[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" wrote in message


The catch with all this crap is that the original Great
River pramps are clean, very clean, and very quiet. So
y'all can skip your preaching about "conditioning" and
the rest of it.

If you haven't noticed the original point was that the GRs are far less
clean and even just a little noiser than some of the better cheap stuff.

Or just go ahead and stand on the soapboxes ranting about
that which has nothing to do with my original post.

Um, your OP where you bragged about lining up some multi-kilobuck mic
preamps for yourself?

In this case, Don, who is generally very well informed,
didn't know what the hell he was talking about.

More like he was talking over your head, Hank.

From the chosen mics and acoustic pickup preamps to the
Great Rivers we had an extraoridinarily clean and quiet
signal chain.

All good except the extraordinarily clean and quiet part. Clean and quiet
perhaps, extraordinary - how would you really know that for sure?

I've shot out the GR's against a Millennia HV-3D, a Grace
201, and a Gordon Model 4. Only the latter stood out as
cleaner. Go look at the specs for all of those.

I'd bet money that in a blind test you'd be reduced to random guessing, even
if I threw in a Symmetrix and a Behringer.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message

On 4/11/2011 12:57 PM, Don Pearce wrote:

The tone arises from the specifications.

That's precisely why the Great River has "tone." Also
transformers.

Also, a reputation which may or may not related to anything audible.

[Arny Krueger]

"PStamler" wrote in message

NICE distortion is distortion that isn't there.

The original GR preamps were not designed to add
distortion, euphonic or otherwise. The designer's goal
was to create electronics with distortion that was (a)
very low, and (b) entirely low-order, under all
conditions of use. He succeeded.

One solid source of evidence to support that would of course be the right
measurements.

Unless of course the designer was addressing "unmeasurable distortion." ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"John Sorell" wrote in message

(Don Pearce) wrote in
news:4da32569.1208601225 @news.eternal-september.org:

I suspect
you may have been overly impressed by names here, maybe?


d,

Was your last sentence really necessary?


It appears that the name dropping addressed some need of the person who made
the OP.

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

"Steve Hawkins"
wrote in message

I don't know your background, but it's very obvious to me
you don't understand what everyone else is trying to
explain to you. BTW, my ears can't read specifications.

Yes Steve, and you seem to be the sort of guy who has no time to do any
bias-controlled listening tests.

People who talk like you generally find them to be pretty humiliating.

We all know that audio is almost all art and very little science... ;-)
Well it is to people who know no science!

Still smarting from your Facebook debacle I see. First off, my
professiom has been Engineering for over 30 years, about half that time
in spectrum analyzers. I helped design and manufacture the test
equipment that builds and tests the gear you use.

Second, I've been a working musician since I was 12 and have a CD out
that a lot of folks seem to enjoy. I also do live sound and will be
happy to compare my client list to yours anytime you care to post it.

Steve Hawkins

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:

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

If we are talking about the original GR, it's mostly because the distortion
is very low. It is, in fact, lower than any other transformer-input preamp
I have ever measured. It's also very quiet, with the thermal noise of the
input transformer being dominant.

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.

Yup. The original GR isn't as clean-sounding as the Millennia HV-3, but it
is remarkably close and the CMRR is amazing.

The newer GR NV model is a totally different beast.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

"Trevor" wrote in
u:


"Steve Hawkins" wrote in
message
Exactly my point. If you start with a coloured preamp, you have just
blown your choices away.

d

I don't know your background, but it's very obvious to me you don't
understand what everyone else is trying to explain to you. BTW, my
ears can't read specifications.

Seems to me he does, but simply disagrees, as do I. One can always run
a clean signal through any "dirty" conditioning device of your choice
after recording. And you get to listen and choose at your leasure. As
Don says, it is impossible to get a clean signal if you record through
a "dirty" device in the first place though.
I used to argue it was far easier and cheaper to run a digital
recording through a tape machine *after* recording, many years ago,
when some still thought it necessary to record on 24 track tape at
huge expense. Of course they didn't want to know, or to compare for
themselves. The cost of tape and recorder repairs has pretty much put
paid to that practice though fortunately.

Trevor.

Sorry, but you don't understand either. You and Don are fixed on the
studio world which is always focused on "do no harm" until it's time for
processing.

Hank is a guitarist, until he pulls out that damn banjo, and so am I.
Our entire signal chain is all about tone, from the strings to the final
amp or DI. It's hard to explain to a non-player, but we "play" the gear
the same as we play the instrument. I pay more attention to features
than specs and the final arbiter is my ears.

Steve Hawkins

[George's Pro Sound Company]

the final arbiter is my ears.

Steve Hawkins


as it should be. I am sick to death of people try to tell me what something
sounds like by reading a spec sheet!!
get the damn thing , hook it up and listen to the sound
all the rest is for those who have sniffed too many solder fumes to argue
over
George

[PStamler]

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.

Peace,
Paul

[Arny Krueger]

"Steve Hawkins"
wrote in message
5.250
"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

"Steve Hawkins"
wrote in message

I don't know your background, but it's very obvious to
me you don't understand what everyone else is trying to
explain to you. BTW, my ears can't read specifications.

Yes Steve, and you seem to be the sort of guy who has no
time to do any bias-controlled listening tests.

People who talk like you generally find them to be
pretty humiliating.

We all know that audio is almost all art and very little
science... ;-) Well it is to people who know no science!

Still smarting from your Facebook debacle I see.

Ah, the attempt to distract with an OT comment.

First off, my professiom has been Engineering for over 30
years, about half that time in spectrum analyzers. I
helped design and manufacture the test equipment that
builds and tests the gear you use.

And that qualifies you to comment how?

Second, I've been a working musician since I was 12 and
have a CD out that a lot of folks seem to enjoy. I also
do live sound and will be happy to compare my client list
to yours anytime you care to post it.

IOW, no relevant answer at all.

Sadly, very characteristic of people who think they are not accountable to
anybody but their own prejudices.

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Trevor" wrote in message
u...

"Steve Hawkins" wrote in message
Exactly my point. If you start with a coloured preamp, you have just
blown your choices away.

d

I don't know your background, but it's very obvious to me you don't
understand what everyone else is trying to explain to you. BTW, my ears
can't read specifications.

Seems to me he does, but simply disagrees, as do I. One can always run a
clean signal through any "dirty" conditioning device of your choice after
recording. And you get to listen and choose at your leasure. As Don says,
it
is impossible to get a clean signal if you record through a "dirty" device
in the first place though.


Keeping your choices open and delaying decisions in a music production
process can do more harm than good.

If you know what you are doing, the time it takes to finish tracking a
rock/pop production using coloured preamps of your choice (as well as
compressors, EQs etc.) is more or less the same as if you used the cleanest
preamps and no processing.

When you get to mix such clean tracks you need to spend an X amount of time
experimenting with different colours and the way they interact, trying to
figure out what it was that you or the person who did the tracking wanted in
the first place. The more tracks and the more time that passed since
tracking, the more complicated the task. At that stage you can't use the
colour of the preamps anymore, so you are limited to compressors, EQ and
similar processing. If you use hardware processors you'll need a lot of
them. That's probably acceptable to someone with the lack of experience or
someone keen on extensive experimentation, but it's too time consuming to be
the norm in the world of commercial music production.

Most of the people who do that for a living have no problem with committing
to "tape", not only when it comes to the colour of the preamps. That way, by
the mix time, you just need to push the faders and the mix is already there.
Ok, you can keep tweaking and sweetening till the cows come home, but more
often than not, mixing such material is a breeze because you know right from
the beginning what the poet meant. If the tracking is done right, it mixes
itself.

Apart from the efficiency there are also the artistic issues; the way the
colour of individual instruments affects the perceived vibe of the whole
track and consequently the performance of the musicians, inspiration of the
producer and/or composer, motivation of the engineer, comments by the band
members' girlfriends...


I used to argue it was far easier and cheaper to run a digital recording
through a tape machine *after* recording, many years ago, when some still
thought it necessary to record on 24 track tape at huge expense. Of course
they didn't want to know, or to compare for themselves. The cost of tape
and
recorder repairs has pretty much put paid to that practice though
fortunately.


I did the comparison and found it to be the worst of both worlds, analog and
digital.

Predrag

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

"Steve Hawkins"
wrote in message
5.250
"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

"Steve Hawkins"
wrote in message

I don't know your background, but it's very obvious to
me you don't understand what everyone else is trying to
explain to you. BTW, my ears can't read specifications.

Yes Steve, and you seem to be the sort of guy who has no
time to do any bias-controlled listening tests.

People who talk like you generally find them to be
pretty humiliating.

We all know that audio is almost all art and very little
science... ;-) Well it is to people who know no science!

Still smarting from your Facebook debacle I see.

Ah, the attempt to distract with an OT comment.

First off, my professiom has been Engineering for over 30
years, about half that time in spectrum analyzers. I
helped design and manufacture the test equipment that
builds and tests the gear you use.

And that qualifies you to comment how?

Second, I've been a working musician since I was 12 and
have a CD out that a lot of folks seem to enjoy. I also
do live sound and will be happy to compare my client list
to yours anytime you care to post it.

IOW, no relevant answer at all.

Sadly, very characteristic of people who think they are not
accountable to anybody but their own prejudices.

LOL!!! I now dub thee Saint Arny; Holier Than All. However, you're
right, that was a bit wordy. I could have just said I know a lot more
about it than you do. Mea Culpa. There's a boatload of folks here who
know way more about it than I do, which is why I hang out. Don't let
that Halo get too tight now.

Steve Hawkins

[hank alrich]

Predrag Trpkov wrote:

Keeping your choices open and delaying decisions in a music production
process can do more harm than good.

If you know what you are doing, the time it takes to finish tracking a
rock/pop production using coloured preamps of your choice (as well as
compressors, EQs etc.) is more or less the same as if you used the cleanest
preamps and no processing.

When you get to mix such clean tracks you need to spend an X amount of time
experimenting with different colours and the way they interact, trying to
figure out what it was that you or the person who did the tracking wanted in
the first place. The more tracks and the more time that passed since
tracking, the more complicated the task. At that stage you can't use the
colour of the preamps anymore, so you are limited to compressors, EQ and
similar processing. If you use hardware processors you'll need a lot of
them. That's probably acceptable to someone with the lack of experience or
someone keen on extensive experimentation, but it's too time consuming to be
the norm in the world of commercial music production.

Most of the people who do that for a living have no problem with committing
to "tape", not only when it comes to the colour of the preamps. That way, by
the mix time, you just need to push the faders and the mix is already there.
Ok, you can keep tweaking and sweetening till the cows come home, but more
often than not, mixing such material is a breeze because you know right from
the beginning what the poet meant. If the tracking is done right, it mixes
itself.

Apart from the efficiency there are also the artistic issues; the way the
colour of individual instruments affects the perceived vibe of the whole
track and consequently the performance of the musicians, inspiration of the
producer and/or composer, motivation of the engineer, comments by the band
members' girlfriends...

Nicely stated. Lots of folks who knwo what they want go for it from the
gitgo. Letting a mix emerge right from the tracking is both a very
efficient and a very inpsiring way to work, IME.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[David Hajicek]

Hank:

Any thoughts on WHY it sounded better? Is the input impedance or line
length the cause of loss without a preamp? If your guitar pickups do not
have active electronics, the output impedance can be so high that just 40
ft. of cable could load them down.

Dave

[hank alrich]

David Hajicek wrote:

Hank:

Any thoughts on WHY it sounded better? Is the input impedance or line
length the cause of loss without a preamp? If your guitar pickups do not
have active electronics, the output impedance can be so high that just 40
ft. of cable could load them down.

Dave

One of my instrument cables is 12' and the other 15', and they are the
same cables with which I have played over a hundred gigs in the last
three of years, and thirteen gigs in the last four weeks.

The Red Eyes are on stage with us, where I can reach the boost button
for a solo if I want to. We run them on P48 whenever possible. They are
designed to amplify passive acoustic instrument pickups and are fed by
the K&K Pure Minis in our guitars, or the Baggs saddle on the Gibson
mandolin.

The difference is between the preamps in the Mackie and Allen & Heath
consoles we typically find at our gigs, and the Great Rivers. If we read
the specs on those preamps we'd think them very close. In usage the GR's
deliver a sound that much more closely resembles the instruments,
shrinking the vestigial evidence of pickup sound, bringing the result
much closer to the sound of the instruments through the Schoeps mics.

The people who dislike my Schoeps complain that they lack "character".
Indeed, they do, and that's one of the things I like about them. The
instruments, in this case, have terrific character and that's what I'm
interested in converying to an audience.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Trevor]

"Steve Hawkins" wrote in message
5.250...
Sorry, but you don't understand either. You and Don are fixed on the
studio world which is always focused on "do no harm" until it's time for
processing.

Hank is a guitarist, until he pulls out that damn banjo, and so am I.
Our entire signal chain is all about tone, from the strings to the final
amp or DI. It's hard to explain to a non-player, but we "play" the gear
the same as we play the instrument. I pay more attention to features
than specs and the final arbiter is my ears.


I do live sound as well as studio. I have NO problem with musicians doing
*whatever* it takes to get the sound they want, so MY job is NOT to alter it
in any way that changes it into something they don't want.

I'm sorry if that was not clear from my original post.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Predrag Trpkov wrote:
Nicely stated. Lots of folks who knwo what they want go for it from the
gitgo. Letting a mix emerge right from the tracking is both a very
efficient and a very inpsiring way to work, IME.

Fine if everyone is in agreement and can hear things perfectly well so as to
make those critical judgements. However that's not always the case, and very
few here would not have spent time trying to fix someone elses poor choices.
If you never have, then you are indeed lucky.
Of course no argument from me when it does work! :-)

Trevor.

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

(hank alrich) wrote in
:

David Hajicek wrote:

Hank:

Any thoughts on WHY it sounded better? Is the input impedance or
line length the cause of loss without a preamp? If your guitar
pickups do not have active electronics, the output impedance can be
so high that just 40 ft. of cable could load them down.

Dave

One of my instrument cables is 12' and the other 15', and they are the
same cables with which I have played over a hundred gigs in the last
three of years, and thirteen gigs in the last four weeks.

The Red Eyes are on stage with us, where I can reach the boost button
for a solo if I want to. We run them on P48 whenever possible. They
are designed to amplify passive acoustic instrument pickups and are
fed by the K&K Pure Minis in our guitars, or the Baggs saddle on the
Gibson mandolin.

The difference is between the preamps in the Mackie and Allen & Heath
consoles we typically find at our gigs, and the Great Rivers. If we
read the specs on those preamps we'd think them very close. In usage
the GR's deliver a sound that much more closely resembles the
instruments, shrinking the vestigial evidence of pickup sound,
bringing the result much closer to the sound of the instruments
through the Schoeps mics.

The people who dislike my Schoeps complain that they lack "character".
Indeed, they do, and that's one of the things I like about them. The
instruments, in this case, have terrific character and that's what I'm
interested in converying to an audience.

Remember the days when every guitar had the early Fishman ribbon under
the saddle? People were conditioned to think that plastic quack is how
an acoustic guitar is supposed to sound. When better, more natural
pickups started to come out a lot of people didn't like them.

Steve Hawkins

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

"Trevor" wrote in
:


"Steve Hawkins" wrote in
message 5.250...
Sorry, but you don't understand either. You and Don are fixed on the
studio world which is always focused on "do no harm" until it's time
for processing.

Hank is a guitarist, until he pulls out that damn banjo, and so am I.
Our entire signal chain is all about tone, from the strings to the
final amp or DI. It's hard to explain to a non-player, but we "play"
the gear the same as we play the instrument. I pay more attention to
features than specs and the final arbiter is my ears.


I do live sound as well as studio. I have NO problem with musicians
doing *whatever* it takes to get the sound they want, so MY job is NOT
to alter it in any way that changes it into something they don't want.

I'm sorry if that was not clear from my original post.

Trevor.

No worries, we're cool!

Steve Hawkins

[David Hajicek]

"Steve Hawkins" wrote in message
5.250...
(hank alrich) wrote in
:

David Hajicek wrote:

Hank:

Any thoughts on WHY it sounded better? Is the input impedance or
line length the cause of loss without a preamp? If your guitar
pickups do not have active electronics, the output impedance can be
so high that just 40 ft. of cable could load them down.

Dave

One of my instrument cables is 12' and the other 15', and they are the
same cables with which I have played over a hundred gigs in the last
three of years, and thirteen gigs in the last four weeks.

The Red Eyes are on stage with us, where I can reach the boost button
for a solo if I want to. We run them on P48 whenever possible. They
are designed to amplify passive acoustic instrument pickups and are
fed by the K&K Pure Minis in our guitars, or the Baggs saddle on the
Gibson mandolin.

The difference is between the preamps in the Mackie and Allen & Heath
consoles we typically find at our gigs, and the Great Rivers. If we
read the specs on those preamps we'd think them very close. In usage
the GR's deliver a sound that much more closely resembles the
instruments, shrinking the vestigial evidence of pickup sound,
bringing the result much closer to the sound of the instruments
through the Schoeps mics.

The people who dislike my Schoeps complain that they lack "character".
Indeed, they do, and that's one of the things I like about them. The
instruments, in this case, have terrific character and that's what I'm
interested in converying to an audience.

Remember the days when every guitar had the early Fishman ribbon under
the saddle? People were conditioned to think that plastic quack is how
an acoustic guitar is supposed to sound. When better, more natural
pickups started to come out a lot of people didn't like them.

Steve Hawkins


Hank obviously needs a TUBE preamp. ;)

Dave

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

"Trevor" wrote in
u:


"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Predrag Trpkov wrote:
Nicely stated. Lots of folks who knwo what they want go for it from
the gitgo. Letting a mix emerge right from the tracking is both a
very efficient and a very inpsiring way to work, IME.

Fine if everyone is in agreement and can hear things perfectly well so
as to make those critical judgements. However that's not always the
case, and very few here would not have spent time trying to fix
someone elses poor choices. If you never have, then you are indeed
lucky. Of course no argument from me when it does work! :-)

Trevor.

One man's poor choice is often anothers signature sound. :-)

Steve Hawkins

[Bill Ruys[_2_]]

"George's Pro Sound Company" wrote in message
news
the final arbiter is my ears.

Steve Hawkins


as it should be. I am sick to death of people try to tell me what
something sounds like by reading a spec sheet!!
get the damn thing , hook it up and listen to the sound
all the rest is for those who have sniffed too many solder fumes to argue
over
George
Most of these spec sheets are generic and often don't even come close to
representing the actual performance of the device. I was A/Bing a couple of
pairs of SDC mics. Based on their frq response charts, pair A should have
been much brighter than pair B. Turned out the opposite was true. Your
ears have to be the final judge. And if you can't hear the difference, the
state of the art is at a high enough level that it ceases to matter.

Bill.

[hank alrich]

Steve Hawkins wrote:

(hank alrich) wrote in
:

David Hajicek wrote:

Hank:

Any thoughts on WHY it sounded better? Is the input impedance or
line length the cause of loss without a preamp? If your guitar
pickups do not have active electronics, the output impedance can be
so high that just 40 ft. of cable could load them down.

Dave

One of my instrument cables is 12' and the other 15', and they are the
same cables with which I have played over a hundred gigs in the last
three of years, and thirteen gigs in the last four weeks.

The Red Eyes are on stage with us, where I can reach the boost button
for a solo if I want to. We run them on P48 whenever possible. They
are designed to amplify passive acoustic instrument pickups and are
fed by the K&K Pure Minis in our guitars, or the Baggs saddle on the
Gibson mandolin.

The difference is between the preamps in the Mackie and Allen & Heath
consoles we typically find at our gigs, and the Great Rivers. If we
read the specs on those preamps we'd think them very close. In usage
the GR's deliver a sound that much more closely resembles the
instruments, shrinking the vestigial evidence of pickup sound,
bringing the result much closer to the sound of the instruments
through the Schoeps mics.

The people who dislike my Schoeps complain that they lack "character".
Indeed, they do, and that's one of the things I like about them. The
instruments, in this case, have terrific character and that's what I'm
interested in converying to an audience.

Remember the days when every guitar had the early Fishman ribbon under
the saddle? People were conditioned to think that plastic quack is how
an acoustic guitar is supposed to sound. When better, more natural
pickups started to come out a lot of people didn't like them.

Steve Hawkins

Yeah, I skipped that part of it. I didn't accept a pickup for the
acoustic guitars until Lance said to put a K&K in it.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[hank alrich]

David Hajicek wrote:

"Steve Hawkins" wrote in message
5.250...
(hank alrich) wrote in
:

David Hajicek wrote:

Hank:

Any thoughts on WHY it sounded better? Is the input impedance or
line length the cause of loss without a preamp? If your guitar
pickups do not have active electronics, the output impedance can be
so high that just 40 ft. of cable could load them down.

Dave

One of my instrument cables is 12' and the other 15', and they are the
same cables with which I have played over a hundred gigs in the last
three of years, and thirteen gigs in the last four weeks.

The Red Eyes are on stage with us, where I can reach the boost button
for a solo if I want to. We run them on P48 whenever possible. They
are designed to amplify passive acoustic instrument pickups and are
fed by the K&K Pure Minis in our guitars, or the Baggs saddle on the
Gibson mandolin.

The difference is between the preamps in the Mackie and Allen & Heath
consoles we typically find at our gigs, and the Great Rivers. If we
read the specs on those preamps we'd think them very close. In usage
the GR's deliver a sound that much more closely resembles the
instruments, shrinking the vestigial evidence of pickup sound,
bringing the result much closer to the sound of the instruments
through the Schoeps mics.

The people who dislike my Schoeps complain that they lack "character".
Indeed, they do, and that's one of the things I like about them. The
instruments, in this case, have terrific character and that's what I'm
interested in converying to an audience.

Remember the days when every guitar had the early Fishman ribbon under
the saddle? People were conditioned to think that plastic quack is how
an acoustic guitar is supposed to sound. When better, more natural
pickups started to come out a lot of people didn't like them.

Steve Hawkins


Hank obviously needs a TUBE preamp. ;)

Dave

Yes! Funny thing is, until I got the Red Eye the best DI I'd found was
the Evil Twin, which is a tubular unit of extraordinary quality, size,
and cost. It could be very clean or nicely distorted, and I used it for
all kinds of great guitar sounds. When I again started traveling to play
I sold it because no way could I haul it around.

The ET if operated to be clean was cleaner than the Baggs PADI I used
until I discovered the Red Eye.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/12/2011 6:24 AM, Trevor wrote:

One can always run a
clean signal through any "dirty" conditioning device of your choice after
recording. And you get to listen and choose at your leasure. As Don says, it
is impossible to get a clean signal if you record through a "dirty" device
in the first place though.

And Don is correct. But making sound isn't about always getting the
cleanest signal path, it's about doing what you need to do in order to
get the sound that you want. In ths case, Hank wanted a clean sound, and
used a clean preamp. It has transformers in and out, so it sounds a
little "organic" but certainly not dirty.

If one wants a dirty sound, it's best to get it up front. And if one
doesn't know what sound he wants, he should probably do some more
homework. The multitrack recording process has lulled us into the
working mode of making all the decisions after the music's gone home.

I used to argue it was far easier and cheaper to run a digital recording
through a tape machine *after* recording, many years ago, when some still
thought it necessary to record on 24 track tape at huge expense.

Oh, I'll bet there's a difference. But the reason why sensible people
want to use tape recorders is so they won't have to fool with computers
when there's real work to be done. I think that a good digital recording
can sound as good as a good analog recording. A bad digital recording
can't be made better by trying to cover up a poor signal chain with tape
crud.

Today we have CLASP, which allow you to work in your DAW and get the
analog tape sound, using the same reel of tape over and over until it
wears out. Have you priced a CLASP system lately?

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Trevor]

"Steve Hawkins" wrote in message
5.250...
One man's poor choice is often anothers signature sound. :-)

Right, and it's not always good to be stuck with someone else's "signature
sound" when the client, producer, or record company wants something else :-(
If you're simply recording yourself for private distribution, you can do
what you like of course:-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Bill Ruys" wrote in message
...
Most of these spec sheets are generic and often don't even come close to
representing the actual performance of the device.

Usually quite true.

I was A/Bing a couple of pairs of SDC mics. Based on their frq response
charts, pair A should have been much brighter than pair B. Turned out the
opposite was true.

Unless they were omni's there are usually lot's of ways you could get either
result of course, even if the spec sheet was right for their particular test
conditions.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
Oh, I'll bet there's a difference. But the reason why sensible people want
to use tape recorders is so they won't have to fool with computers when
there's real work to be done. I think that a good digital recording can
sound as good as a good analog recording.

Right, but rarely vice versa.


A bad digital recording can't be made better by trying to cover up a poor
signal chain with tape crud.

Right, nor can a bad tape recording simply because the crud is inherent.


Today we have CLASP, which allow you to work in your DAW and get the
analog tape sound, using the same reel of tape over and over until it
wears out. Have you priced a CLASP system lately?

Nope, not interested in the slightest. Even those who once wanted the "tape
sound" seem to have disappeared. IF I needed to I can still run tracks
through my own tape machine. I don't seem to have much other use for it
these days :-)

Trevor.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Ruys" wrote in message

"George's Pro Sound Company" wrote in
message
news
the final arbiter is my ears.

Steve Hawkins


as it should be. I am sick to death of people try to
tell me what something sounds like by reading a spec
sheet!! get the damn thing , hook it up and listen to the sound
all the rest is for those who have sniffed too many
solder fumes to argue over
George

Most of these spec sheets are generic and often don't
even come close to representing the actual performance of
the device.

I agree. Spec sheets are often marketing tools that are designed to appeal
to the great unwashed, not technical experts.

I was A/Bing a couple of pairs of SDC mics. Based on their frq response
charts, pair A should have
been much brighter than pair B. Turned out the opposite
was true.

Well, microphone spec sheets - in general they are about as opaque as they
come. Interestingly enough if you know what you are doing you can see why
Schoeps mics sound so good from their spec sheets.

Your ears have to be the final judge. And if
you can't hear the difference, the state of the art is at
a high enough level that it ceases to matter.

One of the most acoustically savvy tech guys in the world today is Earl
Geddes, who is a personal friend. If people got serious about spec sheets
for transducers it would be a windfall for him, becuase he has some
wonderful patents and other technology in the area. So imagine Earl
Geddes, Dave Clark and others such as myself sitting around a bar in Earl's
basement, sipping our favorite beverages and talking about the state of the
art of characterizing transducers and bemoaning the huge gap between what
can be done and what is done.

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/13/2011 12:15 AM, Bill Ruys wrote:

Most of these spec sheets are generic and often don't even come clse to
representing the actual performance of the device. I was A/Bing a couple of
pairs of SDC mics. Based on their frq response charts, pair A should have
been much brighter than pair B. Turned out the opposite was true.

Test results can be meaningful, but if the test results don't support
what you hear, then you're testing the wrong thing (or only publishing
the results of the wrong tests). Don has the principle correct - you
should decide on a complete set of specifications and then keep working
on the design until those specifications are met. But not all designers
specify their design criteria correctly. THD is a good example.
Depending on the distribution of the distortion products, you can hear a
few tenths of a percent, or you can tolerate (or even prefer to none) as
much as 10%.

But few manufacturers publish a spectrum analysis along with distortion
figures. Sometimes they simply don't make those measurements, sometimes
they do and don't want to show them because they reveal things the
manufactuerr may not want you to know. But mostly it's because marketing
departments want a single number that customers can compare, and they
try to make that number look as good as possible.

ears have to be the final judge. And if you can't hear the difference, the
state of the art is at a high enough level that it ceases to matter.

This, too, is true. It's difficult to find a really bad A/D converter
these days, but it's still difficult (hence expensive) to make a good
microphone.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Dale A. Francis]

On Apr 12, 1:47*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


IOW, no relevant answer at all.

Sadly, very characteristic of people who think they are not accountable to
anybody but their own prejudices.

words from the horse's mouth that apply to the horse itself

[Arny Krueger]

"Dale A. Francis" wrote in
message

On Apr 12, 1:47 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

IOW, no relevant answer at all.

Sadly, very characteristic of people who think they are
not accountable to anybody but their own prejudices.

words from the horse's mouth that apply to the horse
itself

In the sense that they apply to everybody, yes.

[RD Jones]

On Apr 11, 5:40*pm, PStamler wrote:

Well, I put high-quality resistors (mostly metal film, not wirewound),
precision coupling caps and whopper reservoir caps into a Fender
Deluxe, and it sounds more like a Twin. Been schlepping it to gigs for
some 35 years now. It sounds really good.

So a mid '70s or older. 5U4 or GZ34 ?
Any issues with the rectifier service life ?
Large caps are supposed to be harder on tube rectifiers.

rd

[PStamler]

On Apr 14, 8:01*pm, RD Jones wrote:
On Apr 11, 5:40*pm, PStamler wrote:

Well, I put high-quality resistors (mostly metal film, not wirewound),
precision coupling caps and whopper reservoir caps into a Fender
Deluxe, and it sounds more like a Twin. Been schlepping it to gigs for
some 35 years now. It sounds really good.

So a mid '70s or older. 5U4 or GZ34 ?
Any issues with the rectifier service life ?
Large caps are supposed to be harder on tube rectifiers.

Early 60s, actually. GZ34. I got it used around 1973. Nope, no problem
with rectifier life that I can see; they last several years. The amp
doesn't get hard use - 2-3 gigs a month.

Peace,
Paul

[Randy Yates]

On 04/11/2011 11:11 PM, lid wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:23:35 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:


Legend has it that somebody put wirewound resistors and precision
caps throughout a Fender Twin, and managed to make it sound *very very
bad*. Some pearls need a grain of sand to get started - we are
dealing with people who have bought records made on $DEITY only
knows what sorta one-off gear.

Since this group is about something that is at the intersection of
art& engineering....

Technically: this sounds like sh*t.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fM2qhG8mA4

But I LIKE the way that sh*t sounds.

No sh*t!
--
Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Steve Hawkins wrote:

I don't know your background, but it's very obvious to me you don't
understand what everyone else is trying to explain to you. BTW, my
ears can't read specifications.

What I miss in this thread is that the outcome is from a combination of
equipment, some equipment tends to combine well, and some doesn't but may be
good in other contexts.

Generally I tend to be in favour of Don Pearces way of seeing this - ie. bad
specs equals broken stuff, but - with all due respect - sessions and gigs
are about what makes the end result good and currently I tend to make
recordings that are in high regard via a lucky combination of stuff with
lesser specs.

I have a nice setup of C42's - one pair and two - that didn't work well in
the first owners context and work very well in my context. They do need
frequency response compensation, but I am very happy with them not having it
ex works and just having so very very very very clean electronics giving me
the choice of how to use their properties.

Dunno about the two, having also the pair those are the ones that get used
most, but the pair regularly outperforms a friends pair of what they are
said to be "the cheaper alternative to", brand name intentionally omitted
since this is about context and about what sounds best on my recorder and
via my process when we record together at a chamber music society.

Oh - and the recordings made with all 4 turned out wonderful, the pair for
front and the two for "rear/ambience". Quality equipment helps. As for the
Mackie preamps - I have a 1202 that I bought second or third hand, probably
at too high a price, the first version. Only using its mic pres at 30'ish dB
gain to feed a MR8HD(*) sounds great, using the rest of it doesn't, but is
OK for on site monitor mix.

(*) found a little used one at a good price to replace the one I broke ...

Steve Hawkins

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[hank alrich]

Peter Larsen wrote:

I have a nice setup of C42's

I'd like to try a piar of those in place of the Schoeps to see how they
do in the ocntext I'm using mics on stage for instruments.

I mount them to the stand with an Atlas CO1-B clamp, a 6" gooseneck, and
a shock mount. I really like the position, aimed from below (floor
monitor winds up in or very near the null of a cardioid pattern) angled
to hear across the top, aimed roughly at the bridge.

The Josephsons cost significiantly less than the Scheops, always a
consideration for road gear.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[donh]

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

David Hajicek wrote:

Hank:

Any thoughts on WHY it sounded better? Is the input impedance or line
length the cause of loss without a preamp? If your guitar pickups do
not have active electronics, the output impedance can be so high that
just 40 ft. of cable could load them down.

Dave

One of my instrument cables is 12' and the other 15', and they are the
same cables with which I have played over a hundred gigs in the last
three of years, and thirteen gigs in the last four weeks.

The Red Eyes are on stage with us, where I can reach the boost button
for a solo if I want to. We run them on P48 whenever possible. They are
designed to amplify passive acoustic instrument pickups and are fed by
the K&K Pure Minis in our guitars, or the Baggs saddle on the Gibson
mandolin.

The difference is between the preamps in the Mackie and Allen & Heath
consoles we typically find at our gigs, and the Great Rivers. If we read
the specs on those preamps we'd think them very close. In usage the GR's
deliver a sound that much more closely resembles the instruments,
shrinking the vestigial evidence of pickup sound, bringing the result
much closer to the sound of the instruments through the Schoeps mics.

The people who dislike my Schoeps complain that they lack "character".
Indeed, they do, and that's one of the things I like about them. The
instruments, in this case, have terrific character and that's what I'm
interested in conveying to an audience.

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

--
donh
donh at audiosys dot com

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

hank alrich wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote:

I have a nice setup of C42's

I'd like to try a piar of those in place of the Schoeps to see how
they do in the ocntext I'm using mics on stage for instruments.

Detail, detail, detail, they're good for Bach with cremonese catgut
implemements and a cembalo, then they are good for guitar. They could be
"too good" if proper parametric eq is not implemented, I think that is why
they didn't quite work in the context of what their first owners wanted to
use them for. My first recording with them was of a choir and a (too
distant) Fazioli, without eq they almost made the Fazioli sound like a steel
guitar, but choral clarity was so wonderful and it was fun to try a "Brucks
Sputnik" setup.

I mount them to the stand with an Atlas CO1-B clamp, a 6" gooseneck,
and a shock mount. I really like the position, aimed from below (floor
monitor winds up in or very near the null of a cardioid pattern)
angled to hear across the top, aimed roughly at the bridge.

The Josephsons cost significiantly less than the Scheops, always a
consideration for road gear.

You really need to try also a Shure KSM 137/141 pair, they don't have the
spatial ambience clarity and ultimate detail of the C42's, but they are the
SM57 reincarnate in terms of picking up the instrument aimed at when in
cardioid mode and worth trying also for vox at 10". The additional cost for
the 141 is modest as is the additional cost, if any, for a pair but not
having an on mic adjustment that can be adjusted incorrectly may be best for
stage use. Suitable parametric eq helps not only their on axis sound but
also their ambience, but not eq'ing is quite possibly best for vox, be it
single or choir, in a mix context.

Note: they above suggestions work for my way of setting up mics, eq'ing and
mixing, something else may well work better for someone else, no single
brand of shoe fits everybody and it is always about how it all combines,
just as with cooking.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers]

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.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then