Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mark Mark is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 966
Default High Quality Preamps Help



These days there are very few preamps, particularly those built into
modestly priced mixers, that are "head and shoulders" above any others.
It may be possible, because of the internal levels and bus headroom, EQ,
length of fader throw, and such, that you can come up with a better
sounding mix with an A&H than with a Mackie in roughly the same
ballpark, but it isn't going to be because of the mic preamps.


Oh Mike, you going to spoil the party...

this is no place for facts. :-)

Mark
  #82   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default High Quality Preamps Help

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 4/16/2011 9:15 PM, donh wrote:

I find the Allen&Heath to be head and shoulders above the Mackie, but
have no experience with the Great River stuff. It's mostly a wasteland
in this area


These days there are very few preamps, particularly those built into
modestly priced mixers, that are "head and shoulders" above any others.
It may be possible, because of the internal levels and bus headroom, EQ,
length of fader throw, and such, that you can come up with a better
sounding mix with an A&H than with a Mackie in roughly the same
ballpark, but it isn't going to be because of the mic preamps.

But thanks for trying, and for listening to your own work.


I think the Mackie Onyx preamps are better than those in the previous
versions of Mackies, and that the EQ, and DI inputs, too, are very much
better than in the older models. However, working with an Onyx recently
installed in a church, I suspect that overall there are huge tolerances
in things like faders, resistors, capacitors, etc. Observing level
variances in outputs fed by identical sources leads me to that
suspicion.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman
  #83   Report Post  
Posted to rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic,rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default High Quality Preamps Help

donh wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:29:22 -0500, hank alrich wrote:

I find the Allen&Heath to be head and shoulders above the Mackie, but
have no experience with the Great River stuff. It's mostly a wasteland
in this area


The new Mackie Onyx stuff is head and shoulders above the old Mackie stuff,
but the original Great River is a big step above all of the Mackie/A&H grade
stuff for transparency and noise rejection.

I recommend that if you live in the middle of nowhere (like I do) that you
take a trip to the AES show just to see what is out there and touch it
and try to listen to it (not that you can hear much at a show).
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #84   Report Post  
Posted to rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic,rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default High Quality Preamps Help

PStamler wrote:

On Apr 12, 7:50 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Without bench tests and a schematic, it is hard to guess why the GR sounds
like it does.


Maybe because it doesn't do anything? It's designed to add as little
to the signal as possible, and succeeds.

I suspect that the input transformers may provide some practical advantages
in say high EMI contexts, and also add some measurable and audible (FR)
effects.


You probably suspect right on the first clause; they also add
excellent rejection of RFI, which is useful in today's RF jungle.

You probably suspect wrong on the second clause. Frequency response
when properly terminated, as spec'd by the transformer manufacturer,
is typically -0.08dB at 20Hz and 20kHz, and dead flat in between. The
transformer only adds 1dB of noise (due to coil resistance) to the
thermal noise of a 150 ohm microphone. And unless you hit it with 0dBu
of signal at 40Hz, distortion is negligible.

These are really, really good transformers (Jensen JT-13k7-A), and are
part of the reason the preamps sound so good. By "sound good", I mean
not having a sound at all. I wish the market had supported GR in its
effort to sell a really uncolored preamp. Alas, the later version (NV
series) is more popular.


The original series sold decently, but was never designed for modfern
mass production. It was all hand-built and the process raeched a point
in economic time that made it too costly to continue that approach.

Those are still terrific preamps, in my mind, and one can find them used
for reasonable money, though not cheaply priced.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
High End Preamps With Remote Balance Control Peter High End Audio 2 February 18th 10 11:26 AM
Digi 003 Rack Preamps and Converter -- Quality? BarbaraD Pro Audio 3 March 2nd 08 07:03 PM
Different Studer preamps sound's quality ? lm Pro Audio 2 December 28th 04 06:50 PM
sage electronics - high quality MIC PREAMPS philip shaw bova Marketplace 10 November 28th 03 06:23 PM
FS: high end MIC PREAMPS - Sage Electronics philip shaw bova General 0 November 23rd 03 04:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:54 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"