If you look at the specifications on the website they are slightly different.
They do not have the same input transformers nor do they have the same limiter.
I spoke to my dealer about this around AES and and had the opportunity to
listen to both. I would suggest visiting a dealer or getting a demo to check
out.
I found the Mix-Pre to be a bit warmer and i found the limiter a bit more
pleasing. It had more of a "slower" "creamy" vibe, whereas the new Mix Pre is
faster and more in line with the 552 or & series recorders.
M.
On Mar 27, 2012, at 4:48 AM, Jez wrote:
> 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
|