[mmm guitar]

Hi,

I'm in a quandary about some equipment, just wandering if anyone can
help me understand what may be better.

I have a Neumann TLM 102 and trying to figure out a decent way to
preamp it and get it into my PC based DAW.

My requirements are a mid level home setup. I now have a dedicate
room for this which I will treat acoustically. I only need 2
channels. I record either acoustic guitar, mic'ed amp, piano, vocal
and things like congas, bongos. I'm never going to require mic'ing up
something like drums or multiple instruments.

I've figured out the two ways:

First: Buy a dedicated preamp, I'm thinking of the DAV BG1U, and use
that with my current card, but plan to buy something like an external
AD/DA unit like the RME ADI-2.

Second: Buy a more integrated unit, I'm thinking the RME Fireface 400
or 800.

I'm swinging towards the first way as I really like simplicity, i.e. a
unit which his sole purpose in life is a preamp, or an AD/DA. The
reason for the AD/DA is more to handle the output of the DAV and
abstract away my pc / get all the digitisation on outboard studio
equipment / dedicated hardware. Also I read about jitter + clock
issues which something like this can help with, although its beyond my
current understanding and probably not really a problem for me (I'm
reading more into this). I also like this as I can throw in a
different preamp sometime.

I'm chatting to a shop who are going to get my business, but talking
about alternatives / whats in this price range he suggested the
Fireface. Its also an AD/DA and has mic pre's and a bunch of line
inputs. It makes complete sense but I get the feeling the unit is
doing too much and I'm spending money on functionality I wont use
rather than the best 2 chanel preamp I can afford.

I really dont know is whether having an integrated preamp + ADDA is
"better" as all the sound processing is happening in 1 unit, I dont
think thats really an issue.

Just wandering if anyone else has some thoughts that may help me? In
fact the more I write this, the more I'm swinging to the first
option...

Thanks!

[Anahata]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:33:13 -0800, mmm guitar wrote:
[a choice between:]
First: Buy a dedicated preamp, I'm thinking of the DAV BG1U, and use
that with my current card, but plan to buy something like an external
AD/DA unit like the RME ADI-2.

Second: Buy a more integrated unit, I'm thinking the RME Fireface 400 or
800.

For what it's worth, I'm very happy with my setup with DAV preamps and
line-level only D-A and A-D conversion. Mine's 8 channels, DAV BG8 and M-
Audio Delta 1010, but same principle.

The main advantages of having your preamps in a separate box a
- it keeps all the potential digital interference away from the sensitive
preamp inputs.
- You get to choose exactly the preamp you want.

Advantage of having preamps and converters all in the same box is mostly
cost savings in hardware, and it is likely to take up less space.

--
Anahata
--/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:33:13 -0800 (PST), mmm guitar
wrote:

Hi,

I'm in a quandary about some equipment, just wandering if anyone can
help me understand what may be better.

I have a Neumann TLM 102 and trying to figure out a decent way to
preamp it and get it into my PC based DAW.

My requirements are a mid level home setup. I now have a dedicate
room for this which I will treat acoustically. I only need 2
channels. I record either acoustic guitar, mic'ed amp, piano, vocal
and things like congas, bongos. I'm never going to require mic'ing up
something like drums or multiple instruments.

I've figured out the two ways:

First: Buy a dedicated preamp, I'm thinking of the DAV BG1U, and use
that with my current card, but plan to buy something like an external
AD/DA unit like the RME ADI-2.

Second: Buy a more integrated unit, I'm thinking the RME Fireface 400
or 800.

I'm swinging towards the first way as I really like simplicity, i.e. a
unit which his sole purpose in life is a preamp, or an AD/DA. The
reason for the AD/DA is more to handle the output of the DAV and
abstract away my pc / get all the digitisation on outboard studio
equipment / dedicated hardware. Also I read about jitter + clock
issues which something like this can help with, although its beyond my
current understanding and probably not really a problem for me (I'm
reading more into this). I also like this as I can throw in a
different preamp sometime.

I'm chatting to a shop who are going to get my business, but talking
about alternatives / whats in this price range he suggested the
Fireface. Its also an AD/DA and has mic pre's and a bunch of line
inputs. It makes complete sense but I get the feeling the unit is
doing too much and I'm spending money on functionality I wont use
rather than the best 2 chanel preamp I can afford.

I really dont know is whether having an integrated preamp + ADDA is
"better" as all the sound processing is happening in 1 unit, I dont
think thats really an issue.

Just wandering if anyone else has some thoughts that may help me? In
fact the more I write this, the more I'm swinging to the first
option...

Thanks!

First, are you determined to spend money? The reason I ask is that you
will get exemplary results from a mid level sound card (something from
M-Audio for instance) and just about any pre-amp you can find. Extra
high prices for pre-amps generally mean they have some sort of
acoustic signature. This is snake-oil speak for distortion.

I use a small mixer by Behringer - I've had it for about 8 years now,
and it is acoustically transparent. I think it cost me about 40
pounds. It has mic pre-amps with a flat frequency response, very low
distortion and a noise level that I have not found anything to beat.
It also has three-band EQ, which you will probably not need if you
have post processing software in your DAW.

In short, don't spend your money on so-called high-end electronics.
Put it where it can make an actual difference and improve the level of
your room treatment.

d

[mmm guitar]

On Dec 14, 11:23*am, anahata wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:33:13 -0800, mmm guitar wrote:

[a choice between:]

First: Buy a dedicated preamp, I'm thinking of the DAV BG1U, and use
that with my current card, but plan to buy something like an external
AD/DA unit like the RME ADI-2.

Second: Buy a more integrated unit, I'm thinking the RME Fireface 400 or
800.

For what it's worth, I'm very happy with my setup with DAV preamps and
line-level only D-A and A-D conversion. Mine's 8 channels, DAV BG8 and M-
Audio Delta 1010, but same principle.

The main advantages of having your preamps in a separate box a
- it keeps all the potential digital interference away from the sensitive
preamp inputs.
- You get to choose exactly the preamp you want.

Advantage of having preamps and converters all in the same box is mostly
cost savings in hardware, and it is likely to take up less space.

--
Anahata
*--/--http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444

Thanks for your help. Yeah thats what I was thinking about the RME,
its very convenient 1 box that will solve all my needs and is at /
above the quality I need so will last a long time and will fit in
really well. But what you are saying about flexibility and the
advantages of a seperate pre amp really tie into the way I think and
I'm thinking its worth it.

Interesting to hear you are using it with the m-audio, I have a mid
level echo audio interface that is of reasonable quality. Main
reason I was thinking of the ADI-2 is its something that can handle
the high output of the DAV and wanting to outboard as much as possible
away from the PC.

Thanks!

[mmm guitar]

On Dec 14, 11:26*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 02:33:13 -0800 (PST), mmm guitar









wrote:
Hi,

I'm in a quandary about some equipment, just wandering if anyone can
help me understand what may be better.

I have a Neumann TLM 102 and trying to figure out a decent way to
preamp it and get it into my PC based DAW.

My requirements are a mid level home setup. *I now have a dedicate
room for this which I will treat acoustically. *I only need 2
channels. *I record either acoustic guitar, mic'ed amp, piano, vocal
and things like congas, bongos. *I'm never going to require mic'ing up
something like drums or multiple instruments.

I've figured out the two ways:

First: Buy a dedicated preamp, I'm thinking of the DAV BG1U, and use
that with my current card, but plan to buy something like an external
AD/DA unit like the RME ADI-2.

Second: Buy a more integrated unit, I'm thinking the RME Fireface 400
or 800.

I'm swinging towards the first way as I really like simplicity, i.e. a
unit which his sole purpose in life is a preamp, or an AD/DA. *The
reason for the AD/DA is more to handle the output of the DAV and
abstract away my pc / get all the digitisation on outboard studio
equipment / dedicated hardware. *Also I read about jitter + clock
issues which something like this can help with, although its beyond my
current understanding and probably not really a problem for me (I'm
reading more into this). *I also like this as I can throw in a
different preamp sometime.

I'm chatting to a shop who are going to get my business, but talking
about alternatives / whats in this price range he suggested the
Fireface. *Its also an AD/DA and has mic pre's and a bunch of line
inputs. *It makes complete sense but I get the feeling the unit is
doing too much and I'm spending money on functionality I wont use
rather than the best 2 chanel preamp I can afford.

I really dont know is whether having an integrated preamp + ADDA is
"better" as all the sound processing is happening in 1 unit, I dont
think thats really an issue.

Just wandering if anyone else has some thoughts that may help me? *In
fact the more I write this, the more I'm swinging to the first
option...

Thanks!

First, are you determined to spend money? The reason I ask is that you
will get exemplary results from a mid level sound card (something from
M-Audio for instance) and just about any pre-amp you can find. Extra
high prices for pre-amps generally mean they have some sort of
acoustic signature. This is snake-oil speak for distortion.

I use a small mixer by Behringer - I've had it for about 8 years now,
and it is acoustically transparent. I think it cost me about 40
pounds. It has mic pre-amps with a flat frequency response, very low
distortion and a noise level that I have not found anything to beat.
It also has three-band EQ, which you will probably not need if you
have post processing software in your DAW.

In short, don't spend your money on so-called high-end electronics.
Put it where it can make an actual difference and improve the level of
your room treatment.

d

My main problem is I have a currently have mid level Behringer preamp,
~£150 or so and it is extremely nosey. Also if I push it to the point
of clipping its output gain is still too low and can not drive the
line inputs on my soundcard property, so I have to add a brunt more
gain in the DAW which exacerbates its noise problem. I also get the
feeling its adding a little mud / taking some of the life out of my
mic. So definitely looking to take this out / replace with something
better.

The reason why I'm going into this level of equipment is because of
the TML 102. I bought that as an upgrade from a low-mid sennheiser
mic, I was dubious about spending that much on a mic, but the
difference is amazing and for me completely worth it. So I am
thinking of pairing it with some similar quality equipment to get the
most out of my setup, but without going overboard and dropping £1000's
on high end stuff because yeah that'd be pointless for me / given my
setup.

Thanks for your help. Yeah, when I got the TML I really began to
hear / appreciate room treatment so I have set aside a reasonable
budget for treating my studio room.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 04:48:30 -0800 (PST), mmm guitar
wrote:

My main problem is I have a currently have mid level Behringer preamp,
~£150 or so and it is extremely nosey. Also if I push it to the point
of clipping its output gain is still too low and can not drive the
line inputs on my soundcard property, so I have to add a brunt more
gain in the DAW which exacerbates its noise problem. I also get the
feeling its adding a little mud / taking some of the life out of my
mic. So definitely looking to take this out / replace with something
better.


Which preamp do you have, because I have no such problems with mine?
Sounds like the one you have may be broken, especially if you are
having clipping problems too. Don't judge the rest by this example.

The reason why I'm going into this level of equipment is because of
the TML 102. I bought that as an upgrade from a low-mid sennheiser
mic, I was dubious about spending that much on a mic, but the
difference is amazing and for me completely worth it. So I am
thinking of pairing it with some similar quality equipment to get the
most out of my setup, but without going overboard and dropping £1000's
on high end stuff because yeah that'd be pointless for me / given my
setup.


The current state of the art in electronics means that just about
every product at any price range (barring obvious rubbish) has a
performance level comfortably better than any mic you can name, and
that includes Neumanns. If you have the ability you could even build
yourself something for under ten dollars that would outperform most
professional gear.

Thanks for your help. Yeah, when I got the TML I really began to
hear / appreciate room treatment so I have set aside a reasonable
budget for treating my studio room.


And that is where the smart money still is.

d

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"mmm guitar" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I'm in a quandary about some equipment, just wandering if anyone can
help me understand what may be better.

I have a Neumann TLM 102 and trying to figure out a decent way to
preamp it and get it into my PC based DAW.

My requirements are a mid level home setup. I now have a dedicate
room for this which I will treat acoustically. I only need 2
channels. I record either acoustic guitar, mic'ed amp, piano, vocal
and things like congas, bongos. I'm never going to require mic'ing up
something like drums or multiple instruments.

I've figured out the two ways:

First: Buy a dedicated preamp, I'm thinking of the DAV BG1U, and use
that with my current card, but plan to buy something like an external
AD/DA unit like the RME ADI-2.

Second: Buy a more integrated unit, I'm thinking the RME Fireface 400
or 800.

I'm swinging towards the first way as I really like simplicity, i.e. a
unit which his sole purpose in life is a preamp, or an AD/DA. The
reason for the AD/DA is more to handle the output of the DAV and
abstract away my pc / get all the digitisation on outboard studio
equipment / dedicated hardware. Also I read about jitter + clock
issues which something like this can help with, although its beyond my
current understanding and probably not really a problem for me (I'm
reading more into this). I also like this as I can throw in a
different preamp sometime.

I'm chatting to a shop who are going to get my business, but talking
about alternatives / whats in this price range he suggested the
Fireface. Its also an AD/DA and has mic pre's and a bunch of line
inputs. It makes complete sense but I get the feeling the unit is
doing too much and I'm spending money on functionality I wont use
rather than the best 2 chanel preamp I can afford.

I really dont know is whether having an integrated preamp + ADDA is
"better" as all the sound processing is happening in 1 unit, I dont
think thats really an issue.

Just wandering if anyone else has some thoughts that may help me? In
fact the more I write this, the more I'm swinging to the first
option...

You are probably vastly overthinking this problem.

There are probably a thousand or more ways to address your situation, and
the majority of them will sound pretty much the same.A few will be junk, and
some will be overkill. None will stand head and shoulders above the top
10-30% of the rest.

I'll bet your first problem is that you spent like $600 for the mic, so you
might think that you need to spend a similar amount for the preamp and again
a similar amount for the ADC. That is fallacious logic which I can
illustrate as follows: Why not also decide that you need to spend $600 on
the mic cable? It is part of the signal path, no? (joke)

If you walked into my house today and wanted to record something with that
mic, I'd probably go into my shop room and find my Symmetrix SX 202 mic
preamp, a $30 Behringer USB converter and a 5 year old laptop.. And, we'd
get a recording that would probably sound as good as anything else, if we
did everything else right.

Would any of the competitive sub $200 USB or firewire integrated mic preamps
and converters from Midiman, EMu, or any of the rest do any better? Probably
not. Would it sound appreciably better or worse if I just plugged the mic
into my Microtrack or my friend's Zoom Hx? Probably not.

Now if you move the mic a foot or two away or closer to the sound source, or
reorient it by 30 degrees, that would make an audible difference! ;-)

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"mmm guitar" wrote in message
...
On Dec 14, 11:26 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:

My main problem is I have a currently have mid level Behringer preamp,
~£150 or so and it is extremely nosey.

Unless you have a sample of that preamp that is defective, more likely you
have a gain staging problem.

While Behringer preamps will win no awards for exceedingly low noise, they
aren't so bad that they would necessarily cause audible noise with a
condensor microphone.

Also if I push it to the point
of clipping its output gain is still too low and can not drive the
line inputs on my soundcard property,

Then there is something really wrong, but again I can't tell whether it is
due to a user adjustment or a broken soundcard.

Here's the simple facts - most soundcard line inputs will be driven into
clipping with 5 volts or less, and almost every Behringer mic preamp I've
seen will put out more like twice that or 10 volts or more.

so I have to add a brunt more gain in the DAW which exacerbates its noise
problem.

Something is broken or very badly adjusted.

The reason why I'm going into this level of equipment is because of
the TML 102.

You obviously have the worst reason in the world for spending that kind of
money.

I bought that as an upgrade from a low-mid sennheiser
mic, I was dubious about spending that much on a mic, but the
difference is amazing and for me completely worth it.

That surprises me because the rest of your equipment is so badly broken or
so badly adjusted that I don't know how you can tell squat about sound
quality.

[mmm guitar]

On Dec 14, 1:07*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"mmm guitar" wrote in message

...









Hi,

I'm in a quandary about some equipment, just wandering if anyone can
help me understand what may be better.

I have a Neumann TLM 102 and trying to figure out a decent way to
preamp it and get it into my PC based DAW.

My requirements are a mid level home setup. *I now have a dedicate
room for this which I will treat acoustically. *I only need 2
channels. *I record either acoustic guitar, mic'ed amp, piano, vocal
and things like congas, bongos. *I'm never going to require mic'ing up
something like drums or multiple instruments.

I've figured out the two ways:

First: Buy a dedicated preamp, I'm thinking of the DAV BG1U, and use
that with my current card, but plan to buy something like an external
AD/DA unit like the RME ADI-2.

Second: Buy a more integrated unit, I'm thinking the RME Fireface 400
or 800.

I'm swinging towards the first way as I really like simplicity, i.e. a
unit which his sole purpose in life is a preamp, or an AD/DA. *The
reason for the AD/DA is more to handle the output of the DAV and
abstract away my pc / get all the digitisation on outboard studio
equipment / dedicated hardware. *Also I read about jitter + clock
issues which something like this can help with, although its beyond my
current understanding and probably not really a problem for me (I'm
reading more into this). *I also like this as I can throw in a
different preamp sometime.

I'm chatting to a shop who are going to get my business, but talking
about alternatives / whats in this price range he suggested the
Fireface. *Its also an AD/DA and has mic pre's and a bunch of line
inputs. *It makes complete sense but I get the feeling the unit is
doing too much and I'm spending money on functionality I wont use
rather than the best 2 chanel preamp I can afford.

I really dont know is whether having an integrated preamp + ADDA is
"better" as all the sound processing is happening in 1 unit, I dont
think thats really an issue.

Just wandering if anyone else has some thoughts that may help me? *In
fact the more I write this, the more I'm swinging to the first
option...

You are probably vastly overthinking this problem.

There are probably a thousand or more ways to address your situation, and
the majority of them will sound pretty much the same.A few will be junk, and
some will be overkill. None will stand head and shoulders above the top
10-30% of the rest.

My thought process from the start has been to keep it simple, I dont
need / want to pay for a piece of equipment that does everything and
has x number of inputs for every possible occasion with all these
magnificent thrills. All I need is 2 good quality stand up mic pre's
and a method of getting that into my PC -- no line inputs, no mixer
functionality no nothing.

It is why my thinking is along the lines of a simple straight up 2
channel dedicated pre amp over something like the fireface, the 2
channel pre is as simple as it gets. But at the same time, the
fireface is 1 box and does everything, so even though its more
complex, its actually simpler in a way - the source of my head pain
and my question here. It may seem I'm trying to over complicate /
think because I literally have dump my brain onto the page in an
effort to see if anyone can see how I am thinking / my approach and
suggest where it may be going off on a tangent.

The ADI-2 is just a long term thought to outboard my equipment / get
it out of my pc / get some dedicated hardware to do this stuff, it
makes sense for a systems perspective (I'm a software developer by
trade). Also my soundcard is PCI, PCI slots are already dead and when
it comes to a pc upgrade, I doubt I will find a motherboard with one.
I like the idea of essentially a digital signals going in/out my PC/
DAW, its not for AD/DA.


I'll bet your first problem is that you spent like $600 for the mic, so you
might think that you need to spend a similar amount for the preamp and again
a similar amount for the ADC. That is fallacious logic which I can
illustrate as follows: Why not also decide that you need to spend $600 on
the mic cable? It is part of the signal path, no? (joke)

My thought process is more along the line that the mic I have bought
is of a much higher quality than my previous one, it's a decent
quality mic and I would like to find some similar quality equipment to
pair with it to get the most out of my setup. I see no point having a
nice microphone if some of the nicness / quality is being lost buy a
cheap / noisy preamp -- which is my current state.


If you walked into my house today and wanted to record something with that
mic, I'd probably go into my shop room and find my Symmetrix SX 202 mic
preamp, a $30 Behringer USB converter and a 5 year old laptop.. And, we'd
get a recording that would probably sound as good as anything else, if we
did everything else right.

Sorry I think the logic here is not quite right. I could extend that
to If we did this recording, I could bring my cheap Squire Strat over
and record a guitar part that would probably sound just as good than
if I brought my much higher quality American Strat over, in which case
I shouldn't have bought my american strat in the first place as its a
waste of money -- its not.


Would any of the competitive sub $200 USB or firewire integrated mic preamps
and converters from Midiman, EMu, or any of the rest do any better? Probably
not. Would it sound appreciably better or worse if I just plugged the mic
into my Microtrack or my friend's *Zoom Hx? Probably not.

Yeah I'd agree, the quality of components is just not there, and
that's something I learned with the guitar equipment I have bought
over the years and the effects pedals I build. Question here would it
sound better if it was compared to recordings on the TML 102 / DAV
BG1, I would say yes definitely based on the mic alone.


Now if you move the mic a foot or two away or closer to the sound source, or
reorient it by 30 degrees, that would make an audible difference! ;-)

Yeah definitely. Its why I'm trying to learn alot about what I'm
doing, the equipment I'm buying and how I implement it in my studio.
I'm investing in learning how to treat my room, where to position my
mic for vocals etc and the actual treatment itself. I do not expect
to just throw money at equipment and expect results.

Thanks for your help.

[mmm guitar]

On Dec 14, 1:18*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"mmm guitar" wrote in message

...
On Dec 14, 11:26 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:

My main problem is I have a currently have mid level Behringer preamp,

~£150 or so and it is extremely nosey.

Unless you have a sample of that preamp that is defective, more likely you
have a gain staging problem.

While Behringer preamps will win no awards for exceedingly low noise, they
aren't so bad that they would necessarily cause audible noise with a
condensor microphone.

Also if I push it to the point
of clipping its output gain is still too low and can not drive the
line inputs on my soundcard property,

Then there is something really wrong, but again I can't tell whether it is
due to a user adjustment or a broken soundcard.

Here's the simple facts - most soundcard line inputs will be driven into
clipping with 5 volts or less, and almost every Behringer mic preamp I've
seen will put out more like twice that or 10 volts or more.

so I have to add a brunt more gain in the DAW which exacerbates its noise
problem.

Something is broken or very badly adjusted.

The reason why I'm going into this level of equipment is because of

the TML 102.

You obviously have the worst reason in the world for spending that kind of
money.

There is no need to be that rude, especially when it seems you have
not understood + misquoted my reason.


I bought that as an upgrade from a low-mid sennheiser

mic, I was dubious about spending that much on a mic, but the
difference is amazing and for me completely worth it.

That surprises me because the rest of your equipment is so badly broken or
so badly adjusted that I don't know how you can tell squat about sound
quality.

Yeah something is definitely not right. I may not have given quite
the right impression, it is completely usable, the noise is annoying
but its not like you are wading through it. But its just not right

Comparing two recordings with my mics the difference is obvious.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"mmm guitar" wrote in message
...
On Dec 14, 1:07 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
If you walked into my house today and wanted to record something with
that
mic, I'd probably go into my shop room and find my Symmetrix SX 202 mic
preamp, a $30 Behringer USB converter and a 5 year old laptop.. And, we'd
get a recording that would probably sound as good as anything else, if we
did everything else right.

Sorry I think the logic here is not quite right. I could extend that
to If we did this recording, I could bring my cheap Squire Strat over
and record a guitar part that would probably sound just as good than
if I brought my much higher quality American Strat over, in which case
I shouldn't have bought my american strat in the first place as its a
waste of money -- its not.

You've missed my point. Compared to the audible difference between two
reasonably good ADCs or a reasonably good one and an excellent one, the
audible difference between any two guitars, even two identical guitars with
identical strings of different ages, is huge.

The comparison between a Squire and a Strat involves a far, far larger
difference in actual sound quality than what I'm talking about with ADCs.

I know from experience what I'm talking about because I own and use both the
Behringer $30 USB gizmo and also one of the finest audio interfaces around,
the LynxTWO. I've compared them both sonically in actual use for recordings
and also on the bench and I can tell you what the audible and measurable
differences between them are over a wide range of operating conditions. In
this case the audible difference would be moot.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"mmm guitar" wrote in message
...
On Dec 14, 1:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

You obviously have the worst reason in the world for spending that kind of
money.

There is no need to be that rude, especially when it seems you have
not understood + misquoted my reason.

No, what I'm saying is that making major upgrades when something is broken
or not used properly is the worst reason in the world for spending that kind
of money.

Even vanity is a better reason! ;-)

[[email protected]]

Yeah I have and will definitly invest more time + money into room treatment and mic up practices etc thanks.

I only really realised in the past year, especially after I got my TLM how much a difference treatment makes (I think my old mic just bludgeoned everything)

I do build my own guitar effects pedals, reissues of the vintage analog pedals (just for myself), the schematics are all online / legal and its a bit of fun trying to get components that will work / adapt it to work. As well as trying to program VST's as well (although havnt really had much success here). I do alot computers and programming and dable quite alot now in electronics.

Thing I find though to get decent components costs, especially when it comes to audio and also transistors, especially if you want to get a few of them working together. Some of the transistors I've had to buy are like £20 for a batch of 10 and only 2 or 3 may work well.

I can not believe a $10 pre amp out performs or matches a $1000 pre amp. On paper it may, i.e. it supports the frequency ranges etc and has x amount of gain, but when you listen to the differences surely not.

Thanks again, will look more into how I'm going to treat the room.

[Scott Dorsey]

mmm guitar wrote:

I've figured out the two ways:

First: Buy a dedicated preamp, I'm thinking of the DAV BG1U, and use
that with my current card, but plan to buy something like an external
AD/DA unit like the RME ADI-2.

Second: Buy a more integrated unit, I'm thinking the RME Fireface 400
or 800.

If you buy separate stuff, you can upgrade them individually in the future
if you want to do that. On top of which if you want to someday have several
different preamps with slightly different sounds, you can use them all with
one A/D.

Just wandering if anyone else has some thoughts that may help me? In
fact the more I write this, the more I'm swinging to the first
option...

If you buy a good preamp, you can still keep using it 20 years from now.
When you go to sell it, you can sell it for most of what you paid for it.

If you buy an integrated system, it will only be useful as long as whatever
the computer interface used is useful.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 15:23:04 UTC, Arny Krueger wrote:
"mmm guitar" wrote in message
...
On Dec 14, 1:07 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
If you walked into my house today and wanted to record something with
that
mic, I'd probably go into my shop room and find my Symmetrix SX 202 mic
preamp, a $30 Behringer USB converter and a 5 year old laptop.. And, we'd
get a recording that would probably sound as good as anything else, if we
did everything else right.

Sorry I think the logic here is not quite right. I could extend that
to If we did this recording, I could bring my cheap Squire Strat over
and record a guitar part that would probably sound just as good than
if I brought my much higher quality American Strat over, in which case
I shouldn't have bought my american strat in the first place as its a
waste of money -- its not.

You've missed my point. Compared to the audible difference between two
reasonably good ADCs or a reasonably good one and an excellent one, the
audible difference between any two guitars, even two identical guitars with
identical strings of different ages, is huge.

Hmm, this has been quite an eye opener thanks. It also seems like you are doing to squires what I am doing to $100 preamps.

I do appreciate your insight + experience and understand alot of my problems lie in my technique. But like when I was learning guitar, I started on a squire, decided I loved it and plumped on an american strat, over time I've learnt to use it better and appreciate and get more out of the small differences.

Thanks.


The comparison between a Squire and a Strat involves a far, far larger
difference in actual sound quality than what I'm talking about with ADCs.

I know from experience what I'm talking about because I own and use both the
Behringer $30 USB gizmo and also one of the finest audio interfaces around,
the LynxTWO. I've compared them both sonically in actual use for recordings
and also on the bench and I can tell you what the audible and measurable
differences between them are over a wide range of operating conditions. In
this case the audible difference would be moot.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:27:09 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Yeah I have and will definitly invest more time + money into room treatment and mic up practices etc thanks.

I only really realised in the past year, especially after I got my TLM how much a difference treatment makes (I think my old mic just bludgeoned everything)

I do build my own guitar effects pedals, reissues of the vintage analog pedals (just for myself), the schematics are all online / legal and its a bit of fun trying to get components that will work / adapt it to work. As well as trying to program VST's as well (although havnt really had much success here). I do alot computers and programming and dable quite alot now in electronics.

Thing I find though to get decent components costs, especially when it comes to audio and also transistors, especially if you want to get a few of them working together. Some of the transistors I've had to buy are like £20 for a batch of 10 and only 2 or 3 may work well.

I can not believe a $10 pre amp out performs or matches a $1000 pre amp. On paper it may, i.e. it supports the frequency ranges etc and has x amount of gain, but when you listen to the differences surely not.

Thanks again, will look more into how I'm going to treat the room.

You don't seem to have much luck in buying stuff that works. I promise
you that you can build yourself a single channel preamp that is a
match for anything at any price - maybe not for 10 dollars, but
certainly for 20. Most commercial preamps don't reach their optimum
noise performance because the makers don't want to shell out the cash
for multiple parallel discrete input transistors. You can do that.
Frequency response is as flat as you want it to be and you choose your
own headroom in power supply design.

That is all there is - get those right and you have yourself an
acoustically transparent preamp. There is no added "magic ingredient"
that only appears when you tack a couple of noughts onto the price.

d

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 15:24:57 UTC, Arny Krueger wrote:
"mmm guitar" wrote in message
...
On Dec 14, 1:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

You obviously have the worst reason in the world for spending that kind of
money.

There is no need to be that rude, especially when it seems you have
not understood + misquoted my reason.

No, what I'm saying is that making major upgrades when something is broken
or not used properly is the worst reason in the world for spending that kind
of money.

Even vanity is a better reason! ;-)

lol, yeah I can appreciate that. I do believe something is not quite right with my preamp, or its just noisy. I've actually been wanting to replace it for the past 5 years, but I've been saving diligently for a house. Now that is out of the way I can start saving for other things

[[email protected]]

Lol, yeah my initial delve into studio equipment I dont think was the most successful. The TLM made a big difference to my setup, I'm actually fairly happy with it, I've just got an opportunity to update / invest.

I'd be tempted to build my own, but unfortunately that's beyond my capabilities, I make it a point not to mess around with metal boxes and main electricity :P

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

wrote in message
news:12069006.770.1323876429108.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqcp19...

I can not believe a $10 pre amp out performs or matches a $1000 pre amp.

Nobody is saying that is the case, unless by $10 preamp you mean a preamp
based on a $10 chip. Of course a preamp based on a $10 chip will run closer
to $100 when you put it in a box and give it a power supply...

On paper it may, i.e. it supports the frequency ranges etc and has x
amount of gain, but when you listen to the differences surely not.

Again, one of the first places that cheap preamps give up performance is
maximum gain. A good preamp will have 60 dB max gain, and some will have
even more for working with ribbon mics. OTOH, really cheap mic preamps may
have only 40 dB gain, and many have only 50 dB.

However, your mic is a condensor mic, and as a rule they don't need 60 dB
gain to be effective. In fact some condensor mics require minimal to no
additional gain if the micing is close and the source is loud.

Thanks again, will look more into how I'm going to treat the room.

If you haven't done so already, you really need to figure out why your
existing setup is noisy and clipping at the same time.

[PStamler]

Arny and Don's opinion seems to be that, essentially, there are no
quality differences between cheap preamps and more expensive ones, so
you might as well buy a Behringer. This opinion is just that -- an
opinion. Everybody has one.

Not everyone shares that opinion; most audio professionals work with
professional-grade equipment because their long-term experience tells
them that IT SOUNDS BETTER. If you go to a professional studio, you
won't see cheap mixers. The higher-quality and higher-priced gear
you'll see there was chosen -- and paid for -- by people whose living
depends on it.

All that being said, there's some medium-priced equipment out there
which would make a good front end for what you're doing. Try out
something like the Sytek preamp, and maybe a CardDeluxe sound card. If
you ever get to the point when you do want to record more than two
mics at once, the Sytek has 4 channels, and you could always buy
either a 4-channel soundcard or a second CardDeluxe (it's possible to
use these in multiples).

I second Scott's recommendation of using separate preamp and ADDA. The
only good reason I can see for an all in one package would be if you
were planning to do mobile work, and it sounds like you're not.

Peace,
Paul

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:52:58 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I can not believe a $10 pre amp out performs or matches a $1000 pre amp.

Nobody is saying that is the case, unless by $10 preamp you mean a preamp
based on a $10 chip. Of course a preamp based on a $10 chip will run closer
to $100 when you put it in a box and give it a power supply...

I've checked and I could build this preamp for nothing from components
in my odds and ends box. The chip is no more than a high speed op amp.
Add to that a handful of transistors, four resistors and a couple of
caps and you are done. Even pricing it up commercially comes to no
more than 12 pounds in parts. As for the box - the good old Altoids
Mints tin is the container of choice. I have a couple of those.

When you are building for yourself, you do what you need and what
works. As he is already a maker of guitar pedals, this little project
should be ideal for him.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:13:31 -0800 (PST), PStamler
wrote:

Arny and Don's opinion seems to be that, essentially, there are no
quality differences between cheap preamps and more expensive ones, so
you might as well buy a Behringer. This opinion is just that -- an
opinion. Everybody has one.


It is an opinion I put to the test right here a few years ago when I
re-recorded a CD via a Behringer mic pre and invited everybody to tell
the difference from the original. I'm guessing plenty tried, but only
a couple posted a guess - and that is exactly what it was because they
did no better than chance.

Not everyone shares that opinion; most audio professionals work with
professional-grade equipment because their long-term experience tells
them that IT SOUNDS BETTER. If you go to a professional studio, you
won't see cheap mixers. The higher-quality and higher-priced gear
you'll see there was chosen -- and paid for -- by people whose living
depends on it.

The challenge stands, and I think the reasons why professionals choose
other makers is complex. First there is ruggedness - Behringer kit is
not built to have coffee spilled on it . The there is repairability -
very important in a studio. You don't repair Behringer kit, you buy
new. Finally there is snobbery that abounds in great quantity; it is a
fine substitute for real reasoning in most cases. Oh and of course
Behringer don't actually make studio desks - that could be important.

All that being said, there's some medium-priced equipment out there
which would make a good front end for what you're doing. Try out
something like the Sytek preamp, and maybe a CardDeluxe sound card. If
you ever get to the point when you do want to record more than two
mics at once, the Sytek has 4 channels, and you could always buy
either a 4-channel soundcard or a second CardDeluxe (it's possible to
use these in multiples).


A four channel sound card for a man with one mic. Why?

I second Scott's recommendation of using separate preamp and ADDA. The
only good reason I can see for an all in one package would be if you
were planning to do mobile work, and it sounds like you're not.

That is the soundest possible advice, and I would echo it too.

d

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"PStamler" wrote in message
...

Arny and Don's opinion seems to be that, essentially, there are no
quality differences between cheap preamps and more expensive ones, so
you might as well buy a Behringer. This opinion is just that -- an
opinion. Everybody has one.

In this case, an opinion of your own invention, Paul.

There are quality differences between cheap preamps and more expensive
premaps and these differences can be of many different kinds and have
different sources.

I've already listed some, such as the fact that some cheap preamps simply
don't have enough gain to work well with some very low output microphones.
There are many more differences.

Also, some expensive preamps contain parts that can introduce clearly
audible changes such as transformers.

I'm addressing a situation where it has been said that there is clearly
audible noise and clipping under conditions where IME that should not be so.

It is a specific sitaution, namely one in which involves a condensor
microphone with a relatively high, but not exceptionaly high output.

[PStamler]

On Dec 14, 3:50*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
All that being said, there's some medium-priced equipment out there
which would make a good front end for what you're doing. Try out
something like the Sytek preamp, and maybe a CardDeluxe sound card. If
you ever get to the point when you do want to record more than two
mics at once, the Sytek has 4 channels, and you could always buy
either a 4-channel soundcard or a second CardDeluxe (it's possible to
use these in multiples).

A four channel sound card for a man with one mic. Why?

I had recommended the Sytek preamp mostly based on its high quality.
It only comes in a 4-channel version, and I noted that IF the original
poster might want sometime to expand to using four microphones, the
Sytek could do it, but he'd need a 4-channel sound card. That's a
possible future expansion, not a right-now recommendation.

Peace,
Paul

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:18:57 -0800 (PST), PStamler
wrote:

On Dec 14, 3:50*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
All that being said, there's some medium-priced equipment out there
which would make a good front end for what you're doing. Try out
something like the Sytek preamp, and maybe a CardDeluxe sound card. If
you ever get to the point when you do want to record more than two
mics at once, the Sytek has 4 channels, and you could always buy
either a 4-channel soundcard or a second CardDeluxe (it's possible to
use these in multiples).

A four channel sound card for a man with one mic. Why?

I had recommended the Sytek preamp mostly based on its high quality.
It only comes in a 4-channel version, and I noted that IF the original
poster might want sometime to expand to using four microphones, the
Sytek could do it, but he'd need a 4-channel sound card. That's a
possible future expansion, not a right-now recommendation.

Peace,
Paul

That's a fair comment, but for a small home studio I doubt that there
would ever be much simultaneous multi-tracking going on. Stereo
continues to meet all of my needs.

d

[[email protected]]

Yeah I never see myself using more than two as primarily just recording separate tracks, so two mics for a guitar, pair of congas etc is good enough for me. If I want to record singing / guitar at same time two mics should do me fine. My thoughts are getting the best / most simple dedicated 2 channel setup I can safely afford.

The guy at the shop said extra I/O's are always useful, especially if I get any outboard effects, compressors etc, but I dont think that is a problem tho. What I was planning long term is basically digitising it once well as rawly and quickly as possible then handle everything digitally from then on.. So either outboard effects unit with digital I/O like an Eventide (but something cheaper...) or more likely a software based solution with DSP rack, something like the TC Electronics power core.

The flip-flopping between analog and digital annoys me, especially as pretty much any unit nowadays is going to be digital. Dont think it is really a problem, but I'm a little OCD with I.T systems and doing that would drive me insane!

Thanks again.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 01:51:01 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Yeah I never see myself using more than two as primarily just recording separate tracks, so two mics for a guitar, pair of congas etc is good enough for me. If I want to record singing / guitar at same time two mics should do me fine. My thoughts are getting the best / most simple dedicated 2 channel setup I can safely afford.

The guy at the shop said extra I/O's are always useful, especially if I get any outboard effects, compressors etc, but I dont think that is a problem tho. What I was planning long term is basically digitising it once well as rawly and quickly as possible then handle everything digitally from then on. So either outboard effects unit with digital I/O like an Eventide (but something cheaper...) or more likely a software based solution with DSP rack, something like the TC Electronics power core.

The flip-flopping between analog and digital annoys me, especially as pretty much any unit nowadays is going to be digital. Dont think it is really a problem, but I'm a little OCD with I.T systems and doing that would drive me insane!

Thanks again.

Something has gone bad with your newsreader software, and it is not
putting any line breaks in where it should. Any chance you can fix
that as your posts are now quite hard to read.

But back to the subject. You start with analogue from the mic and
through the mixer. Then your sound card turns it to digital and you
stay digital right up to playback. No need for any flip-folpping back
and forth.

d

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/14/2011 5:33 AM, mmm guitar wrote:

I have a Neumann TLM 102 and trying to figure out a decent way to
preamp it and get it into my PC based DAW.

My requirements are a mid level home setup.

I record either acoustic guitar, mic'ed amp, piano, vocal
and things like congas, bongos. I'm never going to require mic'ing up
something like drums or multiple instruments.

I'm thinking of the DAV BG1U, and use
that with my current card, but plan to buy something like an external
AD/DA unit like the RME ADI-2.

or

Buy a more integrated unit, I'm thinking the RME Fireface 400
or 800.

I'm swinging towards the first way as I really like simplicity, i.e. a
unit which his sole purpose in life is a preamp, or an AD/DA.

I really dont know is whether having an integrated preamp + ADDA is
"better" as all the sound processing is happening in 1 unit, I dont
think thats really an issue.

Without reading through the dozens of replies yet, here's my
take on this.

I think you have a realistic perspective - a "mid-level"
setup with decent microphones and some attention to the
recording environment. As an engineer, the "system" approach
(separate mic preamp and converters) appeals to me not
because of the simplicity of dedicated hardware for each
function, but for flexibility. If you think you might get
some improvement from a different preamp, you can try one
with your present converters and make your comparison based
on a single variable. Same if you want to try a different
converter. There's another piece that you could un-bundle,
too, and that's converters from the computer interface.

But . . . I'll tell you that when it comes to "mid-level,"
and that covers a pretty broad range of price with a smaller
range in "sound quality," the integrated
preamp-converter-interfaces on the market today are
remarkably good.

The RME Fireface series is kind of at the top end of that
range. But for less than half the price, I've recently had
the Focusrite Scarletts here for review and I currently have
a PreSonus 44VSL, both of which sound very good. There are a
number of other similar products on the market. TASCAM and
Steinberg/Yamaha are probably very likely similar in
function and performance. I haven't shot one out with the
other, or either out with a Fireface (I've never worked with
an RME) though I'm sure that differences could be heard. But
I can tell you that there's nothing I've heard about the
ones I've had here in the last few months that would stand
in my way of making a good recording, all things external
being equal.

One thing that might make a difference in the way you work
is how much gain the mic preamp has. Most of the integrated
boxes are internally calibrated (and mostly you can't change
this) so that at maximum gain, all of them require about the
same input level for the same digital output level. This
gain structure tends to be a bit on the low side when you're
recording a quiet source resulting in the complaint of "I
have to turn the gain all the way up and my tracks are still
too quiet." In general, I don't consider this to be a
defect, but it's usually the first criticism you'll read on
the 'net.

One thing that you should be concerned about is how the
digital data gets into the computer. Firewire is in its
sunset years. Unless you have an old computer or are
assembling a tabletop computer from parts, you pretty much
can't get a Firewire port any more. There are hardly any
Windows laptops with a Firewire port or even a Cardbus slot
for a Firewire adapter for sale today, and only a few Mac
models still have Firewire. This is really an important
consideration with a Fireface. It might work with the
computer you have today, but it might not work with your
next computer (and there WILL be a next computer).

Hand in hand with this is how good the drivers are if you're
using Windows and how compliant the hardware is with the
Apple Core Audio system if you're using a Mac. RME happens
to have a stellar reputation here. Mackie's name is mud. To
make your system somewhat future-resistant, you might want
to focus your sights on a USB2 interface between the
converters and the computer regardless of what's on the
other side of the converters (an integrated box or an
outboard mic preamp).

You have the mic already and it sounds like you're on
speaking terms with a dealer. Why not get something modest
from him and give it a try in your studio. Look at things
like a workable gain range without excess noise and
something that works with your computer without a lot of
fussing around (if you're using Windows - go directly to the
manufacturer's web site and download the latest drivers,
don't even bother with what's on the disk in the box. See
how it sounds to you and how it works for you.

This stuff is pretty fluid if you have the right attitude
about it. For $350 or so, you can make some very good
recordings, and when you decide that it's time to upgrade in
a year or two, it's really not that big of a deal to sell it
for $200 and take the next step, And if you get an
integrated interface with digital as well as analog I/O (an
S/PDIF port is pretty common) you can keep the same computer
interface for as long as it's supported with your computer
software and upgrade the converters or preamp.

Think flexibility and don't think that you'll be buying the
system that you'll use for the next 20 years.



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

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/14/2011 7:25 AM, mmm guitar wrote:

I have a mid
level echo audio interface that is of reasonable quality. Main
reason I was thinking of the ADI-2 is its something that can handle
the high output of the DAV and wanting to outboard as much as possible
away from the PC.

Neither of those should really be a matter of concern. The
concept that PCs are electrically noisy inside was based on
really old sound cards. Echo, to my knowledge, never built
anything that had the problem. And you can always turn down
the output of the preamp to match the input gain of your
interface.


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

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[mmm guitar]

On Dec 15, 10:03*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 01:51:01 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Yeah I never see myself using more than two as primarily just recording separate tracks, so two mics for a guitar, pair of congas etc is good enough for me. If I want to record singing / guitar at same time two mics should do me fine. * My thoughts are getting the best / most simple dedicated 2 channel setup I can safely afford.

The guy at the shop said extra I/O's are always useful, especially if I get any outboard effects, compressors etc, but I dont think that is a problem tho. What I was planning long term is basically digitising it once well as rawly and quickly as possible then handle everything digitally from then on. *So either outboard effects unit with digital I/O like an Eventide (but something cheaper...) or more likely a software based solution with DSP rack, something like the TC Electronics power core.

The flip-flopping between analog and digital annoys me, especially as pretty much any unit nowadays is going to be digital. *Dont think it is really a problem, but I'm a little OCD with I.T systems and doing that would drive me insane!

Thanks again.

Something has gone bad with your newsreader software, and it is not
putting any line breaks in where it should. Any chance you can fix
that as your posts are now quite hard to read.

But back to the subject. You start with analogue from the mic and
through the mixer. Then your sound card turns it to digital and you
stay digital right up to playback. No need for any flip-folpping back
and forth.

d

Apologies, I'm using google groups and they've made changes with the
new look that must be breaking some standards. Hopefully this is
better, is using the old look.

Yeah that's definitely what I want to achieve thanks, definitely am
going to avoid going from PC - anolog out - effects unit that is
digital but only has analog in/outs and not digital in/out - back to
pc.

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:

I've checked and I could build this preamp for nothing from components
in my odds and ends box. The chip is no more than a high speed op amp.
Add to that a handful of transistors, four resistors and a couple of
caps and you are done. Even pricing it up commercially comes to no
more than 12 pounds in parts. As for the box - the good old Altoids
Mints tin is the container of choice. I have a couple of those.

If you want a good preamp from parts, it will cost more than $10 sadly.

You _can_ do a single op-amp design and get good performance, but if you
do that, you will need an input transformer to get good CMRR, and that is
not cheap.

If you want good CMRR, you wind up with three op-amps (or a comparabe
instrumentation amp chip like the INA163 or THAT1510). You look at the
THAT1510 and it costs under $5... but add the cost of the power supply
including the phantom stuff and you just broke $15 really fast. XLR
connectors aren't cheap. Want a gain control? Add $20 if you want it to
track properly. DC blocking cap on the output? $5 for a film cap and an
electrolytic in parallel.

It adds up fast. Not to say that you can't put a THAT1510 in a box and
get a pretty decent sounding mike preamp, and not to say that you can't
make something that sounds way better than anything you can buy in that
price range. But it's not going to be $10 because there is a lot more to
a preamp than just the single chip. And some of the most important stuff
where the money needs to go are things like the power supply which is
quite simple but not cheap to do right.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Tobiah]

On 12/15/2011 4:43 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don wrote:

I've checked and I could build this preamp for nothing from components
in my odds and ends box. The chip is no more than a high speed op amp.
Add to that a handful of transistors, four resistors and a couple of
caps and you are done. Even pricing it up commercially comes to no
more than 12 pounds in parts. As for the box - the good old Altoids
Mints tin is the container of choice. I have a couple of those.

If you want a good preamp from parts, it will cost more than $10 sadly.

Let's say I want to spend oh, $50 per channel. Do you guys have
schematics for a radically transparent (distortion free) and noise
free preamp?

Thanks,

Toby

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 15 Dec 2011 19:43:00 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

I've checked and I could build this preamp for nothing from components
in my odds and ends box. The chip is no more than a high speed op amp.
Add to that a handful of transistors, four resistors and a couple of
caps and you are done. Even pricing it up commercially comes to no
more than 12 pounds in parts. As for the box - the good old Altoids
Mints tin is the container of choice. I have a couple of those.

If you want a good preamp from parts, it will cost more than $10 sadly.

You _can_ do a single op-amp design and get good performance, but if you
do that, you will need an input transformer to get good CMRR, and that is
not cheap.

If you want good CMRR, you wind up with three op-amps (or a comparabe
instrumentation amp chip like the INA163 or THAT1510). You look at the
THAT1510 and it costs under $5... but add the cost of the power supply
including the phantom stuff and you just broke $15 really fast. XLR
connectors aren't cheap. Want a gain control? Add $20 if you want it to
track properly. DC blocking cap on the output? $5 for a film cap and an
electrolytic in parallel.

It adds up fast. Not to say that you can't put a THAT1510 in a box and
get a pretty decent sounding mike preamp, and not to say that you can't
make something that sounds way better than anything you can buy in that
price range. But it's not going to be $10 because there is a lot more to
a preamp than just the single chip. And some of the most important stuff
where the money needs to go are things like the power supply which is
quite simple but not cheap to do right.
--scott

You haven't kept up Scott. You don't need a transformer to achieve
good CMRR - and neither do you need to configure a full
instrumentation amp with three op amps. One op amp and four discretes
plus a handful of resistors will do the job perfectly. And it amazes
me that you would even consider a transformer - the one component that
is guaranteed to wreck all the good work you have put into the design.
It distorts, it is lossy (1dB of added noise figure guaranteed?) and
has a poorer frequency response than is needed.

d

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

On 15 Dec 2011 19:43:00 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

I've checked and I could build this preamp for nothing from components
in my odds and ends box. The chip is no more than a high speed op amp.
Add to that a handful of transistors, four resistors and a couple of
caps and you are done. Even pricing it up commercially comes to no
more than 12 pounds in parts. As for the box - the good old Altoids
Mints tin is the container of choice. I have a couple of those.

Trouble is, you can't easily fit everything for a good mic preamp in that
Altoids box if you want to plug it into the wall.

If you want a good preamp from parts, it will cost more than $10 sadly.

Agreed. I'm of the opinion that while one can build a *useful* mic preamp
quite cheaply as Behringer and others have done, what you will end up with
can fall audibly short in a goodly number of real world applications.

You _can_ do a single op-amp design and get good performance, but if you
do that, you will need an input transformer to get good CMRR, and that is
not cheap.

If you want good CMRR, you wind up with three op-amps (or a comparabe
instrumentation amp chip like the INA163 or THAT1510). You look at the
THAT1510 and it costs under $5... but add the cost of the power supply
including the phantom stuff and you just broke $15 really fast. XLR
connectors aren't cheap. Want a gain control? Add $20 if you want it to
track properly. DC blocking cap on the output? $5 for a film cap and an
electrolytic in parallel.

I agree with everything but the pot tracking part and the film caps. None of
the dozen or more mic preamps I have use a stereo gain control. In fact the
gain pots on my favorite mic preamp track wretchedly, and I work right
through it using the time-honored methodology of setting gains by ear and/or
meters and/or DAW traces. One nice feature of parts like the THAT1510 and
going back to the first generation of instrumentation amps, is gain control
via a single variable resistor.

It adds up fast. Not to say that you can't put a THAT1510 in a box and
get a pretty decent sounding mike preamp, and not to say that you can't
make something that sounds way better than anything you can buy in that
price range. But it's not going to be $10 because there is a lot more to
a preamp than just the single chip. And some of the most important stuff
where the money needs to go are things like the power supply which is
quite simple but not cheap to do right.
--scott

You haven't kept up Scott. You don't need a transformer to achieve
good CMRR - and neither do you need to configure a full
instrumentation amp with three op amps.

Scott seems to think that the THAT1510 is not the device that its producers
claim it to be.

He seems to be implying that this document:
http://www.thatcorp.com/1510-1512_Au...fier_ICs.shtml is a pack of
lies, or at least mere hype.

I don't know why Scott would recommend a chip that is sold based on hype
and/or lies. ;-)

One op amp and four discretes
plus a handful of resistors will do the job perfectly.

On this point, most of the mainstream audio world seems to agree. Even Scott
seems to agree when he says:

"Not to say that you can't put a THAT1510 in a box and et a pretty decent
sounding mike preamp"

But what about this?

"If you want good CMRR, you wind up with three op-amps."

Compare and contrast that with THAT's product claims such as can be found in
Figure 5 in http://www.thatcorp.com/datashts/THA..._Datasheet.pdf .

There is IMO a big gap between what THAT claims and what Scott seems to be
saying.

This cuts two ways - figure 5 shows upwards of 20 passive components
clustered around the input terminals of their op amp not including Scott's
gratuitous film caps. IMO there are still a few (a half dozen or more)
passive components that might be profitably added if even better EMI
rejection were desired.

And it amazes
me that you would even consider a transformer - the one component that
is guaranteed to wreck all the good work you have put into the design.

On the one hand transformers can be problematical, but on the other hand
they can provide unbeatable CMRR and EMI rejection. The question really is,
whether or not all of that CMRR and EMI rejection is needed. Clearly there
are a few situations where it is. However, many if not most practioners have
done a ton of field work with transformerless preamps and mics, and obtained
very good recordings with no extra fuss or bother that could be traced to
the lack of transformers.

It distorts, it is lossy (1dB of added noise figure guaranteed?) and
has a poorer frequency response than is needed.

On balance transformers can be pretty good if they are well made and
well-applied.

Interesting side note - DPA is apparently getting through reworking their
line of measurement mics to be transformerless. IOW, they used to have
transformers. They weren't all that bad! ;-)

[Scott Dorsey]

Tobiah wrote:
On 12/15/2011 4:43 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don wrote:

I've checked and I could build this preamp for nothing from components
in my odds and ends box. The chip is no more than a high speed op amp.
Add to that a handful of transistors, four resistors and a couple of
caps and you are done. Even pricing it up commercially comes to no
more than 12 pounds in parts. As for the box - the good old Altoids
Mints tin is the container of choice. I have a couple of those.

If you want a good preamp from parts, it will cost more than $10 sadly.

Let's say I want to spend oh, $50 per channel. Do you guys have
schematics for a radically transparent (distortion free) and noise
free preamp?

Get the THAT1510 datasheet. Look at the sample circuit on the datasheet.
Budget extra money for a nice power supply above that $50/channel.

The INA163 chip has become standard in a lot of mid-grade consoles like the
DDA and Oram consoles. The THAT1510 is a slight upgrade from the INA163.
It's not a Millennia but it's not half bad.

If you want anything quieter, you're going to need larger area transistors
than you can fit on a single chip preamp.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:
You haven't kept up Scott. You don't need a transformer to achieve
good CMRR - and neither do you need to configure a full
instrumentation amp with three op amps. One op amp and four discretes
plus a handful of resistors will do the job perfectly.

No, the circuit you are thinking of has different input impedance on
the two legs. Works okay for noncritical applications, but in the real
world it becomes a noise nightmare. I have seen several folks try and
use that topology for line level balanced inputs and it will cause hair
loss.

And it amazes
me that you would even consider a transformer - the one component that
is guaranteed to wreck all the good work you have put into the design.
It distorts, it is lossy (1dB of added noise figure guaranteed?) and
has a poorer frequency response than is needed.

Yup, but it gives you great CMRR and great RF rejection, the RF rejection
partly due to the bandwidth restriction and partly because you have good
CMRR well into the MHz range if the transformer is built right.

Yes, you can get lower distortion without it, but you can also get taxicab
radios blasting into your audio as well.

It is possible to do a transformerless circuit that is very clean, but it's
not just a single op-amp and it's not a trivial engineering job.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
You haven't kept up Scott. You don't need a transformer to achieve
good CMRR - and neither do you need to configure a full
instrumentation amp with three op amps.

Scott seems to think that the THAT1510 is not the device that its producers
claim it to be.

The manufacturers never claimed it was a single op-amp.

If you use a single op-amp design you will need an input transformer because
otherwise your input impedances on the two legs will not be the same and
so induced noise will not be properly cancelled out.

He seems to be implying that this document:
http://www.thatcorp.com/1510-1512_Au...fier_ICs.shtml is a pack of
lies, or at least mere hype.

Once again you go putting words in my mouth, Arny. Why do you keep doing this?

"If you want good CMRR, you wind up with three op-amps."

Compare and contrast that with THAT's product claims such as can be found in
Figure 5 in http://www.thatcorp.com/datashts/THA..._Datasheet.pdf .

There is IMO a big gap between what THAT claims and what Scott seems to be
saying.

Not at all The THAT1510 is an instrumentation amplifier configuration, it is
not an op-amp.

Interesting side note - DPA is apparently getting through reworking their
line of measurement mics to be transformerless. IOW, they used to have
transformers. They weren't all that bad! ;-)

DPA does not make measurement mikes. B&K does, but they have been
transformerless since the beginning (although back in the tube era, the
2801 supply would give you a transformer isolated output as an option).
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

You haven't kept up Scott. You don't need a transformer to achieve
good CMRR - and neither do you need to configure a full
instrumentation amp with three op amps.

Scott seems to think that the THAT1510 is not the device that its
producers
claim it to be.

The manufacturers never claimed it was a single op-amp.

To quote you Scott, why do you put words in my mouth? I *never* said it was
a *single* op amp.

If you use a single op-amp design you will need an input transformer
because
otherwise your input impedances on the two legs will not be the same and
so induced noise will not be properly cancelled out.

Unresponsive due to the inclusion of a word I never said. Now Scott if you
wanted to live down here with the rest of us ordinary mortals, you could
post your statement as a clarification, not the raging criticism that it is.

He seems to be implying that this document:
http://www.thatcorp.com/1510-1512_Au...fier_ICs.shtml is a pack
of
lies, or at least mere hype.

Once again you go putting words in my mouth, Arny. Why do you keep doing
this?

I'm just emulating you? Except I'm being far more honest and not abusing
paraprhasing by including a word that was never said.

Scott maybe you want to get out of denial about this. Maybe you don't. I
exactly quoted what you said:

"If you want good CMRR, you wind up with three op-amps."

Now if you said: "if you want superior CMRR, you might wind up with three
op-amps", that would be ok. But we all know that if you want superior CMRR,
you want a transformer.

Compare and contrast that with THAT's product claims such as can be found
in
Figure 5 in http://www.thatcorp.com/datashts/THA..._Datasheet.pdf
.

There is IMO a big gap between what THAT claims and what Scott seems to be
saying.

Not at all The THAT1510 is an instrumentation amplifier configuration, it
is
not an op-amp.

In what part of outer space does being an instrumentation amplifier prevent
it from being an op amp? Is there an official definition of op amp that
necessarily eliminates everything more sophisticated than a LM301?

Interesting side note - DPA is apparently getting through reworking their
line of measurement mics to be transformerless. IOW, they used to have
transformers. They weren't all that bad! ;-)

DPA does not make measurement mikes.

Again Scott, you are calling a well-respected manufacturer a liar.

http://www.dpamicrophones.com/en/pro...g&category=188
describes a goodly number of products that are obviously designed for making
audio measurements.

http://www.dpamicrophones.com/en/pro...188&item=24009
describes the 4004 as, and I exactly quote: "measurement microphone". OK,
Scott explain that!

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Don Pearce wrote:
You haven't kept up Scott. You don't need a transformer to achieve
good CMRR - and neither do you need to configure a full
instrumentation amp with three op amps. One op amp and four discretes
plus a handful of resistors will do the job perfectly.

No, the circuit you are thinking of has different input impedance on
the two legs.

I think you missed the part about "four discretes".

Works okay for noncritical applications, but in the real
world it becomes a noise nightmare.

Not for general use. In fact the world is full of products like the Behr
ADA8000 that obtain very close matching of inverting and non-inverting input
impedance a simple op amp and four discretes.

http://www.gyraf.dk/schematics/Behri...0_analouge.PDF

I'd like to see a coherent explanation of how this input stage has
"different input impedance on the two legs."

I have seen several folks try and
use that topology for line level balanced inputs and it will cause hair
loss.

I've been living with that topology x 16 for 6 years and it is fine for
general purposes. However, it does have a reputation for EMI sensitivity
(that I've never experienced). Probably not a mic input CMRR problem.

[Paul Babiak]

On 12/16/2011 12:44 AM, Tobiah wrote:
On 12/15/2011 4:43 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don wrote:

I've checked and I could build this preamp for nothing from components
in my odds and ends box. The chip is no more than a high speed op amp.
Add to that a handful of transistors, four resistors and a couple of
caps and you are done. Even pricing it up commercially comes to no
more than 12 pounds in parts. As for the box - the good old Altoids
Mints tin is the container of choice. I have a couple of those.

If you want a good preamp from parts, it will cost more than $10 sadly.

Let's say I want to spend oh, $50 per channel. Do you guys have
schematics for a radically transparent (distortion free) and noise
free preamp?

Thanks,

Toby

You might be able to copy this one for $50.00 in parts, but I recommend
seriously considering a purchase.

http://www.seventhcircleaudio.com/T1.../t15_about.htm

The schematic is provided on the website.

Paul