In Reply to: Re: MG1.6 or MG2.7?? posted by michael w on June 6, 2000 at 22:40:25:
Thanks for the message Michael.I agree that the MG3A was way better, and on the strengths of the MG1.6QR. Stunning looks for the MG1.6QR as well. What is killing me is that I must decide on which one design to keep! MG1.6QR or the old 2.5R's. The differences between the two go beyond the dynamic or coherance issues. The problem I have is I like jazz, and when I listen to sax player's the sound out of the MG1.6QR has no body, resonance, throatiness to make it sound like a real sax, or even trumpet or trombone for that matter. It may be because the 2.5R's are producing some distortion?....sorta like a tube amp might add some bloom and body....do you have any experience with the MG1.6QR's in reproducing the saxophone? Do the MG1.6QR need 200 hours to start sounding a bit more real and more accurate?...this is a big bugaboo to me....can it be fixed?
Thanks
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: MG1.6 or MG2.7?? - rathbone 13:01:29 06/07/00 (4)
- Cap and Inductor upgrade does wonders for Sax - Ed Hsu 03:29:22 06/08/00 (0)
- Re: MG1.6 or MG2.7?? - michael w 15:24:46 06/07/00 (0)
- 1.6 and brass - paco 13:27:44 06/07/00 (1)
- oops!! here is the link... - paco 13:35:47 06/07/00 (0)