Her is another link where valve equipments used for recordings. Among the
users Mark 'Spike' Stent .

" It's not that I'm anti new technology, far from it, I simply believe the
old stuff sounds a lot better." - Vic Keary

http://www.unityaudio.co.uk/thermion...thermionic.htm

This is fine, as long as it is remembered that tubes in this use are an
added sound effect, just as compression etc. are used for the "good" sound
they are said to create when used as such. In reproduction tubes are
equally an added sound effect, plastered upon the signal as left the
micrphone and as the artist created it.

Her is another link where valve equipments used for recordings. Among the
users Mark 'Spike' Stent .

" It's not that I'm anti new technology, far from it, I simply believe the
old stuff sounds a lot better." - Vic Keary

http://www.unityaudio.co.uk/thermion...thermionic.htm

Actually, tube microphones are the most sought after and widely
respected in the recording industry for their clarity, not "sound
effects". Tube equipment can be extraordinarily clear and made to a
standard that surpasses most solid state designs. You are speaking in
generalizations and have an obvious bias towards solid state
equipment. There are others who can provide numerous examples that
contradict the generalization. If you limit what you are trying to
convey to antique tube gear and current, best available solid state
equipment, then you have a point although other than trying to bash
tube technolgy, I'm not sure what point that might be. I speak from a
viewpoint of neutrality as I have owned and operated literally tons of
both vacuum tube and solid state equipment. I currently am using solid
state, but have no prejustice against tube gear other than the fact
that tube power amplification can be expensive. I will agree that in
most cases, as a first stage of gain (most notably for me in a MC
phono application) that tube designs can create more noise, resulting
in a lower SNR. With those two caveats, I can't really find fault with
the better designs.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

wrote in message
...
This is fine, as long as it is remembered that tubes in this use are
an
added sound effect, just as compression etc. are used for the "good"
sound
they are said to create when used as such. In reproduction tubes
are
equally an added sound effect, plastered upon the signal as left the
micrphone and as the artist created it.

Her is another link where valve equipments used for recordings.
Among the
users Mark 'Spike' Stent .

" It's not that I'm anti new technology, far from it, I simply
believe the
old stuff sounds a lot better." - Vic Keary


http://www.unityaudio.co.uk/thermion...thermionic.htm

They are liked for the "sound" they produce, ie. the effect. Mics tend to
be used as effect devices, as an input device to produce a desired output.
Pros have a whole range of them to pick from in particular situations
based on the effect produced. A mic with absolutely flat response and the
lowest snr etc. might be passed over for one of lesser value in these
areas for the effect they produce. As in "highend" hifi, there is also
the tweeky group who use them for the same reason tweeky gear is used in
reproduction, based on tradition and subjective evaluation of how "good"
it makes the artist's output sound. "Clarity" is but a sound effect as
they seek it, not the very best reproduction of the signal that enters the
mic but how they "like" the output. My only bias is to use gear that most
likely produces what goes into the mic, as mentioned here many times by
others, tube amps designed well can sound like ss amps so as to be unable
to distinguish them in listening alone situations. .
Actually, tube microphones are the most sought after and widely
respected in the recording industry for their clarity, not "sound
effects". Tube equipment can be extraordinarily clear and made to a
standard that surpasses most solid state designs. You are speaking in
generalizations and have an obvious bias towards solid state
equipment. There are others who can provide numerous examples that
contradict the generalization. If you limit what you are trying to
convey to antique tube gear and current, best available solid state
equipment, then you have a point although other than trying to bash
tube technolgy, I'm not sure what point that might be. I speak from a
viewpoint of neutrality as I have owned and operated literally tons of
both vacuum tube and solid state equipment. I currently am using solid
state, but have no prejustice against tube gear other than the fact
that tube power amplification can be expensive. I will agree that in
most cases, as a first stage of gain (most notably for me in a MC
phono application) that tube designs can create more noise, resulting
in a lower SNR. With those two caveats, I can't really find fault with
the better designs.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

wrote in message
...
This is fine, as long as it is remembered that tubes in this use are
an
added sound effect, just as compression etc. are used for the "good"
sound
they are said to create when used as such. In reproduction tubes
are
equally an added sound effect, plastered upon the signal as left the
micrphone and as the artist created it.

Her is another link where valve equipments used for recordings.
Among the
users Mark 'Spike' Stent .

" It's not that I'm anti new technology, far from it, I simply
believe the
old stuff sounds a lot better." - Vic Keary


http://www.unityaudio.co.uk/thermion...thermionic.htm

On 29 Aug 2004 21:04:59 GMT, wrote:

Uptown Bill wrote:

They are liked for the "sound" they produce, ie. the effect. Mics tend to
be used as effect devices, as an input device to produce a desired output.
Pros have a whole range of them to pick from in particular situations
based on the effect produced. A mic with absolutely flat response and the
lowest snr etc. might be passed over for one of lesser value in these
areas for the effect they produce. As in "highend" hifi, there is also
the tweeky group who use them for the same reason tweeky gear is used in
reproduction, based on tradition and subjective evaluation of how "good"
it makes the artist's output sound. "Clarity" is but a sound effect as
they seek it, not the very best reproduction of the signal that enters the
mic but how they "like" the output. My only bias is to use gear that most
likely produces what goes into the mic, as mentioned here many times by
others, tube amps designed well can sound like ss amps so as to be unable
to distinguish them in listening alone situations. .

Actually, tube microphones are the most sought after and widely
respected in the recording industry for their clarity, not "sound
effects".

Only by those who don't want *real* clarity. Those who do, use either
the good old STC/BBC '4038' style ribbon mic, or B&K condenser
measuring mics, as used to great effect by Pope Music.

Tube equipment can be extraordinarily clear and made to a
standard that surpasses most solid state designs.

Absolute rubbish! There is absolutely no sense in which a high-voltage
FET is not superior to any tube - except for *adding* euphonic
artifacts.

You are speaking in
generalizations and have an obvious bias towards solid state
equipment.

Sensible people do indeed have such a bias, in the same way that
they're biased towards other things that are demonstrably superior for
their purpose.

I currently am using solid
state, but have no prejustice against tube gear other than the fact
that tube power amplification can be expensive. I will agree that in
most cases, as a first stage of gain (most notably for me in a MC
phono application) that tube designs can create more noise, resulting
in a lower SNR. With those two caveats, I can't really find fault with
the better designs.

Quite so. The *better* tube designs are indeed the equal of
solid-state in the sense of being sonically identical - but SS will
always be vastly cheaper, quieter, more linear and more reliable.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 29 Aug 2004 19:03:57 GMT, in article , Uptown
Audio stated:

I really cannot agree with that. I think most in the professional audio and
recording world know that, when they use tubed gear, they are not going after or
getting greater clarity but greater "warmth" and "presence." In fact, in any
number of software programs to create music digitally, there are plug-ins that
allow the user to affirmatively add in the "mild" distortion caused by tubed
"mic pre's", or to affirmatively add "tape saturation" that is otherwise absent
on a hard disk recording. And these additions, if judiciously used, do
certainly sweeten the sound in some sense. But "clarity"? No, that wouldn't be
the word for it. If anything, its adding a type of expressionistic blurring to
the sound that is pleasing to the ear. Kind of like the way that some of the
great Italian masters would spend years painting and repainting to get a picture
exactly right, then smear the final layer of paint with their fingers to make it
all look spontaneous and expressive. Taking the edges off, or making pleasing
transitions, or lightly masking discontinuities, is a time-honored tradition in
the art world, from painting to digital photography to video to film to, yes,
audio too.

BTW, I'm a big fan of tube equipment and have some wonderful 300B monoblocks at
the moment.


Actually, tube microphones are the most sought after and widely
respected in the recording industry for their clarity, not "sound
effects". Tube equipment can be extraordinarily clear and made to a
standard that surpasses most solid state designs. You are speaking in
generalizations and have an obvious bias towards solid state
equipment. There are others who can provide numerous examples that
contradict the generalization. If you limit what you are trying to
convey to antique tube gear and current, best available solid state
equipment, then you have a point although other than trying to bash
tube technolgy, I'm not sure what point that might be. I speak from a
viewpoint of neutrality as I have owned and operated literally tons of
both vacuum tube and solid state equipment. I currently am using solid
state, but have no prejustice against tube gear other than the fact
that tube power amplification can be expensive. I will agree that in
most cases, as a first stage of gain (most notably for me in a MC
phono application) that tube designs can create more noise, resulting
in a lower SNR. With those two caveats, I can't really find fault with
the better designs.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

wrote in message
...
This is fine, as long as it is remembered that tubes in this use are
an
added sound effect, just as compression etc. are used for the "good"
sound
they are said to create when used as such. In reproduction tubes
are
equally an added sound effect, plastered upon the signal as left the
micrphone and as the artist created it.

Her is another link where valve equipments used for recordings.
Among the
users Mark 'Spike' Stent .

" It's not that I'm anti new technology, far from it, I simply
believe the
old stuff sounds a lot better." - Vic Keary


http://www.unityaudio.co.uk/thermion...thermionic.htm

We were talking about microphones, not preamps or other secondary
"effects, processors" as other gear can definately change the
direction of this thread. You don't have to agree or disagree. It is
just a standard that has been used for years and very few solid state
mics have the ability to simultaniously reach the level of clarity and
have a natural sound that the best tube mics offer. There are a couple
of good points made by Stewart, although I don't appreciate his choice
of words and the twisting of what I said to suit his own idea, whether
intentional or whether it was an oversite. We can assume the choice of
words was intentional as was the general tone of the reply. Their are
of now quite a few refined versions of more "classic" tube
microphones and many (probably most all these days) of those use some
solid state components to either reduce cost, improve performance or
both. One can't really argue that the latest materials and designs
don't have more potential for a more accurate production unit, but as
always the proof is in the pudding. Recording music is completely
different from capturing an event such as news. It involves the use of
the microphone as part of the performance medium, so that it is half
instrument and half recroding device. Most all vocalists have their
favorite microphones that either flatter or more accurately present
their voices in the way that they sound in a room. That does not
always mean "flat response". So, the debate could go on forever about
why, who, what, etc and get broken into many pieces for even further
scrutiny, which is just silly and appeals to those that would like to
"show off" rather than be helpful. The best thing for you to do is to
investigate the process for yourself if it interests you, without the
corruption of other's ideas as can occur here "snip"...
Here is one link that demonstrates a comparison of quite a few mics
under a "blind" listening test:
http://www.digitalprosound.com/2002/...c_shootout.htm .
It is not so well done as the author explains due to the inability to
set-up optimally and tune optimally each mic. Most singers in a
session, get extremely close to the microphone so that it must be
shielded from their breath (If they could have gotten that close, they
would have known which mic was on). Oddly acording to some here, they
chose a tube microphone as the "favorite". That does not mean that it
was the "best" or that things would have been different if each mic
were treated as "the last shot", which is always the case in a real
session.
Anyway, to answer the original quetion, which was not meant to be
answered... (Why Valve?): Because it sounds best to many. Or perhaps
it is equally as appropriate to answer with another question; Why not?
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250


"goFab.com" wrote in message
...
On 29 Aug 2004 19:03:57 GMT, in article
, Uptown
Audio stated:

I really cannot agree with that. I think most in the professional
audio and
recording world know that, when they use tubed gear, they are not
going after or
getting greater clarity but greater "warmth" and "presence." In
fact, in any
number of software programs to create music digitally, there are
plug-ins that
allow the user to affirmatively add in the "mild" distortion caused
by tubed
"mic pre's", or to affirmatively add "tape saturation" that is
otherwise absent
on a hard disk recording. And these additions, if judiciously used,
do
certainly sweeten the sound in some sense. But "clarity"? No, that
wouldn't be
the word for it. If anything, its adding a type of expressionistic
blurring to
the sound that is pleasing to the ear. Kind of like the way that
some of the
great Italian masters would spend years painting and repainting to
get a picture
exactly right, then smear the final layer of paint with their
fingers to make it
all look spontaneous and expressive. Taking the edges off, or
making pleasing
transitions, or lightly masking discontinuities, is a time-honored
tradition in
the art world, from painting to digital photography to video to film
to, yes,
audio too.

BTW, I'm a big fan of tube equipment and have some wonderful 300B
monoblocks at
the moment.


Actually, tube microphones are the most sought after and widely
respected in the recording industry for their clarity, not "sound
effects". Tube equipment can be extraordinarily clear and made to a
standard that surpasses most solid state designs. You are speaking
in
generalizations and have an obvious bias towards solid state
equipment. There are others who can provide numerous examples that
contradict the generalization. If you limit what you are trying to
convey to antique tube gear and current, best available solid state
equipment, then you have a point although other than trying to bash
tube technolgy, I'm not sure what point that might be. I speak from
a
viewpoint of neutrality as I have owned and operated literally tons
of
both vacuum tube and solid state equipment. I currently am using
solid
state, but have no prejustice against tube gear other than the fact
that tube power amplification can be expensive. I will agree that
in
most cases, as a first stage of gain (most notably for me in a MC
phono application) that tube designs can create more noise,
resulting
in a lower SNR. With those two caveats, I can't really find fault
with
the better designs.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

wrote in message
...
This is fine, as long as it is remembered that tubes in this use
are
an
added sound effect, just as compression etc. are used for the
"good"
sound
they are said to create when used as such. In reproduction tubes
are
equally an added sound effect, plastered upon the signal as left
the
micrphone and as the artist created it.

Her is another link where valve equipments used for recordings.
Among the
users Mark 'Spike' Stent .

" It's not that I'm anti new technology, far from it, I simply
believe the
old stuff sounds a lot better." - Vic Keary



http://www.unityaudio.co.uk/thermion..._thermionic.ht
m

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...

Only by those who don't want *real* clarity. Those who do, use either
the good old STC/BBC '4038' style ribbon mic


So *real* clarity rolls off above 14kHz?

On 31 Aug 2004 23:33:54 GMT, (Buster Mudd) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...

Only by those who don't want *real* clarity. Those who do, use either
the good old STC/BBC '4038' style ribbon mic

So *real* clarity rolls off above 14kHz?

Well, given that vinyl certainly does, and people keep telling me that
vinyl is the most 'realistic'..................... :-)

More to the point, the 4038 rolls off *smoothly* (so you can EQ it
back to wherever you like), and there is very little of musical
significance above 14kHz in any case. If recording a piece heavy in
the top octave, such as jazz with a lot of cymbal work, one might
choose say a B&K condenser mic, or of course the Coles 4040, the
extended response successor to the 4038.

Experienced recordists are of course well aware that there's a lot
more to 'clarity' than a supersonic frequency response! Indeed, in a
nod to another current thread, one of the best recordists of the
dreaded solo piano is James Boyk - who favours the 3048 as a top-class
general-purpose microphone, and says that he has yet to find the
resolution limit of this classic mic. Remember, it was designed by the
BBC in the '50s as a reference studio microphone, and is still
favoured by many top musicians and recording engineers.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering