Universal Audio 4-710D --- What do you think of this pre-amp?

[Dude Japan]

This piece received a great review by Craig Schumacher in the latest
TapeOp.

http://tapeop.com/reviews/832/

It is square in my price range. I'm wondering if you have tried it?
Does it sound professional or prosumer? Is it built to hold up for 30
years?

Also please feel free to reply if you have the original 710.

-Clay

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Dude Japan wrote:

> This piece received a great review by Craig Schumacher in the latest
> TapeOp.

Said magazine/web site should verify that their site works on all the major
browsers, that is what other sites do. My comment to the webmaster: "My job
as webmaster on a huge website is to ensure that it works well no matter
which of the major browsers people use. Consequently I have a linux box on
my desk and verify everything on it. Go to your boss and get a windows box,
put on your desk and ensure that the site you master works on IE and stop
telling people who use IE - or any other browser - that you do not consider
them worthwhile readers." - I do get professionally offended when a web site
tells me to use another browser, I also did when using Opera on the Amiga
and web sites told me that using IE was the only thing that would ensure
proper experience.

> http://tapeop.com/reviews/832/

> It is square in my price range. I'm wondering if you have tried it?
> Does it sound professional or prosumer? Is it built to hold up for 30
> years?

Not a bad word said about it, not a single thing with it the reviewer is
unhappy with. Also he writes "well designed and built from inside to outside
with care" but does not make the point by showing images of an opened
product where we can see the superiority. Obviously not a review in the Hugh
Ford class, to me it is just "theysay" ... also: if you can hear a
difference between valve and solid state circuitry one or both are broken
and if you can't your monitor-chain just is not good enough.

> -Clay


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[philicorda[_9_]]

On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 08:14:02 +0100, Peter Larsen wrote:

<snip>
>> It is square in my price range. I'm wondering if you have tried it?
>> Does it sound professional or prosumer? Is it built to hold up for 30
>> years?
>
> Not a bad word said about it, not a single thing with it the reviewer is
> unhappy with. Also he writes "well designed and built from inside to
> outside with care" but does not make the point by showing images of an
> opened product where we can see the superiority. Obviously not a review
> in the Hugh Ford class, to me it is just "theysay" ... also: if you can
> hear a difference between valve and solid state circuitry one or both
> are broken and if you can't your monitor-chain just is not good enough.

In the block diagram from the manual, the valve stage comes after the
preamp and compressor. It is a valve 'effect' rather than a valve preamp,
and is probably designed to be audible.
That's not to say it won't sound good, just that it doesn't have much in
common with the older UA valve mic preamps.


>
>> -Clay
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

philicorda wrote:


> In the block diagram from the manual, the valve stage comes after the
> preamp and compressor. It is a valve 'effect' rather than a valve
> preamp, and is probably designed to be audible.

Well, you see the description - I refuse to call it a "test report" says
verbatim that you can choose between a solid state preamp and a valve
preamp.

> That's not to say it won't sound good, just that it doesn't have much
> in common with the older UA valve mic preamps.

And that the description by the tapeop writer reminds less of the actual
product than even the manufacturers printed matter and reminds more of
either incompetent disinformation. Also - with al due respect - I think the
products price fits better with actual selection of valve or solid state
than with what you describe.

>> Peter Larsen

Kind regards

Peter Larsen