Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#361
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bob Cain wrote: For completeness could you also do this same test with a transformer you think is of adequate quality, all else identical in the setup, and post the equivalent measurement photos? I will see about doing that, but you can probably look on the Jensen or Lundahl site and see their 1KC square wave responses. It's a standard measurement everybody uses for transformers because it tells you a whole lot on one screen. The interesting thing would be to see the results under otherwise identical conditions (including the person doing the testing.) Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#362
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 17:52:48 -0500, Bob Cain wrote
(in article ) : Ty Ford wrote: There has always been a bit of low level grit in the clones. I've talked to enough of the clone importers about the problem and they have acknowledged the existence of the grit and said that they are working with the chinese to get that fixed. I haven't heard it happen yet. There must be something missing. A reasonable definition of grit? Bob Listen to the NT1-a sample of the acoustic guitar track that's been part of this experiment. Then listen to the TLM 103 guitar track. You'll hear the grit on the NT1-a track and not on the TLM 103 track. And the NT1-a isn't even Chinese. Actually, know what, there are other non-chinese mics I've herd the grit from, even some over $1000 mics. articulated low level distortion, how's that? Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU |
#363
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
TLM103 & loads (was Mic & Preamp Suggestions)
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 03:41:00 -0500, Paul Stamler wrote
(in article ): Question for Ty: Are there microphones which sound good on the Mackie, Radius or Focusrite Red preamps, in your experience? If so, what are they? Peace, Paul The radius isn't here anymore. The FR Red was at another studio (they now use GML, BTW.) There is no consistent data. Harv's 603 sounded better on the mackie than the GML or the Aphex 1100. It didn't sound as good as a TLM 103 through a GML. So we get striated; some bad mics sound better on bad preamps, but not as good as good mics on good preamps. Then, too, I heard some old SM58 through a really old Peavey live board that sounded surprisingly good. This wicket is very sticky. Regards, Ty --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU |
#364
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 07:44:26 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote: On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 17:52:48 -0500, Bob Cain wrote (in article ) : Ty Ford wrote: There has always been a bit of low level grit in the clones. I've talked to enough of the clone importers about the problem and they have acknowledged the existence of the grit and said that they are working with the chinese to get that fixed. I haven't heard it happen yet. There must be something missing. A reasonable definition of grit? Bob Listen to the NT1-a sample of the acoustic guitar track that's been part of this experiment. Then listen to the TLM 103 guitar track. You'll hear the grit on the NT1-a track and not on the TLM 103 track. No, I hear extra brightness. When I apply my eq to the Rode track it becomes very similar. There is no grit. And the NT1-a isn't even Chinese. Actually, know what, there are other non-chinese mics I've herd the grit from, even some over $1000 mics. articulated low level distortion, how's that? You'd have your work cut out convincing me that was anything but a concatenation of words. In this context, what does articulated mean? And isn't low level distortion meant to be a good thing rather than a bad one? d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#365
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
TLM103 & loads
Paul Stamler wrote:
Question for Ty: Are there microphones which sound good on the Mackie, Radius or Focusrite Red preamps, in your experience? If so, what are they? The Mackies seem to work okay, IME, with the Beyer M88, and with Audix OM5's, which may suggest they'd work with other Audix dynamics, excluding the OM7. I've also run the M500's with a 1202 and it wasn't as bad as I expected. -- ha "Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam" |
#367
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
TLM103 & loads (was Mic & Preamp Suggestions)
"Ty Ford" wrote in message
. .. So we get striated; some bad mics sound better on bad preamps, but not as good as good mics on good preamps. Then, too, I heard some old SM58 through a really old Peavey live board that sounded surprisingly good. This wicket is very sticky. And the SM58 is a dynamic, so the mechanisms for mic/input interaction are very different. Let's leave that for another day. Peace, Paul |
#368
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
On 23 Jan 2007 08:53:34 -0800, "drichard" wrote:
Hi Don, Could you elaborate on these test results a little? I'm not savvy on what this type of test shows, and how good the IM distortion performance of the Rode is. Ty has often expressed that he hears "grit" with the NT1A and also with Chinese clones, that it seems he believes to be distortion. (I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think that's about right.) How does this test show that IM distortion is not a factor? Could the character of IM distortion be different for the Rode than the TLM? Thanks, Dean Intermod is just another product of the same non-linearity that produces harmonic distortion. Distortion figures of -85dB of whatever type of distortion are truly excellent, and there will be no resulting effect on the sound. I've heard this term "grit" before and the usual supposition seems to be that it is caused by distortion, but I have now convinced myself that it is no such thing - just a frequency response that accentuates whatever grit is in the original sound. It is easily cured with suitable eq as I have found. There is also the "tired ears" phenomenon that has led Ty to decide that I had somehow manipulated the TLM103 sample to make it worse - of course I hadn't. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#369
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
Don Pearce wrote:
I've heard this term "grit" before and the usual supposition seems to be that it is caused by distortion, but I have now convinced myself that it is no such thing - just a frequency response that accentuates whatever grit is in the original sound. It is easily cured with suitable eq as I have found. There is also the "tired ears" phenomenon that has led Ty to decide that I had somehow manipulated the TLM103 sample to make it worse - of course I hadn't. It could equally be some MISSING from the other mic, that is subconciously being put into the position of being the 'reference'. Or something else in the replay chain. geoff |
#370
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
TLM103 & loads (was Mic & Preamp Suggestions)
Weird enough i sold a 103 to a friend that uses behringer. it sounds
better that on my mackie. it was too brittle on the mac. flatter response on the beh. any ideas as to why? AT |
#371
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
"drichard" wrote in message
oups.com Hi Don, Could you elaborate on these test results a little? I'm not savvy on what this type of test shows, and how good the IM distortion performance of the Rode is. Ty has often expressed that he hears "grit" with the NT1A and also with Chinese clones, that it seems he believes to be distortion. (I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think that's about right.) How does this test show that IM distortion is not a factor? Could the character of IM distortion be different for the Rode than the TLM? http://81.174.169.10/odds/rode_intermod.gif Shows the two test tones played through the Rode as large spikes at 10 and 11 KHz. One has an amplitude of about -18 dB, and the other has an amplitude of about -13 dB. The difference was no doubt accidental and could be adjusted out during the set up of the test. It can also be accounted for in the analysis of the results. Second order IM would be indicated by a difference tone at 1 KHz. Third order IM would be indicated by sidebands, the largest in band, at 9 & 11 KHz. Fourth order IM would be have its largest in-band indications in the form of difference tones at 1 & 2 KHz. ....and so on. The largest spurious response related to IM in http://81.174.169.10/odds/rode_intermod.gif is the 1 KHz difference tone whose amplitude is -77 dB. It is 64 and 59 dB below the test tones, which is pretty low. |
#372
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
Hi Arny,
Thanks to both you and Don. This is becoming educational, though I'm not sure I entirely grasp how good the IM performance is when you say: It is 64 and 59 dB below the test tones, which is pretty low. Since I've never seen this type of test before, or tried to interpret the results, I don't know how bad it would be for a mic that performs poorly, or how good it would be with the best microphones. Do you (or Don, or anyone else) have any idea how other mics good or bad) perform in this type of test? Again, thanks to both you and Don, and Ty too. Words like "grit" and other subjective terms can be meaningful, but I do think they become more relevant if a measurable characteristic can be used to explain or disprove them. I tend to put more credence in comments substantiated by blind listening tests and test data. It's apparent that some people will have a predisposition to like or dislike a product based on brand / location of manufacturing / price, so I'm a little skeptical of subjective comments (good or bad) unless the tests substantiate them. Dean On Jan 23, 9:07 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "drichard" wrote in ooglegroups.com Hi Don, Could you elaborate on these test results a little? I'm not savvy on what this type of test shows, and how good the IM distortion performance of the Rode is. Ty has often expressed that he hears "grit" with the NT1A and also with Chinese clones, that it seems he believes to be distortion. (I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think that's about right.) How does this test show that IM distortion is not a factor? Could the character of IM distortion be different for the Rode than the TLM?http://81.174.169.10/odds/rode_intermod.gif Shows the two test tones played through the Rode as large spikes at 10 and 11 KHz. One has an amplitude of about -18 dB, and the other has an amplitude of about -13 dB. The difference was no doubt accidental and could be adjusted out during the set up of the test. It can also be accounted for in the analysis of the results. Second order IM would be indicated by a difference tone at 1 KHz. Third order IM would be indicated by sidebands, the largest in band, at 9 & 11 KHz. Fourth order IM would be have its largest in-band indications in the form of difference tones at 1 & 2 KHz. ...and so on. The largest spurious response related to IM in http://81.174.169.10/odds/rode_intermod.gif is the 1 KHz difference tone whose amplitude is -77 dB. It is 64 and 59 dB below the test tones, which is pretty low. |
#373
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
"drichard" wrote in message
oups.com Thanks to both you and Don. This is becoming educational, though I'm not sure I entirely grasp how good the IM performance is when you say: It is 64 and 59 dB below the test tones, which is pretty low. For a benchmark number, consider that 60 dB down corresponds to 0.1%. 0.05% is about where it becomes difficult to hear spurious responses, no matter how ideal the test conditions. Since I've never seen this type of test before, or tried to interpret the results, I don't know how bad it would be for a mic that performs poorly, or how good it would be with the best microphones. Do you (or Don, or anyone else) have any idea how other mics good or bad) perform in this type of test? At this point it would seem appropiate to test some highly-regarded mics, but I don't have any such thing at my disposal. The basic test is simple enough to set up, have say a 10 KHz tone playing through one speaker, and an 11 KHz tone playing through another. The use of separate signal paths for each tone pretty well eliminates the possibility of there being any IM in the signal generation equipment. Then just record whatever comes out of the mic and post it. I would hope that most mic preamps and digital recording gear would not contribute to measured noise and distortion in a way that would contaminate the results in such a profound way that they are not useful. It's easy enough to attenuate the test signals and route them through the electronics on the recording side of the process to confirm their performance. Again, thanks to both you and Don, and Ty too. Words like "grit" and other subjective terms can be meaningful, but I do think they become more relevant if a measurable characteristic can be used to explain or disprove them. I agree. At this point anything that can be heard is potentially measurable and if measured it can be analyzed in a relevant way. Grit is one of those terms that can float in the realm between linear and nonlinear distortion, and perhaps be confusing. I tend to put more credence in comments substantiated by blind listening tests and test data. I think most people do. It's apparent that some people will have a predisposition to like or dislike a product based on brand / location of manufacturing / price, so I'm a little skeptical of subjective comments (good or bad) unless the tests substantiate them. Audio is not yet an area were we have too much confirmation and explanation for what we hear. ;-) |
#374
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
TLM103 & loads (was Mic & Preamp Suggestions)
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:59:16 -0500, AT wrote
(in article ): Weird enough i sold a 103 to a friend that uses behringer. it sounds better that on my mackie. it was too brittle on the mac. flatter response on the beh. any ideas as to why? AT yes, different preamps. Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU |
#375
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Mic & Preamp Suggestions?
Bob Cain wrote:
I will see about doing that, but you can probably look on the Jensen or Lundahl site and see their 1KC square wave responses. It's a standard measurement everybody uses for transformers because it tells you a whole lot on one screen. The interesting thing would be to see the results under otherwise identical conditions (including the person doing the testing.) Okay, here are some shots. These have much better image quality in part because I used a new pack of film instead of some long-out-of-date stuff. But the square waves are similar. http://www.panix.com/~kludge/1kc.pdf Upper left hand corner is a Jensen JT-11-BMCF. It's completely unloaded, but there is still no overshoot, and the top of the waveform is flat. This is maybe a _little_ unfair since this is a physically larger transformer than the Chinese mikes use. But this is what I would consider an excellent looking plot, especially considering the transfomrer is unloaded. This is a fifty-dollar transformer. Below it is a shot of the Tamura MET-59, unloaded. You can see that it's ringing on the leading edge of the waveform, and the top of the waveform slopes down (which indicates poor low frequency response). In the upper right is the same image with the scale expanded so you can see it better. I would consider this a very good quality transformer for voice and communications applications but not hi-fi. This is a $12 transformer. In the lower right, there is a shot of the same MET-59 transformer, same expanded scale, but with a 600 ohm load on the secondary. The ringing is all gone and the leading edge of the waveform is nice and square. There is still a very obvious low end rolloff, however. This is an example of how many transformers are very sensitive to loading, but that proper termination can get greatly improved performance from inexpensive transformers. I meant to do a cheap filament transformer too, but I did not get the chance to do so. Even the Stancor filament transformers have better wideband response than the transformer from the $1k Chinese tube microphone shown in http://www.panix.com/~kludge/xformer.pdf --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Daisy chaining preamp channels? | Pro Audio | |||
tube amp -- should it be with tube phono preamp? | Audio Opinions | |||
amp or preamp? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
How to get studio quality sound into my computer from a preamp? | Pro Audio | |||
Upgrading My Adcom Preamp & Amp | High End Audio |