#1
So:

I just bought a scarlett 18i8, and i've been the last 5 hours A/B in every way with my other interface Tascam-US800.

I'm very very confused. The thing is this:

I'm A/B connecting my guitar (Fender Strat america) straight into the preamp of each interface then doing direct monitoring thru each interface. Then each interface has output one of my monitors (right monitor->scarlett Left monitor --> tascam 800)


In this configuration Scarlett preamps sounds are a lot more "warm", but i feel that it lacks a lot on definition in the upperrange. Even "muddy"

Tascam sounds a lot better in my ears for the defintion of clean DI guitar.


To show the difference, i have made a loop in my M13 and recorded exactly the SAME and trying to match the levels of each preamp.

The WEIRD stuff, is that after recording thru DAW i'm not able to tel the difference after... o.0.

so my question is: I'm getting crazy or this is possible? I mean, when i listened and change in the moment, it's crazy different. But after recording i can't tell.

Here's the audio test, if someone can see any difference
https://soundcloud.com/franciscofuenzalida/test-focusrite-vs-tascam
Since 2002 using UG. This page teached me how to play guitar and help'd me to embrace the passion of my life: Music.
Last edited by tiky at Jun 7, 2014,
#2
If your asking if different preamps can have different colours of tone, of course. That's the reason why many people buy external preamps like Great Rivers, neves, etc. or use mixing consoles...the colour they give to the sound is often very musical producing different kinds of tones. Though, the effect can be subtle especially if your ad/da conversion isn't good first (correct me if I'm wrong on this)
#3
I heard from lots of producers that even though different preamps have different colours, the difference is almost unnoticeable and as long as you have a good preamp (which is everywhere now a days, including in audio interfaces) it doesn't really matter which one you use.
#4
I read again my thread, and it's not very well written (sorry my english)

What i wanted to ask is
1: What is considered a "better" preamp in the industry?

2: I can notice the difference when i'm in direct monitoring but not when recorded. Is then what i listen in direct monitoring it's not exactly the same tone of what it's recorded??

3: As I've been 2 years using the same preamps, i'm going to have to adjust all my presets for new recordings? Answering myself. YES. Pain in the ass (if i manage to tell the diference :P)

Other stuff: I can notice also in the focusrite when micing things, i need to get almost full on input gain to get decent volume. this is specially true when singing into my new sm57. I get a bit more latency too, but it's not a pain in he ass (6-8 ms vs 4,5-5,5 in tascam).

Today i'm feeling happier with my adquisition hah


Edit: what's the difference between line and instument setting for the preamps? It's just more volume or there is a difference in the preamp?
Since 2002 using UG. This page teached me how to play guitar and help'd me to embrace the passion of my life: Music.
Last edited by tiky at Jun 7, 2014,
#5
Quote by tiky
Here's the audio test, if someone can see any difference
https://soundcloud.com/franciscofuenzalida/test-focusrite-vs-tascam
The second one I feel a pinch brighter, but I had to listen to the stuff five or six times to get that.

If the difference is bigger playing live, my first thought's that you are using direct monitoring with one interface and software monitoring with the other, so check if that's the case.
Quote by Aranglol
If your asking if different preamps can have different colours of tone, of course. That's the reason why many people buy external preamps like Great Rivers, neves, etc. or use mixing consoles...the colour they give to the sound is often very musical producing different kinds of tones.
Yeah that's correct.

Well people buy consoles for other reasons too, but one is that they make mixes sound better than ITB mixing because of the unreasonably expensive processors and the analog summing and the transformers and so on.
Quote by Aranglol
Though, the effect can be subtle especially if your ad/da conversion isn't good first (correct me if I'm wrong on this)
The effect can be subtle, yeah, but I could tell a 1073 from a scarlett pre after being exposed to a close range grenade explosion...

Also, when A/Bing them, the pre's in my 20 or so year old mackie mixer slayed the scarlett's under every aspect, so even though the effect CAN be subtle, the effect can also be hella evident, even without spending $2000 for a standalone pre.
Quote by mp8andrade
I heard from lots of producers that even though different preamps have different colours, the difference is almost unnoticeable
Well it's time to find new producers to listen to.
Good pre's can indeed sound fairly different from other good pre's.
Quote by mp8andrade
and as long as you have a good preamp (which is everywhere now a days, including in audio interfaces) it doesn't really matter which one you use.
I respectfully (strongly) disagree - have you ever heard any behringer product?
Have you ever heard a fast track interface?
Have you ever heard a focusrite scarlett?

Good pre's are a hell of another thing.
And I'm not even talking about $2000 per unit stuff, even a GAP pre73 would bury any pre in an audio interface costing three times the money.
The only exceptions I can think of are the apogee's and the RME's.

EDIT: damn I got ninja'd
well let's continue then...
Quote by tiky
What i wanted to ask is
1: What is considered a "better" preamp in the industry?
It's a matter of preference, as with the rest of the stuff in this industry, and also since every pre has its own character, you may well like this pre on this source but not on that other one.

The NEVE 1073 is among the most popular if not the most popular though.
Quote by tiky
2: I can notice the difference when i'm in direct monitoring but not when recorded. Is then what i listen in direct monitoring it's not exactly the same tone of what it's recorded??
Hey this I answered!
Read above.
Quote by tiky
Other stuff: I can notice also in the focusrite when micing things, i need to get almost full on input gain to get decent volume. this is specially true when singing into my new sm57.
Dynamic mics don't have that high of an output and the scarlett pre's aren't stellar.
It's not like it's not a common thing though.

EDIT 2: fuuuuck stop it already
Quote by tiky
Edit: what's the difference between line and instument setting for the preamps? It's just more volume or there is a difference in the preamp?
Input impedance.
Wikipedia has a really nice article on the matter, you may wanna read it.

In short, passive transducers used in this field (p/ups, passive mic capsules...) have a very high output impedance, between 40kOhm and 1MOhm generally for guitar pickups for example, and sending such a signal into a low impedance input results in a not really that loud signal coming out of the pre.

Line level is around 10kOhm, and plugging a line out into an inst in may result in overdriving the pre, so you might not wanna do that.
I mean, try it, you'll not harm anything or anyone, though you may overload a pre.

So, the volume difference is a consequence of the input impedance change.
There's a change in gain because they make interfaces that way, but you can compensate for that by turning the input gain knob, so the real difference lies in impedance.
Name's Luca.

Quote by OliOsbourne
I don't know anything about this topic, but I just clicked on this thread because of your username :O
Quote by Cajundaddy
Clue: amplifiers amplify so don't turn it on if you need quiet.
Quote by chrismendiola
I guess spambots are now capable of reading minds.
Last edited by Spambot_2 at Jun 7, 2014,
#6
Quote by Spambot_2


If the difference is bigger playing live, my first thought's that you are using direct monitoring with one interface and software monitoring with the other, so check if that's the case.


It's not the case, I even turn off interfaces to not get confused, etc. Still it sounds fairly different live than recorded. weird stuff.


Quote by Spambot_2

EDIT: damn I got ninja'd
well let's continue then...

Dynamic mics don't have that high of an output and the scarlett pre's aren't stellar.


Yes, i can notice that. I'ts very amazing to A/B for the first time with more knowledge two interfaces. I think I like more the Tascam, but going to keep the focusrite for a while and sell the tascam because the problems with win 7. But i feel this interface will last less than a year if i keep the money coming in the pocket


EDIT 2: fuuuuck stop it already 
Input impedance.
Wikipedia has a really nice article on the matter, you may wanna read it.

In short, passive transducers used in this field (p/ups, passive mic capsules...) have a very high output impedance, between 40kOhm and 1MOhm generally for guitar pickups for example, and sending such a signal into a low impedance input results in a not really that loud signal coming out of the pre.



thank you very much for all the explanation.


So next weekend i'm gonna ask my friend to bring to my studio his RME Fireface UC and do more A/B lol!
Since 2002 using UG. This page teached me how to play guitar and help'd me to embrace the passion of my life: Music.
#7
A post I made fairly recently in another thread speaks to this almost directly. What I'll start with is a Behringer pre (and all the other budget ones... Makie, lower-end Focusrite, M-audio, etc.) are all very usable.

Moving up a notch, you will find a fair bit more clarity. Your mixes will come together in a fraction of the time because you're not fighting with parts to make them work.

A higher-end pre will be either surgically accurate and clear, or will have a certain character - a warmth, or a fullness or whatever.

Here is what I posted doing a shoot-out between a budget pre (Behringer), a preamp on an almost $1000 interface (8 channels = about $100/channel), and a higher end "character" preamp (Universal Audio). Note the link that takes you to an audio file.


Okay.... took me a bit longer to get to this. I must say that I'm very, very happy with it.

I did a bit of a head-to-head between my entry-level Behringer pres in my ADA8000, the well-respected pres in my Steinberg MR816, and then the UA-710.

I sang "The Old Apartment" four different times, as closely as I possibly could to keep the test fair. I tried to keep the gain staging as close as possible, etc. I used the same mic (Rode K2).

Here is the clip if you want to follow along. It's about 35 seconds and 6 megs. It's a 16/44.1 wav file.

http://www.greenroomrecording.now-here-this.com/preampshootout.wav

1. Behringer ADA8000
2. Steinberg MR816
3. UA-710 in full tube mode.
4. UA-710 in 50/50 blend between tube and transistor.

I balanced all four takes (about 8 seconds each) so that they all peaked at exactly the same level. (though with the way the UA-710 tube added some natural analog compression, the perceived loudness is greater on the UA-710 tracks). I added no processing of any kind - no EQ, nothing.

The Behringer sounds very usable. Forward sounding and pretty detailed, if not a bit anemic. I was surprised at how well it sort of stood up against my MR816.

The MR816 was cleaner and more detailed than the Behringer, and significantly less anemic. It is the clear winner between the first two, but not exactly "day and night." In practice, though, I find that I can mix with the MR816 recorded tracks in about a quarter of the time. It takes a LOT less fighting with the tracks to get them to fit together in a mix.

The UA-710 really blows both of them away. By comparison, it sounds much fatter and warmer. Turning the knob to the middle between the transistor and the tube brought the sound a bit more forward and added some more detail and gave the track a little more dynamic range. It's easy to see how this can be a applied effectively to a variety of sound sources.

You won't hear the full transistor sound of the UA-710, but it essentially continued the forwardness and detail of the third and fourth sections. It brought it much closer to the MR816, but still better... but not that much different and not that much better. But bigger.


CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#8
Quote by axemanchris
A post I made fairly recently in another thread speaks to this almost directly. What I'll start with is a Behringer pre (and all the other budget ones... Makie, lower-end Focusrite, M-audio, etc.) are all very usable.
Well one thing is usable, one thing is good sounding.

Also, most importantly, you put behringer and mackie and low end focusrite and m audio pre's in the same category.
They are hella different you know.

M audio's in the fast tracks suck less than all of the behringer's I've tried, though the converters in there are horrible so the difference isn't that much unless you're using other converters.
Scarlett pre's are noticeably better, but no more than noticeably.
20 year old mackie pre's on the other hand slay the focusrite's under every aspect.
More clear, more bass, bit more color...

So, yeah, they're all usable to the extent that if you need a pre and the other option is not using a pre, but I wouldn't go as far as saying behringer pre's are any better.
Name's Luca.

Quote by OliOsbourne
I don't know anything about this topic, but I just clicked on this thread because of your username :O
Quote by Cajundaddy
Clue: amplifiers amplify so don't turn it on if you need quiet.
Quote by chrismendiola
I guess spambots are now capable of reading minds.
#9
Quote by axemanchris


are all very usable.

CT


Yes, indeed. I heard your audio, and there is a lot of difference, but all very "usable".

I still not that happy with the power of the pre of focusrite. specially when today was recording some guitars, but i will get use to it.

Not going to focus more on that, and more on mixing (mixing kick+bass is my aquiles heel)
Since 2002 using UG. This page teached me how to play guitar and help'd me to embrace the passion of my life: Music.
#10
Quote by Spambot_2
Well one thing is usable, one thing is good sounding.

Also, most importantly, you put behringer and mackie and low end focusrite and m audio pre's in the same category.
They are hella different you know.

M audio's in the fast tracks suck less than all of the behringer's I've tried, though the converters in there are horrible so the difference isn't that much unless you're using other converters.
Scarlett pre's are noticeably better, but no more than noticeably.


You can hear the Behringer in my clip. It's the first one. I really don't think it sounds that bad. YMMV.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the pres in the Steinberg interface are better than those in the mackie, focusrite, m-audio stuff. That's based more on the reviews (both official reviews and forum posts on gear pages, etc.) of the MR816 and my experience with it compared to the Behringer pres than it is based on my limited direct experience with the other products.

Given that the difference between the Behringer and the MR816 is significant, but not huge, I'd have a hard time believing that any of the other brands would be all that "hella different."

Quote by Spambot_2

20 year old mackie pre's on the other hand slay the focusrite's under every aspect.
More clear, more bass, bit more color...


eh... maybe. But even those fall into the $50-ish/channel price bracket. I'd be surprised if they were *that* much different than any of the others. That's just me hypothesizing based on reason, though. I've not used a 20-year-old Mackie mixer.


Quote by Spambot_2

So, yeah, they're all usable to the extent that if you need a pre and the other option is not using a pre, but I wouldn't go as far as saying behringer pre's are any better.


No, the Behringers are probably not any better. Just probably not measurably less usable than any of the others in the list. They are not deserving of the "behringer-as-audio-antichrist" crap that gets thrown around the interwebs. Most of it is entirely unsubstantiated.

As I say.... the first horse out of the gate in the clip I posted is the Behringer pre amp in the ADA8000. It's really not bad. It's just a noticeable step down from a preamp that clocks in at about $100/channel, and a significant step down from a preamp that clocks in closer to $1000/channel. But at that price (with the Behringer clocking in somewhere around $40 channel), the difference damned well should be significant.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
Last edited by axemanchris at Jun 8, 2014,
#11
Quote by tiky

I still not that happy with the power of the pre of focusrite. specially when today was recording some guitars, but i will get use to it.


I'm a little bothered by your choice of the word "power." What mic are you connecting to it? Is it a matter of power, or that you're just not thrilled with the sound?

It might not be the preamp as much as it could be any number of other factors. (what mic, where you're putting it, the acoustic environment of the room, etc.)

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#12
Quote by axemanchris
I'm a little bothered by your choice of the word "power." What mic are you connecting to it? Is it a matter of power, or that you're just not thrilled with the sound?

It might not be the preamp as much as it could be any number of other factors. (what mic, where you're putting it, the acoustic environment of the room, etc.)

CT


I mean that i have to put the gain knob almost full to get decent level out for example a SM57 or an AT2020 condenser (not the hottest mic afaik). I'm always comparing to my other interface.

For example, right now i'm testing the AT2020 and the gain knob is kinda 95% up.

when it gets 1-2% the white noise appears from the interface, 1 mm more and it clips.

I can get the same levels at 70% on tascam.

Is it clear what i mean by "power"??
Since 2002 using UG. This page teached me how to play guitar and help'd me to embrace the passion of my life: Music.
#13
^ Hmm... yeah, sure is.

I'm assuming you're not trying to record the footsteps of a housefly.

A quick google suggests that there *should* be plenty of gain.

You DO have the phantom power on for the AT2020?

At that point, otherwise, I'd start to wonder if it's faulty.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#14
I've recorded with an AT3020 with a Saffire 6 and not had that problem. If anything the pre's are too hot in many cases.
All I want is for everyone to go to hell...
...It's the last place I was seen before I lost myself



Quote by DisarmGoliath
You can be the deputy llamma of the recordings forum!
#15
Quote by axemanchris
^ Hmm... yeah, sure is.

I'm assuming you're not trying to record the footsteps of a housefly.

A quick google suggests that there *should* be plenty of gain.

You DO have the phantom power on for the AT2020?

At that point, otherwise, I'd start to wonder if it's faulty.

CT


I almost feel upset by someone asking if i got the phantom power on.... of course it's on been doing this for years.


what i migh't be wrong is i use normally to record my guitars and my singing with peaks around -2, -3db and then i lower the volumes A LOT to mix.
I'm not sure this i the proper way of doing it, just the way i like and it had been useful to me. I like to see the green light always flashing, but never hitting red of course.
Since 2002 using UG. This page teached me how to play guitar and help'd me to embrace the passion of my life: Music.
Last edited by tiky at Jun 9, 2014,
#16
Quote by tiky
I almost feel upset by someone asking if i got the phantom power on.... of course it's on been doing this for years.
Come on, everyone can make stupid mistakes, don't take it personal.
Who knows how many times the thing have been suggested and how many times the thing suggestion to check actually right
Quote by tiky
what i migh't be wrong is i use normally to record my guitars and my singing with peaks around -2, -3db and then i lower the volumes A LOT to mix.
I'm not sure this i the proper way of doing it, just the way i like and it had been useful to me. I like to see the green light always flashing, but never hitting red of course.
If you're not sacrificing dynamics because of it, it's the proper way of doing it.
They invented faders for reasons y' know, it's good using them.

The best way of doing the thing would consist in achieving the best performance possible, then raising the pre gain as much as possible without overloading it, so if you're achieving the best performance possible you're doing it right.
Name's Luca.

Quote by OliOsbourne
I don't know anything about this topic, but I just clicked on this thread because of your username :O
Quote by Cajundaddy
Clue: amplifiers amplify so don't turn it on if you need quiet.
Quote by chrismendiola
I guess spambots are now capable of reading minds.
#17
Quote by tiky
I almost feel upset by someone asking if i got the phantom power on.... of course it's on been doing this for years.


Yeah, no matter how long you're at it, you'll find yourself wondering what the hell is going on and then realize.... oh....

Not long ago, I was trying to figure out why what I was recording just with a room mic was sounding like total ass. Problem: somehow selected wrong input and was recording with the mic on my webcam. How the F*** did that happen? No idea.

However, not having phantom power on would probably result in a user cranking the bejeezus out of their preamp and wondering why they can still barely hear it.

Quote by tiky

what i migh't be wrong is i use normally to record my guitars and my singing with peaks around -2, -3db and then i lower the volumes A LOT to mix.
I'm not sure this i the proper way of doing it, just the way i like and it had been useful to me. I like to see the green light always flashing, but never hitting red of course.


That's fine, if not a bit hot. As a general rule, most audio equipment is designed to run optimally (that is most cleanly) with levels around -12db on your meters. There's a reasonable, if not complicated explanation for that if you're interested. When you track with levels peaking upwards to -2db, you are actually driving the gain staging of all your gear, etc. well past their optimum range and, as a result, probably introducing subtle distortion, etc. into the path.

In short, if you think of an analogue VU meter. The point where it reads 0db is going to be about -12db on your digital meters. Depending on how they are calibrated, it could be as low as -20db. If you are hitting 0db on your digital meters, that analog meter is being basically pinned at the end of the scale. If you're hitting -2db on your digital meter, that analog meter is running well into the red just shy of the pin. That's not where you want it.

Note: peaking at 2db is fine. When I'm talking about -12db, this is the bulk of your program material. That gives you 12db of headroom. If you hit up to -2db from time to time, that's fine. You just don't want your meters living there.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
Last edited by axemanchris at Jun 9, 2014,
#18
I'm sorry for reviving this thread, but after working a lot with the Scarlett, I still felt the preamp was very bass based against Tascam. I had to tweak all my presets for less bass and more high frequencies.

Today i decided to do a new test. And this time I DID recorded right (I don't know what i did wrong last time, probably i recorded twice the same interface :facepalm)

https://soundcloud.com/franciscofuenzalida/scarlett-vs-tascam

Here it's an A/B of Scarlett VS Tascam 800.

I like a LOT MORE the sound of tascam, the sound is more "defined" "crispier", "brighter" more nitid that the Scarlett. Imagine this the same with mics, bass, etc.

I'm going crazy here, or definitely the preamps of tascam are quite better? (also tascam has more "power")

I can do more A/B singing, etc if required. But i'm pretty intrigued here
Since 2002 using UG. This page teached me how to play guitar and help'd me to embrace the passion of my life: Music.
#19
Quote by tiky
I like a LOT MORE the sound of tascam, the sound is more "defined" "crispier", "brighter" more nitid that the Scarlett. Imagine this the same with mics, bass, etc.

I'm going crazy here, or definitely the preamps of tascam are quite better? (also tascam has more "power")
The tascam pre's are brighter and less muffled, but I don't find it lacking in much low end compared to the scarlett's, I agree with you on that indeed.

Thing is, you're confusing brighter with better.
The scarlett's aren't necessarily worse than the tascam's because they are darker, you may as well prefer the scarlett's if you were using a C414 XLII.
Dynamic mics though aren't famous for their bright sound - quite the opposite, so while you might prefer the tascam for some applications, you may not like it as much as the scarlett if you were tracking a tele bridge pickup or a fairly bright condenser mic.

I also reckon the power you're talking about here is the input gain.
Quote by tiky
I can do more A/B singing, etc if required. But i'm pretty intrigued here
Well first of all think about what I wrote before.
That's strict theory, and I agree with you the clip you posted sound better when it was the tascam's turn, and I don't think the scarlett series sounds much good in general, so you might wanna consider getting a better audio interface y' know.

I'm not sure why you're intrigued at this point:
you ran a test, you decided for yourself what you liked better and now you're on the verge of believing you did something wrong because people say nice stuff about the scarletts, instead of trusting your ears.

I'd sell the thing and I'd sell the tascam in favor of something really good sounding.
Can you manage to get an RME fireface 400?
Can you manage to get an apogee ensemble?
Can you manage to get a mackie onyx blackbird or two?
Can you manage to get a focusrite liquid saffire 56?
Can you manage to get a roland octa capture?
Can you manage to get a focusrite saffire pro 40?

Or, if you don't need them much channels,
can you manage to get an apogee duet duo?
Can you manage to get an apollo twin?
Can you manage to get an SPL crimson?

Look for used stuff.
Name's Luca.

Quote by OliOsbourne
I don't know anything about this topic, but I just clicked on this thread because of your username :O
Quote by Cajundaddy
Clue: amplifiers amplify so don't turn it on if you need quiet.
Quote by chrismendiola
I guess spambots are now capable of reading minds.
#20
Maybe the sound difference you hear comes from the different monitors placement.
I mean, maybe the left sounds different than the right because it is placed differently relative to you and to your room, And after you play it in mono in the DAW it sounds the same because the preamps actually sound very similar.
Just an option...
#21
Quote by ThoriumEx
Maybe the sound difference you hear comes from the different monitors placement.
I mean, maybe the left sounds different than the right because it is placed differently relative to you and to your room, And after you play it in mono in the DAW it sounds the same because the preamps actually sound very similar.
Just an option...
^ are you referring to the last pre's comparison?
'cause if you are, you should listen to that more closely.
Name's Luca.

Quote by OliOsbourne
I don't know anything about this topic, but I just clicked on this thread because of your username :O
Quote by Cajundaddy
Clue: amplifiers amplify so don't turn it on if you need quiet.
Quote by chrismendiola
I guess spambots are now capable of reading minds.
#22
Quote by Spambot_2
^ are you referring to the last pre's comparison?
'cause if you are, you should listen to that more closely.

Im talking about the main thread post.
Also, i didn't listen to the audio clip.
#23
Quote by Spambot_2
The tascam pre's are brighter and less muffled, but I don't find it lacking in much low end compared to the scarlett's, I agree with you on that indeed.



thank you for your long and full response Spambot! Been pretty busy with Job + World Cup, it's almost impossible to focus on music stuff related!

I can manage to get all those interfaces (money not that "big" problem), the problem is I don't have any family travelling to USA soon. Here is everything more expensive. (But eliminating Spain from the WC is priceless)

I'm gonna keep using the focusrite for a while, if i get sick of it. Sell it and buy another stuff. I'm of course atm pretty dissapointed and sure the scarlett is a worse interface at least for my taste. I'm also impressed how much the sounds changes with preamps, been pretty fun to do all this A/B and reasoning behind the sound. I think i've learnt a lot! Specially my ears.

The only thing i've to "try" is how my guitar sounds clean DI on my friends RME Fireface UC. Maybe that will blow my mind again and have to save for 1500 USD ;P

So I think to finish this thread (for now). Trust you ears more than the (pay) reviews over internet
Since 2002 using UG. This page teached me how to play guitar and help'd me to embrace the passion of my life: Music.