odd indeed - I can't find anywhere that says it has different stages. Can you
let us know where you found that out Michael & also perhaps more info on the
differences in sound that you think are there. ta.
--- In "Ben Cook" <> wrote:
>
> That's interesting Michael. I wasn't aware that they'd made major changes to
> the design. Where did you find this out?
>
> Hopefully it doesn't sound *too* different because the original was
> everything a pre should be!
>
>
> --- In Michael Raphael <mraphael@> wrote:
> >
> > The new version does not contain the identical analogue stages. It does
> > sound 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
> > > original version's analogue stages and for all intents and purposes
> > > sounds identical.
> > >
> > > --- In "Jez" <tempjez@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > just wondered if anyone has compared this (in practical, hands on
> > > > terms) with the older MixPre ? The D seems to have more features but
> > > > what matters to me is whether it sounds as good as the MixPre did !
> > > >
> > > > any thoughts would be welcome.
> > > >
> > > > ta.
> > > >
> > > > Jez
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
|