ART Pro Channel II

anyone used this?  I'm pretty interested in it.  I love the sound of the LA-610, but can't afford it.  I'm wondering if this prochannel is similar?  or at least is worth the money.
 
I've also considered the ART MPA, but I would bet that the tube compressor on the pro channel would sound better than running the MPA thru a non-tube compressor.
thoughts?

I've used an ISA One before.  It's transformer based.  I've also owned a GAP Pre 73 before and I sold it.  I"m not fond of the transformer sound on my vocals and that's what I'm looking for.

I have an ART TPS II and I like it, I also have a p-solo.  the p-solo is great but it's completely transparent, which is great for acoustic, but I prefer the tube sound on my vox.  I was hoping the Prochannel would be a little better and possibly closer to the LA610 sound.

I tried an ART Pro MPAII and sent it back.  I couldn't hear any difference between that and the Presonus Dual Blue Tube preamp I have.   I tested it with several mics - condenser and dynamic with both a male and a female singers. I even had a NOS RCA 12AX7 to put in it (one of the suggested mods) but never got to that point.

thansk codamedia!  great info as well.  I am struggling between the MPA and the ProChannel, but only because I rarely ever need more than 1 mic pre at a time. and I do use a little compression going in on vocals and I wonder if the compressor is worth it.

Freddie - since you don't use it, you could just give it to me....

Beagle


anyone used this?  I'm pretty interested in it.  I love the sound of the LA-610, but can't afford it.  I'm wondering if this prochannel is similar?  or at least is worth the money.
 
I've also considered the ART MPA, but I would bet that the tube compressor on the pro channel would sound better than running the MPA thru a non-tube compressor.
thoughts?

For once I can help you Beagle, what is your proper name, I hate having to call you that.
 
I own the ART PRO VLA compresor, I hope we are talking about that and not one of the pre amps, even though I would have no problems recomending anything by this company.
 
Back to the ART PRO VLA II, best 500 bucks I've spent, the compressor is great, you can use it for tracking and mastering.  I use it a lot for bass tracking and vox tracking, just brillient and if you want some tube on you electric guitar before you use a an amp sim if you use an amp sim, it will really add the harmonics to fool people you have used an amp.
 
It's built better in my opinion than my 2000 dollar TL Audio compressor, the TL audio has plastic knobs and the ART PRO VLA II has metal and you can feel the changes when you turn the knob (now Im driffting into that territory again).
 
Then they're the VU meters, I get one on my 2000 dollar compressor that is useless and two on the ART PRO VLA II.
 
The optimum operating range and here we go, this is where I get shot down, not by you beagle old friend, is around, is around 3-4 db of gain reduction, and 5db gain, with the attack and realease almost all the way open.  I regularly have te attack around 60ms, I think that is as far as it goes but if it goes further I go further (sorry compressor is in storage at the moment, like me) and the realease 1 sec.  I know crazy but it's an opto compressor for 500 buck, so use it as an opto compressor.
 
For me it's good for gentle accoustic music and or anything gentle but it's not a hard rock and roll compresor unless as I say you are using it for tracking.
 
Get one 10/10 for me.
 
Faith Ben

thanks Dave!  I appreciate your input as well!

I have the Pro MPA II Reference Series (It has factory upgraded tubes in it.) and the Pro VLA II. You can really get that tube saturation sound. I have to run them hot for about 15 - 20 minutes, but once both units heat up, they get in their sweet zone.

I was looking at the Pro Channel, but decided against it because it didn't have an Impedance adjustment. The Pro Channel II does. I would jump on it in a heartbeat.

I had a tube go bad on my VLA II after a couple weeks of normal usage, so I would suggest doing a thorough break in test on it as soon as you get it so you can swap it within 30 days rather than have to deal with tech support. I got it from Sweetwater ... they were really great to deal with. 5 minutes on the phone and I had a new unit on the way ... before I shipped back my old one.

I just can't get the sound I'm looking for with a dry signal processed by the box. Especially guitar. 

Not exactly the info you are looking for, but I have an ART MPA gold pre that I upgraded the tubes in (took ten minutes), and it sounds fantastic.  For the money it is a no brainer as far as I can see, and I have heard the same of the piece you are looking at.  Don't listen to the ART haters.  Cheap-ish tube stuff can and does sound great if used well. 

Since I described the Pro Channel VLA II Bubs been creaming himself, I see he has taken my advice.

Nice hey Bub, I dont what your budget is but both should only set you back $700's US just find the right store.  The worls is in recession, they want your money so deals are easy to come by.

Get both in my opinion but if people are saying your vocals are fine then get the compressor, purely because you have a tracking compresor, which will inprove you vocal sound any way and a mastering compresor.

Two birds with one stone.

Peace Neb

fantastic, Nate, I was hoping someone would give a review about the switchable plate voltage!

I look forward to it!

Oh yeah, the mic used is an AKG p 220

Nate and Beagle,

Thank you for your discussion on the ART Pro Channel II. The voltage is NOT published anywhere and I was going insane. Knowing that the voltage is 300V has really sold me on the ART; thus reading this pages posts, I think I am leaning to buy the ART PCII. The other contender is the Presonus Studio Channel but I think the ART is better for the Loop Inserts - mainly so that I can use a different EQ than the one that is built in - the Presonus doesn't have that and it claims to have a hi-powered plate that is "double" most other preamps in its class - I have yet to see the numbers. 

Since I record female vocals at 24/192, I wanted a decent tube amp with a compressor to run vocals through so that I can "touch up" the audio in my DAW. I'm a noob at audio recording, but here's my reason for going towards the <$500 tube amp: Since I'm recording at 24/192...any changes to the wave form would be subtle and almost unnoticeable; so, what I can produce with a $5K tube amp can be created digitally to "sound" pretty darn good as well; obviously, not the same due to the algorithmic limits of software programming in an attempt to create the sound achieved by the analog wave form produced by the tube amplifiers circuitry. Thus, in an attempt to reconstruct the waveform produced by the said preamp, you'd be approaching the quantum limits of a modeled sound that is impossible because of environmental factors and lack of equation input fields; meaning, if an equation input field did exist, everyone would have to have a degree in audio engineering to use it but they would also have to derive functions and own the $5K hardware anyway. 

Back to reality...I would like to try NOT to degrade the waveform by applying a digital strip to it, rather I'd prefer to do it with an analog strip so that the most I would have to do is clean up the instantaneous sibilant instances which I can manage with Melodyne. I guess I'm taking a hybrid approach to mastering vocals...doing as much analog work I can do just to capture a good enough sound that has as many frequencies but some light compression before I set it in stone as a digital file.

My intention was to record with compression only (maybe a hint of EQ'ing, but not much at all), then tailor the sound in the DAW; hence, the ART PCII. 

Please correct me if anything I say is not true as I'm going by what I have only read, not actually done yet. As of right now, I have neither the ART or the Presonus I speak of. Also, if anyone has anything to add., PLEASE let me know. Teach me. Help me.  I would hate to drop money on experimental paths that so many have walked already.

AT,

Hey, thanks for confirming the use of the comp going in and thank you for warning me about not over-doing it as I do. I'm going to start small and experiment. I especially like how you make spending money on tone analogous to a logarithmic curve...I didn't realize that but conceivably it seems to be the name of the game.

So, I went ahead and made the jump. I ordered the ART PCII today and should have it within a week or so. I think this will be a very sufficient device to learn (as opposed to those $100 tube preamps) and make some decent vocal recordings on until I receive requests for specific gear or if I start finding a need to achieve a certain sound that I cannot get with the PCII - that is...after I come up with a 1-hit wonder that allows me to buy a $5K preamp. 

I've read that recording at a sampling rate above 48K is not going to make much of a difference in the sound quality. I can't tell that there is any noticeable difference between 48kHz and 192kHz recording. My reason for recording at that sampling rate is because of the potential to "stretch" the curve with minimal sound artifacts. Although the quality in sound of 48 kHz and 192 kHz seems identical, once I stretch the sound, I notice that the 192 sounds a bit more natural - this is using extreme time stretching (I wouldn't do that, I'm just stating this to support my reason for it). Quantization is not an issue - so the bit depth of 24 is fine for doing things like very minimal digital compression without getting those"flat-tops" on the curve; although, if I could record at 32 bit, I probably would. Based on a plot, this should be correct - Time Stretch Realism depends on sampling rate as Compression Naturalism and Clarity of Sound depends on Bit Depth. This kind of stuff is not really published the way I said it but in my head, from a mathematical point of view, there should be more than enough points on the 24/192 "curve" to give me more flexibility - not publish at that rate. Again, correct me if I'm wrong about this. I really want to understand this much better but I don't want to have to take as much time in class learning the same information I could get from hands-on experience. I prefer hands-on. I'm already in knee-deep in classes.

I know that digital cannot replicate analog hardware. It can come close though, for some simple things - reverb, chorus, atmosphere, but something like compression....I can hear the difference. Also, tube sound replicated by an algorithm...not going to happen. From an analysis point of view, there are quantum limits in nature that can't be done digitally. For example, no computer can take an audio file and extract what sounds good....your ear does that. Sound produced from from a device that follows the natural order of the laws of physics haven't really failed us yet. I can listed to Beehoven, Monks chanting, or Tibetan Bowls anytime. Don't get me wrong....I see the artistic talent in DubStep music, but I think everyone will agree that at some point the human voice, vibrating strings, and percussion instruments have transcended an emotion.

By the way, any good links that I would appreciate? Books? I don't mind technical data...especially if there are descriptive examples of what it represents.