More Thoughts from the Designer
Clean versus colored - Active versus Passive - Tape versus Digital - well it all gets a bit tiresome. Here is the real deal: they are all a bit colored and for the most part remarkably clean. So if anything we are basing our preferences on which flavor of subtle color we either happen to like, or believe we need (based on something we read somewhere) which may be just a slightly familiar sound rather than some magnificient life changing event. No magic, just good tools. The music is the magic.
Does Digital require some analog warmth, some color to make a great recording? Not necessarily. For example some recordings call for "as clean as possible" and even some instruments within an otherwise grungy mix may sound best or provide a wonderful contrast when made as clean as possible. And while this designer doesn't claim that today's hi end digital is absolutely clean and transparerent or clinical and sterile, adding more and more stages of processing whether analog or digital will mostly tend to make it less transparent, less true to the source. Choose wisely.
Will some analog processor fix digital's flaws? This designer hears digital's flaws as a subtle form of time smear. Much analog on the other hand can be characterized as having various forms of harmonic and intermodulation distortion, plus often some time smear caused by phase shifts which are practically inevitable given the normal frequency responses of audio gear. One form of distortion doesn't cancel out the other and adding more time smear should make things worse. However, there are some families of distortion that may be euphonic and either add to the effect of 3D depth, some distortions give an effect of fatness or warmth (transformers), and some distortions that seem to evoke vintage tone like a familiar smell. So 'as clean as possible' is appropriate for some situations and somewhat controlled dirt is appropriate for others. Beware of getting the
There are many situations where one might want a processor (or preamplifier) that doesn't leave its thumbprint on the sound. Typically mastering is one place for a transparent EQ, especially when the mix is already pretty damn fine. Other situations, of course include, most classical and live ensemble or choir recordings, a lot of acoustic recordings, folk, country, jazz, choir, classical, etc. While the MiniMassive does have very transparent gain stages, and the EQ sections are passive so they have less artifacts at low to modereate settings than most
With the MiniMassive, expect a generally clean and natural sound with conservative to moderate settings. However, it will gradually introduce a signature color at more drastic settings. With the transformer option, one can introduce some vintage color and subtle warmth. The downside with iron, and there is always a downside, is some subtle time smear that might be noticed with sounds that have lots of energy (and tightness) at the edges of the spectrum. Worth a check on big solid mixes or kick drum tracks or high hat tracks. Drastic EQ settings (from any EQ) can
And for those who have need for more color and more of that elusive vintage vibe, we designed another EQ to do that function. It is called the Massive Passive, and it is a vacuum tube based unit originally designed to be an alternative to the typical mostly boring EQs available then. Ya know?
