a little more, but it has other benefits. I know of zero interfaces that allow for four headphone mixes without buying new gadgets. I know of zero interfaces that have effects anywhere close to my Kurzweil Rumour (and that thing has been GREAT during mixing, too, btw).

Downsides

Off hand, I can't think of any. Maybe price. New, this card is the price of many full-featured mid-grade interfaces and that doesn't include the converters, headphone amps, or reverb. That could put off some of you. I bought it for $330 used on Ebay. For those on a budget, it should be easy to put together an ultra, reliable system using 8-channel ADAT Lightpipe preamps for under $1,000.

Other than the fact that this card isn't free, I can't think of one disadvantage. I'm finally happy!

I've always been a bit skeptical about RME. People have talked the company up so much that I tended to write it off as excessive hype. I decided that I would put my limited funds into stuff that made a greater impact in sound and toughed out any reliability issues. I should have went with RME from day one. I would saved myself a ton of frustration and time.

Brandon

I had the opportunity to use the MR816 for the entire Musician's Friend grace period as my main interface in a period where I was in the studio 8 days a week. Let's see what I thought of it.

Super Fast Latency

The first thing I noticed about the Steinberg MR816 was it's ability to handle to turbo low latencies. For a majority of the tracking, I kept the MR816 fixed at 64 samples. Only under extreme loads of sample usage and/or plugin-intense mixing did I find the need to switch to higher latencies. I really liked how quickly I was able to change latencies. There was none of this 15 seconds of goofing around that I'm used to on the Firestudio.

Low CPU Usage

Compared to other interfaces I've used, the MR816 gave me the ability to use more plugins and more VST instruments. How much more? It's hard to say, but on some complex movie score work with tons and tons of orchestral samples going, I had a hard time switching back to my Presonus Firestudio.

Sounds Pretty Good

The MR816 doesn't sound half bad. I'm used to using high end preamps and converters (even though I'm rarely as wound up about their effect as most), but for a wild weekend of movie scoring and fast-paced songwriting using the MR816 exclusively, I was able to stand the results.

I do think there is a TON of hype as to this thing sounding like a million bucks. Let's just say I'm not giving up my Manley TNT or Mytek converters any time soon. I guess it's a bit ridiculous to expect the MR816 to be in this league. However, with such extreme hype about the sound of the unit and then guys like myself who don't use exclamation points at the end of sentences describing the sound of ANY preamp or converter, it's easy to lose context. This thing sounds slightly better than other interfaces I've heard, but this whole preamp thing is always subtle.. There is less 2k emphasis and smear with it than other cheapo pres I've dealt with, but this thing is definitely not top of the line.

I guess the guys who are really happy with the sound of this thing were used to a really cheap interfaces. That, and I think the “new and shiny” effect probably had something to do with it.

Ultra Reliability

I couldn't be more thrilled about the reliability of this thing. I demand gear that won't screw up on me. I've been on a massive journey to find an interface that will deliver day in and day out and meet various other random, ridiculous criteria I've concocted over the years. Without a doubt, the MR816 gets my approval in that department. I had zero problems with the interface. (I did bitch a bit about an S/PDIF input issue that ended up being a cable that died in a 10-second period.)

Even killing the power mid-session caused no major issues (which was often a 30-minute setback with the Firestudio). Simply giving the MR816 it's juice back allowed it to re-sync in just a few seconds. I gave it a 10 in this department. Very impressive!

Cubase Integration

I couldn't find one freakin' guy on the planet who could give me a straight answer about Cubase integration. This was before I invented my ultra-revolutionary theory of reading the manual before I buy (only to be nudged out for the Nobel Prize by the guy who invented the ketchup bottles you keep upside down all the time).

The manual clearly lays out exactly what Cubase Integration is all about. For those who are interested, I will spell it out here.

Cubase Integration means that if you have certain versions of Cubase (which ones? You got me. I can't keep up with all the freakin' versions. I know it works in Cubase 5), you can highlight a new track, press a little button on the front of the interface, and instantly the corresponding input will be routed to that track. So if I decided to toss a room mic on input #8, I could create a new track, highlight it, and click the button above input #8. Done.

IF YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THIS, this is a very handy feature. I'll be ranting about this “access” in a minute. Let's just say that certain users of the MR816 have to go to the back of the bus.

Back to this feature. Does it save hours? Definitely not. It saves a few seconds, but when you are being creative, nothing sucks worse than opening menus. So there is some real value to this thing particularly if you are the kind of guy that keeps all your instruments plugged in at once and kinda sorta use your interface as a patchbay. I've been flexing my muscle that switches from creative stuff to technical stuff and back to creative stuff for a long time. For people who get frustrated when making this jump, this button means practically zero interruption from creative time.

Cubase integration also means you can setup multiple zero-latency mixes (or at least ultra-ultra low latencies....more likely in the 1ms department) using the Control Room sends functionality in Cubase. Direct monitoring did come in handy, but I never needed the use of multiple mixes in Cubase. Just one direct monitoring bus was enough for me (which I've become a huge fan of on vocals). If you need more than one mix at zero latency, this is a great feature.

They've moved several of the menus used to control the MR816 (such as master volume, headphone volume, and effects) in to Cubase menus, but I can't say I was thrilled with their implementation. I found it easier to deal with the front of the rack, which was actually pretty handy.

In short, these Cubase Integration features are nice, and they certainly make this unit stand out in its catalog ads, but don't get your panties in a wad over any of them. They are not a revolution. I'm not sure why anyone else couldn't just come out and say the Cubase Integration features weren't going to solve the world population crises. I guess I just did. Vote for Brando on Tuesday.

To keep things in perspective, as I've moved on to a new interface that's decidedly stripped down everywhere it needs to be, I've not missed any of these features.

This guy would have fought to make sure S/PDIF converter users were not discriminated against.

The Back Of The Bus

I use my Mytek AD96 via S/PDIF for pretty much all of my overdubbing using one or two channels. For anything I listen to through my Focal Solo 6BE monitors , I use a Mytek DA96 via S/PDIF out. This puts me in the minority. I'm guessing most home recorders are relying on the interface for AD and DA conversion.

If you are in this minority, those fancy features of Cubase Integration, DSP Effects, etc go out the window. You can't use them completely.

Cubase Integration
Just a minute ago I explained the push button routing on the front of the interface. This finger routing only works on the eight analog inputs. If you use S/PDIF or ADAT, you are out of luck. So this features was useless to me.

DSP Effects
I've been looking for some better effects, particularly in the reverb department. I was excited to see the MR816 CSX had reverb powered by it's on board DSP chip. Great! Then I got to the part where if I'm using a DA converter via S/PDIF, then I'm just shit out of luck. This sucked! I hadn't expected this one, at all. The reverb was off-limits to me both in mixing and during zero-latency monitoring. (No reverb for singers when using my fancy converters. Yuck!)

I did rig up a headphones option and the reverbs did sound nice and dense, but it's hard for me to give it a fair review unless I've gotten to actually use it in a real mix. I wasn't willing to take my rig apart and downgrade some gear to hear the reverb. So you'll have to go elsewhere for that review, unfortunately.

75% of ADAT Inputs
When S/PDIF is in use, you must give up two ADAT inputs. Fro those of us who don't start counting on our fingers when buying an interface, they really are taking the “16” part in the MR816 literally. (It makes a person wonder what the 8 means.)

This isn't the end of the world, but it certainly gives me a bad taste in my mouth. There should have been asterisk or something next to the S/PDIF mention in the ads.

Lackluster Routing

I was viciously disappointed when I wasn't able to route the stereo out from Cubase to both my DA converters (to my studio monitors) and to outputs ½ (to my headphone amp). This is something that I depend on. The Firestudio had excellent routing options and being able to send any signal to whatever I gadget, was a big deal for me. It came in handy way more than I had realized.

I was able to scrape up a workaround in Cubase 5's control room, but it had its drawbacks, for sure.

Again, this is something most people aren't going to deal with too much. The fact that Cubase 5 (and presumably other software makers) have created fancy options for routing signals via the software, this is less of an issue. Regardless, for an interface of this caliber, it was downer that I had to scrape up such a solution.

Conclusion

I purchased the Steinberg MR816 CSX though Musiciansfriend, gave it hell, and ended up sending it back. My needs are a little more advanced than most. I need more than 16 inputs and I need full use of S/PDIF and ADAT. I'm sure they realized I'm not the only dude on the planet and they chose to cater to people who are debatebly more sane.

For a dude who doesn't plan on dumping a dumb wad on fancy converters, needs 8 good inputs and maybe the option to add 8 more channels via ADAT later, I can't think of a better interface. This thing is rocksolid,bulletproof, and does give a slight sound quality boost over other interfaces I've heard.

I had a hard time letting this one go. With better routing and full access to the features I THOUGHT it had, I'm not sure there is a better interface out there. I have no problem recommending this interface over less expensive interfaces in a heartbeat. If you are thinking of spending $600, I think you should take a look at the MR816 CSX and it's cheaper little brother.

Good luck!

Secondly, it's worth noting that my rig is setup about as good as a person can get. My computer is totally optimized, dedicated for recording, and I didn't even use internet on it until a few months ago. (The amount of time needed to activate the numerous amounts of plugin and software I review became staggering so I decided to take a gamble and plug the thing into the web.) I've catered to all requirements from Presonus. I'd guess the average home recorder is not using such an ideal system.

Third, I record day in and day out for money. If my rig goes down, I lose cash. Period. I expect greater performance than most.

What Is It?

The Firestudio is an audio interface with 8 analog ins (with preamps), 8 analog outs, up to 16 total channels of ADAT ins and outs, and S/PDIF. It normally sells for a street price of $599-699, give or take.

For more details, check out the official Firestudio page.

What They Got Right

Tons of I/O
For those of you who don't get excited by military-grade acronyms, I/O stands for inputs and outputs. The Firestudio is well equipped for this task if you use ADAT ins such as the M-Audio Octane or Presonus Digimax D8 http://www.recordingreview.com/blog/mic-preamps/presonus-digimax-d8-review/ . There aren't many people who are going to need more than 26 simultaneous inputs and there aren't much more affordable solutions than the Firestudio in this department.

Sounds Alright
The preamps in the Firestudio 2626 do not compare to Neve, Great River, etc. No shit! I think this is a no brainer. Are they acceptable for a person who doesn't want to spend the price on a new car for 8 preamps? Definitely!

What you really want to know is how the preamps in the Firestudio 2626 compare to other interfaces out there. People rave and rave and rave about the sound of the Yamaha MR816. I've used that interface a ton in the past month and even made myself use it's preamps. I'd give a SLIGHT edge to the MR816, but those pres didn't blow my mind either. (For what it's worth, no preamp blows my mind! My Martech MSS-10 doesn't suck. End of story.) For a person wanting to get in at this price point, the Firestudio 2626 is not going to turn heads with it's sonics, but neither does the highest of high end systems either. So if the Firestudio's price makes sense, it's sonics are more than adequate.

I want to note that I use the S/PDIF input with my high end pres and Mytek converters for all my overdubs and the Firestudio 2626 sounds as good as anything in this situation.

If you are really worried about the sound of the Firestudio 2626, you may want to check out The Interrogator Sessions in Killer Home Recording. You'll hear it up against numerous other preamps ranging from Great River to Martech to Manley to an M-Audio Octane.

Excellent Routing
Without a doubt, the routing on the Firestudio 2626 is definitely one of its selling points. They got that right. Its DSP routing matrix (which does take a bit to get used to and does have some redundancy going on in not-so-intuitive areas) allows you to route any signal to any output you choose. I must admit that they've spoiled me in this department.

Routing the main outputs from Cubase to my 4-channel crusty/trusty Behringer headphone amp, my Mackie HR824 monitors which essentially serve as a miniature PA system, and to Focal monitors via S/PDIF out into a Mytek DA96 have made life easy. When I tried out the Yamaha MR816, it was very frustrating when I couldn't do this. In fact, I had to rethink my whole setup. I never quite got it where I wanted even with the Control Room features in Cubase 5. So I'd give the routing possibilities in the Presonus an A+.

Routing the stereo out to multiple sources is one thing, but I'd guess most people don't need this. Being able to route the individual stereo mixes for headphones is another. As a headphone mixer, this thing is extremely powerful and highly recommended. I generally don't need a bunch of specific mixes for individuals in live band situations, but when I have, the Firestudio has pulled it off extremely well. If they added reverb and maybe compression to their features list, I'd say they had this perfected.

What They Screwed Up

Again, these are my own experiences, for whatever they are worth. I'm not sugar coating this. If you can't handle the truth, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! (Sorry, I'm not good at typing good Jack Nicholson impressions.)

After using the Presonus Firestudio for 2.5 years, I can say that, without a doubt, my Firestudio has been totally unreliable. If it were a woman, the cops would have found her dead in a ditch a long time ago. (Don't ask me why I have a higher tolerance for audio interface problems than woman problems.) My most reliable era required me to leave my recording computer and Firestudio on indefinitely. Simply turning the computer off could cause problems. We'll get to that.

Loses Sync
I may have great luck with the Firestudio for a month. The, for no apparent reason, and with no obvious change in my system, the Firestudio would lose sync with the computer and the little red light would begin to flash. This phase of random working and not working would last between 3 days and 3 weeks and then the unit would work flawless for a while. For this period, I would be hijacked from my recording computer indefinitely. The solution?

This is where it gets interesting. There is no solution because there is no clear, obvious problem other than the damn thing simply going on strike. I wish I could have fed it $5 bills to work. I would have gladly done so on many occasions. It would be the extortion scam of the century, but maybe then Presonus could afford to build a product I can freakin' count on.

The solution is to restart the computer and see if that fixes it. When it failed, I'd turn off the Firestudio and restart the computer. I'd try turning the computer and Firestudio off for 30 seconds and firing them both up. I'd try turning the Firestudio on and then the computer. I'd try turning on the computer and then the Firestudio. Nothing.

Hell, just last night I had to end a session 2 hours early (lost time and lost money!) because the stupid thing wouldn't sync up. 4 hours later, nothing changed. NOTHING! I fired up a mix with no trouble.

A person may want to blame this on user error. Luckily, I've been doing this long enough to KNOW it's probably user error. That's why I've became pretty damn good at tracking down my screw ups. In fact, I'd go so far as to say I'm awesome at finding my screw ups. To this day, I can find no pattern and no trend. When the Firestudio 2626 wants to be a damn woman, it becomes a damn woman. (Note: A “damn woman” is opposed to a “nice woman” who deserves bunnies and chocolate.......and a bunch of wild screwing.)

I have noticed that if the power button gets pressed somehow (you'd be surprised how many times this has happened accidentally even though it's recessed in my rack) with Cubase running, all hell breaks lose. Trying to get it to sync up after that, even with 15 restarts is nearly impossible. The best solution I've found is not to care. Turn everything off, make a sandwich, and see if there is a Star Trek rerun on.

Just for the hell o f it, I killed the Yamaha MR816 with Cubase open. Cubase immediately says, “Hey! Where'd the interface go?” When I turned it back on and told Cubase to calm down (by re-selecting the Yamaha driver) all was well. This is clearly a Firestudio-specific situation. No doubt about it. I award Presonus minus a billion points for this one.

Chews Up CPU Power
I remember when my M-Audio Delta 1010s went to the audio interface dumpster in the sky and I switched to the Firestudio 2626. The first thing I noticed was the fact that I was suddenly out of CPU power on mixes that had plenty of headroom before. I got used to it, upgraded to a Quad Core, and never thought about it much. Now that I had a chance to use the Yamaha MR816 for a month, once again, I'm finding that the CPU meter FLYING up on mixes where it really shouldn't. The Presonus Firestudio is definitely a CPU hog.

Actually, not only is it a CPU hog, it's a ram hog as well. Okay, maybe not a HOG. Maybe I'm too geared towards 2001 RAM standards, but I can't accept an audio interface requiring 40MB of RAM. I can't figure out what it's doing that would require such RAM usage. While 40MB is not the end of the world in the an era when most of us have 4GB, the designers of the Firestudio clearly knew that audio a zero-tolerance, high performance kind of ballgame. The fact they pissed away 40MB of RAM when other interface companies do not says something and I don't think it's a good something.

Multiple Control Panels
This one ain't the end of the world, but it's always bugged me. I never understood why they chose to use two control panels. One control panel allows you to change latency, clock source, etc. Then if you make a few clicks in that control panel, you'll get to a new control panel that allows you to control routing, individual mixes, etc.

What I never understood was why they broke this up. They all should have been under one control panel with maybe a few tabs added. It's entirely unintuitive and I always feel like I waste 4 seconds every time I need to make a change.

I always mix at 2048 samples (high latency) and track and much lower latencies. I usually have 8 projects going on so it seems like I need to change the latency for every session. Pushing a bunch of buttons and going through a bunch of menus to do something super simple is annoying.

I'm shocked that this has not been addressed as they have released updated drivers. End of the world? No. Annoying? Definitely!

Okay Latency Settings
While maybe this one isn't a “screw up”, the Firestudio's latency is a bit slow compared to other Firewire interfaces on the market. On a good day I can get 128 samples without too many pops and clicks. I usually have to resort to 192 samples however. For vocals, this is flat out unusable. Latency As Vocal Producing A person can switch to direct monitoring, but then when you need reverb, you need an outboard reverb unit and you'll need to get a bit clever with your sends / returns. It can be done, and is probably worth the trouble. However, on most days it would be cheaper and easier if you could just turn the latency down low enough to make this a non-issue.

I had no problems getting the Yamaha MR816 reliably down to 64 samples as long as I wasn't pushing my rig too hard. The Firestudio was never able to get down lower than 128 samples even with zero CPU load on a Quad core, XP 32-bit rig. It was clear with my hardware and operating system that we had pushed the limits of the Firestudio.

Random Latency Permissions
On some days, I'll start mixing and realize that I still have my latency set to a super low setting and need to crank it up. When I open the menu, the latency may be grayed out, which is a nice way of Presonus to say, “Go F yourself, San Diego.” I then have to stop what I'm doing, kill Cubase to get my permissions back, and then restart the mix. I lose 45 seconds because of some Presonus error.

It wouldn't bother me if this was how it was all the time. I could live with being forced to set my latency before opening Cubase. The problem is half the time I CAN change the latency whenever I want with Cubase running. This glitch bugs the hell out of me.

Random Wordclock Changes
This won't affect you guys with simple setups, but it drives me nuts. I use my Mytek AD96 as a master clock. I run that clock into my M-Audio Octane and that feeds my Presonus Firestudio 2626. This is a very common setup. For no particular reason, the Firestudio will switch its inputs to the second ADAT input (which I'm not using). This causes it to lose sync. As long as they menu isn't grayed out I can quickly change this back to ADAT #1. Unfortunately, it is often grayed out. Why? Either way, this is another damn thing I have to think about when I have a billion other things on my plate.

Why Is That Light Blinking?
As a dude who has dabbled in web programming, I know that it's fairly straight forward to develop error codes. If something screws up, a window should pop up and say “Error #554”. Then I can look online and see what that means and actually fix it. I don't have to guess and I don't have to look like an idiot restarting a computer 15 times.

I don't know anything about interface drivers, but I suspect that displaying error codes would require one programmer to work one extra week. The fact that they haven't done this means that Presonus is willing to compromise in areas that I flat-out do not believe should be compromised.

It's clear I'm willing to pay more for an interface that makes my life easier. I've certainly paid by going with the Firestudio.

Is It My Fault?
I've really grown to like the eastern philosophy that says, “Everything is your own fault”. In this particular case, I've went round and round about what I (I want to emphasize “I” here) could be doing to make the Firestudio work better for me. Simply put, I've got nothing! Nada. Zip. The only thing I know to try is a Windows 7 rig with 8GB of RAM even though it's generally considered a much better idea to stick with the trusty ol' operating system. XP should be more stable than Windows 7 right now.

The fact that the MR816 never had a single issue with syncing up (or any other session stoppers) illustrates that my rig is stable.

As An Investment

For hobbyists, the purchase of an interface is rarely looked at as the kind of thing that can pay for itself. However, for those of us who are charging by the hour, when we lose 2 billable hours due to a shitty interface design, that's easily quantifiable cash that we'll never get back. In my opinion, it adds to the cost of the piece of gear causing the trouble. I wish I had only lost 2 billable hours per month. I'd say I've lost dramatically more than that. At 2.5 years, I could have have bought an interface that costs 3x as much as still came out ahead.......Or I could have went on a cruise or tw.

Conclusion

For anyone who is counting on an interface to work day in and day out, there is no way I can recommend the Firestudio 2626. When it works, it's a fine interface at a very good price. Maybe you'll have better luck with the reliability end. However, for me, I wish I would have had the balls to slap a fancy interface on the credit card long ago. 25% interest would have been cheaper than the hell it has put me through and the time it has wasted.

I also want to point out that I paid $700 for mine in early 2008. On Ebay these things are going for a fraction of the price. This poor resale value is semi-common with computer recording gear, but it's definitely common with gear that people want to get rid of. If you are looking for a “nice” interface, at this point, I'd recommend the MR816. It's not perfect, either, but it's a product that I would and have taken to battle.

Brandon

Note: I do want to emphasize this is a studio monitoring system. The brand/model of speakers is just part of the equation and it's possible that something I had done or the room I was using them in just wasn't working for me. There are people who love that particular monitor.

While it took a while to find the right girl, I now have my trusting wife. (Ignore all that males-needing-to-bang-everything stuff temporarily for this analogy.) In fact, I don't even think of any other women. (Again, work with me.) I've found the one.....pair. When this woman says something, I believe her. PERIOD. Why? Because she's told me many things in the past. Sometimes she's even just given me “crazy talk”. However, each and every time I check her story it ends up being dead on. This trusting wife is my current monitoring system featuring the Focal Solo 6Be studio monitors and Sub6.

Note: This is an expensive mo fo. I don't say “mo fo” (ever) but I generally can't get away with the necessarily explicative and so we have to reduce ourselves to white rapper jargon. I don't usually push such expensive gear here at RecordingReview. So don't feel for one freakin' second that you are SUPPOSED to have this kind of fancy crap. Out of pure desperation, I decided to blow a big ol' chunk of my money on monitors that may not have done anything. The odds are strong that you can find monitors for a fraction of the price that are adequate for you. I think maybe I was just unlucky with my first monitors. Regardless, after the huge investment, I feel it was worth its weight in gold....which may actually have been cheaper.

Focal Features

I don't know why magazines list the features of a product when this "inner net" can do that just fine. Head on over to the Focal website if you are looking for that kind of thing.

Firing Up The Focal Solo6BE Monitors

I never really thought the Mackie HR824s sounded bad. Listening to music for fun on them was just fine. Of course, “for fun” means I don't think about audio and that, by definition, kinda taints my opinion. The problem was with the way the monitors translated. (For those who've experienced my Killer Home Recording system, you know how important this is.)

Regardless, when I first fired up the Focals, I simply pulled the Mackies off the stands and replaced them with the Focals. My room, mixing position, and everything else were identical.

Getting Used To The Focals

The very first mix I did on the Focals was before I had the Sub6 subwoofer. I just used the Solo6 BE pair. I mixed a metal tune. I had no idea what the Focals really sounded like. I just wanted to jump in and see what happened.

The Focal Solo 6BE monitors definitely go down pretty low. They are certainly not “meaty” down that low, but I was surprised by the usable the low end on such small monitors. I tend to prefer more low end in my monitors as I otherwise mix a little bass heavy. For those kind of guys who are “happy without a sub” you'd be very happy with the low end. If you need to impress rap clients, you'll need quite a bit more.

After going with my gut and not expecting much, I took a listen on my trusty computer speakers. Holy crap! The very first mix, without really knowing these monitors translated 10x better than anything I had ever done on the Mackies on the first try. Amazing! I was immediately sold.

It turns out that I didn't have to get used to them. Not only did I not have to get used to the Focal monitors, I didn't have to move them around the room, or do any of the usual monkey jumping that I was constantly doing with the Mackie HR824s.

This taught me a few things:

#1 I had put too much emphasis on my room when trying to solve the translation issue.
My room is nothing pretty. I have unopened packages of 2'x4'x16” Rockwool all over the place along with quite a few Helmholtz resonators. From a bass absorption stand point, it's about as solid as you are going to find when working with a normal room in a normal house. To do better a person would need a mansion or a purpose-built studio.

This isn't to say that room treatment isn't extremely important. However, it seems that a good monitor in an okay room is going to translate better than non-okay monitor in an okay room. For those of you who've done significant room treatments and haven't gotten your monitors to translate well, you should probably try some different monitors. You can only go so far with acoustic treatments without bringing in the bulldozer.

#2 A good monitor doesn't require a ton of learning.
There is some inherent quality to the Focal monitors that works right out of the box. This isn't to say that they don't have their own personality . They certainly do. However, it seems that “unsmeared” quality of the Focal Solo 6BE monitors is instantly doable in way that never really worked in Mackies in nearly nine years of use.

Adding The Focal Sub6

While the mixes done exclusively on the Solo 6BE monitors turned out great, I was guessing a bit in the low end. Adding the Focal Sub6 ended up being just the ticket. It adds that extra meat down below that I've found I want to hear and bands want to hear. Using the fully variable crossover low pass crossover, I was able to dial in exactly what I wanted. I wish the high pass filter would have been fully variable, too, but I've made it work with the fixed frequencies.

After tracking and mixing with a sub I can't imagine every going back. How people mix without hearing those extra low octaves is beyond me. With that said, discretion is always key here. My monitoring system doesn't sound like the hat-turned-sideways neighbor's stereo in his 1991 Chevy Cavalier.

Focal Solo 6BE Personality

There are a few aspects I've had to get used to. Luckily, the few things that the Focals let slip by, my Audio Technica ATH-M50s (the best $109 I've ever spent) are completely intolerant of.

The Focals are a hair tame in the upper midrange. As a guy who generally mixes a hair light in that region anyway (I'm afraid of making a mix hurt) I find that this is actually a blessing in disguise. Guitars and snare drums end up having just a hair extra bite in them. Bass guitars have more definition. Vocals end up cutting through just a hair more. Once a person is aware of this, it's very easy to work around it in a very predictable way. My old monitors never seemed to be predictable and making generalizations about their sound was impossible.

The downside to this is sibilance can sneak through on you. You have to crank up you ear sensitivity in this regard several notches. In fact, I do feel this is the only disappointing part of the Focals. When I'm just about to render a mix, switching to my the above mentioned studio monitor headphones immediately exposes any sibilance issues. Those headphones are militant against sibilance and will definitely let me know if anything needs my attention. Problem solved.

Dramatic Improvements In My Engineering Ability

To put it bluntly, if you are guessing about your audio engineering decisions because of poor monitoring, you will NEVER meet your engineering goals. When your monitoring kicks butt, your skill level increases dramatically. Suddenly, differences in fancy preamps becomes not only more important, but more practical. Smaller and smaller details become more and more obvious in ways that your wife will hear. Long story short, you won't find a single greater improvement in your audio engineering ability than getting your hands on monitors you trust.

Focal Sub6 Subwoofer

The Focal Sub6 is a tremendous subwoofer. It can get very loud and I don't think I've ever heard it do the “one note bass” thing. It will easily expose any excessive buildups in ultra-low frequencies. Guys who've done local movies hate it when they watch them in my control room because the Focal Sub6 illustrates everything they missed. (Which means it's doing its job!). It, too, is highly recommended although a person on a budget could probably get a used pair of the Solo 6BE monitors and a cheaper sub to save a little cash without sacrificing too much. (I can't say for sure on that one. My experience with cheaper subs in mixing is limited.)

Conclusion

The Focal Solo 6BE studio monitors with Sub6 sub are winners. They are a flat-out badass products. I make no reservations about entirely recommending them to anyone and everyone. The only reason they are not on Brandon's Bulletproof Gear List is their price. (I don't want broke people feeling they HAVE to have super high end stuff so I'm excluding high end gear from the list.) I give them 5 out of 5 without hesitation.

Party On!

Brandon

So going into Recording Studio Design by Phillip Newell, I was looking for a book that:

• Told me exactly what I needed to meet my sonic goals
• Gave guidelines on the “usability” side of designing a studio. (Line of sight, electric stuff, practical stuff, etc)
• Gave alternatives so that I could figure out what best suited my needs so that I could choose when to compromise and when not to.
• Be halfway interesting to read.

So here we go......

“High End” Studios Only

I can tell you right now that Recording Studio Design is using the “old school” approach to building a pro studio. By “old school”, I mean they are coming from a time when the walls were 18” thick of solid concrete for near-100% isolation between rooms. (I'm exaggerating, the author never recommends 18” thick walls, exactly.) He does, however, present designs that are well beyond the scope of any home recorder or home recorder moving up I know. I realize the old timers like to say, “Back in my day, a studio was PROFESSIONAL!”. They are probably right. That's the same generation that spent $6 trilllion on nukes (Seriously!.....when accounting for inflation) and kept making more. This generation puts everything the credit card generation ever did to shame. Nowadays, we've got to keep a tighter pocketbook. I don't consider that to be a terrible thing. I don't need a studio that is bomb proof. I just want something that sounds awesome (way better than the house I've been making due with for nearly a decade) and is ergonomically solid enough to get some work done in. The end.

So right off the bat, if you aren't Mutt Lange, this book is probably overkill for your home studio needs. Even though the author has built an endless list of pro facilities, I'm not sure many of them could stay in business in the current climate of recording land. So basically, I'm looking for a more economical method of meeting my Superstudio goals.

If you are building anything “modest”, this is not the book for you. (I realize the definition of “modest” in studio land is perpetually changing, but if you use that word, it ain't gonna happen with this book.)

College Physics Required....Almost

Good ol' Phillip Newell is a smart guy. There is no doubt about that. The only problem is he assumes you are a fart smeller as well. Stephen Hawking's A Brief History In Time, is dramatically easier to read (at least for the first 80 pages or so). Recording Studio Design is packed with equations. He makes no attempt to dumb down any of the concepts. He assumes you have a strong background in Alebra. This is okay, but, generally speaking, I found this to be more of a philosophy book than anything.

Practical Overload and Underload

There are specific examples of numerous studios that the author has designed and these often support a concept he is trying to teach. These have strong value, but in terms of building up a plan of attack for my own studio, I never got that, “Ah ha! That's what I'll do!” feeling. It never came obviously clear to me what approach I should take in any given situation (vocal booth, live room, or control room).

Granted, I'm always reading this kind of crap and know much of the intermediate stuff. (For example, from day #1 I've planned my control room to start with 16' ceilings before I knock the “ceiling” down to 8' with literally TONS of Rockwool. So Newell's explanations on that were preaching to the choir.)

While the author goes into insane detail on certain aspects of studio design (again, much of it overkill for my needs) in the index you will not find “bass trap” anywhere. He certainly covers absorption heavily (but with a few problems for those of us living in the fattest country in the world*), but I still didn't walk out knowing the most economical method killing the low end reflections in a room. He's more covering concepts (from an academia standpoint) than actually teaching the whens, whys, and whats of selecting a method based on the reader's needs.

I'll give you an example of the overload I'm talking about. He states that the problem with Isaac Newton's theories of sound (apparently Newton got that one wrong) was due to the fact that he didn't take into account the heat from the friction of wave traveling through air space. [Nick_Nolte_Being_A_SmartAss_Cop]Ohhhhh, WHO GIVES A SHIT!!!!!![/Nick_Nolte_Being_A_SmartAss_Cop]

Here's another one. He discusses how to calculate the tension of the spring necessary for holding up a floated floor. That I can live with. Then he goes on to state that using two springs gets you into “double pendelum” mode. He then goes on to reference physics experiments and studies that discuss the chaotic element of what happens when you have to pendelums hooked together. As interesting as this is, I would have preferred him simply telling me, “Just use one spring and this is how you figure out what you need”. Ironically, I never quite figured out how to estimate the weight of my studio gear that would go on top of this floor and therefor, in my mind, this makes the whole damn section useless. Whatever.

I do want to point out that when the author says, “This is how it is” it's usually damn good advice. THIS, I appreciate! I wish he had sections of “If this is happening, DO THIS!” That would be awesome and be worth infinitely more!

The “history of room design” section wasn't nearly as interesting as the history of cold war planes book. So guess which one I DON'T want to read! I guess reading about why 60s control rooms sucked has it's merit, but we could cut out a lot of wasted time by just saying “X causes Y so you should avoid it.” Done. A virtual tour through the history of sound isn't going to beat out the space shuttle documentary. Sorry.

Commander Data Personality....Only Serious

Phillip wastes no time with small talk, emotions, or anything that would make this book interesting or fun on a level beyond covering concepts. He cracked one joke once which was BADLY needed. You can feel your bones rot while you consume the knowledge. I found myself needing to “go out and do something” after reading a chapter (if you catch my drift).

In comparison, Alton Everest's Master Handbook of Acoustics, while definitely a text book, feels dramatically easier to read. I mention this because I'm used to reading technical crap and I realize that not everyone on Earth is dumb enough to read such headache-inducing stuff.

Back to Recording Studio Design.......

How a person can go so far out of his way to dehumanize himself is actually impressive, but that doesn't mean reading this wasn't a total freakin' chore. I would have given this book a much more positive review if I hadn't felt like this was some kind of Buddhist test.

*No American Equivalent
The author mentions items like “Cotton Waste Felt” and “Deadsheet” often in his designs. THIS is good. The only problem is he never recommends a specific brand and searching in Google for this stuff turns up practically nothing. It appears I'm not alone as you can see on this thread at John L Sayers. Even experts have to guess at the materials he's using. Not good!

Why he doesn't have a little blog where it clarifies this is more than disappointing. It would probably take him 5 minutes to post it somewhere. As a guy who is looking for THE design for my studio, this lack of practicality reduces much of the book's hard hitting material to cerebral exercises. I'm certainly not going to say, “Ahh screw it! We'll just use pink stuff instead of dead sheet.” That could RUIN my studio.

When Science Goes A Hair Too Far

I'm a big science spectator. (I check the Large Hadron Collider updates almost as much as a half-assed sports fan checks the scores.) However, there are things that science can't explain yet. (Where did we come from? Why are we here? How can you make an “awesome” recording?) I think certain aspects of the book push really hard with equations and such. They use science to the fullest extent. I like that when it produces better results (as it does with fighter jets, for example) , but in many cases there is a huge push for equations and all this excessively technical jive (even for a guy who has a DRAMATICALLY higher tolerance for this than most), but ultimately ends up with a conclusion that says (paraphrased) “You are still screwed”. In other words, I don't want to deal with a rigid, technical methodology unless it IS going to deliver better musical results. You can't tell me to do calculus and then later on say, “Well, we really don't know yet.” That doesn't work for me. These types of issues popped up more towards the end of the book, but were worth noting.

Another thing that leaped out at me was what I'm calling the “military grade dilemma”. In Alton Everest's “Master Handbook On Acoustics” he's discussing air conditioning systems. He tells you right off the bat that with a few simple uses of specific common practices that your local guy WILL know how to deal with, you can get what you need. He says, “Don't overbuild this!”. I never got the vibe that Phillip Newell was concerned about overbuilding anything. This make sense for battle-grade military equipment where people die if their shoes come untied or whatever, but I rarely wear shoes in my studio anyway. You get the picture.

Some Of My Favorite Stuff

Stone / Rock – I had not seen a recording studio design / room acoustics book focus on the use of stone before. Aesthetically, rock walls look amazing (super close to a dungeon if done “correctly” although you may prefer some sort of unicorn-looking room for whimpy clients). It appears they do some outstanding things acoustically, too, when that sound is desired. I think I remember seeing quite a bit of stone in Tommy Lee's live room.

For anyone interested in building a room out of stone, I'd highly recommend that particular chapter in this book.

Control Room Ceilings – Newell presented one of the coolest methods for chewing up ceiling space in a way that absorbs low end that I had not seen emphasized in such a way before. (Again, Newell assumes everyone building a studio has at least 14' of ceiling height to play with for a control room.)

Conclusion
If you can handle robot-like-personality books, are extremely technical, understand a great deal about math and physics, plan on building a very high end studio, and don't have a strong understanding of acoustics and studio design this is the PERFECT book for you. It probably is THE book although I suspect you'll look for more specific practicality afterwards.

This can't be your only book on studio design.....not if you live in the United States and have no idea what materials he is talking about.

If you are looking to build a mega sounding studio, but maybe don't need a ton of isolation and are trying to max out your bang for the buck with as simple as setup as possible, this book is going to leave you hanging in a few areas. It certainly fills in some big blanks. I am glad I read it. I just wish it would have taken a more practical, ass kicking approach and made the thing fun to read. It wouldn't have taken much to inject a little personality into some really difficult concepts. It just seems smart to make a book a pleasure to read.

Maybe I was shooting for the sky, but I was hoping this was going to be “the book” for me. I can't say that was the case. It has extended my overall knowledge and I keep it on the shelf for specific reference, but I do feel like I just got done with a really tough job! I need a vacation!

I will need to dig deeper and find other books that can better address my situation and give me some more-specific advice.

What You Get

I don't like listing features, as you probably know. So I'll do this my way. You get all the necessary amps, pedals, and rack effects a person will need under typical guitar recording situations. You get the ability to push the amps into power tube distortion (which is FINALLY convincing!....and even has speaker breakup), you get to utilize room sounds in ways I've never heard from an emulator, and you have pretty much every tool you'll ever need at your disposal. Basically, they've thrown in everything but the kitchen sink when it comes to guitar sounds.

So What! How Does It Sound?

If the top emulators from last year (minus the Amp Room stuff) were at 70% of real amps on a really good day, Amplitube 3 is running at about 92-94% of real amps on a really good day. It easily exceeds real amps on a bad day. What does this mean? It means if you have never gotten your real amp to sound awesome, the only reason to bother using it is for your own tinkering enjoyment. In terms of what the end listener is going to hear, Amplitube 3 is money!

To Who?

If you are robo real amp purist, you probably should check out last week's blog:

Better Than Cell Phones – The State Of Guitar Emulators In 2010

I think we are a year or two away before I recommend everyone toss their amps in the trash. In the mean time, I think 95% of us could kick 'em to the curb without losing sleep and/or business.

Tweaking Required

When I'm recording any of my real amps (1971 Marshall Super Lead, 5150, Rivera Knucklehead, or Fender Bronco) it's common for me to tweak about 45 minutes before I get what I'm looking for. Mostly, this is due to me needing something different every project I do. If a guy has “his sound” nailed we can usually get what we want with about 5-10 minutes of playing with mic placement, analog compression, etc. (I have no idea how much longer it's going to take now that I bought a 'Lil Freq analog EQ!) So, basically, it's a given that I've got to make a long drive to get to where ever I'm going.

Now that we've established that some tweaking is required for real amps, some tweaking is required for Amplitube 3 as well. Many of their presets are money right out of the gate. There are some surprising winners when you bypass some of the pedals and such as well. However, generally speaking, I had to play around for a good 45 seconds on average to get what I wanted at any particular time.

A few things you must know before using emulators:

• Emulators still require you to find the right guitar for the right sound. Some guys expect a Strat to sound like a Les Paul. No emulator I'm aware of can do this.
• Not all DI's are created equal. We established this in The Interrogator Sessions: Electric Guitar. I believe a Hi-Z input is absolutely required. Even those sound quite a bit different from box to box. The Waves Hi-Z input box is very good. I've found my Lil Freq's DI input to be vastly superior to the DI on my M-Audio Octane and Presonus Firestudio, for example.
• For high gain sounds, a Tubescreamer type pedal is required in my opinion. I use the yellow Modtone pedal I don't turn it off.
• For pretty much everything else, the Amplitube 3 guys have got it covered.
• Certain “Tweed-type” tones get a little boxy. I hate this, personally, but that's not any different than the real thing. The graphic EQ in the rackmount portion of Amplitube 3 is an excellent way to tweak without using the Algebra side of your brain.

Room Sounds

The room sound options are EXCELLENT in Amplitube 3. I can't remember any other emulator getting this THIS right. It's a very realistic room sound in a really good way. Not all guitars require such a room sound. I'd guess most of you would prefer the rackmount reverb thing to this, but for us guys who know and love using just the right amount of room in our guitars, this thing kills. You Iron Maiden kind of guys are going to love this.

CPU Usage

In “high quality” mode this thing slaughters right through my Intel Q8200 Quad Core with latency at 192 samples. (I've been upping that lately...I used to be a die hard 128 sample guy...not anymore!) In “low quality”mode, the CPU usage is dramatically reduced. I did notice a hit in tone, but it wasn't THAT big of deal. I'd say it lost 5% of it's “quality”...whatever that means. In that mode I could use quite a bit more instances. I never counted them up, but the CPU usage seemed to be in line with pretty much all the other emulators I have used.

Power Tubes

Unlike most emulators out there, this thing feels really close to what you get with cranking the power section. It's different with different amps, but the amp darkens, thickens, and gets more harmonic content going in a usually good way. (Of course, not all real amps like being worked this hard....Dual Rectifiers come to mind. Not all real amps do anything when turned all the way up....5150.) I've found this power tube feature to be entirely useful many times, particularly with the cleaner amps.

Speaker Breakup

If you push the power tubes hard, you can also hear the speakers breaking up. This can be very, very useful for some sounds and not-so-desirable for others. However, the fact that they've got it and sounds good is the key. Very few home recorders really get to use this aspect of electric guitar recording.

Pedals

I made a 3 page list of what I felt about each effect and ultimately decided not to include it in the interest of keeping this a review and not a book.

There a ton of pedals included. I think they all sound very good. I'm kinda hit or miss about random effects. For some effects, I want crappy sounds with plenty of lo-fi digital artifacts and such. On other effects, I definitely want the “boutique pedal” sound. If you find you need a $400 chorus pedal to be happy, you probably won't be happy with the chorus pedal included. The same goes with just about all of the effects. I thought the swell pedal was better than I had ever heard. The flange and phaser pedals were usable, but not quite up to the real deal MXR pedals. The EQ was extremely useful.

So basically, if you are ultra picky about your pedals, the emulators only "emulate". Purists will want more pure options, but for effects that aren't ultra critical to you, the included effects definitely fit the bill.

Rackmount Stuff

They've included a rackmount section which allows for all kinds of cool toying around. There's a 31-band graphic EQ, parametric EQ, tube compressor (that DOES have character!!!), fake ass reverb (in a great, Lexicon way....I get tired of room emulators sometimes!), digital delay, and this resonator thing.

The resonator alone is one of the coolest things ever. It reminds me of an old school version of the Native Instruments Spectral Delay....only better and worse. There is less control, but you can do some WICKED effects with this thing. If this was a $399 plugin and the only way to get it was to spend $400, I'd buy it in a second and use it all over every album I could. It would be awesome! I LOVE IT!

The rackmount thing was smart. Very smart! Some sounds simply need to be placed after the amp. A person could do this with their own plugins if they really wanted to, but there is something to having it all right here so you can save presets and such. Some sounds (particularly with delay and reverb) need to be placed after the distortion. You just can't get these sounds in front of the amp or even in the effects loop.

Flexibility

As you can see, they've pretty much hit each and every angle. The dumb thing is jammed pack with all the stuff you need to rock. It's obviously extremely well thought out by guys who play guitar, super easy to use, and the kind of thing that isn't too bad to tinker with when you have a guitar in your hand.

Reliability

I've been totally impressed by the consistent reliability of Amplitube 3. There were a few small issues with the original version that were completely solved by downloading the second version. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a newer update out now that is even better.

Downsides

I am a believer in Amplitube 3. I think it's the best thing out there, in my opinion. However, there are some downsides.

Opening the plugin takes about 3 seconds longer than any other plugins I toy with. In reality, this is nothing. However, I'm so “on edge” and in a hurry all the time, that I can feel the stress in my spine every time I have to open it. So it's good to have it always on the screen, if you can. I expect them to eventually fix this one.

Some tones sound right to me right out of the box. The Ace Frehley preset with the effects turned off and the gain turned down sounds right to me right out of the box. (I've developed a new found tolerance for the Recto sound. I'm not sure why!) Sometimes when I start tweaking with amps, pedals, mics, mic placements, rooms, etc I get “lost”. It seems that nothing I do can get me back to the mega sound I may have had previously. If you get lost, I recommend you go through the presets and find a few that excite you and save them as your own presets. If you get “lost”, they can be invaluable for getting back to a good starting point.

The Marshall sounds didn't excite me much. I've always been a Marshall fan, regardless of the trends that were going on. A good Marshall on a good day is my dream sound. However, none of these emulations got the “good” Marshall sound. None of the Amplitube 3 competitors has gotten it right either, for whatever that's worth.

Conclusion

Amplitube 3 is the new standard in guitar emulation. It's getting harder and harder for me to justify the time it takes to record a real amp. On many days, I simply do not bother. They've put together a very, very, very good sounding setup with about every possible option you could ever want in a very use-to-use, reliable package. I am impressed.

So, knowing just how damn desirable the room sounds are in Ocean Way, I was PUMPED when they asked me to review a copy. (I have more damn drum samples than a sane person would ever need. Good thing I don't meet that criteria!) I can say that, without a doubt, the are a welcome addition.

The Simple Approach

Ocean Way Drums has taken the old school sample approach. When you trigger the snare, it comes up on one fader. The kick is on another fader. If you want to turn the hihat down, you simply grab the hi-hat fader and pull it down. There is no bleed. There are no overheads. There are no room mics. There is no further complication at all. The samples are already processed. All you need to do is send MIDI to them. Quick to the point. Easy!

The good news is this is excellent for people who have 14 minutes to get busy with the noise and don't want to spend it scratching their head about snare sounds. Even I get into creative modes and the last thing I want to do is even consider the engineering side. If I have a guitar in my hand, I DO NOT want to be touching compressors. I already have my hands full. I want to make music and I want to make it now. Ocean Way Drums definitely caters to that.

Ocean Way Drums uses an included Kontakt engine. The Native Instruments guys have been good to me and they delivered an extreme reliable sample player. I never had a single technical problem with the Ocean Way Drums !

The Sounds

Because of their simple approach to drum samples, they've taken a drum kit, recorded it in 3 different rooms, and said, "Here!". As a guy that gets sick of hearing myself on my 6 string noise maker, I do like to tinker with compressors and room mics some times. Unfortunately, doesn't allow me such fun. The ambiance is what it is....for better or worse.

When I first started out, I grabbed one of the 2 drum kits they allowed me to play with. Being the kind of guy I am, I grabbed the ultra live, ultra ambient kit right away. I loved it!! It fit my style of techno rock perfectly. That part is subjective, but if you liked the sounds on their website you'll definitely like 'em on your productions.

I did run into a little snag. The default snare is pretty damn loud in these things (could have something to do with the crushing velocities I was using). It's easy to fall in love with that sound until you realize that your mix isn't loud enough in RMS jive because the snare is blasting through with peak level. Tossing on the brickwall limiter and knocking the snare peak down brought up some corny sounding ambiance. It went from being badass and modern to reminding me of a sillier time in music production.

However, the problem was solved by simply pulling the snare channel down. This reduced the crushing attack I had fallen in love with too, but it solved the ambience problem and ended up sounding great. I just didn't have the luxury of getting the snare as ridiculously in my face as it was previously. This isn't exactly a flaw in the . It's a byproduct of having already processed samples. Not a big deal. Easily solved although it did scare me for a minute.

I decided to try out the other extreme. I went with the ultra dry drums. I can't remember a single instance in my life where I've ever wanted to throw up. Just a hair lower on my list of things I have no interest in is dry drums. I know that quite a few of you out there hate my Mr. Mister drum sound. (Seriously, it gets no better the Kyrie for powerhouse drums...EVER!) So, I figured I'd play along and see what I could do with dry drums. While these were samples were top notch, pro, and had just the right amount of chunk, I personally felt that I was watching TV with the power out. (Not that a TV with electricity is any better.)

For those of you who got into the Slipknot drum sound or anything super duper dry, you will be very happy.

I did quite a bit of tinkering with the super live and super dry drums. In fact, I had forgotten that there was even a medium version. Oh buddy! I found the sound I've been looking for!

I'm a big fan of several of the drum samples I own. (The entire Superior 2.0 line is outstanding and Steven Slate drums are flat out brutal.) However, I've been looking for this one particular flavor. It's the kind of sound that has ambiance, but doesn't mush up when I crush it with a drum bus compressor. I want to hear the drums pumping yet still hear this hi-fi/pretty sounding hihat. I want this particularly for full blown dance music type of stuff with metal guitars in it. (One of my favorite poisons.)

The medium setting is outstanding! I LOVE IT! Other than the optional slammage from the drum bus compressor, it needs no processing. It's exactly perfect for what I'm up to. I don't miss room mics or bleed. I don't miss any of the fancy features found in other samplers. I just turn it on and kick butt without having to think about engineering. The medium room drums are HIGHLY recommended if this sounds like your cup of tea!

Different Drum Kits

It was very cool how they included different drum kits. I'm not the kind of guy that gets too wound up about different kits too often. I'm used to recording real drums and before we start a given project I usually don't have the option of selecting the drums I want to use. (Some day!) We just use what the drummer has and make it work. So, I don't get overly wound up about having a billion drums to choose from. I tend to tweak tones on the engineer side. That "maple shell" this and "brass shell" that is reserved for zoned out head nodding when drummers flap their jaw.

However, I did find the variety from kit to kit extremely useful. So if you are more wound up about that sort of thing than I am, make sure to take a hard look at the options.

The Room

I do want to point out that the Ocean Way room sounds are EXACTLY what you'd expect. Even when I'm not going for the Mr. Mister drum sound (even I wuss out sometimes) I LOVE that 3D, alive sound that a great room can do for drums. The simply do not disappoint! Very nice!

Different Pricing Structures

I first saw the in Musican's Friend. It was an enormous package that cost well over $1,000. For those so inclined, that's not a bad way to go. However, there are dramatically less expensive versions out there via the download. For $200 you can download 5 different kits in their full blown glory (dry, medium, and ambient). I personally think this is a great way to go. The Ocean Way sound is a nice compliment to my stock pile of drum samples and I get what I need with just a few kits.

Conclusion

I was going to say that the is a very nice, super simple sample drum sample library with rooms that stand out. Then I discovered how freakin' great the medium sounds were. When I filled that void I've been missing in my drum samples, I flipped! I couldn't be more excited. Now not everyone is going to want that exact sound. Hell, I don't want it all the time. However, when you can find your dream sound for X little niche, you have to jump on it! Excellent product!

Brandon

Features

The Chameleon Labs 7602 MKII is a Neve 1073-style preamp / EQ combo. You get an 80dB mic preamp, a front switchable DI, and a 3-band, fixed bandwidth EQ with a high pass filter.

Bla bla bla. I hate repeating features that could be found here.

Cool Switching

I absolutely love the switching this thing. Yes, I know that no gear review site ever gives stars based on “switching” but I freakin' do! The switch allows you to select between the DI input and mic input. This may sound like nothing, but I hate when you have to unplug the mic before recording the DI to avoid a preamp blending the two signals together. (I once had a cat meow in a drum room mic that totally screwed up a bass solo part! I HATE cats! Ironically, I always fight to leave the dog barks in.)

There is another switch on the preamp gain knob that allows you to select between the mic input and the Line In input. This is handy if you only want to use the EQ.

As boring as this may sound, I've found these well-thought-out features to be awesome in battle.

Mic Preamp With X-Mod Upgrade

I don't find myself running out of gain much, but I'm positive I'll never run out of gain on this thing. (Who cares about gain!) What's the damn thing sound like?

First off, let me say I sprung for the X-Mod upgrade. So how does it compare to the normal version? You've got me. Oh well. Here we go.

Let's just say the 7602 MKII has a permanent place in my preamp collection. I've fought with pres having a bit too much top end or too much sibilance sometimes. Compared with my Martech MSS-10, Manley TNT, or Great River etc the 7602 MKII is on the smoother, creamy side of the bunch. The top end is a just a hair tucked in a way that can be very desirable. In fact, this is a sound I've been looking for. It's a very natural sound that I'm always hearing on recordings and never quite got right.

I found it to be very useful on really just about everything. I love it on kick and snare. It's not my first choice for airy, poppy vocals that need that top end thing really going on (although if you EQ the hell out of it, you can still get there). On overheads, it really depended. If I want “sparkly” overheads this probably isn't the preamp. On drums I found it really excelled when I wanted a thicker, meaty, darker kind of thing. “Darker” is a strong word here. Don't get carried away. It's just a little more reserved up top. It's a little less crazy up there.

On high gain electric guitars, this thing is awesome for getting big ass sounds without a bunch of fizz up top. The preamps that do the mega pop girl vocal sound well tend to bring out a little more fizz than I'd want if using a dynamic mic on a guitar cab. This one controls all that top end stuff well which brings out the meat of the guitar sound. I found myself relying on EQ a bit when using my Royer R121 as the two together may have been a hair too dark for my tastes.

Overall, this mic pre is an excellent workhorse type pre without a lot of exaggerated stuff up top or bottom. It has character, but my Vintech 1272 is way more wild in the upper midrange harmonics than the 7602 MKII. I don't consider this preamp to have the “Neve sound” necessarily. If you want that over the top kind of Neve thing, I think a person has to look elsewhere. With that said, the reason I like it so well is the fact that it contrasts my Vintech 1272 and Manley TNT so well. If I had to pick just one....hmmm....it would be a tough call.

DI

The 7602 MKII DI really screams on bass! It's flat out perfect! I've been using my Manley TNT tube channel as my main bass DI, but the 7602 MKII has become my go to guy for bass. It's awesome. The low end doesn't get too out of control and the bass sits just how it should. They really got this part right. There are times when my Manley maybe has too much low end oomph in the wrong way. The 7602 is more controlled in a good way.

Sam, my bass idiostrummer in my ruckus unit and the dude who played on 99% of the Killer Home Recording: Bass stuff is a freak about tone. He's been looking at getting a 7602 MKII and a power amp for his main bass rig. That out to tell you something!

EQ

The EQ on the 7602 is bad ass! It's not the most feature filled EQ. It can't come close to surgery (unless your surgery involves a crane and a giant swinging ball), but I have to say I don't care.

So while I can't cut 234 Hz and I can't even change the width of the boosts and cuts I do make, this is the most powerful tonal tool I have in my arsenal. This EQ is just as effective (in terms of quality) as the Great River MEQ-1NV. This is a high end EQ! (It doesn't have near the flexibility of the Great River, for whatever that is worth to you.) The EQ has that ability to fundamentally change the sound of the source track somehow in ways that none of my plugins seem to do.

Because of the fixed Q nature of this thing, I don't even really consider it an equalizer. I think of it as more of a guitar amp. I play with low, mid, and highs and see what happens. I don't use the algebra side of my brain. Not even close. I just chill out and have fun. A really drunk person with good hearing could use this EQ and come out just fine.

The 7602 MKII's EQ is so awesome that I've convinced myself that I need this kind of tonal flexibility on every channel I'm tracking. I'm not sure how I'm going to afford that! The EQ on the 7602 prompted me to write this: http://www.recordingreview.com/blog/audio-engineering-principles/analog-eq/

Conclusion

I have no problem making the claim that the Chameleon Labs 7602 MKII with the transformer upgrade runs with the big boy preamp / EQ's I own and have used. At $800, this thing isn't exactly a budget piece of gear, but it's pretty much half to 1/3 the price of anything similar. I'm positive that there is a point of diminishing return in there somewhere. In other words, at this price point, you get some really pro stuff for a hell of a price. It's the “sweet spot” for gear purchases.

So if you aren't quite ready to jump into the $2k+ preamp/EQ market, I urge you to take a look at this. I suspect you'll be very happy. I know I am!

I'll be reviewing the Chameleon Labs 7802 stereo tube compressor soon so keep an eye out.

Brandon

Fact: You can use all the plugins individually on tracks, buses, everywhere, etc. Man, do I like 'em...A TON! I was under the impression that I wouldn't be able to use them as “normal” plugins, but in fact that's exactly what they are.

With 99% of the plugins that I've used, they've all been super clean and attempting to be transparent. There's nothing necessarily wrong with transparent if you don't have a pulse, but I like color! I think this clean obsession is a MAJOR problem in home recording land. So many people are looking for clean, clean, and more clean. When I listen to my favorite recordings, I'm hearing character, character, and more character when I want it. The T-Racks plugins provide this character thing better than any plugins I've used to date.

What Do You Get?
T-Racks includes all the essential tools for the gig. Compressors, EQ, limiters, multi-band compressors, linear phase EQ, and even a cool metering plugin that displays peak level, RMS level, and phase. I'm too busy to rewrite their propaganda and features. You can read all that junk on the T-Racks 3 website.

The Idear
All of the T-Racks 3 plugins have taken the non-modern (and dare I say "analog") route in regard to their controls and intended sound. I mean that most plugins have 400 knobs and buttons that allow for all kinds of fancy tweaking. T-Racks 3 has went a more old school route to sonics and usability.

For example, the Classic Multiband Limiter has thresholds for 3 bands, level for 3 bands, and two different crossover points. When compared to a Waves C4 or equivalent with at least twice the knobs, at first you scratch your head. I did. I quickly found out that this particular plugin is not intended for microsurgery by any means. It doesn't allow you to set ratios. Release time doesn't go below 80ms. It's clear this thing is saying, "I do what I do. If you don't like it, too bad!" This sort of thing is consistent with high end vintagy tubey type gear and a welcome addition. This thing has A SOUND!

The Classic Compressor is similar. It's attack time will not go any faster than 12ms. Why all plugins think they need to do all things for all people is beyond me. I LOVE the idea that a plugin is going to do it's thing even if that means you can't use it as a brickwall limiter. (T-Racks 3 has that covered on another plugin.) This slightly less flexibility approach gives more options for character!

The Program EQ 1A is the T-Racks version of a Pultec. For you new guys, a Pultec is a way old school EQ known for having massive, massive character. They rarely go for under $3,000. They have 2 bands. You pick a frequency and either you boost it or you cut it. The Program EQ 1A has taken the exact same format. From a features standpoint, the Pultec is a biplane in a world of B2 bombers and space stations. However, it does something right and is still insanely popular! So having 400 knobs on a plugin ain't all it's cracked up to be. T-Racks 3 clearly recognizes this.

The Sound
CHARACTER! CHARACTER! CHARACTER! I really don't want to use the "v" word (starts with v, ends with "intage") because that word doesn't mean anything to most of us. When you think of what a dirty ol', expensive tube compressor is going to do to your tracks, that's pretty much what they were going for with T-Racks 3 most of the time.

If you choose to push 'em, the T-Racks plugins, will ooze out life and excitement. They have a way of taking boring tracks and adding something extra to them. They can make the audio more harmonically complex. (My best attempt at avoiding buzz words.) While I'm sure most of you aren't dying to nail the Beatles sound, imagine your tracks you've recorded that sound a little "plain". When you blend in a little "Beatlesness" to your snare, electric guitars, vox, or whatever it doesn't end up sounding "Beatley". It ends up sounding WAY more like your favorite records...even if they came out last year. The most modern sounding records are still using the good ol' gear. They are just using it in different ways.

So for those of us who don't have $100,000 to outfit our rooms with an arsenal of mega hardware, I think the T-Racks 3 deal offers some TREMENDOUS possibilities for the creatively inclined.

URS was my go to compressors when I wanted color. I don't see myself using them so much anymore. The T-Racks compressors and limiters just take it a step further in terms of bold attitude. There are multiple stages you can intentionally overload the T-Racks compressors and limiters. I've found this to be absolutely pleasing when I'm in the mood for a little bit of extra something on a given track. Even their brickwall limiter gives you the option of being clean, saturated, and a few in between. I found this AWESOMELY useful!

Don't get me wrong. When used cleanly, the T-Racks plugins ARE clean. They don't sound distorted or crappy. They sound quite nice. However, my experience and mixing style suggests that pushing instruments just a hair is EXACTLY what separates a great mix from a boring one. (Okay, there are a FEW more factors than that, but you get the idea.) Needless to say, having the ability to switch between 3 different saturation modes on a brickwall limiter in addition to clean, clipping, and 4 advanced settings (to predict upcoming peaks) is exactly what I need. The ability to bring out the guns when I need it is extremely important to me!

Mastering In Home Recording Land
I have my philosophies on mastering and they seem to coincide much more with the guys who are actually making records than with the "compliance professionals". It's a long story.......

T-Racks is an exhaustive set of plugins that have a TON of character when you want them to. Can you process a mix with them? Sure! They provide an interesting set of tonal colors that is fun to have around! However, is there anything particularly special about them that makes them the ONLY tool for mastering? Not at all. If you are saying to yourself "Oh FINALLY! I can master now”, than you are going to be surprised when you get a collection of EQ and compressors/limiters.

The ability to chain multiple T-Racks 3 plugins within a single plug in instance is a huge help for those of you using audio recording software that doesn't allow for a ton of plugins on the stereo bus.

T-Racks 3 doesn't make any attempt to handle the dominant role of mastering. That is to turn a collection of EXCELLENT mixes into an album with a common tonality. I was really hoping they'd make concessions for this in some way. It appears that Cubase is still my favorite tool for this. So far, I've not found a better way to process mixes individually and skip back and forth from track to track to ensure tonality and volumes are consistent.

CPU Usage
I'm currently using a Quad Core 2.33Ghz PC with 4GB of RAM on a highly optimized Windows XP SP3 install. I can use Waves plugins all day long. I can use a dozen guitar emulators without really thinking about it. I noticed that the T-Racks 3 plugins do use quite a bit more CPU power than other plugins I own. I actually had to pay a little attention to my CPU meter for the first time. So fair warning.

Conclusion
The T-Racks 3 series is an excellent set of plugins. The provide bold character that is clearly more in the old school arena. I think they are an excellent compliment to the Sonnox Oxford plugins which are quite a bit cleaner.

As for the "mastering" part, don't sell yourself short. If you don't toss the T-Racks Opto compressor on your drum bus, you aren't living! The Fairchild wannabe is SWEET on vocals. If you want to toss this stuff on the 2bus too, have at it. However, this thing is way more than a “mastering” suite and you've still got to use your recording software to bounce back and forth for consistency setting.

The Great River MEQ-1NV it a single channel preamp with a 4 band parametric EQ. You can tell the second you take it out of the box that there is some serious stuff happening here just by looking through the ventilated top. We are dealing with a beast.

The MEQ-1NV has the usual required features I'd expect from a high end preamp:
Phantom power
Hi-Z Input
2 different input impedances
bla bla bla

Just go to the Great River website and get all that type of info.

Flexibility
The impedance button was a huge help any time I wanted to bring out a bit more upper midrange / top end on a track as it allows a selection between 300 ohms and 1,200 ohms. The effects of impedance switch vary depending on the output impedance of the microphone but overall I was very happy with this option. If a tone was a bit too aggressive, switching to the lower impedance helped solved the problem. If I wanted more upper midrange cut, the higher impedance often delivered it.

The loading button was quite a bit more subtle and really has more with the output impedance of the unit (which isn't that big of deal to most of us home recording types.). The only time I really noticed a clear difference with it was on one bass track. The low end seemed to tighten up a bit. I may be crazy.

Hi-Z Input
It's not secret that I'm a big fan of reamping these days. I record quite a few of my electric guitar tracks DI and then run them back through an amp. There is something I really like about this Hi-Z input. Great River runs the Hi-Z input through an input transformer. Apparently this isn't all that common. All I know is I like it. The top end just sounds sweeter to my ears. Very cool!

I had a session using DI electric guitar the day after I sent back the MEQ-1NV and I have to say that it was disappointing going back to the M-Audio Octane Hi-Z input.

Pushing The Preamp
Just as I like transformers, the only thing better is pushing a transformer harder. I like harmonic content. That's why I chose the Distressor EL-8X. I think there are serious benefits to squeezing a little extra juice out of my gear. That's why most of us like tube microphones so much. I love the fact that the MEQ-1NV has separate input and output metering. This is fairly unique for a preamp. Why did they do that? So retards like me and cram in more signal than I probably should, get a little bit of saturation going, and then back off the output gain. It's subtle, but it's cool.

Of course, if a person REALLY wanted to drive under the speed limit, the opposite is true. You could crank up the output gain all the way up to +10dB and then back off on the input gain. I found myself doing that 0% of the time, but it certainly gave slightly different results.

The Sound
When conducting the Interrogations for Killer Home Recording each and every time I switched from X preamp to the Great River MEQ-1NV I immediately heard sweet aggression in the upper midrange and high end. I think many of you would call this “clarity without a hint of harshness”. I don't use that “c” word often, but I think it fits in this case. Maybe “alive” is a better adjective. One thing I liked about the Great River MEQ-1NV was it performed extremely well on every source. I had my preferences for this instrument and my preferences for that instrument, but the Great River was consistently towards the top on all of them.

The Great River MEQ-1NV has a certain character to it. It sounds “richer” in the upper midrange and high end than all the other preamps in the shootout. I guess a person could say the Great River preamp is brighter than the others, but I don't think “brighter” is the right word here. It implies some kind of frequency response kind of thing. I don't think this is it, necessarily. It sounds more like a harmonic content thing or something. I'm not sure how to describe it necessarily, but it's simply something you can't EQ into a track if you didn't have it in the first place. It has a way of tucking the boxy 400Hz junk a bit too which I consider to be a necessity for the kind of work I do.

The combination of a “sweet” top end and a way of keeping 400Hz a little more tucked than other preamps ends up sounding like what I can only describe in one single word. EXCITING!

More Than Rock Music
I hear a lot of talk about the aggressive Neve-style sound being ideal for rock music. I can't deny that, but I recorded a number of acoustic songs with the Great River MEQ-1NV and I'm very, very happy with it. So I think the Great River is an outstanding preamp for just about any source and any kind of music.

The EQ
I have to admit that I have never used a serious hardware EQ before. I've used EQ plugins each and every day since I opened this Pandora's box of recording back in 2001, but I've never got to play with the real deal analog EQ.

The long story short is I feel I need - or at least could greatly benefit from - a kick ass hardware EQ like this. I found that when I heard something in tracking I didn't like or I heard something I did like and I wanted to enhance it, it was awesome solving that problem before it even started. I loved the convenience of never having to deal with that issue again. My tracks were practically finished before I even started mixing. I really liked that.

I found that MEQ-1NV was not my first choice for precise surgery. I don't think it was meant to be. One one acoustic guitar track, there was this “thingy” that kept leaping out at 234Hz. I know it was 234Hz, not because I can hear that well, but because I highlighted that one single note in Cubase and ran a spectrum analysis on it. Something was spiking in that region and I had no idea why. The MEQ-1NV is not the kind of EQ where you can dial in to 234Hz, use a Q of 10,000 and make a cut that removes 234Hz but leaves 230Hz and 238Hz in tact.

The MEQ-1NV, however is the kind of preamp that makes stuff simply sound better. I looked at it more as a space-aged tone control than as problem solver, necessarily.

MEQ-1NV vs Oxford EQ On Distorted Guitar
I played with the MEQ-1NV for some time on an electric guitar. I have to admit that no angels came down from heaven when I was twisting knobs on the EQ. I didn't even hear the movie-style scary choir sound. However, there was something that felt better that I can't really explain. I did my best to knock out the frequencies that were bothering me on these high gain guitars. (Note: I could have lived with these guitars with zero EQ!) I was happy with what I had going into my converter.

Then I recorded the tracks again (via reamping) with no EQ. The plan was to take 8 seconds, use the Oxford EQ to match the tone and write the MEQ-1NV off as overpriced hunk of iron and transistors. Then something happened.

8 seconds later, I wasn't able to match the tone.

6 seconds later, the same thing. I kept thinking “hmmm. Why can't I match these?”.

I kept on and kept on and kept on. After 30 minutes I finally threw my hands in the air. Something was going on in this damn Great River EQ that I simply could not match with a respected plugin.

The guitar track with the Great River had more 3D depth, sounded smoother, and yet still sounded brighter and more aggressive at the same time. With the Oxford, the end result was flatter, seemed to have less harmonic content, and when I did add top end it just sorta brought out the fizz. The Great River MEQ-1NV sounded exciting in comparison.

It's clear I need a hardware EQ this good. Anyone need an inexperienced bank robber?

Does a Great River MEQ-1NV Belong In a Bedroom Studio?
The Great River is good as high end gear gets. It's a bold sound. It doesn't take long to hear what makes this thing so expensive. It SOUNDS expensive! With that said, it's not going to make up for other weak links in the chain. The preamp is just one of many links in the chain. This is a professional piece of gear and it requires an engineer with a professional-like attention to detail to make full use of it.

Does it belong in a home recording studio? If you have some experience under your belt, and your kids have more than enough cash in their college funds to experiment with their sexuality AND still get good grades, I think the Great River can make life much easier. If you haven't lossed your hair dealing with idiots (some of you refer to them as “musicians” there may be bigger fish you need to fry).

Conclusion
The Great River MEQ-1NV is a winner. It really is a high end piece of gear that delivers high end results. It's the kind of thing that is just as necessary on a folk song as it is on a death metal song. You can simply hear more excitement in the tracks without ever sounding harsh or fizzy.

It's the kind of thing that if home recording is more than a hobby, you can certainly gain something extra with high end preamps. Is it an instant and automatic Engineering Grammy? Definitely not. You still got to work hard to get the sounds you are after, but I found that doing just that was easier with a preamp the caliber of the Great River MEQ-1NV.

I just need to figure out where I can steal the $,$$$ to buy it!