UA LA-2A, is it really that unique?

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

eliya

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
35
Location
Chicago, IL
This ?el-op? design was the first of its kind, and is still reproduced to this day in other compressor products. However, we have our photo cells uniquely manufactured for the LA-2A re-issue to exacting specs that were originally found on the LA-2A. No other manufacturers have access to these cells

quoted from that article

Is that really true? Does the kits that Scenaria is offering have the same unique characters? Would it sound the same as the UA version?

Thank you for any reply,

Eliya.
 
The UA version sounds different to the Manley version that also sounds different to the ADL version that coincidentaly also happens to sound different to the Bloo version.... Now does any of those on the list sound bad?? Do they all have similar characters?? I think you know the answer to that....
 
I wouldn't group the Manley with the others because it doesn't use a T4B-type optical attenuator. I owned a Manley El-Op for a couple of years and while it always worked fine and was very well built it never took my breath away. If you want an LA-2A stick with one of the others.
 
Hey Seth

Did you find any application where the EL@P sounds great or there is no such thing?

chrissugar
 
Hi Christian,

Did you find any application where the EL@P sounds great?

Not really. It always sounded fine but never got me excited. I traded an LA-3A and some other stuff for it and I've always kicked myself for it. I've been using a V*xb*x for the last few weeks and it's the same deal - it's fine, it's quiet, very well made and very unexciting. Some boxes put a smile on my face, some make me cringe. These did neither.
 
[quote author="jrmintz"]
Did you find any application where the EL@P sounds great?
[/quote]

I think I might have to agree with this on the El@p. I've found that I like it as a line amp. I don't really even turn up the compression anymore. I like what it imparts sonically (trannies?, circuit??, Idunno) just running say a piano through it but I don't like the compression. It doesn't react with my ear smoothly.

Michael
 
Thank you Seth

The next question in my mind was if the problem comes from the audio electronics or the sidechain and the gain reduction element.
From Michaels response it looks like the gain block is OK and the problem is in the gain reduction.

I tried the V@xb@x for a couple of times but had no enough time to draw some valuable conclusions.

Seth, is your experience with Moonlee similar to Michael's?

chrissugar
 
Yes, I think it is. The line amp is very good sounding, but the compression isn't exciting. I don't know how else to describe it. With a good 1176 or LA-2A the vocal can jump out of the mix and become almost three-dimensional. My LA-2A can be really subtle or pretty aggressive. If I want really aggressive I'd probably go with an 1176, if I want more subtle I'd go with a Daking most likely. I'm not dogmatic about any of this, I'd try and see what sounds best. I would never turn to the Minley enthusiastically, although it always did a perfectly respectable job.

One of the things I like least about the v*xb*x is that the compressor can only be ahead of the mic pre. I don't really see the point of that. If I'm missing some compelling reason I'd love for someone to explain it to me. The metering makes it possible to keep track of the gain-staging, but I find I have to fiddle with the meter select more than I'd like. Having said that, it does sound pretty good. I just don't much care for being different for the sake of being different.

Justin - point taken. I've always wondered why I had that sense about the Munley. It's good to know I'm not crazy and someone else noticed the same thing. OK, so I am crazy but at least I can still hear.
 
Hey Seth,

I remember reading a review of the VoxBox that reported the reason that the compressor is before the mic pre is to prevent overload of the mic pre... I would have thought turning down the gain on the pre or popping a pad in would have been more sensible... but :roll:

Justin.
 
[quote author="jrmintz"]Yes, I think it is. The line amp is very good sounding, but the compression isn't exciting. [/quote]

Yeah, it did have a nice silkiness to it's signal path, but I never found a good use for it's compression action. I sold mine and don't miss it. I kept the LA-3s, 1176s,160VUs, 160s, 651s.....
I've never had an LA-2.
 
Thank you Seth

That is very interesting because the sidechains in the El@p and V@xb@x are a bit different (one based on the LM 386 and the other on opamp) and they probably do a similar design/evaluation error in both comps.
In the V@xb@x there are separate sidechains and gain reduction elements for the compression and for the limiting. The limiting circuit is similar to the one in El@p.

chrissugar
 
< the reason that the compressor is before the mic pre is to prevent overload of the mic pre...>

Turn that around and you might have something...
 
Props out to the last avqatar guy, Walt Blackmer, who invented the DBX VCA's.
RIP Walt.

LA2 is a nice line amp with a unique sidechain that will not sound consistent due to the nature of the T4> EL panel that slowly detereriotaes and LDR cells have tolerancers as wide as the the English Cnannel.
 
[quote author="CJ"]...LDR cells have tolerancers as wide as the the English Cnannel.[/quote]
Is that N-channel, or P-channel?

(...after a few beers, anything looks like a Pee-Channel!)

I thought that Dave Blackmer did the VCA work? Didn't know of a Walt...

Keef
 
Back
Top