Focusrite Liquid Channel Worthwhile Investment?

[Bandido]

hi
i am looking at buying a recording channel for my (hobby) home studio.
my budget is between $1000 and $2000 australian.
2 options have caught my attention so far, the liquid channel and a golden age recording chain (already have a pre73, so thinking of adding the comp54 and eq)

the liquid channel appeals for its apparent versatility, quality and having it all in one box, though im not sure how it stacks up against other similar options available today (all the reviews etc are over ten years old)

so my questions are
- has this box stood up to be counted over time or has it been relugated to the bench of wannabe's?
- what other options are to be considered?

so you know, i already have a liquid mix 32 (i like it, sounds good to me)
and ive improved my listening enviroment measurably and gotten decent monitors (i now hear more subtle adjustments that i make)
i found a liquid channel (new) and can grab it for $1400 aus - Still WORTH IT?

Thanks for reading
would really appreciate your input
cheers
Warren

[Mixedup]

I see the LCs go for £8-900 GBP over here fairly often. Not sure what the market's like in Oz. But I reckon that's good value, because it's a really nice, clean sounding mic preamp.

BUT... you already have the LM32, so if you like your Pre73 I would recommend adding a Comp 54. Check that you have the right version of the Pre73 before getting the EQ: it can't be used standalone, and you have to have the version of the Pre73 with the insert point (the first ones didn't have that). I have two channels of that chain and it's really nice. I'm not fond of the pointy-cornered metalwork, but sonically these things are great.

Alternatively, maybe consider looking at the new Warm Audio 1176-alike which is just about to start shipping. Not heard it yet, but it looks to be a pretty authentic 1176 Rev D clone. And an 1176 is soooo versatile and easy to use...

Also, the Lindell 500 series stuff is well worth considering. You'll nearly at the budget that will get you a six-slot rack plus a mic pre, EQ and compressor. And that's a fine recording chain, which will allow you to add more modules as and when you need them.

On the other hand... do you *need* EQ and compression for tracking duties? If not, then you already have a decent preamp and you could focus on decent software for mixing... eg UAD, Slate, Fabfilter or some such. I realise software can feel like money down the drain, given the lack of resale value, but if it suits your way of working it's worth it.

[Bandido]

Thx for taking the time to reply mixedup.
After spending a fair wack on treating my room and monitoring I felt I could indulge and buy a new recording channel (or extend on my pre73) and appreciate the different subtleties on offer, I think that's why the LC appeals, because of all the various pre's and comp's on offer.
Truth be told, sometimes I have more money than sense (and I don't have a lot of money..lol)

Thx for pointing out that the GA EQ doesn't work standalone, I didn't know that, why would that be?
I have the first pre73 so no go there.

Which of the pre73's are you using and would it be worth upgrading?
Do the mk2 and Dlx have better specs like signal to noise ratios or just more features?
Have you modded them with the carnhill transformers?
Thx again, good food for thought, maybe the comp54 and a nice new Mic to add to my setup.

Any suggestions on mic's with a GA chain?
I have a rode nt1-a, sm57, se2200a and a couple of sennheiser's.
My voice is fairly deep but not particularly strong (not a lot of projection)
When it comes to singers Dean Martin was the man for me (wonder what he sang through to enhance and bring out his tone)

Warren

[dickiefunk]

I've owned both the Liquid Channel and PRE73. The Liquid Channel is indeed a very high quality capable piece of equipment. However for me I found myself using it on the default clean preamp setting and didn't use any of the emulations. There was a very subtle difference between the preamp emulations but certainly not enough to justify owning it. I could hear noticeably more difference between something like the Audient Mico and WARM Audio WA12.
The Liquid Channel does have a high quality preamp and compressor but to be honest, I found my Audient Mico preamp to be at least on par with the quality of the Liquid Channel. I wasn't a fan of the PRE73.
I prefer not to use EQ and compression whilst tracking as converters and plugins are so good these days and like to be able to make decisions on these during mix down.

My general way of working is to have one high quality preamp and a few different sounding mics. I then aim to try an get as close to the sound I want by matching the right mic to the source and experiment with positioning.

[Mixedup]

Thx for taking the time to reply mixedup.

No worries.

After spending a fair wack on treating my room and monitoring I felt I could indulge and buy a new recording channel (or extend on my pre73) and appreciate the different subtleties on offer, I think that's why the LC appeals, because of all the various pre's and comp's on offer.
Truth be told, sometimes I have more money than sense (and I don't have a lot of money..lol)

Hehe. Happens to us all. Unless you're using the stuff for mix processing, I tend to find that there's better bang for buck spending this sort of cash on a few different mics. But there's something nice about real analogue gear with knobs and all that...

Thx for pointing out that the GA EQ doesn't work standalone, I didn't know that, why would that be?
I have the first pre73 so no go there.

Because it's a clone of the Neve, albeit with cheaper parts. And that's how the Neve was designed. The idea is really that you couple it with the newer Pre73 DLX with the filters on it to create a full pre+EQ.

Which of the pre73's are you using and would it be worth upgrading?
Do the mk2 and Dlx have better specs like signal to noise ratios or just more features?
Have you modded them with the carnhill transformers?

I have three here - one original Pre73, two DLXs, one with Carnhil and one without. It's mainly about features - the filters, the insert point etc. Didn't think the Carnhill upgrade was worth it. Sounds subtly different, but I wouldn't call it better. May be closer to the Neve thing, but I don't buy all that authenticity ****. If it sounds decent, then it's fine.

Thx again, good food for thought, maybe the comp54 and a nice new Mic to add to my setup. Any suggestions on mic's with a GA chain? I have a rode nt1-a, sm57, se2200a and a couple of sennheiser's.
My voice is fairly deep but not particularly strong (not a lot of projection)
When it comes to singers Dean Martin was the man for me (wonder what he sang through to enhance and bring out his tone)

If you already like the Pre 73 then you should like the Comp 54. Whether you need an EQ or not isn't for me to say. If I know I'm going to be compressing in the mix, I'll track with a little bit, just to make the job easier at mixdown. But I know that's not everyone's thing.

Mics? Well... it all depends on what those Sennheisers are - they make some nice very mics that are wildly different from each other! But as a complement to what you have, I'd be thinking about a nicer dynamic than the 57 (an SM7 or an RE20 maybe, or a wildcard would be a Beyerdynamic M201), a ribbon mic of some sort - maybe a modern active one so gain isn't going to be an issue (on the budget end of things, one of the Golden Age ones did really well in the SOS shootout; maybe the Sontronics Sigma for a really dark sort of flavour...or save your pennies for something nicer) and/or a tube mic of some sort: maybe the Rode ones are decent value in Oz? I have the Classic Mk1 and it's really nice. I used to have the NTK a few years back and quite liked that too. MXL do some decent value tubes, as do SE. Just don't go for the cheapest ones - you can get better value getting a different type of mic I'm rambling now... why not just play with what you have and figure out what it is you don't like about it... that makes it a hell of a lot easier to advise on gear!

[The Elf]

I have a pair of Liquid Channels and I consider that they represent an excellent investment. I was wary of the claims, but what I wanted were clean pre's with options, regardless of accuracy.

By far the best thing about them is the ability to record 'clean' (i.e. without a pre emulation selected), then go back out to the LC (i.e. not having to go through any more A/D/A conversion) in a digital loops afterwards and try a few out.

When I've had the chance to try my LCs against some of the emulated pre's I can see what the LC emulation is doing and the accuracy is more than good enough to my ears. TBH I don't care how close is matches 'pre X', but I do care that I get a little character into my recordings when I need it. Most of all I love the compression emulations that give me all kinds of options without the expense and analogue noise of the originals!

My LCs work very well for me and I simply wouldn't want to be without them. Nuff said.

[Studio Support Gnome]

Liquid Channel is worth it just for the sake of it's own mic pre , never mind the emulations….

add them on and it's bit of a no brainer….

[Jack Ruston]

Definitely, definitely NOT.

I have nothing against the sound of the Liquid Channel per se, but I PROMISE you, you will not make a better record with that over your GAP73. Tiny bit different maybe, but it's not going to make your music or your voice better. The pre you have is a quality product. It's affordable but it isn't junk. Furthermore, the digital side of the LC will be superseded...LC2 will arrive, a plug in version (we've already got that really with nebula etc) and you won't be able to give it away. It will still be good, but it'll be worth nothing, because that's just what happens with old digital gear. I bought a bit of digital gear today, in the knowledge that it will be worthless in a few short years. SO, if it won't hold its value, and it won't help you to achieve a better result, I would say that the answer to your question 'Is it a worthwhile investment' would have to be, for me at any rate, no.

J

[Studio Support Gnome]

Jack, the actual physical Mic pre in the liquid channel is stunningly good in it's own right….

as a clean, neutral, tell no lies, mic pre….. no larger than lifeness , no fuzzy warmth…. just honest clean detailed truthful… much like the green was, and to an extent , the audient can be…. (though less so… very nice though they are)

the additional hardware based bits , make it able to add a range of alternative colour options, , in addition to the digital tomfoolery…

but just as a Mic pre, ignoring all the rest of it.. …. it's really very good indeed.

and given it's analogue outputs, will not be out dated….. or become defunct due to digital standard changes etc….

(like the LC , the green was commonly run down by GS types, because it did nothing to the sound, other than make it louder…. it had basically a flat response up past 300k…… giving it quite awesome transient response abilities, with all that this implies….. )

one quality piece of gear being more flexible, as well as being good….. i reckon is more worth having than a one trick pony that does an ok job for a price.

[Jack Ruston]

Mate I'm not are arguing with the quality of the LC. I'm not saying for an instance that it's not good. I agree that it will still be useful after the digital side has been rendered obsolete. But I still maintain that you won't be able to give them away at that point. It's just the way people are. Besides if you want a very high quality clean mic amp there are cheaper options. It's not a good financial investment.It's different for someone who is making money out of the thing every day. And I also maintain that it's not going to make a better record in this context.I absolutely disagree with this whole 'mic amps are all the same' thing, but in this context,where the op has a weaker voice and is looking for a little colour that pre 73 is a decent choice.I'm sure there are better investments that could be made in either sonics,or financially speaking.

J

[dickiefunk]

I've not found the Audient pres to be inferior to the Liquid Channel pre. I'm not saying the Liquid Channel's pre isn't great because it is but the Audient Mico from my experience is certainly on a par with the Liquid Channel pre.

[The Elf]

I know what Jack is saying, and I agree with him up to a point.

I consider my LCs an investment *in myself*, not as a financial 'investment'. They let me make money doing my job and they've paid for themselves many times over.

But they will neither transform someone's recordings, nor intrinsically increase in value with age. Pretty much the same is true of most pre's though, so I wouldn't pick this out as being a specific weakness of the LC. I doubt anyone will make money on a Pre73!

The LC is very special in my book, so who knows? Maybe one day people will realise their worth and they'll command a premium price - there doesn't seem to be any sign of a LC2 coming along!

Either way if you're looking at pure financial investment I'd say that studio gear is not the way to do it.

[Jack Ruston]

Absolutely. I think we basically making the same points. The thing is that some affordable pres are so competent that it gets hard to argue that you should choose some of the more expensive ones unless they're going to add value in other ways. When I started out, I spent money on expensive mic pres and outboard in order to achieve better results. But truth be known they didn't make the difference I believed they would. What REALLY made the difference gear wise, was things like microphones and instruments, certain compressors etc. I still get value out of those things on a daily basis. Some items provide a lot of function vs their cost eg a UAD card or a computer. Yes, those things are going to lose a lot of value over time, but they make a big difference to the result in many cases. Another useful investment, which I wish I had made early on, is in people. Hire a great mixer or engineer to work with you for a day and absorb some of their advice.

J

[dickiefunk]

Yes I totally agree Jack. I bought my Mico for £199 secondhand and think that is a very worthwhile investment. The Liquid Channel cost me £700 secondhand and I only ended up using it for the default clean preamp. This didn't make sense for my situation as I bought 2 channels of comparable quality pres for £199. I ended up losing money on the re-sale of the Liquid channel.

[The Elf]

The Liquid Channel cost me £700 secondhand and I only ended up using it for the default clean preamp.

To be fair that's not a failing of the LC.

I ended up losing money on the re-sale of the Liquid channel.

I constantly see LCs change hands for more than 700 quid, so you got a good deal and should have made a profit.

[RKS]

Personally, I'd be more tempted to get a clean and honest sounding pre-amp which could then have characteristics of vintage gear applied then commit to the preamp emulations and find that I didn't quite like what I did and end up bypassing the Liquid stuff.

I own the Liquid Mix also and find it very good and capable, but I could never really justify the Liquid Channel in the same way.

[The Elf]

Personally, I'd be more tempted to get a clean and honest sounding pre-amp which could then have characteristics of vintage gear applied then commit to the preamp emulations and find that I didn't quite like what I did

And that is precisely why I like the Liquid Channel - not having to commit to a pre while concentrating on tracking/performance.

It is a very clean pre, through which you can track cleanly (i.e. not choose a pre), then simply nip out/in via SPDIF *after* recording to try a few different pre emulations.

This ability really is a massive advantage of the LC!

[Bandido]

thx for the contributions to this thread, its been helpfull in making me think it through more before spending my coin.

as nice as the LC sounds i think on ballance id get better value for money right now with a couple of new mics (sm7b for sure & rode nt4 im looking into)although the warm audio 'tone beast' looks quite tasty

i think what swayed me in the end was that i already have the LM32 and although i cant track with it in the chain i dont think its that big a deal for what i do.
also if the preamp emulations on the LC are only subtley diffrent i probably wont appreciate those subtleties at this stage.

in saying all that, im gonna go down there and make them a ridiculous offer on it, its been sitting there for years and i know they are willing to deal to move it on.
if the price is right it would be a great buy for me.... worth a try

warren

[The Elf]

also if the preamp emulations on the LC are only subtley diffrent i probably wont appreciate those subtleties at this stage.

You do need a pin-sharp monitoring system and experienced ears to tell the differences, and this really is about the hat on the robin on the icing on the cake.

The compressors are a different story - they really do have a wide range of overt characteristics suited to everything from gentle mastering to aggressive shaping of drums.

in saying all that, im gonna go down there and make them a ridiculous offer on it

It's well worth it. There are some quarters where people desperate to wish the LC away have given it some bad press - and that can work out very nicely for those of us with a mind of our own and an eye for a bargain!

At worst you'll have a lovely clean pre with transformer/transformerless option, auto 'session-saver' level management, line, mic and digital input/output, plus all of those compressors on tap - so base your offer on how much that might be worth to you.

[Spangler]

Slate have taken the LC to the natural next level: http://www.slatedigital.com/vmspreview/