Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
And how did you like the Gordon pre? I'm very curious about it.
I recently enjoyed a casual comparison of four truly excellent preamps (Gordon Model 3, Grace Lunatec V. 3, Great River MP2-MH and Millennia Media HV-3D), all with admirable linearity to 100 KHz or well beyond, all with admirable phase coherence and extremely low noise floors bumping theoretical minimum, and they all sounded different. _Flat response_ is a single aspect of performance and not necessarily indicative of any unit's sound. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Powell wrote:
I wrote So, which is it "preamp that sounds good" or "not worry about what technology it's built with" or IS IT the technology "cheesy tube stage?" All mixed signals to the consumer (original poster). It's nice that you appreciate a sucky preamp for your voiceovers; that's no reason for anybody seeking a quality microphone preamplifier to use it. You don't get it... there are no "quality" mic pre-amps at the sub $500 level. I do get it, because Mark McQuilken designed the RNP peecisely to offer a "quality" pre in that price ballpark, and he accomplished that. Have you tried one? If it's not equal in some specifications to pres that cost four or more times what it costs, it still sits in an entirely different league than the ART, and that league is for many purposes not far from the big toys. Have you ever heard any of Mark's recording and mixing work? What I also get is that what passes for "detail" when doing your voice over is not going to pass for that when recording a fine acoustic instrument or collection thereof, say a string quartet, etc. Further, with patience and diligent shopping one stands a decent chance of scoring a fine single channel pre in that price range. No reason the OP should settle for exceptionally mediocre when he could do better. Voicingover and music recording may not have much in common. Reproduction of the human voice is the most demanding aspect of audio production/reproduction. The ear detects the most details and microdynamics in this frequency range. So your voice is the most complicated thing you have ever recorded? You say that while wearing hipboots? I do accept it as fact. About those microdynamics - do you use compression on that amazingly complex voice of yours? What don't they have in common (music/voice)? Please provide a technically based list of objections? Have you ever used a stereo pair to record a jazz ensemble, a choir, a stageband, a bluegrass band, a chamber orchestra, a string quartet, a saxophone quartet, a rock band? Or anything much at all except your own voice? When is that last time you tracked your voice with six to fifteen feet or more between your mouth and the mic? "With a real tube preamp"... what "real" anything? The discussion is the sub $500 pre-amp price point, BTW. See FMR RNP... He's talking about a preamp where the tube elements provide the significant gain, not some cheesdeball setup designed in marketing to dupe the unaware into thinking what they've bought uses tubes for amplification. Quack, quack, quack... You're showing your feathers. I have no quarrel with anybody wanting to use coloration, but I take issue with the idea that tubes have some inherent coloration that is at all represented by the likes of your sucky preamp. Please enlighten me then. That task is beyond my meager skills. What empirical experiences lead you to that conclusion? Have you personally auditioned the PMA Pro Gold in you setup? Do you have something to add that someone else didn't tell you (empirical)? I took up guitar in 1959. Xmas 1961 a dear cousin gave me a Wollensak. It sounded like ****; no biggie, because so did I. I kept playing, got my first worthwhile performing job the summer between my junior and senior highschool years ('62) as house folksinger for a coffee house at Lake Tahoe where I did six sets a night, seven nights a week for 11+ weeks. After I dropped out of Dartmouth in '65 I wound up in a folk duo, played around Santa Barbara got drafted in '66, wound up in San Antonio as a medical corpsman, where my duo played around south Texas. I bought a Sony consumer deck and Sony battery powered mixer and some cheap mics and started recording us. The duo became a band, I bought a Revox A77 deck with built-in speakers and amps for editing keeper takes, heard at once that the Revox killed the Sony for quality sound, sold the Sony stuff and bought a half-track A77HS and a little Altec portable mixer. I recorded every gig the band did. Eventually I went as a sideman with friends who spent plenty of money and time at an SA "pro" studio only to be disappointed with the results. They asked me why what they'd received sounded worse than the live tapes of my band. I told 'em I didn't know, but that if they wanted to come over to my house the next afternoon I'd record them just like I recorded my band. They did, and that became their product. In '70 or '71 (can't remember and I ain't gonna track it down right now - how old were you then?) I got my first recording + coproducing gig with Kinky and Roger Friedman, where my band masqueraded as the first Texas Jewboys behind Kinky. Between a Saturday morning and mid-afternoon the following Sunday we recorded 22 songs with Kinky (we'd never heard the songs before), using four or five mics, the Altec mixer and two Revoxes, and those got him his album deal. I kept playing and recording, and wound up in Austin TX, associated with Armadillo World Headquarters, wherein I eventually built a studio. We constructed a stage monitor mixer (24 x 5, which was fairly radical for 1974), then around API components we built a 24 x 8 x 2 recording mixer linked from the studio to the stage. I had stuff from Urei, Teletronix, Beyer, Shure, AKG, Neumann, Wharenbrock, JBl, Sennheiser, EV, McIntosh, Studer, and so forth. Our headphone system was driven by 4 Mac 75 tube amps. We recorded lots of stuff live, plenty of stuff in the studio, including more than a few radio spots with voices over. Late '76 I became general manager of AWHQ, responsible for all the booking, operations, etc., and the woman who is now my wife took over management of onion audio. I still got in a little recording and producing, mostly local and regional acts, like the Bugs henderson Group. AWHQ met the wrecking ball in early '81, about the same time that the Phil Woods Quintet won a Grammy for Best Instrumental Performance by a Jazz Ensemble. The recordings underlying _The Phil Woods Quintet - Live!_ were made directly from the AWHQ stage to a Studer B67, and the total cost for time and tape was about $236. I left Austin in '83 and moved here to northern California in '85. Since then I have eeked about a meager land-poor living doing audio recording, music production and sound reinforcement. My best recordings since moving here have been of The Piney Creek Weasels, who were an outstanding old-timey band, and my most satisfying recordings have been of local highschool ensembles. Since moving to Plumas County I have soundly reinforced Town Hawks, Jammin' Jellyrollers, Secret Mountain Rangers, Porch Swing, Snake Oil, Summertime, The David Grisman Quintet, Laurie Lewis, Alisdair Fraser, The Jimmy Rogers Blues Band, Tinsley Ellis, Little Charlie & The Nightcats, Mare Winningham, John Wesley Harding, Rory Block, The Tony Furtado Band, Duke Robilliard, The Bonedaddys, The Blazers, John Gorka, Lucy Kaplanski, Greg Brown, The Laura Love Band, The High Sierra Nevada Old Time Fiddlers' Championship, The California State Old Time Fiddlers Northern Regional and State Championship(s), and more than a few others I can't pull off the top of my head. My current main project is my first all-in-the DAW, a live recording (where I also provided SR) tracked into the MIO, mixing in Logic. I have modest kit, including Crest, JBL and Hafler amps, JBL, Tannoy, Bag End and Meyer speakers, Drawmer, Empirical Labs, Ashly, Yamaha, Eventide, Ensoniq, TC Electronics, Waves, HHB, Millennia, Speck, Great River, Phoenix/Aurura, Alembic, Rane, Peavey (VMP2), Symetrix, Lexicon, AKG, Rolls, FMR and Aphex outboard, Soundcraft and A&H consoles. I do the best I can with what I have. No, I haven't tried that particular ART. When I want something ****ty I have the Rolls RP220. But I do listen to what folks I respect have to say about kit. Scott Dorsey's comments led me to the Great River, which I purchased from Mercenary Audio, an outfit I knew would take it right back if I didn't appreciate it fully. You may or may not be interested to learn how the MH version of that pre came to be. Scott's work quality far surpasses mine; he's the kind of guy to whom I would send stuff for mastering. He has a well tweaked room, a very good monitoring system, outstanding hearing, and the technical chops to dig into things to find out why they work well or poorly, and to fix stuff that's ****ed up. He wouldn't bother to try and fix your preamp. How about you? You ever recorded anything bigger than your mouth? You got anything in your kit better than that piece of ART? Tell your story. -- ha |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Powell wrote:
"Glenn Dowdy" wrote How would you know? You're new here, aren't you? I've posted a few times on r.a.o over the years. We have a different accent in our conversations over there . Yes, you routinely sit on your necks. -- ha |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Stephen Cameron wrote:
"£ Î Z @ R wrote I am recording with a Yammy AW4416. I am unimpressed with their preamps -- too clinical for my taste. I'd like a good warm preamp to make up for it.. I know with say an SM57 into my aw4416, I have to turn up the guitar amp pretty darn loud just to get a decent level, and I didn't like the sound much either (going for a metal sound). I had MUCH better luck at lower volumes with a Marshall MXL 603s, captured a sound that was much closer to what I actually heard coming from the amp than I could with the SM57. (All I have is cheap mics. I'm strictly amateur.) What mics have you tried? (Maybe you don't really need a new preamp.) SM57's want to see a preamp with a transformer front end. Most cheap condenors work better into most pres that have solid state front ends, unless you get to the Millennia level, which sounds prety damned good with a 57. A good preamp is a worthwhile investment, IME. -- ha |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Powell wrote:
After reading the product information it doesn't appear to be a good candidate for studio use. The man who designed it does seriously fine work in the studio, and he uses it. -- ha |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
HenryShap wrote:
And how did you like the Gordon pre? I'm very curious about it. It was a real ear opener. Give it a listen. This thread ain't my first mention of it here... Google up "Preamp Fun" -- ha |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
In article , "Powell"
writes: After reading the product information it doesnt appear to be a good candidate for studio use. This is how you judge the efficacy of equipment? I think there are better ways to do it. Try listening. I have both the RNP and the ART PRO MPA. the is very little comparison and its not favorable to the ART. If used for this purpose one would need a roll of duck tape to hold it down in an equipment rack. Two more errors: First, it's "duct" tape, not "duck" tape. Its used for taping heat ducts. Secondly, the RNP can be easily mounted to a UTR1 rack tray which costs $20. I have three of them in one rack space. Garth~ "I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle." Ed Cherney |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"A. & G. Reiswig" wrote in message ... Very cool...thanks for the reference. I can't find very much about his tube mic pre on the net...wondering how it compares to the VMP-2. Anybody? No real comparison; the VMP-2 is designed to be a clean tube pre, whereas Hampton states in his article that his intention is to use the tube to generate distortion. Peace, Paul |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"Powell" wrote in message ... "Glenn Dowdy" wrote How would you know? You're new here, aren't you? I've posted a few times on r.a.o over the years. We have a different accent in our conversations over there . Why am I not surprised? Peace, Paul |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
hank alrich wrote:
Powell wrote: After reading the product information it doesn't appear to be a good candidate for studio use. The man who designed it does seriously fine work in the studio, and he uses it. Of course. Powell is posturing just like he has been doing for years over in rec.audio.opinion. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Paul Stamler wrote:
"Powell" wrote in message ... "Glenn Dowdy" wrote How would you know? You're new here, aren't you? I've posted a few times on r.a.o over the years. We have a different accent in our conversations over there . Why am I not surprised? Oh, Powell outed himself. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... snip With the Aphex 107, you can bypass the tube stage. You lose only about 10 dB of gain and it sounds a whole lot better. But my attempts at doing this with the ART weren't really very successful. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Can you direct me to a source for the Aphex mod's (for the 107). I was wanting to fiddle with one that I have lying around. Thanks. brotherdave |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
A. & G. Reiswig wrote:
Carey, Is that the PAIA build, or something else? Got an issue #? No, the PAiA thing is a starved plate design. I asked the designer why, and he said that it would be too dangerous to let people play with high voltages at home. The Tape Op design is a decent one. There are a few things I'd do differently, but it's a pretty conventional design that you won't go wrong with, I don't think. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
In article ,
A. & G. Reiswig wrote: Very cool...thanks for the reference. I can't find very much about his tube mic pre on the net...wondering how it compares to the VMP-2. Anybody? It's similar in overall design. I think he's using the same input transformers, even. The VMP-2 has a tone control section, though. And no, I'm not "stuck" on a tube pre, but I get the feeling that (as with a guitar amp) being able to vary the gain and barely start to distort the preamp tube might make a tube pre more versatile than a similar SS pre. Not that you can't overdrive a SS pre, just that it wouldn't sound as good. True? Depends. On a lot of solid state preamps, the input transformer will saturate before the preamp itself clips. Some people like that. Then again, I know folks who like to run transformerless preamps into clipping on kick drum tracks to get a more clicky sort of sound. I'm not a big fan of overloading things myself, but your mileage may vary. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1080328791k@trad... The problem, though, and the questions you're asking tip me off to this (forgive me if I'm off base here) is that you may not know whether you like it or not, and are concerned that someone ELSE might not like it. This is part of the learning process, and it's OK to make a mistake now and then. This deserves repeating with emphasis. I think the reason we see so many "what's the best" questions is for this exact reason. Sometimes people don't know what sounds best. That's a personal knowledge base you have build up yourself BY MAKING WRONG CHOICES. Brighter/louder usually wins out to novice ears. But that is seldom the BEST choice. And certainly not for every single piece of equipment you own. Your mixes will be horrible. I think more education needs to done on "what is good sound and how do sounds interact in mix" rather than "what is the best mic for $500". Without the knowledge of the former it won't matter how great your gear is because you want have the knowledge to use it properly. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Powell wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote So, which is it "preamp that sounds good" or "not worry about what technology it's built with" or IS IT the technology "cheesy tube stage?" All mixed signals to the consumer (original poster). It's nice that you appreciate a sucky preamp for your voiceovers; that's no reason for anybody seeking a quality microphone preamplifier to use it. You don't get it... there are no "quality" mic pre-amps at the sub $500 level. Go right now and listen to the RNP and the Symetrix 202. Just listen. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"Powell" wrote in message
... After reading the product information it doesn't appear to be a good candidate for studio use. I'd be hard pressed to come up with something more absurd than judging the sound of a piece of equipment by what it looks like on paper. Do people hold cans of paint up to their ears to "hear" if it's a good color? Thank goodness most consumer equipment comes with spec sheets nowadays. Maybe this will put an end to all that crappy sounding music that came out before the 80's. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Garthrr wrote:
In article , (Scott Dorsey) writes: With the Aphex 107, you can bypass the tube stage. You lose only about 10 dB of gain and it sounds a whole lot better. How complicated is it to do that? Could it even be done in such a way as to allow one to switch the tube in and out? It's not that bad... I think we discussed it here back when the 107 was a much more popular unit than it is today. The tube stage is running with very low voltage, but it's not really in starvation mode because it's also running without any plate resistor at all. Instead, there is an I/V stage made with an op-amp that takes the signal off the plate. Bypassing the whole RPA is a matter of removing the tube and putting a capacitor between the grid line and the output of the I/O op-amp. There is also a little trimmer point inside there that controls the linearity. Aphex sets it at the factory for a particular distortion level, but you can turn it up or down too. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"Garthrr" wrote After reading the product information it doesn't appear to be a good candidate for studio use. This is how you judge the efficacy of equipment? I think there are better ways to do it. Try listening. I have both the RNP and the ART PRO MPA. the is very little comparison and its not favorable to the ART. That's an opinion you get to have. If used for this purpose one would need a roll of duck tape to hold it down in an equipment rack. Two more errors: First, it's "duct" tape, not "duck" tape. Its used for taping heat ducts. Hehehe... no, duck tape is correct, too. It was invented in WWII to seal amonition cans. It's also call duct tape today but that's not the origion. For your lacking education: "Is it Duct or Duck? We don't want you to be confused, so we will explain. The first name for Duct Tape was DUCK. During World War II the U.S. Military needed a waterproof tape to keep the moisture out of ammunition cases. So, they enlisted the Johnson and Johnson Permacel Division to manufacture the tape. Because it was waterproof, everyone referred to it as "duck" tape (like water off a duck's back). Military personnel discovered that the tape was good for lots more than keeping out water. They used it for Jeep repair, fixing stuff on their guns, strapping equipment to their clothing... the list is endless." "After the War, the housing industry was booming and someone discovered that the tape was great for joining the heating and air conditioning duct work. So, the color was changed from army green to the silvery color we are familiar with today and people started to refer to it as "duct tape*." Therefore, either name is appropriate." Secondly, the RNP can be easily mounted to a UTR1 rack tray which costs $20. I have three of them in one rack space. That's nice. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"hank alrich" wrote After reading the product information it doesn't appear to be a good candidate for studio use. The man who designed it does seriously fine work in the studio, and he uses it. Could be. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"Kurt Albershardt" wrote You don't get it... there are no "quality" mic pre-amps at the sub $500 level. (a) he definitelty gets it Who else do you speak for on this board? and (b) have you ever used an FMR RNP? I've no interest in a new dog with different fleas. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Brotherdave wrote:
Can you direct me to a source for the Aphex mod's (for the 107). I was wanting to fiddle with one that I have lying around. Thanks. Perhaps: http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en -- ha |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"hank alrich" wrote So, which is it "preamp that sounds good" or "not worry about what technology it's built with" or IS IT the technology "cheesy tube stage?" All mixed signals to the consumer (original poster). It's nice that you appreciate a sucky preamp for your voiceovers; that's no reason for anybody seeking a quality microphone preamplifier to use it. You don't get it... there are no "quality" mic pre-amps at the sub $500 level. I do get it, because Mark McQuilken designed the RNP peecisely to offer a "quality" pre in that price ballpark, and he accomplished that. If you say so. Have you tried one? If it's not equal in some specifications to pres that cost four or more times what it costs, Please provide a complete specification sheet. The author provides little to nothing on the web site. http://www.fmraudio.com/. Also please site specific makes and models of mic. pre-amps (" four times the price") that the RNP blows out of the water, which you personal have working experience with? it still sits in an entirely different league than the ART, and that league is for many purposes not far from the big toys. How would you know? What microphone pre-amp/s do you own that you consider *state of the art*? Have you ever heard any of Mark's recording and mixing work? After the final mix you can discern the sonic signature of specific mic. pre-amps used? Which works of Mark's are you specifically referring to, which only use RNP's, and how would I have access to them? What I also get is that what passes for "detail" when doing your voice over is not going to pass for that when recording a fine acoustic instrument or collection thereof, say a string quartet, etc. What are you trying to say? Voicingover and music recording may not have much in common. Reproduction of the human voice is the most demanding aspect of audio production/reproduction. The ear detects the most details and microdynamics in this frequency range. So your voice is the most complicated thing you have ever recorded? That's you come-back... oh, brother. About those microdynamics - do you use compression on that amazingly complex voice of yours? There is no need. Nor do I need to normalize. What don't they have in common (music/voice)? Please provide a technically based list of objections? Have you ever used a stereo pair to record a jazz ensemble, a choir, a stageband, a bluegrass band, a chamber orchestra, a string quartet, a saxophone quartet, a rock band? Or anything much at all except your own voice? Besides self-importance, do you have a point? I have no quarrel with anybody wanting to use coloration, but I take issue with the idea that tubes have some inherent coloration that is at all represented by the likes of your sucky preamp. Please enlighten me then. That task is beyond my meager skills. Hehehe... yes, apparently quite so. What empirical experiences lead you to that conclusion? Have you personally auditioned the PMA Pro Gold in you setup? Do you have something to add that someone else didn't tell you (empirical)? snip quacking No, I haven't tried that particular ART. When I want something ****ty I have the Rolls RP220. But I do listen to what folks I respect have to say about kit. Scott Dorsey's comments led me to the Great River, which I purchased from Mercenary Audio, an outfit I knew would take it right back if I didn't appreciate it fully. You may or may not be interested to learn how the MH version of that pre came to be. Great River... I just reviewed the web site. The MP-2 looks interesting: "A 2 channel unit of pure, rich sound that is accessible and truly affordable for all recording professionals. I'm taken back by the words "rich sounding." I don't want any alteration of the signal, peroid. The fit and finish appears to be first rate, however. How about you? You ever recorded anything bigger han your mouth? You got anything in your kit better than that piece of ART? Tell your story. Nope. I'm just asking simple questions of self-labeled *experts* like yourself. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Ricky W. Hunt wrote:
"Powell" wrote After reading the product information it doesn't appear to be a good candidate for studio use. I'd be hard pressed to come up with something more absurd than judging the sound of a piece of equipment by what it looks like on paper. Do people hold cans of paint up to their ears to "hear" if it's a good color? Thank goodness most consumer equipment comes with spec sheets nowadays. Maybe this will put an end to all that crappy sounding music that came out before the 80's. I think it's now obivous that if Powell could tell **** from Shinola his shoes would smell different. -- ha |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"Arny Krueger" wrote You're new here, aren't you? I've posted a few times on r.a.o over the years. We have a different accent in our conversations over there . Why am I not surprised? Oh, Powell outed himself. They sure do get jumpy over here when you challenge their notions of fidelity/accuracy. I don’t see any potential pledges for the r.a.o. fraternity. As a group they are delicate wall flowers by comparison . |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote After reading the product information it doesn't appear to be a good candidate for studio use. I'd be hard pressed to come up with something more absurd than judging the sound of a piece of equipment by what it looks like on paper. Bose provides no specification for their products. All marketing hype. They like people like you... ignorant. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"Powell" wrote in message
... Bose provides no specification for their products. All marketing hype. They like people like you... ignorant. I've listened to Bose speakers. I think they suck. I didn't need a piece of paper to tell me that. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Then again, I know folks who like to run transformerless preamps into clipping on kick drum tracks to get a more clicky sort of sound. They could just drop a calve smaple into it, combine to taste. -- ha |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Powell wrote:
After reading the product information it doesn’t appear to be a good candidate for studio use. As others have pointed out, this seems a strange way to listen to a product. Weak power supply. On what do you base this assertion? The unit can drive +28 from its balanced out and eat nearly that at its input--without using a pad. Sure, there are other preamps capable of those (and better) numbers, but none of them is selling at under $250/channel. It also only has three LED lights to represent the entire audio spectrum, that not very useful. Would you prefer more lights and less sound? The incomplete specification sheet is particularly troubling, too. FMR answers email and telephones. If the output of the unit was truly flat, however you wish to define that, it would have not have any apparent sound quality/signature. It would truly be “straight wire with gain.” This demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge of electronics, much less their operation in realworld systems. None of the sited manufactures are working the on bleeding edge of technology. In a similar technology like phono pre-amps, for example, one has to invest $2-10 K per channel to reach that level. These days, one can reach the highest levels of microphone preamplification for $1k - $3k per channel. I'll attribute the price disparity mostly to smaller metalwork and advertising budgets. There is no market place in the sound recording industry for that kind of assault. Assault? Some have said that it’s the recording industry who is holding up high end media like types like DVD-A & SACD from becoming more popular because of all this foot dragging. "Some" are no doubt not actually recording much. Foot dragging? I think you'll need to look more at the consumers lack of interest and at the fight between DVD-A and SACD for ownership of the category. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
hank alrich wrote:
Mark McQuilken designed the RNP peecisely to offer a "quality" pre in that price ballpark, and he accomplished that. Have you tried one? If it's not equal in some specifications to pres that cost four or more times what it costs Hell, there are quite a few cheaper preamps which exceed one or more of its paper specs. Most cheap mixers have preamps with lower EIN. The RNP sounds far better than them... |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Colon Powell squatted to relieve his headache:
Also please site specific makes and models of mic. pre-amps (" four times the price") that the RNP blows out of the water, which you personal have working experience with? Learn to read, idiot. You obviously have no professional or high quality audio experience, you think you can tell what somethng sounds like by reading specs sheets, and you have not tried an FMR RNP. Sit down slowly or you'll break your neck. Waste your own time, but don't try and foist your piece of **** preamp off on some sincere newbie who is looking for informed assistance. How would you know? What microphone pre-amp/s do you own that you consider *state of the art*? If you'd been here more than a day or two you'd already know the answer to your ignorant question. Shoot yourself in the other foot now and proclaim your marksmanship. I don't want any alteration of the signal, peroid. And that's why you chose the ART. ****witless, your egregious stupidty is astonishing. May rec.audio.pro save people from the r.a.hole likes of you. -- ha |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
In article znr1080328791k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
You might want to look at Monte McGuire's three-issue mic preamp construction article that was in Recording a few years ago. He'd be happy to hear that someone has actually built one, I'll bet. I'm pretty sure that was Paul Stamler's article, but I'm certain it wasn't mine. The design looked good too IIRC... Regards, Monte McGuire |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Kurt Albershardt wrote:
hank alrich wrote: Mark McQuilken designed the RNP peecisely to offer a "quality" pre in that price ballpark, and he accomplished that. Have you tried one? If it's not equal in some specifications to pres that cost four or more times what it costs Hell, there are quite a few cheaper preamps which exceed one or more of its paper specs. Most cheap mixers have preamps with lower EIN. The RNP sounds far better than them... This colon Powell fella needs to avoid the RNP; it is smarter than he is. -- ha |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"Powell" wrote in message
... "Kurt Albershardt" wrote You don't get it... there are no "quality" mic pre-amps at the sub $500 level. (a) he definitelty gets it Who else do you speak for on this board? Regarding you, I think he speaks for the regulars here, most of whom earn their livings recording sound. You reveal your ignorance with every posting. You obviously enjoy arguing about audio more than learning anything. and (b) have you ever used an FMR RNP? I've no interest in a new dog with different fleas. Why is it that the worst of the RAO people feel compelled to come over here to crap on the lawn? Steve King |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Time to starve this Troll. He's beginning to stink up the place.
Steve King "Powell" wrote in message ... (A bunch of crap designed for argument only.) |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
The Troll is stinking up the place.
Steve King "Powell" wrote in message ... (drivel) |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Powell wrote:
"Kurt Albershardt" wrote You don't get it... there are no "quality" mic pre-amps at the sub $500 level. (a) he definitelty gets it Who else do you speak for on this board? I speak of him, not for him. And it's whom, not who. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
In article ,
Powell wrote: After reading the product information it doesn’t appear to be a good candidate for studio use. If used for this purpose one would need a roll of duck tape to hold it down in an equipment rack. Weak power supply. It also only has three LED lights to represent the entire audio spectrum, that not very useful. The incomplete specification sheet is particularly troubling, too. ??? Done a lot of studio work? I can't seem to recall needing a spec sheet to finish a recording. I have many fine preamps with no metering whatsoever and they do the job nicely. The important thing you missed was how the RNP sounds. That's because you've never tried to use one in a real session. Why not comment after you've used one. Power supplies appear to be weak links on most low end electronics... even on some high end stereo audio products, too. It’s an easy place to cut manufacturing expenses. Ergo this is the problem with all gear? You haven't even heard, touched or used the RNP. How are you so sure it even has a problem? This is why I hate audio. There are too many jokers out there that have some half assed theory about how the world works and they try to shoehorn reality into it. It just doens't wash. Hide in your cave and deceive yourself all you want, but reality won't follow. Too bad for you since your work will suck even more than it has to with this attitude. All A/C current is dirty. The only real question is how much and how audible is it. Running the mic pre-amp and computer, while recording, through a power conditioner I can see that the noise floor drops 4-7 dB on the meter while idling. The audio effect is a blacker/quieter background. OK, you're an idiot. You're capable of self deception too. If they are not identical sounding then they must have audio spectrum differences. No. Have you ever heard about something called nonlinearity? It can sound just like a frequency response error in small doses, but it's completely unrelated. "extremely low noise floors bumping theoretical minimum"... not likely. Why not? Do you even know where the noise comes from and why there's a theoretic minimum? Hint: it ain't the power line... _Flat response_ is a single aspect of performance and not necessarily indicative of any unit's sound. Well, yes and no. If the output of the unit was truly flat, however you wish to define that, it would have not have any apparent sound quality/signature. Wrong. Give me two flat units, one of which has a rising distortion vs. frequency above 2KHz and the one with the extra distortion will sound like it's brighter. It's not a response error, but it'll sound like one. It would truly be “straight wire with gain.” None of the sited manufactures are working the on bleeding edge of technology. Have you looked at the Gordon preamp? That design is completely and radically different than anything I've seen before and is built with some extremely high quality parts. Why must you comment on things that you know nothing about? In a similar technology like phono pre-amps, for example, one has to invest $2-10 K per channel to reach that level. There is no market place in the sound recording industry for that kind of assault. Honestly, look inside of the Gordon preamp and tell me that the parts cost for that box isn't at least $1500 a channel. I don't know how or why that guy can sell the preamp for as little as he does. Would it make you happier if he charged $20K for it instead? What sort of folks are supposed to pay $10K a channel for a mike preamp? And heck, aren't you the guy who's happy with a $50/channel toy preamp? How can you have it both ways? Any why haven't you spent real money for a real preamp? Have fun... Monte McGuire |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 2/5) | Car Audio | |||
DIY Multi Channel Tube Preamp | High End Audio | |||
Tube preamp low freq loss | Pro Audio | |||
AES Show Report (LONG!!!!) | Pro Audio | |||
art tube mp mic preamp | Pro Audio |