• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Motown DI - anyone try it yet?

project_c

project_c

May 8, 2008
1,592
1,870
London, UK
#1
I know this has been discussed here before, but here's a new video from NAMM. DI box tests are really difficult to find online, and they're never really done right. It sounds cool but I really want to hear an A/B comparison of this box. As great as it looks, I'm sceptical about its' capabilities - the only way of telling what it does IMO is to run a signal straight to a DAW, and then run the same signal into the same DAW, but via the DI box.

So has anyone tried it yet?

 
#3
markjazzbassist said:
i've been wondering the same thing. i'd love an Acme vs JDI soundclips or frequency analysis on this.
Click to expand...

Looks like nobody's tried one yet. I'm really curious but the price puts it way beyond an impulse purchase, I'd need to hear what difference it makes to a recorded signal. I'm not expecting a miracle, but it needs to do something significantly impressive to justify the price it's selling at.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OpposableThumbs
#6
markjazzbassist said:
agreed. the marketing hype on it and the wolfbox is out of control. either i will sound like james jamerson or it's just another overpriced DI box.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that the saturation and tonal characteristics of the Jamerson tone we hear on those isolated tracks owes a lot to the fact that it was recorded onto tape, and the gain was pushed high during recording which is why the signal is clipped in many places. That's something this box cannot reproduce, but it's a big part of what we think of as the Jamerson tone. Anyway I'm sure this has been discussed many times here.. I just want to hear how this thing sounds. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pirate Captain, petrus61, Matthew_84 and 3 others
#7
project_c said:
I have a feeling that the saturation and tonal characteristics of the Jamerson tone we hear on those isolated tracks owes a lot to the fact that it was recorded onto tape, and the gain was pushed high during recording which is why the signal is clipped in many places. That's something this box cannot reproduce, but it's a big part of what we think of as the Jamerson tone. Anyway I'm sure this has been discussed many times here.. I just want to hear how this thing sounds. :)
Click to expand...

yes so many factors. first he went into this box i believe and then into the Tube unit (macintosh tube rectified power amp, altec modified tube preamp with transformers) and then into the board.

so the power amp, preamp, board preamp, and then tape are all factors in the tone. so this DI is 1/5th of that equation. hence why I am skeptical, but willing to give it a shot. If it opens up the low end like the wolfbox created says and saturates nicely it would be worth it for me. I would just like a nice warm DI sound.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike Barry, project_c and jnewmark
#8
I think it's really hard to duplicate this kind of sound in one, small unit, despite the modern advances in technology for these applications. As said before, so many different factors went into this sound, including Jamerson himself: technique, strings, instrument, etc. Oddly enough, you can find some live recordings of Jamerson playing with the Funk Brothers from back in that era, and Jamerson sounds like, well, Jamerson ! I've read where he used the B15N, and sometimes a Kustom, tuck n roll 215 in live situations. Not saying that this device can't get close, maybe it can. If it's way out of reach, cost wise, some may want to try this pre/DI : B15N Tube Preamp DI Build Report | TalkBass.com Not a Motown clone, but based on the B15N. Personally, the closest I ever came to that Motown sound, was a '67 B15N, with the original 15 driver.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nunovsky
#9
yeah not an ampeg or b15 fan man, have owned 5 of them and the tone just doesn't do it for me. i'm not trying to sound like jamerson, the motown Di resonates with me because of the marketing hype with the transformer. ed wolfrum (sp?) the creator said the specs on the triad a-11j are insane for low end and saturation hence the colored tone and unique sound. that's all i'm interested in, is that transformer sound and hearing it and seeing how i would sound with it.

jamerson is great love him and all, but i'm trying to sound like me.
 
#12
i've got some more clarification on this. An old post from Ed Wolfrum:

Soulful Detroit Forum

This "good idea" was copied and improved on by Mike McLain and the Motown engineering department, of which I was a small part of in 1965-66 and freelanced for till the 70's. Motown engineering built the monitoring instrument input box you see in the museum studio today. It used a 15 inch Altec 600 series driver with a Mac-60 power amp and custom built electronics with 12AX7's and BIG UTC transformers. I later designed and built a solid atate version for Theme Productions (also called BA Starr studios.) Wingate used that studio often. Babbitt can tell you about that place. I have a shot of Babbit, Dennis Coffee and Don Davis working there in the late 60's for Wingate and plugged into that box. Later, I built a bunch of switchable high and low level (instrument) level direct boxes in BUD BOXES with BIG Triad transformers, purchased surplus, which I sold to numerous studio around Detroit. This helped finance school for me. Artie Field purchased a bunch of them and I think Ralph bought a few and so did Danny Dallas. I still have two of them. In any case, I will again reiterate what Bob said earlier. With players like Jamison and Babbitt it was easy to get a good bass sound with a good quality direct box with lots of IRON in the transformer. It simply reproduced what they did. The other trick, if you want to call it that, was the bullet proof front ends of all of the Detroit home brew consoles. Motown used a home brew tube design by Mike at the time, as well as Altec 1567 pre-mixers. Les Cooley designed the very first (Class A- even before Neve)microphone pre-amp for the United board which also was bullet proof, and Terra Shima had a variation of that circuit built for Milan by Bill Beltz and myself. By personal measurement the United Sound board clipped at +28 terminated to a 600 ohm load. (HEADROOM GALORE)
This, we needed because of producers who wanted to wrap the needle around the pin!!!


So it would seem its similar in design to the Motown Preamp (SS version), so the motown claims aren't unfounded. I'm jonesing hard for one of these now :)
 
#17
Handyman said:
This thing's a passive DI, which is to say its basically a transformer in an enclosure.

Regardless of how super awesome their transformer is, I'm not going to pay $500 for a passive DI when I Radial JDIs are less than half that.

The magic of the Motown sound wasn't the transformer in their custom build DI/preamp anyway.
Click to expand...

if you read ed wolfum the designers comments on the transformers you might change your mind. the UTC/Triad A10/11J isn't a hi-fi clean tranny like the Jensen. It has massive bass response and midrange. straight from the horses mouth Ed Wolfrum on his buddy Dean Jensen not being able to make a similar tranny -

Link Removed

Dean Jensen was dealing with iron and nickel and variability from suppliers. (As an aside, my relationship with Dean started in the 70s when I was shopping for a replacement for the then disappearing A-11/12Js in the hope of continuing the "Wolfbox" with his transformers. Dean admitted to me that the low frequency performance and build quality of the formerly Chicago-area based Triad Transformer Company's A11-12J series transformer was "incredible" and that even he could not hope to duplicate it. Quality, back then, was recognized by its competition and Dean had the humility and integrity to applaud it.)
 
#18
markjazzbassist said:
if you read ed wolfum the designers comments on the transformers you might change your mind. the UTC/Triad A10/11J isn't a hi-fi clean tranny like the Jensen. It has massive bass response and midrange. straight from the horses mouth Ed Wolfrum on his buddy Dean Jensen not being able to make a similar tranny -

Link Removed

Dean Jensen was dealing with iron and nickel and variability from suppliers. (As an aside, my relationship with Dean started in the 70s when I was shopping for a replacement for the then disappearing A-11/12Js in the hope of continuing the "Wolfbox" with his transformers. Dean admitted to me that the low frequency performance and build quality of the formerly Chicago-area based Triad Transformer Company's A11-12J series transformer was "incredible" and that even he could not hope to duplicate it. Quality, back then, was recognized by its competition and Dean had the humility and integrity to applaud it.)
Click to expand...

Transformers certainly can color sound, but goodness that article is painful to read.

Its devoid of any actual quantifiable data about said DI and chocked full of tangential rants and references to the author's preferred deity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustSomeDude
#19
There's no question that the vintage transformers have an edge on many current production ones. People seek out old audio transformers, even cannibalizing other gear to get them, to use in studio equipment. I don't believe that the issue is that transformers that sound as good can't be produced today. Given a sufficient research and production budget, it can be done. It just wouldn't be cost effective.

That's truly sad and yet another example of how dumbed down audio quality is deemed acceptable today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: One Drop
#20
beans-on-toast said:
There's no question that the vintage transformers have an edge on many current production ones. People seek out old audio transformers, even cannibalizing other gear to get them, to use in studio equipment. I don't believe that the issue is that transformers that sound as good can't be produced today. Given a sufficient research and production budget, it can be done. It just wouldn't be cost effective.

That's truly sad and yet another example of how dumbed down audio quality is deemed acceptable today.
Click to expand...

completely agree. the age of planned obsolescence is upon us.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back