Hi,
can you give an opinion of the Portico 5043 vs AMS Neve 33609 reissue?
Aiden
Dear Aidan,
Well, it's a bit like comparing a cheese and an onion.
The 33609 is closely based upon the classic Neve unit of the same designation - discrete and
transformer balanced, with separate compress and limit sections, attack and release,
threshold, gain makeup and accurate PPM meters.
The Portico isn't
Regards
Mark
Thanks Mark,
I guess that answers the question. I suppose it’s a bit confusing when
reviews in SOS and Mix claim "the 5043 outdoes the 33609".. Hard to know
what to think of the reviews.
Dare I ask; portico 5042 tape emulator vs Empirical Labs Fatso?
Regards
Aidan
Dear Aidan,
Have you EVER seen a bad review in these mags? As long as the distributor/manufacturer advertises, they'll get a good review.
In terms of any piece of kit 'outdoing' another, this is an utterly meaningless thing for anyone to say.
Certain gear works well on certain programme material. It isn't a question of being 'better' or 'outdoing' another. Recording isn't a competition.
Neve have been making the 33609 in various varieties for the best part of 40 years, and most leading engineers use it always or occasionally. It's a good tool for certain jobs, such as tightening mixes, limiting drums and suchlike. I'm sure the Portico also has its uses, but here - I've slammed a tenner on the table to bet that it won't still be made in 40 years. No, come on...that's too one-sided. Twenty quid says it won't still be made in ten years (and judging by the amount of Portico gear we get offered second hand, I doubt any original purchasers will still have it active in their racks by then).
The Portico Tape emulator is basically a module with transformers that give a signal better definition and allows for typical transformer overload. That's a decent idea, and one I approve of, but not at a grand. You could knock something similar up yourself for a couple of hundred squibs or buy the BAE equivalent for not much more. The Fatso, on the other hand, is a compressor that messes with phase to give third harmonic distortion but also allows for much more tailoring of the signal (but no transformers, methinks).
The only true tape emulators use true tape.
Sorry if I'm sounding a bit cynical, but I'd be happy to scrape another tenner (my last) out of my moth-eared wallet to bet that every treasured album in your collection was recorded and mixed using the same small collection of gear, including...
Whatever mic preamps were in the desk
Urei 1176
Fairchild, Ear or similar Vari-Mu compressor
Neve 33609
AMS delay and perhaps reverb
Lexicon 224, 224XL and/or 480L reverb (and maybe a PCM70)
EMT Plate reverb
Neve or SSL eq's (in the desk)
Maybe a Pultec or three
AKG, Neumann, Beyer and Sennheiser mics
DBX compressors
plus a relatively short list of standard toys and fx (Roland Dimension D, MXR phase and Flange, Roland tape echo et al…)
Why reinvent the wheel? Every day sees some new-fangled variety of the wheel hit the market – square ones, oblong, three sided, plastic, bitumen clad and so on. But do today's records sound any better than those of days gone by? No. Quite the opposite, in fact. So why does every Gearslut try to convince the world that they need the latest mic pre/compressor/tape-phase-bifribulator?
No...concentrate on getting the song tight, the performances true, the mics properly positioned, the signal to noise optimised and the sound full, fat and focused.
It's ultimately down to the music, and that's the start and the finish. The boxes are tools for a job and in my opinion, every technological 'advance' in the last thirty years has more to do with lowering the cost of manufacturing than increasing quality.
Apart from that...
Have fun
Mark