| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Survey: Microphone Preamps
I am going to be upgrading my home studio's mic preamps. I have been
using the preamps in my MOTU interface and in my SoundCraft Spirit mixer, but I have always found them lacking a bit in detail and a bit "harsh" sounding with certain mics, especially my AKG C414TLII. My budget is around $3,000.00. I would be interested in hearing TWO things: 1) What do you consider to be a good "all around" mic pre. 2) Some specifics on why you recommend that mic pre. Thanks in advance... |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
EADGBE wrote:
I am going to be upgrading my home studio's mic preamps. I have been using the preamps in my MOTU interface and in my SoundCraft Spirit mixer, but I have always found them lacking a bit in detail and a bit "harsh" sounding with certain mics, especially my AKG C414TLII. My budget is around $3,000.00. I would be interested in hearing TWO things: 1) What do you consider to be a good "all around" mic pre. 2) Some specifics on why you recommend that mic pre. First have a look in some newsgroups: http://groups-beta.google.com/groups...rophone+preamp http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=mic+pre http://groups-beta.google.com/groups...mic+pre+survey http://groups-beta.google.com/groups...e+preamplifier Jens |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . com,
EADGBE wrote: I am going to be upgrading my home studio's mic preamps. I have been using the preamps in my MOTU interface and in my SoundCraft Spirit mixer, but I have always found them lacking a bit in detail and a bit "harsh" sounding with certain mics, especially my AKG C414TLII. Part of this is because the C414 TLII is just a harsh mike. My budget is around $3,000.00. I would be interested in hearing TWO things: 1) What do you consider to be a good "all around" mic pre. 2) Some specifics on why you recommend that mic pre. Get a preamp intended to be as neutral as possible. Ones I would recommend include the original Great River, the Millennia Media HV-3, and the John Hardy gadgets. All of these are well in your price range, and all of them pretty much pass a straightwire test. They are all worth auditioning. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... In article . com, EADGBE wrote: I am going to be upgrading my home studio's mic preamps. I have been using the preamps in my MOTU interface and in my SoundCraft Spirit mixer, but I have always found them lacking a bit in detail and a bit "harsh" sounding with certain mics, especially my AKG C414TLII. Part of this is because the C414 TLII is just a harsh mike. My budget is around $3,000.00. I would be interested in hearing TWO things: 1) What do you consider to be a good "all around" mic pre. 2) Some specifics on why you recommend that mic pre. Get a preamp intended to be as neutral as possible. Ones I would recommend include the original Great River, the Millennia Media HV-3, and the John Hardy gadgets. All of these are well in your price range, and all of them pretty much pass a straightwire test. They are all worth auditioning. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Yes, like Scott said. Also, you didn't mention how many channels you want to get for your $3000. You could get around 12 channels, only 8 channels, only 4 channels, only 2 channels or only one channel for that much ( and some are even more expensive ) depending on sound, features, quality, reputation, etc. And what type of music/instruments do you normally record? If it's a wide variety of instruments and styles you might want to get two channels of relatively clean pres and then one of something more colored. Like maybe getting 2 channels of John Hardy M-1 http://www.mercenary.com/m1micpreamtw.html ( $1650 ) for the 'clean' channels and then a single channel ( or possibly two ) of Neve or API clone pres, like the Great River MP-1NV http://www.mercenary.com/greatrivmp1.html ( $1075 ), Phoenix Audio's DRS-1 http://www.mercenary.com/phaudr.html ( $1250 ), or Brent Averill's version of the API http://www.brentaverill.com/312a/ ( $899 for one channel or $1449 for two channels ) And FYI, I have some John Hardy pres and they are seriously well designed, constructed and sound great. http://www.johnhardyco.com/ -- John L Rice |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
How do the Grace Design amps rate?
Rick Hollett "John L Rice" wrote in message ... "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... In article . com, EADGBE wrote: I am going to be upgrading my home studio's mic preamps. I have been using the preamps in my MOTU interface and in my SoundCraft Spirit mixer, but I have always found them lacking a bit in detail and a bit "harsh" sounding with certain mics, especially my AKG C414TLII. Part of this is because the C414 TLII is just a harsh mike. My budget is around $3,000.00. I would be interested in hearing TWO things: 1) What do you consider to be a good "all around" mic pre. 2) Some specifics on why you recommend that mic pre. Get a preamp intended to be as neutral as possible. Ones I would recommend include the original Great River, the Millennia Media HV-3, and the John Hardy gadgets. All of these are well in your price range, and all of them pretty much pass a straightwire test. They are all worth auditioning. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Yes, like Scott said. Also, you didn't mention how many channels you want to get for your $3000. You could get around 12 channels, only 8 channels, only 4 channels, only 2 channels or only one channel for that much ( and some are even more expensive ) depending on sound, features, quality, reputation, etc. And what type of music/instruments do you normally record? If it's a wide variety of instruments and styles you might want to get two channels of relatively clean pres and then one of something more colored. Like maybe getting 2 channels of John Hardy M-1 http://www.mercenary.com/m1micpreamtw.html ( $1650 ) for the 'clean' channels and then a single channel ( or possibly two ) of Neve or API clone pres, like the Great River MP-1NV http://www.mercenary.com/greatrivmp1.html ( $1075 ), Phoenix Audio's DRS-1 http://www.mercenary.com/phaudr.html ( $1250 ), or Brent Averill's version of the API http://www.brentaverill.com/312a/ ( $899 for one channel or $1449 for two channels ) And FYI, I have some John Hardy pres and they are seriously well designed, constructed and sound great. http://www.johnhardyco.com/ -- John L Rice |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Take a good listen to an API 3124+. Best thing that ever happened to my
tracks. http://www.mercenaryaudio.com/api314chanmi.html JK "EADGBE" wrote in message ups.com... I am going to be upgrading my home studio's mic preamps. I have been using the preamps in my MOTU interface and in my SoundCraft Spirit mixer, but I have always found them lacking a bit in detail and a bit "harsh" sounding with certain mics, especially my AKG C414TLII. My budget is around $3,000.00. I would be interested in hearing TWO things: 1) What do you consider to be a good "all around" mic pre. 2) Some specifics on why you recommend that mic pre. Thanks in advance... |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rick Hollett wrote:
How do the Grace Design amps rate? I've been underwhelmed by the Grace's I've used...not because there's anything wrong with them, but because they seem to have created a mic pre that is so neutral it's boring. Hard to describe; I've loved every opportunity I've had to use Millenia HV-3's, Hardy M-1's, Jensen Twin Servos, & Martech MSS-10's, all preamps which I think excel at being neutral, transparent, clean, nearly invisible. But the Grace is also neutral, transparent, clean, nearly invisible, and I've been disappointed with everything I've tried to track through them. Plus I hate that chrome. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
EADGBE wrote:
I am going to be upgrading my home studio's mic preamps. I have been using the preamps in my MOTU interface and in my SoundCraft Spirit mixer, but I have always found them lacking a bit in detail and a bit "harsh" sounding with certain mics, Have you tried adjusting the tone controls, like taking some mid out at 600 Hz? Or backing of the front end gain a little and compensating further up the chain? Absolutely, its the tone controls that completely dominate the sound of any mixing desk. You might well be better spending the money on a decent parametric eq, or a better mixer with more control over the tone control shelving frequencies. All of these options are a lot cheaper, and more useful for other tasks. especially my AKG C414TLII. My budget is around $3,000.00. I would be interested in hearing TWO things: 1) What do you consider to be a good "all around" mic pre. 2) Some specifics on why you recommend that mic pre. Thanks in advance... My advice. Save your money for the pub, that's at least 600 pints of Guinness. Other then golden eared soundman, no one will notice. Its the final listener that matters, and they're usually drunk on the Guinness they could afford by not buying expensive, valueless, mic preamps. Are they worth 600 pints of Guinness? Well, I guess not if your a yank that drinks that **** water, Budweiser. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin Aylward wrote:
Have you tried adjusting the tone controls, like taking some mid out at 600 Hz? Or backing of the front end gain a little and compensating further up the chain? That's all very well, but one of the nice things about good mic pres (so I read here, I can't afford one myself) if that you *don't* have to EQ them to hell and back to make them sound right. -- Anahata -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827 |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin Aylward wrote:
Have you tried adjusting the tone controls, like taking some mid out at 600 Hz? Or backing of the front end gain a little and compensating further up the chain? It is my understanding that you should choose the correct room, mic and mic pre to get closer to the desired characteristic before touching the eq, and IMHO I believe this is correct. From what I gather, EQ, especially severe EQ, can do nasty things to the audio signal and should probably be the last resort. Am I correct guys? If just going for one mic pre, its probably best to audition a few first and find the one that is closest to the desired characteristic. they worth 600 pints of Guinness? Well, I guess not if your a yank that drinks that **** water, Budweiser. I like Bud.. :-) Mark. -- |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rick Hollett" writes:
How do the Grace Design amps rate? Extraordinary. They have NO sound at all. I call them "air with gain". Now, some folks won't like this -- depends on what you're doing. (We do mostly acoustic and classical work.) But even if I were back in my old pop/rock days I think they'd be a nice fit, as I'd rather consolodate just where I get "a sound" to a few key areas, such as the room/mic choice as one area, and then the intentional effects applied in the mix as another area. Otherwise, keep it pure as practical. But that's my opinion only. Sometimes it seems as though folks are looking for a preamp "sound" to compensate for something else that's lacking in the chain. Not my preferred way to work, but this is mostly personal choice; YMMV. I've noticed with the Grace channels that mixes are generally fast and easy as I don't seem to be pondering or sweating anything. The music simply "is" and it goes together well, at least from an "electronics" point of view. Also, you can hang a lot of cable off the input and output of the Grace in adverse conditions and it doesn't seem to care. Nice for location work. (We're running 10 channels of Grace.) Frank Stearns Mobile Audio -- |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
anahata wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote: Have you tried adjusting the tone controls, like taking some mid out at 600 Hz? Or backing of the front end gain a little and compensating further up the chain? That's all very well, but one of the nice things about good mic pres (so I read here, I can't afford one myself) if that you *don't* have to EQ them to hell and back to make them sound right. There are indeed quite a few that do claim that expensive mic preamps are required for a good sound. I, as do many others, disagree. Those like me take the view that expensive mic preamps are a scam, indeed a complete rip-off. We see it as placebo effect where people imagine all sorts of wonderful things after the fact in order to feel comfortable about spending such a large amount of money, after being suckered by snake oil salesman. Others have different views. From a technical point of view, the specs of these expensive mic amps, for example distortion and frequency response, and the specs of a cheap mixer mic amp, are by and large completely equivalent, and have specifications figures that many in the industry consider a "straight piece of wire with gain". Indeed, there are numerous controlled tests of equipment that shows that no such differences of such speced equipment can be reliably detected at all. I would take any claims by golden eared people to detect such differences in the same manner as one would treat claims of UFO's, ghosts and pink unicorns. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote: Have you tried adjusting the tone controls, like taking some mid out at 600 Hz? Or backing of the front end gain a little and compensating further up the chain? It is my understanding that you should choose the correct room, mic and mic pre to get closer to the desired characteristic before As far as the mic preamp is concerned, I disagree. My knowledge and experience leads me to take the stance that there is no audible difference between the cheaper mic preamps in reasonable quality mixing desks, from these of the stand alone expensive mic preamps. Other less, technically minded individuls, disagree with this view. See my other post for more on my views of said expensive mic preamps. touching the eq, and IMHO I believe this is correct. From what I gather, EQ, especially severe EQ, can do nasty things to the audio signal and should probably be the last resort. Am I correct guys? No. This is a common misconception, or old wives tale, usually made by those with limited technical knowledge. Typically, they claim that large static phase shifts are audible, despite much evidence to the contrary. If just going for one mic pre, its probably best to audition a few first and find the one that is closest to the desired characteristic. they worth 600 pints of Guinness? Well, I guess not if your a yank that drinks that **** water, Budweiser. I like Bud.. :-) Mark. Over all, in audio, there are many, many charlatans attempting to flog expensive bit of kit to unsuspecting suckers. Be wary of them. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/index.html Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
John: I tend to favor 2-channel pre's, because I track some things in "stereo" and/or close/ambient miking. I just think it helps to have at least 2 tracks with the same pre available at all times. I will be recording electric and acoustic guitars, electronic keyboards, electric bass guitars, drums (both real and electronic), and various types of hand percussion. John L Rice wrote: Also, you didn't mention how many channels you want to get for your $3000. You could get around 12 channels, only 8 channels, only 4 channels, only 2 channels or only one channel for that much ( and some are even more expensive ) depending on sound, features, quality, reputation, etc. And what type of music/instruments do you normally record? If it's a wide variety of instruments and styles you might want to get two channels of relatively clean pres and then one of something more colored. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin Aylward wrote: anahata wrote: Kevin Aylward wrote: Have you tried adjusting the tone controls, like taking some mid out at 600 Hz? Or backing of the front end gain a little and compensating further up the chain? That's all very well, but one of the nice things about good mic pres (so I read here, I can't afford one myself) if that you *don't* have to EQ them to hell and back to make them sound right. There are indeed quite a few that do claim that expensive mic preamps are required for a good sound. I, as do many others, disagree. Those like me take the view that expensive mic preamps are a scam, indeed a complete rip-off. We see it as placebo effect where people imagine all sorts of wonderful things after the fact in order to feel comfortable about spending such a large amount of money, after being suckered by snake oil salesman. Others have different views. From a technical point of view, the specs of these expensive mic amps, for example distortion and frequency response, and the specs of a cheap mixer mic amp, are by and large completely equivalent, and have specifications figures that many in the industry consider a "straight piece of wire with gain". Quite apart from the fact that preamps appear to sound different, there are definitely functional differences between them. The cheap mixer mic amp doesn't even have enough clean gain to use with certain microphones on certain sources, but the better preamps do. Indeed, there are numerous controlled tests of equipment that shows that no such differences of such speced equipment can be reliably detected at all. I would take any claims by golden eared people to detect such differences in the same manner as one would treat claims of UFO's, ghosts and pink unicorns. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote: anahata wrote: Kevin Aylward wrote: Have you tried adjusting the tone controls, like taking some mid out at 600 Hz? Or backing of the front end gain a little and compensating further up the chain? That's all very well, but one of the nice things about good mic pres (so I read here, I can't afford one myself) if that you *don't* have to EQ them to hell and back to make them sound right. There are indeed quite a few that do claim that expensive mic preamps are required for a good sound. I, as do many others, disagree. Those like me take the view that expensive mic preamps are a scam, indeed a complete rip-off. We see it as placebo effect where people imagine all sorts of wonderful things after the fact in order to feel comfortable about spending such a large amount of money, after being suckered by snake oil salesman. Others have different views. From a technical point of view, the specs of these expensive mic amps, for example distortion and frequency response, and the specs of a cheap mixer mic amp, are by and large completely equivalent, and have specifications figures that many in the industry consider a "straight piece of wire with gain". Quite apart from the fact that preamps appear to sound different, That is an opinion that many have. I and others disagree. there are definitely functional differences between them. Sometimes. The cheap mixer mic amp doesn't even have enough clean gain to use with certain microphones on certain sources, but the better preamps do. One might need a mixer with a pad. One might not. Depends on the mixer design. The point is that there are many, affordable complete, quality mixers, costing less than a typical high end mic preamp, which are indistinguishable from each other sound wise. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/index.html http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin Aylward wrote:
There are indeed quite a few that do claim that expensive mic preamps are required for a good sound. I, as do many others, disagree. Those like me take the view that expensive mic preamps are a scam, indeed a complete rip-off. However, unlike the more-money-than-sense audiophile victims of snake oil salesmen, the majority of people who buy mic preamps are professionals whose livelihood depends on the quality of their hearing and who wouldn't waste their studio equipment budget on gear that wasn't worth it. Don't make the mistake of confusing those two groups of people. Most recording engineers who purchase high end mic preamps wouldn't be seen dead with monster cables, audiophile wooden equipment knobs and "golden ears" mains cables, but they do care about the tools they use to do their job. Some of the contributors to this group are experts in their field, *at least* to the extent that you claim to be an expert in yours, and they do know what they are talking about. And they'd probably say all electronic circuit simulation packages look the same to them :-) -- Anahata -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827 |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
So . . .you believe that when an identical load/transducer is placed across
ANY amplification circuit, no matter what the design, and then an identical signal is induced through it, the output of ALL the circuits will be identical except for the need of some varying degrees of EQ? You feel that resistance + capacitance circuits can replicate the effect caused by inductance on a signal? You feel that it doesn't matter where in the signal chain you change the gain? You feel that even the simplest/cheapest circuit can perfectly handle the dynamic range and transients created by any sound source and microphone in existence with little or no difference? Do you have scientific/technical 'proof' of what you claim? Please at least give an example of one under $100 per channel mic pre that has nearly identical specs to an over $1000 per channel mic pre. -- John L Rice "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message . uk... anahata wrote: Kevin Aylward wrote: Have you tried adjusting the tone controls, like taking some mid out at 600 Hz? Or backing of the front end gain a little and compensating further up the chain? That's all very well, but one of the nice things about good mic pres (so I read here, I can't afford one myself) if that you *don't* have to EQ them to hell and back to make them sound right. There are indeed quite a few that do claim that expensive mic preamps are required for a good sound. I, as do many others, disagree. Those like me take the view that expensive mic preamps are a scam, indeed a complete rip-off. We see it as placebo effect where people imagine all sorts of wonderful things after the fact in order to feel comfortable about spending such a large amount of money, after being suckered by snake oil salesman. Others have different views. From a technical point of view, the specs of these expensive mic amps, for example distortion and frequency response, and the specs of a cheap mixer mic amp, are by and large completely equivalent, and have specifications figures that many in the industry consider a "straight piece of wire with gain". Indeed, there are numerous controlled tests of equipment that shows that no such differences of such speced equipment can be reliably detected at all. I would take any claims by golden eared people to detect such differences in the same manner as one would treat claims of UFO's, ghosts and pink unicorns. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin Aylward wrote: wrote: Kevin Aylward wrote: anahata wrote: Kevin Aylward wrote: Have you tried adjusting the tone controls, like taking some mid out at 600 Hz? Or backing of the front end gain a little and compensating further up the chain? That's all very well, but one of the nice things about good mic pres (so I read here, I can't afford one myself) if that you *don't* have to EQ them to hell and back to make them sound right. There are indeed quite a few that do claim that expensive mic preamps are required for a good sound. I, as do many others, disagree. Those like me take the view that expensive mic preamps are a scam, indeed a complete rip-off. We see it as placebo effect where people imagine all sorts of wonderful things after the fact in order to feel comfortable about spending such a large amount of money, after being suckered by snake oil salesman. Others have different views. From a technical point of view, the specs of these expensive mic amps, for example distortion and frequency response, and the specs of a cheap mixer mic amp, are by and large completely equivalent, and have specifications figures that many in the industry consider a "straight piece of wire with gain". Quite apart from the fact that preamps appear to sound different, That is an opinion that many have. I and others disagree. there are definitely functional differences between them. Sometimes. The cheap mixer mic amp doesn't even have enough clean gain to use with certain microphones on certain sources, but the better preamps do. One might need a mixer with a pad. One might not. Depends on the mixer design. My point is that if you plug a ribbon mic into a cheap mixer and try to record a flute, you won't have enough clean gain to do it. The point is that there are many, affordable complete, quality mixers, costing less than a typical high end mic preamp, which are indistinguishable from each other sound wise. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/index.html http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin Aylward wrote: I would take any claims by golden eared people to detect such differences in the same manner as one would treat claims of UFO's, ghosts and pink unicorns. I've never seen a ghost or a unicorn ( pink or otherwise ) but I'd suggest you might be wise to be less sceptical about UFOs. Graham |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Frank Stearns wrote:
"Rick Hollett" writes: How do the Grace Design amps rate? Extraordinary. They have NO sound at all. I call them "air with gain". When I brierfly compared a Lunatec v. 3 to a Gordon preamp, the sound of the Grace was obvious, as was the sound of the Great River and the Millennia. All fine preamps, but not soundless. I don't know what to put up against a Gordon to figure out _its_ sound. -- ha |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
anahata wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote: Have you tried adjusting the tone controls, like taking some mid out at 600 Hz? Or backing of the front end gain a little and compensating further up the chain? That's all very well, but one of the nice things about good mic pres (so I read here, I can't afford one myself) if that you *don't* have to EQ them to hell and back to make them sound right. The near deaf are not concerned with avoidance of EQ. I'm in the camp that aims to get into storage, with as little tweaking as possible, that which I wish to hear played back, with as little tweaking as possible. Ideally, that means no tweaking. -- ha |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin Aylward wrote:
There are indeed quite a few that do claim that expensive mic preamps are required for a good sound. I, as do many others, disagree. Those like me take the view that expensive mic preamps are a scam, indeed a complete rip-off. I think the real ripoff is when near-deaf mother****ers like you come in here claiming to know something about sound. The stuff you've put up for listening sounds like upwiped ass connected to a kazoo through a high pass filter. Get your hearing checked. It's nearly gone. And put up the ****ing ten cent preamp champion you claimed to be able to foist on the world, the one that was going to show what a ripoff my Great River and Millennia pres are. A recipe for chicken**** soup is not a meal. When someone can connect a microphone to your chicken**** champion, then we'll see your mic preanmp design chops. So far your bird can't seem to get out of the coop. -- ha |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Kevin Aylward $150 special.
On 19 May 2005 05:13:43 -0700, "EADGBE" wrote: I am going to be upgrading my home studio's mic preamps. I have been using the preamps in my MOTU interface and in my SoundCraft Spirit mixer, but I have always found them lacking a bit in detail and a bit "harsh" sounding with certain mics, especially my AKG C414TLII. My budget is around $3,000.00. I would be interested in hearing TWO things: 1) What do you consider to be a good "all around" mic pre. 2) Some specifics on why you recommend that mic pre. Thanks in advance... |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 17:59:21 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote: Have you tried adjusting the tone controls, like taking some mid out at 600 Hz? Or backing of the front end gain a little and compensating further up the chain? Proving that you often make really good sense, and sometimes make total ********. This is the latter, IMO. Chris Hornbeck "They're in *everybody's* eggs." |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kevin Aylward" writes:
The point is that there are many, affordable complete, quality mixers, costing less than a typical high end mic preamp, which are indistinguishable from each other sound wise. Chuckle. This from the guy who doesn't care to know what true acoustic (unamplified) sound is all about, and wishes most PA systems (apparently his primary reference point) would roll in "more treble". We've also been waiting for Kev's $15 wonder-pre (the price of which started to grow as Kev admitted we needed a few more things, such as case, power supply, et al. (See the many posts on the DELTA: Cap analysis thread.) With all respect to Mackie and pres in that class (which indeed do a nice job in their market), I'd be curious to see what their pres do with 500+ feet on the mic inputs and oh, say, 1000 feet on the outputs. The pres in my Soundcraft are reasonably good, but it's night and day between those preamps and the Grace 801/201, so much so that possibly even Kev could hear the difference. Or perhaps not. Frank Stearns Mobile Audio -- |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: From a technical point of view, the specs of these expensive mic amps, for example distortion and frequency response, and the specs of a cheap mixer mic amp, are by and large completely equivalent, and have specifications figures that many in the industry consider a "straight piece of wire with gain". So why do they sound different than other preamps, with the same mics, on the same source? I'm not saying they sound worse, but they sound different. That's a real live demonstration that the few specs that you choose to look at don't tell the whole story. I don't know what it is that you aren't measuring, but there's something you're missing if you don't see any difference. I don't know what you're recording or listening on, but there's something lacking if you don't hear any difference. I suspect a *lot* of difference can be attributed to mic loading, giving rise to different responses. We've had this discussion before. If every mic pre had a perfect 2 k ohm *pure resistive* input impedance - maybe they would all sound the same ? Graham |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pooh Bear wrote:
If every mic pre had a perfect 2 k ohm *pure resistive* input impedance - maybe they would all sound the same ? Graham Probably, but I don't live in a resistive world, do you? **** Kevin, he's deaf and anal retentive. Might work for an engineer, but as a human he's sadly lacking. He's set up a windmill, Quixote style that kind of drew me in before, but from here on, I swear to remain silent... Yeah right. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dan Kennedy wrote:
**** Kevin, he's deaf and anal retentive. Might work for an engineer, but as a human he's sadly lacking. He's set up a windmill, Quixote style that kind of drew me in before, but from here on, I swear to remain silent... Charging the windmill he let his lance dip to the ground where the tip caught. The butt of it rammed him in the nuts. Hence, his quest for more treble. -- ha |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
hank alrich wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote: There are indeed quite a few that do claim that expensive mic preamps are required for a good sound. I, as do many others, disagree. Those like me take the view that expensive mic preamps are a scam, indeed a complete rip-off. I think the real ripoff is {snip nothing but valueless derogatory insults} Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pooh Bear wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote: I would take any claims by golden eared people to detect such differences in the same manner as one would treat claims of UFO's, ghosts and pink unicorns. I've never seen a ghost or a unicorn ( pink or otherwise ) but I'd suggest you might be wise to be less sceptical about UFOs. If you mean UFOs as in from other planets with intelligent life in them, then I am as sceptical as anyone can be, and will be so for the foreseeable future. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
anahata wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote: There are indeed quite a few that do claim that expensive mic preamps are required for a good sound. I, as do many others, disagree. Those like me take the view that expensive mic preamps are a scam, indeed a complete rip-off. However, unlike the more-money-than-sense audiophile victims of snake oil salesmen, the majority of people who buy mic preamps are professionals whose livelihood depends on the quality of their hearing and who wouldn't waste their studio equipment budget on gear that wasn't worth it. Yes they would. http://www.paralumun.com/hansemperor.htm Don't make the mistake of confusing those two groups of people. This makes no difference whatsoever. Scientists can be just as easily fooled by a conjuror as a layman. http://www.randi.org/jr/ Most recording engineers who purchase high end mic preamps wouldn't be seen dead with monster cables, audiophile wooden equipment knobs and "golden ears" mains cables, but they do care about the tools they use to do their job. Some of the contributors to this group are experts in their field, *at least* to the extent that you claim to be an expert in yours, and they do know what they are talking about. And they can just as easily be mistaken. Controlled tests show that they probably are. http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/ - http://www.stereophile.com/images/do...reatDebate.MP3 People believe what the want to believe. Its hard to accept that one has actually been truly deluded. And they'd probably say all electronic circuit simulation packages look the same to them :-) The all use the same calculation engine (XSpice), by and large. Its the GUI that makes them different. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
John L Rice wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message . uk... anahata wrote: Kevin Aylward wrote: Have you tried adjusting the tone controls, like taking some mid out at 600 Hz? Or backing of the front end gain a little and compensating further up the chain? That's all very well, but one of the nice things about good mic pres (so I read here, I can't afford one myself) if that you *don't* have to EQ them to hell and back to make them sound right. There are indeed quite a few that do claim that expensive mic preamps are required for a good sound. I, as do many others, disagree. Those like me take the view that expensive mic preamps are a scam, indeed a complete rip-off. We see it as placebo effect where people imagine all sorts of wonderful things after the fact in order to feel comfortable about spending such a large amount of money, after being suckered by snake oil salesman. Others have different views. From a technical point of view, the specs of these expensive mic amps, for example distortion and frequency response, and the specs of a cheap mixer mic amp, are by and large completely equivalent, and have specifications figures that many in the industry consider a "straight piece of wire with gain". Indeed, there are numerous controlled tests of equipment that shows that no such differences of such speced equipment can be reliably detected at all. I would take any claims by golden eared people to detect such differences in the same manner as one would treat claims of UFO's, ghosts and pink unicorns. So . . .you believe that when an identical load/transducer is placed across ANY amplification circuit, no matter what the design, and then an identical signal is induced through it, the output of ALL the circuits will be identical except for the need of some varying degrees of EQ? Given a certain specification, the differences are below what the ear/brain can detect. This has been verified in numerous controlled experiments. Of course, some designs may *not* meet that spec. They may in fact oscillate with a certain load. These poor designs are excluded by assumption. There is no magic in this, http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/magic.html You feel that resistance + capacitance circuits can replicate the effect caused by inductance on a signal? Of course. Its a scientific fact, not a "feel". You feel that it doesn't matter where in the signal chain you change the gain? Depends what you mean here. Certainly, you want to have most gain at the front end to ensure that noise introduced by later stages has minimal effect. Assuming that certain distortion figures are achieved through all signal levels, it makes not the slightest difference where in the chain the gain is set as far as audible quality is concerned. You feel that even the simplest/cheapest circuit can perfectly handle the dynamic range and transients created by any sound source and microphone in existence with little or no difference? Indeed, a well designed cheap, simple circuit can do this. Not all cheap circuits are well designed, but many can. Do you have scientific/technical 'proof' of what you claim? Please at least give an example of one under $100 per channel mic pre that has nearly identical specs to an over $1000 per channel mic pre. Pretty much all of them in mixers. e.g. Soundcraft, Behringer... As far as proof, I will refer you to a confirmed golden ear boy, John Atkinson, Sterophile, that wholly heartedly embraces that differences between good speced amplifiers are audible, claims he hears such differences, yet freely admits in proper tests, he can never hear them. "I can make myself invisable, but only if you back is turned towards me" Its all in Arny Krueger's thread referancing sterophile, http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/ Have a listen to the mp3 debate. "The Emperors New Clothes" http://www.paralumun.com/hansemperor.htm Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Frank Stearns wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" writes: The point is that there are many, affordable complete, quality mixers, costing less than a typical high end mic preamp, which are indistinguishable from each other sound wise. Chuckle. This from the guy who doesn't care to know what true acoustic (unamplified) sound is all about, and wishes most PA systems (apparently his primary reference point) would roll in "more treble". What relevance has this to with the fact that extensive controlled listening tests have shown that for equipment of certain specs, there is no audible difference? Check out the Arny thread. We've also been waiting for Kev's $15 wonder-pre (the price of which started to grow as Kev admitted we needed a few more things, such as case, power supply, et al. (See the many posts on the DELTA: Cap analysis thread.) With all respect to Mackie and pres in that class (which indeed do a nice job in their market), I'd be curious to see what their pres do with 500+ feet on the mic inputs and oh, say, 1000 feet on the outputs. The pres in my Soundcraft are reasonably good, but it's night and day between those preamps and the Grace 801/201, so much so that possibly even Kev could hear the difference. I doubt it. Maybe you should reacquaint yourself with "The Emperors New Clothes" http://www.paralumun.com/hansemperor.htm Most are simply deluded with regard to sound. Sorry if the truth is hard to swallow, but that's the way it is. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: From a technical point of view, the specs of these expensive mic amps, for example distortion and frequency response, and the specs of a cheap mixer mic amp, are by and large completely equivalent, and have specifications figures that many in the industry consider a "straight piece of wire with gain". So why do they sound different than other preamps, with the same mics, on the same source? I'm not saying they sound worse, but they sound different. You would have to verify that claim by performing *controlled* tests. I am sure you have read Arny Krueger's thread referencing sterophile, http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/ We have a confirmed golden ear boy, John Atkinson, that whole heartedly embraces that differences between good speced amplifies are audible, claims he hears such differences, yet freely admits in proper tests, he can never hear them. This is telling us something, and its about time, people listened. That's a real live demonstration that the few specs that you choose to look at don't tell the whole story. Lets cut the bull****, and get to the crunch. There are only two basic reasons why kit sounds different. End of story. This is. Non-linear distortion and frequency response distortion. There isnt any magic to this. The distortion specs I have seen on high end mic amps appear to be consistent with straight pieces of wire with gain. This leaves frequency response. If mic preamps sound different, it can only, realistically, be due to frequency response differences. The loading on the mic might well make a difference, in principle. The inductance of a transformer as a load might well makes a difference, in principle. If I can be provided with the spec of RLC of mics and RLCs of the transformers, I can determine whether such effects are audible by simply running a few simulations. If there is some sort of ringing/frequency response effect due to transformers/loading, then this can be probably be duplicated with a graphic eq. at minimum expense. I don't know what it is that you aren't measuring, but there's something you're missing if you don't see any difference. I don't know what you're recording or listening on, but there's something lacking if you don't hear any difference. I haven't listened to to high end mic preamps, other then through final CDs. I have also never personally conducted an e/m physics experiment that verifies that relativistic inertial mass is given by M=Mo/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)) either. Yet I have no reasonable doubt, that that is indeed the case. Indeed, there are numerous controlled tests of equipment that shows that no such differences of such speced equipment can be reliably detected at all. There are are also listeners who claim that differences can be detected, and they're the ones spending the money. So why argue with success? For someone selling such equipment, that is a reasonable business decision to make. For those, buying the equipment it isn't. I would take any claims by golden eared people to detect such differences in the same manner as one would treat claims of UFO's, ghosts and pink unicorns. I wouldn't. Not surprising. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote: wrote: Kevin Aylward wrote: anahata wrote: Kevin Aylward wrote: Have you tried adjusting the tone controls, like taking some mid out at 600 Hz? Or backing of the front end gain a little and compensating further up the chain? That's all very well, but one of the nice things about good mic pres (so I read here, I can't afford one myself) if that you *don't* have to EQ them to hell and back to make them sound right. There are indeed quite a few that do claim that expensive mic preamps are required for a good sound. I, as do many others, disagree. Those like me take the view that expensive mic preamps are a scam, indeed a complete rip-off. We see it as placebo effect where people imagine all sorts of wonderful things after the fact in order to feel comfortable about spending such a large amount of money, after being suckered by snake oil salesman. Others have different views. From a technical point of view, the specs of these expensive mic amps, for example distortion and frequency response, and the specs of a cheap mixer mic amp, are by and large completely equivalent, and have specifications figures that many in the industry consider a "straight piece of wire with gain". Quite apart from the fact that preamps appear to sound different, That is an opinion that many have. I and others disagree. there are definitely functional differences between them. Sometimes. The cheap mixer mic amp doesn't even have enough clean gain to use with certain microphones on certain sources, but the better preamps do. One might need a mixer with a pad. One might not. Depends on the mixer design. My point is that if you plug a ribbon mic into a cheap mixer and try to record a flute, you won't have enough clean gain to do it. Ok. I misread that. You just mean gain. The clean bit implied to me that the signal was too large. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 17:59:21 GMT, "Kevin Aylward" wrote: Have you tried adjusting the tone controls, like taking some mid out at 600 Hz? Or backing of the front end gain a little and compensating further up the chain? Proving that you often make really good sense, and sometimes make total ********. This is the latter, IMO. And you are entitled to your opinion, incorrect as it is, imo. You obviously haven't even tried this as a method of cleaning up a sound. Its as err...as clear as day that it works. In fact, this is partly why I have little respect for many soundmen. The above technique so obviously works, that I have been amazed for years why so few don't do it. Its like, no one actually even twiddles the controls and listens to see what sounds good. Everyone seems to be programmed by this daft layman argument of well, intelligibility is in the 300Hz to 3Khz range, so lets boost that. Arhrrrr, I hate 3k presence peaks. Like, I want my sound to sound like a telephone? Well, actually, for one of my Blondie songs introductions, I do, but that's besides the point. There is a story to this. I discovered this trick at the age of 16. It was very apparent that my guitar amp/speaker was "midderly", which the tone controls could not correct for. I discovered that using a transformer as an inductor and a parallel capacitor in series with the signal worked wonders. Yes I have been fiddling with electronics sine the age of 11, especially with regard to sound. I then became acquainted, at this same age, of the bridge T. This is 2 series resisters, with a cap to ground. The 2 series resisters are bypassed with another cap. This gives two paths, one for high frequency, and one for low. Now for the really interesting bit. I actually remember the values, yet I have never confirmed the response in spice, well until right now, today as I am typing. The values were 47k, 47nf, and 1nf. The response is a 28db notch at, low and behold, 500Hz! Its posted here http://www.anasoft.co.uk/notchfilter.gif My value of 600Hz was determined later, simply by the markings on mixer front panels. With hindsight, it is clear that this technique is partly compensating for the poor response of the speakers, i.e. lack of top and bottom. I don't consider such a strong cut as appropriate for a decent full range system today, but the principle remains the same. So, despite many claims by posters in this NG, I have been very seriously and actively investigating what sounds good for way longer than most in this NG, in *much* detail. Sure, tone is very subjective, there are no real right and wrong answers, so some may disagree. However, it can not done based on the view that I am now, allegedly, deaf. My hearing was certainly up at the 17khz range at that time. I have spent a *lot* of time playing with tone controls, and their design. I know what I am doing. Its that simple. Indeed. Around 1981 I personally designed the output stereo buss tone controls of the then latest Studiomaster desk to shelf at 20hz and 20Khz, at +/-20db. The magazine that revived it said something on the order of (I don't remember the exact words), "how unusual to set to the extremes like this, but they sound surprisingly musical". The point of the tone controls here is to get the signal and its harmonics well into the slope region of the frequency response. You dont typically run at the full gain, but you need that to get the gain correct at the lower frequencies. Why do you think latest Studiomaster still uses 60Hz verses the 80hz of the Mackie on the mic channels? If it were me I would put it lower at 40hz, with more gain. If Graham is listening, I would also do something about that low 12Khz top end, at least move it up to 15khz:-) Most are simply clueless on tone controls, as evidenced my the large numbers of cheap kit that sets B/T at 100Hz/10khz. Bringing the bass up with that shelf frequency, always sound dreadful, as does the treble. Again, most simply don't experiment as to what really sounds good with tone controls. They rather believe that some sort of nebulous waffle about "transparent" overpriced mic amps improving their sound. Well, some of us actually do have the background, experience and training to get good sounds, way cheaper. Oh...Graham, I am still impressed that you at least managed to keep the stereo channels of the C1 at 45hz. Don't tell the competition, they might start to sound good as well:-) Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| FS: Pro Audio Gear, Parts, Accessories | Pro Audio | |||
| OT Political | Pro Audio | |||
| Microphone Preamps that go over 60dB of gain. | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
