| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 20 May 2005 20:30:56 GMT, Ben Bradley
wrote: Is the noise directly related to temperature? If so, a Peltier cell could substantially lower the temperature of a few transistors that aren't dissipating much heat. Or is this a useless idea? Thermal noise varies with the square root of the product of (absolute) temperature and relevant resistance. ALL of the big-inch line running natural gas North used to be compressed down to liguid and its Helium stored, back in the cold war days. Wonder if it still is? Essentially all of Earth's remaining Helium is in the natural gas supply. Chris Hornbeck "They're in *everybody's* eggs." |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: Your talking from ignorance mate. Simulation is the way, probably, 99% of all analogue design is done today, that is, essentially all analogue design is done by i.c companies. Professional recording equipment almost certainly represents less than 1 % of today's analog designs. I'm just so damned ignorant that I think a microphone preamplifier is something to which one can connect a microphone and have the device output signal. Trying to fit the XLR onto a sheet of paper is an exercise best left to those with super-simulation powers. Kev blows hard, but little signal is presented. -- ha |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
philicorda wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 21:35:25 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote: 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. This seems an odd thing to say. Not really. If you compare a mackie or behringer and a decent high end pre like a good focusrite or Amek, they sound different. It takes a while to 'get it', but once you know what to listen for, it's not too hard to tell them apart. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. One needs to do controlled A/B tests to be certain. Its easy for psychological factors to influence the result. If there is a difference, the most likely candidate is the transformer. In which case, spend $50 and use the transformer. If there isn't a transformer, I can't see that there can be difference, other then that due to a different load resister. This can be compensated for by eq. If comparing the same mic with the same voice/instrument in each pre, I can do it quite reliably, and have a friend with better ears who can tell every time. Whats your *exact* setup? If comparing different mics on different instruments I think I would struggle to tell which pre was which. It's very hard to judge as I cannot recreate recording a whole band with different sets of pre's, but I find that using pres I like cuts down on the 'greyness' that tracking everything though a low end desk can give. It may be an illusion caused by different load impedances, transformer vs solid state front end or whatever, that is largely irrelevant: it's not really my concern as to how some mic pres sound good, but it is very much my concern to get a decent sound. Adding a $50 inline transformer instead of separate mic amp is around $1000 less of a concern, so I would say it matters as to why. 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. |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
hank alrich wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: In article writes: Your talking from ignorance mate. Simulation is the way, probably, 99% of all analogue design is done today, that is, essentially all analogue design is done by i.c companies. Professional recording equipment almost certainly represents less than 1 % of today's analog designs. I'm just so damned ignorant that I think a microphone preamplifier is something to which one can connect a microphone and have the device output signal. Trying to fit the XLR onto a sheet of paper is an exercise best left to those with super-simulation powers. Kev blows hard, but little signal is presented. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/services.html, and I will be happy to present you with signals. 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. |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: Hands up those that have opened up mixers and soldered on capacitors for tone experiments? Tone Experiments? Hell, we don't need no steenkin' experiments! We can calculate what a capacitor will do to the frequency response. But we don't know, in general, how such frequency response will sound without listening. If the variations in frequency response are say 1db, they will be differences. This is to be contrasted with amplifiers with low distortions which have no sound at all. Some things effect the sound, some don't. Many seem to confuse the two. 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. |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
k... The information most layman have on audio electronics is misinformation. I don't have time to debate this further. Well, there's a relief. Peace, Paul |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 21 May 2005 06:19:08 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:
philicorda wrote: On Thu, 19 May 2005 21:35:25 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote: 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. This seems an odd thing to say. Not really. If you compare a mackie or behringer and a decent high end pre like a good focusrite or Amek, they sound different. It takes a while to 'get it', but once you know what to listen for, it's not too hard to tell them apart. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. One needs to do controlled A/B tests to be certain. Its easy for psychological factors to influence the result. If there is a difference, the most likely candidate is the transformer. In which case, spend $50 and use the transformer. If there isn't a transformer, I can't see that there can be difference, other then that due to a different load resister. This can be compensated for by eq. If comparing the same mic with the same voice/instrument in each pre, I can do it quite reliably, and have a friend with better ears who can tell every time. Whats your *exact* setup? I did some A/B tests a few years ago as follows. I got a joemeek vc3 (ssm2017 or something), an isa220 (transformer), a soundcraft spirit folio 12 ch desk and an AMEK dual mic pre+compressor (no transformer). All eqs etc were off, and the signal path as short as possible. I used a Delta 1010 at 24/96k for conversion. I matched the levels as near as possible by playing a couple of test tones out the monitors. The mic stayed in exactly the same place all the time, and matching like this seemed to work fine, as all levels sounded the same, albeit with no compression and different takes. I recorded the same speech twice into each pre from about 1.5 feet, some acoustic guitar and some really twangy ethnic stringed instrument twice into each one, with a u87. I would have liked to have done the same with a 57 too, but could not be bothered. The room was my little control room, which is quite dead and very quiet. I monitored on krk K-roks with an evolution amp connected directly to the sound card. Not the best setup in the world, but one I know very well. Then, one person would select two random speech recordings for example, possibly from the same pre, possibly from different ones. The other person could spend as long as they liked switching between the two recordings (a solo/mute trick makes this a one button operation). No filenames were visible. We noted the impressions and moved on.... In general, and to exaggerate the differences, the meek sounded muddy and distant, the folio a little scratchy and thin (the lack of true eq bypass probably contributed to this), the focusrite warmer and the amek sparkly and clear. Noise was not noticeable as none of the sources needed much gain. It was perhaps not the fairest comparision, as making a better pre than the meek or soundcraft is probably not too hard, but... this was a practical experiment to make sure getting some better pres would actually make some difference on the meeks and stuff (the amek was not mine), rather than a theoretical exploration into how mic pres sound. If comparing different mics on different instruments I think I would struggle to tell which pre was which. It's very hard to judge as I cannot recreate recording a whole band with different sets of pre's, but I find that using pres I like cuts down on the 'greyness' that tracking everything though a low end desk can give. It may be an illusion caused by different load impedances, transformer vs solid state front end or whatever, that is largely irrelevant: it's not really my concern as to how some mic pres sound good, but it is very much my concern to get a decent sound. Adding a $50 inline transformer instead of separate mic amp is around $1000 less of a concern, so I would say it matters as to why. I don't think adding a transformer to the meek would make it sound like the focusrite- if anything I would think it would get worse and muddier. I'd be very interested to hear what a mackie onyx would do with a transformer front end though, as I have heard good things about the pres, and I do like the sound of transformers. Why not give it a go? 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. |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin Aylward wrote: But we don't know, in general, how such frequency response will sound without listening. If the variations in frequency response are say 1db, they will be differences. This is to be contrasted with amplifiers with low distortions which have no sound at all. Some things effect the sound, some don't. Many seem to confuse the two. Wow, that's a bit schizophrenic? Some thing's you listen to to hear the difference, and others you can tell there's no difference by not listening? Given there are tolerances in physical devices, wouldn't there be potential audible differences one would have to _listen_ for? However, using eq to tailor sound does require listening, but why would the person designing the eq circuit have to listen if it met objectives? |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
steve wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote: But we don't know, in general, how such frequency response will sound without listening. If the variations in frequency response are say 1db, they will be differences. This is to be contrasted with amplifiers with low distortions which have no sound at all. Some things effect the sound, some don't. Many seem to confuse the two. Wow, that's a bit schizophrenic? You probably mean "split personality". This is a very common error as to what schizophrenic means, but no, it isn't a split personality. Some thing's you listen to to hear the difference, and others you can tell there's no difference by not listening? Yes. This is because I aware of the prior established experimental evidence. For example, as I noted before, I have never personally performed an experiment to verify the relativistic inertial mass formula, to wit, m=mo/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). I have not the slightest doubt that such a formula has been shown to be empirically consistent. This is what scientists have to do. We can't go and personal reproduce all results. Its simply not practicable. Like, ho much do you think a proton collider costs? I am well aware of credible, scientifically controlled experiments that show beyond reasonable doubt, that amplifiers with certain specifications, sound the same. I do not have to do the tests myself. I have of course done a few spot checks over the last 30 years, and no empirical evidence has presented itself that would change my view on this matter. Regarding frequency response. It is established beyond reasonable doubt that 3db frequency response variations are audible detectable, so I certainly do not need to confirm that aspect personally. However, how we perceive such frequency response variations in the mind can only be ascertained by empirical investigations, to wit, listening. Given there are tolerances in physical devices, wouldn't there be potential audible differences one would have to _listen_ for? I am not sure what you after here. Components such as speakers and microphones have significant departures from flat frequency response, so in general, they all sound different from each other. This means we have to listen to them, even in their design. The design process trades off different parameters and we don't know how we perceive such tradeoffs in our consciousness in a strictly objective manner. We have some basic guides, but perceptions are based on individual prior meme programming, so there is no consistent way to uniquely quantify a "sound". Of course each mic of the same type differs slightly from another one, so might sound slightly different. This is what I understand "tolerances" to refer to. I dont see what relevence this has. I think one has to be clear as to what "sounds the same" means. Obviously, if one unit has a bass tone control set to 100Hz, and because of component tolerances, another unit is set to 150hz, we would be able to notice a difference between them. No one denies this, but this is besides the point. However, using eq to tailor sound does require listening, but why would the person designing the eq circuit have to listen if it met objectives? He doesn't, nor does he in general, I certainly never listen to amps when I design them. A specification is formed, e.g. the amount of cut/boost centre and plateau frequency points, distortion, slew rate, noise etc. The design is then performed in a pure formal manner. Obviously for a fixed frequency shelving filter, some listening tests have be done *initially* to determine where to set the design frequency, but one doesn't listen to it during design. Signal generators and scopes are perfectly adequate to do the job of checking that the design meets specs. 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. |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
philicorda wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2005 06:19:08 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote: If comparing the same mic with the same voice/instrument in each pre, I can do it quite reliably, and have a friend with better ears who can tell every time. Whats your *exact* setup? I did some A/B tests a few years ago as follows. I got a joemeek vc3 (ssm2017 or something), an isa220 (transformer), a soundcraft spirit folio 12 ch desk and an AMEK dual mic pre+compressor (no transformer). All eqs etc were off, and the signal path as short as possible. I used a Delta 1010 at 24/96k for conversion. I matched the levels as near as possible by playing a couple of test tones out the monitors. The mic stayed in exactly the same place all the time, and matching like this seemed to work fine, as all levels sounded the same, albeit with no compression and different takes. I recorded the same speech twice into each pre from about 1.5 feet, some acoustic guitar and some really twangy ethnic stringed instrument twice into each one, with a u87. I would have liked to have done the same with a 57 too, but could not be bothered. The room was my little control room, which is quite dead and very quiet. I monitored on krk K-roks with an evolution amp connected directly to the sound card. Not the best setup in the world, but one I know very well. Then, one person would select two random speech recordings for example, possibly from the same pre, possibly from different ones. The other person could spend as long as they liked switching between the two recordings (a solo/mute trick makes this a one button operation). No filenames were visible. We noted the impressions and moved on.... In general, and to exaggerate the differences, the meek sounded muddy and distant, the folio a little scratchy and thin (the lack of true eq bypass probably contributed to this), the focusrite warmer and the amek sparkly and clear. Noise was not noticeable as none of the sources needed much gain. It was perhaps not the fairest comparision, as making a better pre than the meek or soundcraft is probably not too hard, but... this was a practical experiment to make sure getting some better pres would actually make some difference on the meeks and stuff (the amek was not mine), rather than a theoretical exploration into how mic pres sound. The set-up is still not that clear to me. I really want to knew the exact electrical connections. I am not familiar with any of the products. For example, how did you really ensure that there was no clipping an any point? I need to know what the specs are, in more detail to determine whether there should be a difference or not. If the distortion is low, it only leaves frequency response. All these terms of muddy, clear etc, are in all probability just frequency response effects, if indeed they are really there. All one has to do is twiddle the tone controls to convert one, alleged, sound difference, into another. If the system is linear, it doesn't matter where whether the frequency response is due to mic loading or further down the chain. If we assume that the distortion on all products was low, and there was minimal effect by mic loading, then either the A/B set-up was faulty or there were no differences. Its that simple really. "I cannie change the laws of physics captain". I need to know the input design of the preamps to determine whether the loading is enough to account for the claimed errors. If comparing different mics on different instruments I think I would struggle to tell which pre was which. It's very hard to judge as I cannot recreate recording a whole band with different sets of pre's, but I find that using pres I like cuts down on the 'greyness' that tracking everything though a low end desk can give. It may be an illusion caused by different load impedances, transformer vs solid state front end or whatever, that is largely irrelevant: it's not really my concern as to how some mic pres sound good, but it is very much my concern to get a decent sound. Adding a $50 inline transformer instead of separate mic amp is around $1000 less of a concern, so I would say it matters as to why. I don't think adding a transformer to the meek would make it sound like the focusrite- if anything I would think it would get worse and muddier. I'd be very interested to hear what a mackie onyx would do with a transformer front end though, as I have heard good things about the pres, and I do like the sound of transformers. Why not give it a go? Time and facilities. If there were differences in sound my contention is that twiddling the tone controls and/or graphic will achieve the same result, with way less cost. There is no magic in this. 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. |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 22 May 2005 08:35:06 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:
philicorda wrote: On Sat, 21 May 2005 06:19:08 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote: If comparing the same mic with the same voice/instrument in each pre, I can do it quite reliably, and have a friend with better ears who can tell every time. Whats your *exact* setup? I did some A/B tests a few years ago as follows. I got a joemeek vc3 (ssm2017 or something), an isa220 (transformer), a soundcraft spirit folio 12 ch desk and an AMEK dual mic pre+compressor (no transformer). All eqs etc were off, and the signal path as short as possible. I used a Delta 1010 at 24/96k for conversion. I matched the levels as near as possible by playing a couple of test tones out the monitors. The mic stayed in exactly the same place all the time, and matching like this seemed to work fine, as all levels sounded the same, albeit with no compression and different takes. I recorded the same speech twice into each pre from about 1.5 feet, some acoustic guitar and some really twangy ethnic stringed instrument twice into each one, with a u87. I would have liked to have done the same with a 57 too, but could not be bothered. The room was my little control room, which is quite dead and very quiet. I monitored on krk K-roks with an evolution amp connected directly to the sound card. Not the best setup in the world, but one I know very well. Then, one person would select two random speech recordings for example, possibly from the same pre, possibly from different ones. The other person could spend as long as they liked switching between the two recordings (a solo/mute trick makes this a one button operation). No filenames were visible. We noted the impressions and moved on.... In general, and to exaggerate the differences, the meek sounded muddy and distant, the folio a little scratchy and thin (the lack of true eq bypass probably contributed to this), the focusrite warmer and the amek sparkly and clear. Noise was not noticeable as none of the sources needed much gain. It was perhaps not the fairest comparision, as making a better pre than the meek or soundcraft is probably not too hard, but... this was a practical experiment to make sure getting some better pres would actually make some difference on the meeks and stuff (the amek was not mine), rather than a theoretical exploration into how mic pres sound. The set-up is still not that clear to me. I really want to knew the exact electrical connections. I am not familiar with any of the products. The connections were as simple as possible. mic - pre - soundcard - amp - monitors. I used the same input on the soundcard with each pre. I had to use the master outs on the soundcraft as there are no direct outs. The isa220 and amek have relay bypass on their eq/comps. The meek and soundcraft had everything set flat. For example, how did you really ensure that there was no clipping an any point? By leaving some generous headroom. I can't remember exactly how much, but would be ashamed if I managed to clip anything with such a simple recording with gear I know well! I need to know what the specs are, in more detail to determine whether there should be a difference or not. If the distortion is low, it only leaves frequency response. I'd suspect the focusrite and amek could do up to around 40k, and the meek and soundcraft somewhat less. Recording at 96k may have made this difference important... though I doubt a u87 on a voice does all that much up there. All these terms of muddy, clear etc, are in all probability just frequency response effects, if indeed they are really there. All one has to do is twiddle the tone controls to convert one, alleged, sound difference, into another. If the system is linear, it doesn't matter where whether the frequency response is due to mic loading or further down the chain. So, assuming optional high quality input/output transformers, great power supply with clean 48v phantom, a superb linear mic pre design with large bandwidth and well designed output stages, the only difference is frequency response? That may be true, but by the time you have designed, built the great mic pre, boxed it and put it to market it's become an expensive item again. Even the clone kits work out quite a lot per channel for components alone. The stand alone pres also often have more versatile hi pass, phase switches, better eq and stuff that make them more useful than a typical desk channel. That's not really the point of this discussion, but it's another reason people like them. If we assume that the distortion on all products was low, and there was minimal effect by mic loading, then either the A/B set-up was faulty or there were no differences. Its that simple really. "I cannie change the laws of physics captain". I need to know the input design of the preamps to determine whether the loading is enough to account for the claimed errors. I don't know enough about them to give that info. I was surprised to find the advertised 'discrete' front end of the meek was an ssm when I opened it up though. If comparing different mics on different instruments I think I would struggle to tell which pre was which. It's very hard to judge as I cannot recreate recording a whole band with different sets of pre's, but I find that using pres I like cuts down on the 'greyness' that tracking everything though a low end desk can give. It may be an illusion caused by different load impedances, transformer vs solid state front end or whatever, that is largely irrelevant: it's not really my concern as to how some mic pres sound good, but it is very much my concern to get a decent sound. Adding a $50 inline transformer instead of separate mic amp is around $1000 less of a concern, so I would say it matters as to why. I don't think adding a transformer to the meek would make it sound like the focusrite- if anything I would think it would get worse and muddier. I'd be very interested to hear what a mackie onyx would do with a transformer front end though, as I have heard good things about the pres, and I do like the sound of transformers. Why not give it a go? Time and facilities. If there were differences in sound my contention is that twiddling the tone controls and/or graphic will achieve the same result, with way less cost. There is no magic in this. This is essentially how things like the Focusrite liquid channel work, though they also use dynamic convolution to model non linear aspects of some pres, and use relays to switch different analog components in the front end. I guess there are many solutions, it just always seems to turn out to be relatively expensive. 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. |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
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... More details about what you are tracking and the style of music would be helpful. As a generic recommendation you can't go wrong with John Hardy...I bought a two channel M-1 and liked it so much I later sent it back to have two more channels added. You could buy a four channel M-1 for your price range. I love the Hardy because it's got a great combination of clarity and balls, it doesn't color the sound really but it also has some "heft" to the sound. Hard to describe but some ultra clean pres can sound, well boring. The Hardy is not, it's a rich, clean sound. Some have recommended the API 3124+, also a great one especially if you are doing music that needs punch or you are recording drums a lot. An API would work fine for acoustic music (in fact I know a guy in Nashville that does a lot of acoustic/bluegrass and uses two of them), but wouldn't be my first choice for that app. In a slighter lower price class, I have really been digging the True Systems P2 that I bought about six months ago....it's got less "heft" than the Hardy but still has a great sound....the phase meter and filters are nice for drum overhead work as well. It really depends on if you want different tones or all the same for your $3k, as you could go Hardy or API four channel and be under that, or get two different mic pres for over that $3.5k ish. If you are in this for the long haul and might get more pres later then starting out with a four channel one would be cost effective. I for one don't like to record every track with the same pre though, so that's a consideration. FWIW the last drum tracking I did was sort of a live demo thing....band played live and used these tracks as a basis to add overdubs. Tracking was to a DA-78 which I then blew into my DAW, so I was track limited (4 tracks for drums). I used the True Systems P2 on overheads and the Hardy on kick/snare and it came out really well. The fact it was a great kit with a great player didn't exactly hurt either... Analogeezer p.s. One nice thing about really good mic pres is they hold their resale value very well. Unlike most musical gear you'll get close to your new price for a good one in good shape, so in that respect an API, Great River, Hardy, etc. is actually a better value than your garden variety $200 pre |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin Aylward wrote: But we don't know, in general, how such frequency response will sound without listening. If the variations in frequency response are say 1db, they will be differences. This is to be contrasted with amplifiers with low distortions which have no sound at all. Some things effect the sound, some don't. Many seem to confuse the two. How do we know what affects the sound or not? Someone had to listen for it. Given there are tolerances in physical devices, wouldn't there be potential audible differences one would have to _listen_ for? I am not sure what you after here. There are variances in electronic components, this can cause deviations from one finished product to the next. How would you know how tight to keep the tolerances if you didn't listen for the audible differences? Components such as speakers and microphones have significant departures from flat frequency response, so in general, they all sound different from each other. This means we have to listen to them, even in their design. The design process trades off different parameters and we don't know how we perceive such tradeoffs in our consciousness in a strictly objective manner. Right, and modeling a circuit is not a substitute for listening to it in a variety of ways it could be used in the real world. IOW, two power amps can sound identical with one set of speakers and not identical with another set. With mic pre's, a particular mic will not sound the same into different preamps. |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
philicorda wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005 08:35:06 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote: All these terms of muddy, clear etc, are in all probability just frequency response effects, if indeed they are really there. All one has to do is twiddle the tone controls to convert one, alleged, sound difference, into another. If the system is linear, it doesn't matter where whether the frequency response is due to mic loading or further down the chain. So, assuming optional high quality input/output transformers, great power supply with clean 48v phantom, a superb linear mic pre design with large bandwidth and well designed output stages, This is all straightforward to do, well except the transformers are expensive. the only difference is frequency response? That may be true, but by the time you have designed, built the great mic pre, boxed it and put it to market it's become an expensive item again. Even the clone kits work out quite a lot per channel for components alone. But I don't agree that if there were any sound differences, such that the differences could not simply be eliminated by adjustment of the eq in an already boxed mixer. The stand alone pres also often have more versatile hi pass, phase switches, better eq and stuff that make them more useful than a typical desk channel. That's not really the point of this discussion, but it's another reason people like them. Well, they have to put something on them to try and make the more useful to justify the cost. If we assume that the distortion on all products was low, and there was minimal effect by mic loading, then either the A/B set-up was faulty or there were no differences. Its that simple really. "I cannie change the laws of physics captain". I need to know the input design of the preamps to determine whether the loading is enough to account for the claimed errors. I don't know enough about them to give that info. I was surprised to find the advertised 'discrete' front end of the meek was an ssm when I opened it up though. This should be telling you something. At the end of the day, its all the same stuff inside. There is no magic in designing a decent amp, nor are there any magic components. Why not give it a go? Time and facilities. If there were differences in sound my contention is that twiddling the tone controls and/or graphic will achieve the same result, with way less cost. There is no magic in this. This is essentially how things like the Focusrite liquid channel work, though they also use dynamic convolution to model non linear aspects of some pres, Ahmmmm...seems like darkness to me... and use relays to switch different analog components in the front end. I guess there are many solutions, it just always seems to turn out to be relatively expensive. I don't really see that as so. It just takes a bit of time playing with the mixer tone controls and graphic to match the responses. I did do some checking on mic reponse graphs. I compared the sm57 with a behringer chepo job. Intrestingly the bass reponse on the behringer was a bit better. What was noticeable though was that the behringer sensitivity was something like 15db worse, i.e much more nosier. I also compared the sm57 graphs with the pg57. Polar patterns seemed very simular. The pg57 was much flatter. So, at around half the price, if you want the 5db presece peak, use the bloody treble control. At the end of the day, the final purchasing consumer of the music CD just wont notice the difference, if any. Of that I am absolutely sure. 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. |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin Aylward wrote: I don't really see that as so. It just takes a bit of time playing with the mixer tone controls and graphic to match the responses. I did do some checking on mic reponse graphs. I compared the sm57 with a behringer chepo job. Intrestingly the bass reponse on the behringer was a bit better. What was noticeable though was that the behringer sensitivity was something like 15db worse, i.e much more nosier. I also compared the sm57 graphs with the pg57. Polar patterns seemed very simular. The pg57 was much flatter. So, at around half the price, if you want the 5db presece peak, use the bloody treble control. You may be an expert in your field of analog circuit design, but you're obvious lacking in any critical audio skills if you thing twisting a few eq knobs will make one mic sound like another. |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
steve wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote: But we don't know, in general, how such frequency response will sound without listening. If the variations in frequency response are say 1db, they will be differences. This is to be contrasted with amplifiers with low distortions which have no sound at all. Some things effect the sound, some don't. Many seem to confuse the two. How do we know what affects the sound or not? Someone had to listen for it. At some point, sure. However, most of this is well known and documented. For example, I don't feel the need to go and redo Faraday's law of induction everytime I design a circuit. I take it as established beyond reasonable doubt. Given there are tolerances in physical devices, wouldn't there be potential audible differences one would have to _listen_ for? I am not sure what you after here. There are variances in electronic components, this can cause deviations from one finished product to the next. How would you know how tight to keep the tolerances if you didn't listen for the audible differences? We don't like to use resisters with better than 1% and capacitors with 5% tolerances, so that will just have to do;-) Components such as speakers and microphones have significant departures from flat frequency response, so in general, they all sound different from each other. This means we have to listen to them, even in their design. The design process trades off different parameters and we don't know how we perceive such tradeoffs in our consciousness in a strictly objective manner. Right, and modeling a circuit is not a substitute for listening to it in a variety of ways it could be used in the real world. IOW, two power amps can sound identical with one set of speakers and not identical with another set. This isn't correct, but I will qualify this. If the amp is such a dreadful design that it is oscillating or near to oscillating with a difficult load, that will be an issue. Of course, one amp might be rated for 10A, but be capable of 20 amps, so may not clip when another nominally same amp does. Assuming we are comparing amps, within ratings, and working *correctly* there is little chance that competently designed, reasonable performance amplifiers, will sound different on some speakers, and not others. Note, I am excluding electrostatic speakers, because many amps are not designed to drive them, so are not being used within their ratings. With mic pre's, a particular mic will not sound the same into different preamps. By and large, they will sound identical if the amp spec is good enough. Of course, we have to make sure that the amp is not clipping. I think you need to get rid of all these nebulous waffle ideas. There is simply no magic to any of this. Its all frequency response and (thd/imd) distortion. That's it. End of story. 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. |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
steve wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote: I don't really see that as so. It just takes a bit of time playing with the mixer tone controls and graphic to match the responses. I did do some checking on mic reponse graphs. I compared the sm57 with a behringer chepo job. Intrestingly the bass reponse on the behringer was a bit better. What was noticeable though was that the behringer sensitivity was something like 15db worse, i.e much more nosier. I also compared the sm57 graphs with the pg57. Polar patterns seemed very simular. The pg57 was much flatter. So, at around half the price, if you want the 5db presece peak, use the bloody treble control. You may be an expert in your field of analog circuit design, Indeed. but you're obvious lacking in any critical audio I think you have been mislead to the idea that there is something magical in audio that defies conventional science. Secondly, I actually know a litle about technical acoustics as well. Even had mic and speaker design lectures in my EE. skills if you thing twisting a few eq knobs will make one mic sound like another. Of course it can, in principle. Its basics electronics and physics. The sound of any microphone is predominantly due to its frequency response. There may be some aspects associated with distortion, but I doubt that this will have much effect in practice. There is nothing else. With a filter placed after the microphone, we have: Vo(s)/Vi(s) = T(s) = M(s).H(s) M(s) is the Laplace transform of the mic response, H(s) is the post filter response, T(s) is the overal transfer function. Now suppose that the reference mic response is Mo(s) such that the mic to be matched to this referance has an error from this referance as: M(s) = Mo(s).E(s) E(s) is the error transfer function, and ideally, is unity. We then have: Vo(s)/Vi(s) = T(s) = Mo(s).E(s).H(s) If we design H(s) for H(s) = 1/E(s), then then the output of the mic to be matched will equal the referance. Vo(s)/Vi(s) = T(s) = Mo(s) Its that simple. Tell me, other then distortion and frequency response, just what magic to you think there is to the sound of a microphone? In practice, achieving a good technical match to the same level of accuracy for an expensive capacitor mic takes too much effort. This is because such mics are ruler flat within a fraction of a db, over a very wide range. I looked at the sm57 and pg57, and the only significant difference is a peaked frequency response centred at 6khz of around 6db. This can easily be approximated with a graphic. I think you need to understand just what it is that mic manufactures are doing when they design mics. Fundamentally, there are designing for frequency response and pick up pattern, and to a lesser extent distortion. Using a mic with a certain frequency response is more one of simple convenience than anything else. It just allows one to plug in an go without experimenting with the tone controls. There is an some advantage for using a more optimum mic for the bass end, as boosting an inherent 10db loss can give noise/hum problems, but in principle, any old mic can be made to sound pretty much like any other mic. Manufactures don't like to be that forthcoming with this information, as the would rather sell some mics at a premium. 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. |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message news 
I looked at the sm57 and pg57, and the only significant difference is a peaked frequency response centred at 6khz of around 6db. This can easily be approximated with a graphic. The hidden gotcha with microphones is often the highly incomplete technical data that is provided with them. For example Shure provides a frequency response curve and 6 polar plots for the SM57 and PG57, which hardly fully characterize the actual acoustic performance of the mics. Furthermore, I don't see the differences as being all that simple, as the pg57 seems to have a lot of narrow frequency response variations that would might be more complex of a job to equalize out than what might be achievable with a 1/3 octave graphic eq. Furthermore, making equipment comparable with equalization is usually economical only if the equipment has stable, predictable response. Both SM57s and to a larger degree the PG57 tend to have significant sample-to-sample variations. Before speaking too loud and long on this subject, I might be prone to pick up a PG57 (I already have a SM57 just like a million or so other people) and do the closest side-by-side comparison I could while matching their responses with *any* or *all* the many graphic and parametric equalizer(s) I have on hand. Generally, when I try stuff like this, I end up frustrated but somewhat enlighted. Last time I tried equalizing mics I was using the published response curve of the SM57 along with a highly complex FFT-based equalizer and a very complex digital parametric equalizer, to obtain flat response. I got close, but the longer I listened I decided that I had no cigar. I went out and bought some better mics. |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
Furthermore, I don't see the differences as being all that
simple, as the pg57 seems to have a lot of narrow frequency response variations that would might be more complex of a job to equalize out than what might be achievable with a 1/3 octave graphic eq. Mic Modeler does on ok job of pulling it off Rick Hollett |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message news
I looked at the sm57 and pg57, and the only significant difference is a peaked frequency response centred at 6khz of around 6db. This can easily be approximated with a graphic. The hidden gotcha with microphones is often the highly incomplete technical data that is provided with them. Agreed. For example Shure provides a frequency response curve and 6 polar plots for the SM57 and PG57, which hardly fully characterize the actual acoustic performance of the mics. Furthermore, I don't see the differences as being all that simple, as the pg57 seems to have a lot of narrow frequency response variations that would might be more complex of a job to equalize out than what might be achievable with a 1/3 octave graphic eq. But these are at the higher frequencies, so not so significant. Furthermore, making equipment comparable with equalization is usually economical only if the equipment has stable, predictable response. Both SM57s and to a larger degree the PG57 tend to have significant sample-to-sample variations. But still, its ones roughly flat, the other with a bit of treble boost. I don't see getting a really good match will matter much. It only seems to be a few % that do notice these sorts of differences. Again, the consumer, don't, imo. I just don't se that a few db here and there is relevant in the big schemes of things. 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. |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rick Hollett" wrote in message news  Furthermore, I don't see the differences as being all that simple, as the pg57 seems to have a lot of narrow frequency response variations that would might be more complex of a job to equalize out than what might be achievable with a 1/3 octave graphic eq. Mic Modeler does on ok job of pulling it off Focus on the words "an OK job". It suffices or not, depending on your expectations. |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message k... Arny Krueger wrote: "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message news
I looked at the sm57 and pg57, and the only significant difference is a peaked frequency response centred at 6khz of around 6db. This can easily be approximated with a graphic. The hidden gotcha with microphones is often the highly incomplete technical data that is provided with them. Agreed. For example Shure provides a frequency response curve and 6 polar plots for the SM57 and PG57, which hardly fully characterize the actual acoustic performance of the mics. Furthermore, I don't see the differences as being all that simple, as the pg57 seems to have a lot of narrow frequency response variations that would might be more complex of a job to equalize out than what might be achievable with a 1/3 octave graphic eq. But these are at the higher frequencies, so not so significant. Agreed that the ear is more tolerant of roughness at 8K than 1K, but more tolerant might not be enough to satisfy all of us. Furthermore, making equipment comparable with equalization is usually economical only if the equipment has stable, predictable response. Both SM57s and to a larger degree the PG57 tend to have significant sample-to-sample variations. But still, its ones roughly flat, the other with a bit of treble boost. That means to me that they sound different, all other things being equal. Other issues, like how they work with various cable and mic preamp loads, aren't shown in the spec sheets. I don't see getting a really good match will matter much. It only seems to be a few % that do notice these sorts of differences. Again, the consumer, don't, imo. My hatred of SM57s is pretty well-known around here. I've been through two generations of vocal mics (yes, SM57s aren't really vocal mics but tell that to my predecessors) since then. There are strong indications that the musos and a fair part of my congregation notice *something*. I just don't se that a few db here and there is relevant in the big schemes of things. IME a very few tenths anywhere are easy and proper to dismiss, but a few dBs particularly over an octave or two between 400 and 8000 Hz can be a very big thing. |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin Aylward wrote: Tell me, other then distortion and frequency response, just what magic to you think there is to the sound of a microphone? Pickup pattern is high on my list. In practice, achieving a good technical match to the same level of accuracy for an expensive capacitor mic takes too much effort. This is because such mics are ruler flat within a fraction of a db, over a very wide range. Which mic's are these? There are measurement mic's that have these spec's. But by and large professional mic's vary by 10's of dB's I looked at the sm57 and pg57, and the only significant difference is a peaked frequency response centred at 6khz of around 6db. This can easily be approximated with a graphic. As they say, often imitated, but never duplicated. If you want the real thing, you have to get the real thing. There are audible things happening in the pickup pattern that eq alone can't compensate for. |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
John L Rice wrote:
wrote: As a generic recommendation you can't go wrong with John Hardy... Of course you can. Its thousands of dollars potentially wrong. Kevin Aylward I agree with Analogeezer and disagree with Kevin. The score is 2 to 1 in favor of the Hardy M-1. Game over! ;-) Kevin hasn't mentioned his direct experience with Joh Hardy preamps. Does he have any such experience? This is some tiresome crap from a guy whose ears are dysfunctional. The idiot is a non****ing troll. -- ha |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message k... I don't see getting a really good match will matter much. It only seems to be a few % that do notice these sorts of differences. Again, the consumer, don't, imo. A few % is a lot. It's worth the effort. I just don't se that a few db here and there is relevant in the big schemes of things. Now this is pure entertainment. Predrag |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
John L Rice wrote:
wrote: As a generic recommendation you can't go wrong with John Hardy... Of course you can. Its thousands of dollars potentially wrong. Kevin Aylward I agree with Analogeezer and disagree with Kevin. The score is 2 to 1 in favor of the Hardy M-1. Game over! ;-) Well, I'm sure you sleep well at night after convincing the less informed that you lesser informed think that the less informed should spend $1000s on worthless kit that would be better spent on 250 pint of Guinness. 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. |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
steve wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote: Tell me, other then distortion and frequency response, just what magic to you think there is to the sound of a microphone? Pickup pattern is high on my list. In practice, achieving a good technical match to the same level of accuracy for an expensive capacitor mic takes too much effort. This is because such mics are ruler flat within a fraction of a db, over a very wide range. Which mic's are these? There are measurement mic's that have these spec's. But by and large professional mic's vary by 10's of dB's Not the ones I looked at on the shure web site. Bloody amazing they were. http://www.shure.com/microphones/models/ksm32.asp I looked at the sm57 and pg57, and the only significant difference is a peaked frequency response centred at 6khz of around 6db. This can easily be approximated with a graphic. As they say, often imitated, but never duplicated. If you want the real thing, you have to get the real thing. There are audible things happening in the pickup pattern that eq alone can't compensate for. Well, for live work, I always eat the mic, and place the mic right up to the speaker for guitar, so I cant say I care too much for the pick up pattern. 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. |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message k... John L Rice wrote: wrote: As a generic recommendation you can't go wrong with John Hardy... Of course you can. Its thousands of dollars potentially wrong. Kevin Aylward I agree with Analogeezer and disagree with Kevin. The score is 2 to 1 in favor of the Hardy M-1. Game over! ;-) Well, I'm sure you sleep well at night after convincing the less informed that you lesser informed think that the less informed should spend $1000s on worthless kit that would be better spent on 250 pint of Guinness. Kevin Aylward Damn it! Now you've done it! Like anyone is going to listen to MY opinion now that you are pointing out all of the extra beer someone can buy if they get a less expensive mic pre. Sheesh, that was a low blow! ;-) -- John L Rice |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin Aylward wrote:
Well, I'm sure you sleep well at night after convincing the less informed that you lesser informed think that the less informed should spend $1000s on worthless kit that would be better spent on 250 pint of Guinness. Have you ver used a John Hardy microphone preamplifier? Yes/No -- ha |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 23 May 2005 06:43:44 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Generally, when I try stuff like this, I end up frustrated but somewhat enlighted. Last time I tried equalizing mics I was using the published response curve of the SM57 along with a highly complex FFT-based equalizer and a very complex digital parametric equalizer, to obtain flat response. I got close, but the longer I listened I decided that I had no cigar. I went out and bought some better mics. You used your ears... good work. |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
hank alrich wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote: Well, I'm sure you sleep well at night after convincing the less informed that you lesser informed think that the less informed should spend $1000s on worthless kit that would be better spent on 250 pint of Guinness. Have you ver used a John Hardy microphone preamplifier? Yes/No I dare say I might have heard one on a CD on the radio that used one. I dare say there are many that have heard them and fall victim to "The Emperors New Clothes" syndrome. 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. |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
Predrag Trpkov wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message k... I don't see getting a really good match will matter much. It only seems to be a few % that do notice these sorts of differences. Again, the consumer, don't, imo. A few % is a lot. It's worth the effort. No idea what the point of this statment is. Effort for what? I just don't se that a few db here and there is relevant in the big schemes of things. Now this is pure entertainment. You mean, you really think those 50,000 sitting in the audience of a Britney Spears concert really notice a few db frequency reponse errors. Sure, thats entertainment. So few here seem to live in the real world. 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. |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kevin Aylward" wrote ...
hank alrich wrote: Kevin Aylward wrote: Well, I'm sure you sleep well at night after convincing the less informed that you lesser informed think that the less informed should spend $1000s on worthless kit that would be better spent on 250 pint of Guinness. Have you ver used a John Hardy microphone preamplifier? Yes/No I dare say I might have heard one on a CD on the radio that used one. I dare say there are many that have heard them and fall victim to "The Emperors New Clothes" syndrome. The difference being that the dumb consumers get sold $1000/ft magic cable by fast-talking sales-droids while professional audio engineers select their favorite equipment by first-hand experimentation. |
| 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
