That's interesting Michael. I wasn't aware that they'd made major changes t=
o the design. Where did you find this out?
Hopefully it doesn't sound *too* different because the original was everyth=
ing a pre should be!
--- In Michael Raphael <> wro=
te:
>
> The new version does not contain the identical analogue stages. It does s=
ound quite different. The Mix-Pre D also loses the optical limiter that the=
Mix-Pre had. It has a limiter, but it not the same.
>
> On Mar 25, 2012, at 1:34 AM, Ben Cook wrote:
>
> > I haven't used the new version but by all accounts the D retains the or=
iginal version's analogue stages and for all intents and purposes sounds id=
entical.
> >
> > --- In "Jez" <tempjez@> wrote:
> > >
> > > just wondered if anyone has compared this (in practical, hands on ter=
ms) with the older MixPre ? The D seems to have more features but what matt=
ers to me is whether it sounds as good as the MixPre did !
> > >
> > > any thoughts would be welcome.
> > >
> > > ta.
> > >
> > > Jez
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
|