[Eeyore]

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote:

Not enough noise and distortion for you, I take it?

I will take noise and distortion any , i mean any day of the week over
sterility(ie TELARC and about 90% of the recordings of the last 5 years). I
went down the road of millennias, DPAs, GML 8302s, DCS clarity, Gordon
model 5, Sonodores, sonomas, and didnt like it at all. My ears are the
judge and jury, and if you put a truckload of neumann Ds and a fully
strapped Pyramix/DAD DAW beside one pair of RCA 44DX , a single tfunken
201 and a Stellavox and told me to choose one of em, itd take me a
nanosecond to choose the latter, though specs wise, id be going with the
losers .

Ears matter, nothing else(unless you are an engineer and have to kiss
corporate ass to put food on the table, which I do not)

How do specs sound?

Specs often require a degree of *interpretation*.

I'm actually a great critic of classic THD specs since they are mostly useless
IMHO and don't tell you what's important most of the time.

At least noise and frequency response specs are unambiguous.

So, the question I find myself asking is what kind of kit you DO like the sound
of. That would be a great insight into a suitable solution for your
requirements.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
"RickH" wrote in message

Maybe the OP shuld just go digital then.

Only if he wants the best possible SQ.


I do want the best possible SQ..hence my query here.

I dont give half a **** about specs, chips, number of conversions, DSPs,
ADCs, DACs, LSBs, FFTs, BCDs, ECCs, or SMPTEs.

I think I should preserve the above for posterity ! It certainly made me
chuckle. You are of course entirely correct. Technology should simply be a aid
for (in this instance) sound recordsing. It should not be a goal in its own
right.


Graham

[Tynan AgviÐr]

A design engineer will classicly regard the 'component' with the most
linear frequency repsonse, lowest distortion and lowest noise as
'sounding good' but certain people believe otherwise. What suggestions
do you have in this regard ?


Well, Sir..I hate those audiophiliac terms like
mid range purity, black background and depth of presence and image of
bass presentation, honesty of urgency in the high frequency melismas or
whateverthe****inghell those idiots talk about, but..the RCA "living
stereo" and the Opus 3 (a record label in sweden) compilations are sonic
perfection, in my opinion. Euphonic is the only word I can think
of.."sweetening, rounding?" maybe I like the signal to sound "better"
coming out than it did going in?? and just maybe after all these years of
performing nonstop, my ear brain system has become rightly ****ed. I
aint above ruling that out either.




One way to establish what you want here would be to ask for a
reference product or device that already has the characterisitcs that
you like and use that to define how much and what type of distortions
you like.


other than the VAC RAC stuff...I really like the pendulum mic pres, and
the boulder twin servos...





thanks for your continued help, Sir. It is much appreciated

You're welcome.

Graham
I am really learning a lot just reading all this stuff, had no idea id
get such an education. Good stuff, Sir.

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

So the lowest possible level of noise from the output of our mic pre is
-100dBu and at gains over 30dB it gets worse due to input noise.

OK, I think I follow you this far, for the case of the mic pre example
you are discussing, although I don't think Henry Pasternack would care
much for your use of the term "output noise".


From what I can find out about him on the net he seems to have very
little to say about noise. In any pre-amplifier using several active
devices (be they tubes or semiconductors)(and we will need several to
achieve the gains we are talking about) the noise at high gains is
predominantly determined by the noise contributed by the very first
device. The other devices, including those at the output end, do of
course produce noise but it is low enough to be masked by the noise
generated by the first stage. At lower gains this is not true and the
noise from the later and output stages significantly contributes to the
overall noise appearing at the output. That is what I mean by output
noise. It was a term in common use when I was at Neve in the 70s.

The next question is what level should we mix at? Since our noise level
is always -100dBu or worse we want to mix at as high a level as
possible; that is we want out signal to be as far above the noise as we
can get it. Since a CD can give a theoretical 96dB S/N we want to our
mix to achieve at least this S/N which implies a mixing level around
0dBu. Since we know we can design preamps that will deliver +20dBu,
choosing a 0dBu mix level gives us 20dB headroom and a potential 120dB
dynamic range.

You seem to have left some assumptions out of this part of the
discussion and your logic here seems to be dependent on the particular
mic pre you defined in the previous paragraph. Not that it isn't
necessarily true, but you haven't presented evidence that it is
necessary to mix at 0 dBu to achieve at least a 96 dB S/N. For example
if we had a mic pre with 10 dB less gain, and 10 dB less "output noise",
it isn't obvious to me that we couldn't mix at a level of -10 dBu and
still achieve the desired 96 dB S/N. I guess I will have to try and
flesh out the example myself, but this gets back to my earlier question
about the noise contribution of the mixer network.


What you say is true. if your mic pre has an output noise of -110dBu
then you could mix at -10dBu and still achieve 100dB S/N and you could
make up the extra 10dB of gain later in the chain.

I used a -100dBu output noise value as it is a value readily achievable
in a mic pre. -110dBu is somewhat harder to achieve.

In a professional mixer there are other considerations. One is the
requirement to provide either channel outputs and/or insertion points.
These are for connecting outboard gear which operates at line levels
~0dBu, so the mic pre then does need to incorporate all the required gain.

So since our output level also wants be be in the region of 0dBu we want
want any additional gain after mixing (except to make up for mix losses)
so in practice all our gain ends up being in the mic pre.

So mixing at -10 dBu as in my example would require an additional 10 dB
gain following the mixing network, but since the output noise of the mic
pre is also 10 dB lower, it all washes out as far as the noise
contribution of the mic pre goes. However any noise contribution of the
mixing network/circuit would be increased by 10 dB, this is the part I
don't have a grip on yet, how the actual mixing network contributes to
the noise at the output of the "mixer unit"?



Let's say we have 10 channels to mix together and we use voltage mixing
as described earlier by Graham and for the sake of argument say we use
10K bus resistors. One channel is fed via a 10K resistor and the other 9
off 10K resistors load the end of this 10K resistor so the bus signal
from this channel is 10 times lower than the mic amp output so the mix
amp needs 20dB of gain to make up the mix bus loss. The mix amp sees at
its input the 10 off 10K resistors in parallel (1K) in series with its
own noise resistance (typically about 300 ohms) as its total noise
source resistance plus the noise from any feedback resistor needed to
achieve the 20dB gain. Ignoring the feedback noise for now, the 1300
ohms noise resistance seen by the mixer amp produces an input noise
level of about -121dBu. If we mix at 0dBu our signal on the bus will be
-20dB so we can just about maintain out 100dB S/N ratio. If we mix at
-10dBu with this scheme, even if out mic pre produces only -110dBu, the
noise from the mix amp will predominate and our S/N ratio will drop to
121 - 30 = 91dB.

Even if we now change our mix resistors to 1K, the noise at the mix amp
input is still only -126dBu because now the 300 ohm noise resistance I
have assumed for the mix amp dominates. Clearly the mix amp is needs to
be as noise free as our perfect mic pre.

HTH

Cheers

ian

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Eeyore wrote:

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
By the way I discovered why the original reading was 6dB higher - it was
crap induced in the test leads by my temperature controlled soldering
iron - switch off the iron and the noise drops 6dB.
I just added a few nF across the output to reduce the bandwidth a bit

Don't you know what the measurement bandwidth is ? That's CRITICAL !

Graham


I agree. The millivoltmeter I am using is within 0.2dB to 150KHz. For
some time I have been meaning to build a little 20dB amp in a diecast
box including the necessary bandwidth limiting to better be able to make
meaningfull noise measurements. I think its time to build it.

Cheers

Ian

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Eeyore wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

But if you have a single triode with 0.01% THD, mainly 2H

Under what conditions does a typical triode, say an ECC83, produce ONLY 0.01%
THD ?

Not without a good helping of NFB methinks.

Cheers

Ian

[Arny Krueger]

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in message
. 3.70

I am intriqued by just why during the course of any
discussion about *analog* recording/audio ;;digital
acolytes have to chime in with *"man, why dont you just
go digital"* it never ever fails. there should be an
equivalent to Godwin's law for the phenomenon.

Obvious truth has this nasty habit of creeping into discussions.

*I dont want to go digital/solid state etc because I dont
****ing like the way it sounds for ****s
sake!!!!!!

I suggest then that you do the practical thing, and assemble a good clean
digital signal chain, and add some EFX boxes to get the sound you want. For
example, by randomly shifting the sliders on a 1/3 octave equalizer, you
could simulate the effect of attaching a speaker to an amplifier with a high
source impedance.

[Eeyore]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

John Byrns wrote:
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

So the lowest possible level of noise from the output of our mic pre is
-100dBu and at gains over 30dB it gets worse due to input noise.

OK, I think I follow you this far, for the case of the mic pre example
you are discussing, although I don't think Henry Pasternack would care
much for your use of the term "output noise".

From what I can find out about him on the net he seems to have very
little to say about noise. In any pre-amplifier using several active
devices (be they tubes or semiconductors)(and we will need several to
achieve the gains we are talking about) the noise at high gains is
predominantly determined by the noise contributed by the very first
device.

Absolutely CORRECT.


The other devices, including those at the output end, do of
course produce noise but it is low enough to be masked by the noise
generated by the first stage.

Almost invariably so. For most practical purposes they can be ignored.


At lower gains this is not true and the
noise from the later and output stages significantly contributes to the
overall noise appearing at the output.

Also very true. The noise analyisis at low gains is quite different and very
low noise at low gain is also a useful figure of merit.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Clearly the mix amp is needs to be as noise free as our perfect mic pre.

Which is why in the Neve 'V series' the 48 track mix amps were 5534s NOT 5532s.
That extra 3dB or so less noise was IMPORTANT.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

By the way I discovered why the original reading was 6dB higher - it was
crap induced in the test leads by my temperature controlled soldering
iron - switch off the iron and the noise drops 6dB.
I just added a few nF across the output to reduce the bandwidth a bit

Don't you know what the measurement bandwidth is ? That's CRITICAL !


I agree. The millivoltmeter I am using is within 0.2dB to 150KHz. For
some time I have been meaning to build a little 20dB amp in a diecast
box including the necessary bandwidth limiting to better be able to make
meaningfull noise measurements. I think its time to build it.

Sounds like a good idea.

A popular 'trick' with Levell microvoltmeters was to stuff a 0.1uF cap across
the 4mm output sockets. That roughly gave the meter a 20kHz measuring bandwidth.

Graham.

[Eeyore]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:

But if you have a single triode with 0.01% THD, mainly 2H

Under what conditions does a typical triode, say an ECC83, produce ONLY 0.01%
THD ?

Not without a good helping of NFB methinks.

Or conceivably with only a few mV of output.

Graham

[RickH]

On Jan 13, 9:14*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"RickH" wrote in message







On Jan 13, 1:45 pm, Eeyore

wrote:
RickH wrote:
Oh you'd rather have 32 DtoA conversions up front

The NUMBER of conversions taking place in parallel is
completely irrelevant.

It's a classic red herring that seeks to imply a defect
through an implied misunderstanding of the importance of
same.

You should be ashamed of yourself for resorting to such
an intellectually feeble argument.
If the mix is a sum how is that irrelevant? *32 AtoD
conversions each *introduce noise, then it's all summed mathematically in
the CPU.

Almost all of the noise comes from the mic preamps and microphone, which you
have regardless.

You've obviously never done any serious audio work with an eye to finding
out where your noise and distortion come from.

Once converted to digital there is no need for there to be any added noise,
distotion, or frequency response problems.

Vs. *an analog sum that is then converted AtoD once for the write.

All that does is economize on ADCs, at the cost of the slings and arrows of
analog signal processing and summing.

SOTA ADCs run around $10, while ADCs with far less noise than mic preamps
and microphones run more like $1.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I have mixed in analog and digital, a well done analog board does add
depth to the soundfield that digital compresses out. It may add noise
too, but that can be kept low on good boards. The digital boards I
used all tended to flatten out the soundstage and make all instruments
seem to compete for top volume, like the converters needed some
minimum threshold to meet, IOW they added compression from the get-
go. Nuances misplaced if not lost. IMHO it is preferable to mix on
the bext possible analog board, then do one high quality AD conversion
for storage to the computer, and have the option of parallel analog
storage to a good tape deck. Maybe in a few years the converters will
improve, then you still have to build the DSP firmware to sum without
more compression.

[RickH]

On Jan 14, 2:29*am, "Tynan AgviÐr" wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote m:

"RickH" wrote in message


Maybe the OP shuld just go digital then.

Only if he wants the best possible SQ.

I do want the best possible SQ..hence my query here.

I dont give half a **** about specs, chips, number of conversions, DSPs,
ADCs, DACs, LSBs, FFTs, BCDs, ECCs, or SMPTEs.

I am intriqued by just why during the course of any discussion about
*analog* recording/audio ;;digital acolytes have to chime in with *"man,
why dont you just go digital"* *it never ever fails. there should be an
equivalent to Godwin's law for the phenomenon.

*I dont want to go digital/solid state etc because I dont ****ing like the
way it sounds for ****s sake!!!!!!Damn!In my 15 years as a professional
musician, around orchestras and bands and countless live performances, I am
damn well sure of what I like and what I dont, thank you very much. If my
precious paper specs suffer , then hell with it. My ears will be pleased at
least.*

* (not directed at anyone in particular , just venting)

My comment was sarcasm, my earlier posts and latest post discredit the
digital boards.

[Eeyore]

RickH wrote:

I have mixed in analog and digital, a well done analog board does add
depth to the soundfield

No it bloody well DOESN'T.

It adds or subtracts NOTHING.

Graham

[vt]

Come on an old inexpensive preamp that could be bought as a kit specs
out at THD .05% at 2V out using 12AX7 tubes. IMD of .04% at 2V out.

More expensive gear could easily surpass these figures.



Eeyore wrote:

I've been digging up data on valve mic preamps and was fairly shocked to see THD
specced in the 0.4% region.

Graham

[Tynan AgviÐr]

Eeyore wrote in
:



"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote:

I think I should preserve the above for posterity ! It certainly made
me chuckle. You are of course entirely correct. Technology should
simply be a aid for (in this instance) sound recordsing. It should not
be a goal in its own right.


Graham


Amen. After reading what I submitted last night,I was hoping that I didnt
offend you Sir, as you have been entirely helpful. If digital and solid
state are so much better, how come there are legions of people scurrying
back to tape machines, tubes, fairchilds, UAs,ribbons, and other old gear??
I believe it is because most everything that is a product of this "new and
improved" way of recording just sounds like ass. Albums from wilco(like
Yankee Hotel Foxtrot and A ghost is born)(and the new ray lamontagne album,
for example) that use Hybrid approaches sound great, but they are the
exception rather than the rule.

[Tynan AgviÐr]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in message
. 3.70

I am intriqued by just why during the course of any
discussion about *analog* recording/audio ;;digital
acolytes have to chime in with *"man, why dont you just
go digital"* it never ever fails. there should be an
equivalent to Godwin's law for the phenomenon.

Obvious truth has this nasty habit of creeping into discussions.

*I dont want to go digital/solid state etc because I dont
****ing like the way it sounds for ****s
sake!!!!!!

I suggest then that you do the practical thing, and assemble a good
clean digital signal chain, and add some EFX boxes to get the sound
you want. For example, by randomly shifting the sliders on a 1/3
octave equalizer, you could simulate the effect of attaching a speaker
to an amplifier with a high source impedance.




But why do that when I can have the real thing? All that stuff is too
difficult. When I record, I like to set up the mics(the most involved part
of the recording process, and the most important) hit record, tear down,
and go home to my wife and daughter afterwards. I dont intend on getting a
doctorate in Nuclear Astrophysics just to use an imitation of the real
thing.

Take crane song, for example..the guy uses emulator circuits to mimic the
sound of tube compression/tape saturation, etc.. total effing joke. (and
has a "dither CD".that one is a riot)

I never was fond of pocket vaginas either although I reckon if you are
broke and dont know how to use your pecker, you take what you can get.

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Eeyore wrote:

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Clearly the mix amp is needs to be as noise free as our perfect mic pre.

Which is why in the Neve 'V series' the 48 track mix amps were 5534s NOT 5532s.
That extra 3dB or so less noise was IMPORTANT.

Graham


I had left Neve quite a few years before the V series came out. Were
they using virtual earth mixing by then or still the old voltage mix?

I used to love those great lengths of aluminium extrusion with channels
containing a single track width of veroboard that were used for mix busses.

Cheers

Ian

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

vt wrote:
Come on an old inexpensive preamp that could be bought as a kit specs
out at THD .05% at 2V out using 12AX7 tubes. IMD of .04% at 2V out.

Yes, but that's tubes plural and my comment about a good dollop of NFB
clearly applies. ISTR the orignal sense of this thread was talking about
a *single* triode.

Ian

[Eeyore]

vt wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I've been digging up data on valve mic preamps and was fairly shocked to see THD
specced in the 0.4% region.

Come on an old inexpensive preamp that could be bought as a kit specs
out at THD .05% at 2V out using 12AX7 tubes. IMD of .04% at 2V out.

More expensive gear could easily surpass these figures.

I suggest you look at the Telefunken specs in that case. Why would they say 0.4% if
they meant 0.04% ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote

I suggest then that you do the practical thing, and assemble a good
clean digital signal chain, and add some EFX boxes to get the sound
you want. For example, by randomly shifting the sliders on a 1/3
octave equalizer, you could simulate the effect of attaching a speaker
to an amplifier with a high source impedance.


But why do that when I can have the real thing? All that stuff is too
difficult. When I record, I like to set up the mics(the most involved part
of the recording process, and the most important) hit record, tear down,
and go home to my wife and daughter afterwards. I dont intend on getting a
doctorate in Nuclear Astrophysics just to use an imitation of the real
thing.

LOL ! I hear you !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Clearly the mix amp is needs to be as noise free as our perfect mic pre.

Which is why in the Neve 'V series' the 48 track mix amps were 5534s NOT 5532s.
That extra 3dB or so less noise was IMPORTANT.


I had left Neve quite a few years before the V series came out. Were
they using virtual earth mixing by then or still the old voltage mix?

They'd been using virtual earths for some time already. Certainly the predecessor 51
series and 8108/8128 also used VEs.

Do you recall - what was it called ? - 45 series from the cartridge width in mm ? I
believe that was the last major product family from Neve to use 'voltage mixing'.


I used to love those great lengths of aluminium extrusion with channels
containing a single track width of veroboard that were used for mix busses.

Hmm - sound like '45 series' to me. The aluminium too went in favour of steel. It's
more durable. The 'trim plate' remained aluminium though..

Graham

[Eeyore]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

vt wrote:
Come on an old inexpensive preamp that could be bought as a kit specs
out at THD .05% at 2V out using 12AX7 tubes. IMD of .04% at 2V out.

Yes, but that's tubes plural and my comment about a good dollop of NFB
clearly applies. ISTR the orignal sense of this thread was talking about
a *single* triode.

Well .. you'll need TWO of them to make enough gain for a mic amp.

Graham

[vt]

No you wouldn't because it only produces .1% at 4V out & we are talking
cheap equipment. The preamp in question has a mic input.

Point is that properly designed tube gear can be excellent.



Eeyore wrote:

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

vt wrote:
Come on an old inexpensive preamp that could be bought as a kit specs
out at THD .05% at 2V out using 12AX7 tubes. IMD of .04% at 2V out.
Yes, but that's tubes plural and my comment about a good dollop of NFB
clearly applies. ISTR the orignal sense of this thread was talking about
a *single* triode.

Well .. you'll need TWO of them to make enough gain for a mic amp.

Graham

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:

Yes, and the premium versions, I forget the type numbers, of the 6SJ7
were used to good effect here in the U.S., The 5879 also ccquitted
itself well.

And the data I have unearthed shows the very excellent (for the period)
Siemens/Telefunken tube mic amps showing 0.5% THD specs. Of course that
would
be swamped by pickup cartridge errors.

I don't know if it is the case for the Telefunken tube mic amplifiers
you found, but the specifications for much vintage "pro audio" equipment
seem to be based on absolute worst case conditions,

And the basis for that asserion is what ?

From the use and measurement of such equipment in the day.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Eeyore]

vt wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
vt wrote:

Come on an old inexpensive preamp that could be bought as a kit specs
out at THD .05% at 2V out using 12AX7 tubes. IMD of .04% at 2V out.
Yes, but that's tubes plural and my comment about a good dollop of NFB
clearly applies. ISTR the orignal sense of this thread was talking about
a *single* triode.

Well .. you'll need TWO of them to make enough gain for a mic amp.

No you wouldn't

Yes you would because a single triode (or even pentode) cannot provide 60dB of
voltage gain !


because it only produces .1% at 4Vout

WHAT does ?


& we are talking cheap equipment.

WHO is talking about 'cheap equipment' ?


The preamp in question has a mic input.

What on earth are you talking about ? What preamp has a mic input ?


Point is that properly designed tube gear can be excellent.

Who said otherwise ?

Graham


And please stop top-posting. It's RUDE. It implies the words of the previous
posters have no value.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

the old guys seem to have been very conservative in determining their
ratings.

The *old guys* did no better than 'design' stock circuits.

I guess they weren't much different than designers today, huh? However
I didn't comment on how they did their designs, just that however they
designed them they were conservatively specified.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

VOLTAGE GAIN = OUTPUT VOLTAGE / INPUT VOLTAGE !

It was not at all clear

How clear do you want a definition of VOLTAGE GAIN ?

The definition of gain is clear, at least if we keep the difference
between power gain voltage gain in mind. It was not the definition of
gain that wasn't clear, it was the points at which the "INPUT VOLTAGE"
and "OUTPUT VOLTAGE" were being measured that wasn't made clear. In
other words it wasn't clear whether he was talking about the gain of the
microphone amplifier alone, or whether he was talking about the overall
gain of the complete "mixer" from the microphone amplifier input,
through the mixing network, to the line amplifier output.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:

I was simply trying to point out that IMD and THD are highly correlated
and
as a rule you don't have
one without the other, and they pretty much track one another

Pure nonsense. The mechanisms are quite different.

This is a perfect example of your failure to understand the underlying
theory. How are the mechanisms different?

Hey, you're a self-confessed SPICE (circuit analysis) expert.

I never made such a claim that is all in your imagination, when did I
claim to be a spice expert?

You write device models you recently told me.

Yes, I did say I wrote some device models, that in now way makes me a
spice expert, except perhaps in your mind.

If YOU don't know why are you asking ME ?

I do know, but you are saying I am wrong, so I am asking you to educate
me about the nature of the mechanism that causes HD and the mechanism
that causes IMD. I think I even saw a post from Arny agreeing with my
position. But if I am wrong I would like to learn the truth about this
issue. Can you describe a mechanism that is likely to be found in an
audio amplifier which causes significant IMD while producing little HD?


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Arny Krueger]

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in message
. 3.70

If digital and solid state are so much
better, how come there are legions of people scurrying
back to tape machines, tubes, fairchilds, UAs,ribbons,
and other old gear??

Sentimentality.

It's the same reason why some people drive classic cars.

I believe it is because most
everything that is a product of this "new and improved"
way of recording just sounds like ass.

Ah, for the good old days when men were men and women commonly died in
childbirth?

[Arny Krueger]

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in message
. 3.70
"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

"Tynan AgviÐr" wrote in message
. 3.70

I am intriqued by just why during the course of any
discussion about *analog* recording/audio ;;digital
acolytes have to chime in with *"man, why dont you just
go digital"* it never ever fails. there should be an
equivalent to Godwin's law for the phenomenon.

Obvious truth has this nasty habit of creeping into
discussions.

*I dont want to go digital/solid state etc because I
dont ****ing like the way it sounds for ****s
sake!!!!!!

I suggest then that you do the practical thing, and
assemble a good clean digital signal chain, and add some
EFX boxes to get the sound you want. For example, by
randomly shifting the sliders on a 1/3 octave equalizer,
you could simulate the effect of attaching a speaker to
an amplifier with a high source impedance.

But why do that when I can have the real thing?

How can you call it the real thing when it is clearly the less accurate
version of the real thing which is a live performance?

All that stuff is too difficult.

Now we hear some truth - its all about laziness.

When I record, I like to set up
the mics(the most involved part of the recording process,
and the most important) hit record, tear down, and go
home to my wife and daughter afterwards.

You must be badly mislead if you think that somehow using digital prevents
you from using that process.

Take crane song, for example..the guy uses emulator
circuits to mimic the sound of tube compression/tape
saturation, etc.. total effing joke. (and has a "dither
CD".that one is a riot)

You're preaching to the choir.

[Arny Krueger]

"RickH" wrote in message


my earlier posts and latest post discredit the digital boards.

No, all your libels of digital mixing consoles expose your ignorance of how
audio works.

[Arny Krueger]

"RickH" wrote in message


I have mixed in analog and digital,

As have I, the analog mixing going back as early as 1966.

a well done analog
board does add depth to the soundfield that digital
compresses out.

There's no compression in a digital board. In fact the greater nonlinear
distortion of an analog board amounts to being a kind of compression, so its
not that digital compresses more, it is that analog compresses more. If you
like compression, don't be shy - admit it and be a man!

It may add noise too, but that can be kept low on good boards.

Actually, the noise level on most analog boards is borderline intrusive on
some critical operations, especially if they have to be repeated.

The digital boards I used all
tended to flatten out the soundstage and make all
instruments seem to compete for top volume, like the
converters needed some minimum threshold to meet, IOW
they added compression from the get- go.

Sounds like you just didn't get the hang of it, probably because you have an
unbridled hatred for digital.

Nuances misplaced if not lost.

Analog has more noise and more distortion so more nuances get lost.

IMHO it is preferable to mix on
the bext possible analog board, then do one high quality
AD conversion for storage to the computer, and have the
option of parallel analog storage to a good tape deck.

What an aborted mess!

Maybe in a few years the converters will improve, then
you still have to build the DSP firmware to sum without
more compression.

The best converters are now so good that one stage of conversion even
without a gain control can have the more dynamic range than an analog mic
preamp with a gain control.

One beauty of digital mixing is that you can have as much dynamic range in
the mix bus as you can imagine, just by adding bits. There are no
components in the analog domain that have as much dynamic range as plain
vanilla 24 bits digital, no matter how you twist it. In contrast, much DAW
software mixes with 32 bit floating point, that has close to 1,000 dB
dynamic range.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
RickH wrote:

I have mixed in analog and digital, a well done analog
board does add depth to the soundfield

No it bloody well DOESN'T.

It adds or subtracts NOTHING.

Well, it may add or subtract the LSB, but we can scale that down to
infinitesimal.

Clearly Rick has no clue about how digital works.

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Arny Krueger wrote:

The best converters are now so good that one stage of conversion even
without a gain control can have the more dynamic range than an analog mic
preamp with a gain control.


I would be very interested to look a the data sheet of such a device.
Can you give an example please?

Cheers

Ian

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

The best converters are now so good that one stage of
conversion even without a gain control can have the more
dynamic range than an analog mic preamp with a gain
control.

I would be very interested to look a the data sheet of
such a device. Can you give an example please?

http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm4222.pdf

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

Eeyore wrote
John Byrns wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:

Yes, and the premium versions, I forget the type numbers, of the 6SJ7
were used to good effect here in the U.S., The 5879 also ccquitted
itself well.

And the data I have unearthed shows the very excellent (for the period)
Siemens/Telefunken tube mic amps showing 0.5% THD specs. Of course that
would
be swamped by pickup cartridge errors.

I don't know if it is the case for the Telefunken tube mic amplifiers
you found, but the specifications for much vintage "pro audio" equipment
seem to be based on absolute worst case conditions,

And the basis for that asserion is what ?

From the use and measurement of such equipment in the day.

That's a meaningless non-answer.

However It's about what I'd expect from YOU.

Graham

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

The definition of gain is clear, at least if we keep the difference
between power gain voltage gain in mind.

LMFAO !

Damn, you're stupid !

Graham

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:

I was simply trying to point out that IMD and THD are highly correlated
and
as a rule you don't have
one without the other, and they pretty much track one another

Pure nonsense. The mechanisms are quite different.

This is a perfect example of your failure to understand the underlying
theory. How are the mechanisms different?

Hey, you're a self-confessed SPICE (circuit analysis) expert.

I never made such a claim that is all in your imagination, when did I
claim to be a spice expert?

You said you wrote some SPICE device models. That's the sign of an expert.

I KNEW you were LYING of course. That's what you do best.

Graham

[Eeyore]

John Byrns wrote:

I am asking you to educate me about the nature of the mechanism that causes HD

Non-linear transfer characteristics of course.

An entirely linear device would produce NO distortion. OH but Mr Spice Man you
should know that already. So why are YOU asking ME ?

Graham