Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
I'm talking about Equalizers, Compressors and preamps here.
Any ideas? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
"Julien BH" wrote ...
I'm talking about Equalizers, Compressors and preamps here. Any ideas? IMHO, the two major factors are... 1) "Soft-clipping" (vs. solid-state) 2) Frequently the "tube sound" is actually the anomolies of the requisite matching transformers. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Julien BH wrote: I'm talking about Equalizers, Compressors and preamps here. Any ideas? For added distortion. Graham |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Julien BH wrote:
I'm talking about Equalizers, Compressors and preamps here. Any ideas? Because sometimes it's the tool you need to get the sound you want. Sometimes it's not. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Eeyore wrote:
Julien BH wrote: I'm talking about Equalizers, Compressors and preamps here. Any ideas? For added distortion. Graham I'll gladly second that! Of course, we're talking about "nice" distortion, not that other kind. ;-) -- ~ Roy "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!" |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
In article ,
Roy W. Rising wrote: Eeyore wrote: Julien BH wrote: I'm talking about Equalizers, Compressors and preamps here. Any ideas? For added distortion. I'll gladly second that! Of course, we're talking about "nice" distortion, not that other kind. ;-) Well, sometimes it's distortion that isn't "nice," when that's what you need. And sometimes tube circuits are good because they are free of that "transistory" distortion. The Forssell transformerless tube mike preamp is an example. Really, people get way too hung up about what is inside the box, and they spend too little time listening to it and figuring out what it really sounds like. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
On Jul 10, 12:29 pm, Julien BH wrote:
I'm talking about Equalizers, Compressors and preamps here. Any ideas? Don't you read magazines? Don't you read ads? Tubes have that analog warmth missing from your digital recordings. Other than what the marketing departments tell you, there is no advantage of one over the other (other than cost - tube gear costs more to build) if it's well designed. And badly designed tube equipment sounds every bit as bad as badly designed solid state equipment. But it has more "character." |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
On Jul 10, 1:33 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
In article , Roy W. Rising wrote: Eeyore wrote: Julien BH wrote: I'm talking about Equalizers, Compressors and preamps here. Any ideas? For added distortion. I'll gladly second that! Of course, we're talking about "nice" distortion, not that other kind. ;-) Well, sometimes it's distortion that isn't "nice," when that's what you need. And sometimes tube circuits are good because they are free of that "transistory" distortion. The Forssell transformerless tube mike preamp is an example. Really, people get way too hung up about what is inside the box, and they spend too little time listening to it and figuring out what it really sounds like. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Maybe it's because most "music store staff" I know of here in Canada are total dumbasses and won't let you listen to the equipment without a severe look. (hear: If you try you BUY, else get out). I'd so love to have all that equipment to use at will (please don't tell me to rent them, it'll cost me a fortune). That way I'd know what I'd need. But now I'll listen to you guys, still better than nothing. Normally what would you recommend as a preamp if I like a touch of tube distortion in my vocals? Under 1K please... |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Julien BH wrote:
Maybe it's because most "music store staff" I know of here in Canada are total dumbasses and won't let you listen to the equipment without a severe look. (hear: If you try you BUY, else get out). I'd so love to have all that equipment to use at will (please don't tell me to rent them, it'll cost me a fortune). That way I'd know what I'd need. But now I'll listen to you guys, still better than nothing. Normally what would you recommend as a preamp if I like a touch of tube distortion in my vocals? Under 1K please... That depends on what you think "tube distortion" is. I'd suggest you buy some studio time in a well-equipped facility where you can try out some of their preamps. It may not be cheap, but it will be cheaper than buying gear you later decide you don't like. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
"Julien BH" wrote in message
oups.com... Maybe it's because most "music store staff" I know of here in Canada are total dumbasses and won't let you listen to the equipment without a severe look. (hear: If you try you BUY, else get out). I'd so love to have all that equipment to use at will (please don't tell me to rent them, it'll cost me a fortune). That way I'd know what I'd need. But now I'll listen to you guys, still better than nothing. Normally what would you recommend as a preamp if I like a touch of tube distortion in my vocals? Under 1K please... *Good* tubed mic preamps don't add significant distortion. There's a myth out there that the reason some tubed preamps sound good is that they're acting like fuzzboxes and adding distortion, and that's why older recordings sound so good. Which is pure horse hockey, abetted by the guys who are trying to sell "tubed" preamps that are really solid-state front ends with grossly-misbiased tubes as distortion generators. Well-designed tubed preamps are quite clean if you don't clip them. If you actually want distortion, record through a good clean preamp (tubed or solid-state), then add distortion in the DAW through any number of distortion plug-ins. Or reamp the signal through a cranked guitar amp. Good under-$1k preamps include a used Peavey VMP2 (tubed), the Very Nice Preamp from FMR Acoustics, and the Sytek preamp (both solid-state). The Sytek is very clear-sounding, at least until you mess with it in the distortion plug-in. Peace, Paul |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
On Jul 10, 3:21 pm, "Paul Stamler" wrote:
"Julien BH" wrote in message oups.com... Maybe it's because most "music store staff" I know of here in Canada are total dumbasses and won't let you listen to the equipment without a severe look. (hear: If you try you BUY, else get out). I'd so love to have all that equipment to use at will (please don't tell me to rent them, it'll cost me a fortune). That way I'd know what I'd need. But now I'll listen to you guys, still better than nothing. Normally what would you recommend as a preamp if I like a touch of tube distortion in my vocals? Under 1K please... *Good* tubed mic preamps don't add significant distortion. There's a myth out there that the reason some tubed preamps sound good is that they're acting like fuzzboxes and adding distortion, and that's why older recordings sound so good. Which is pure horse hockey, abetted by the guys who are trying to sell "tubed" preamps that are really solid-state front ends with grossly-misbiased tubes as distortion generators. Well-designed tubed preamps are quite clean if you don't clip them. If you actually want distortion, record through a good clean preamp (tubed or solid-state), then add distortion in the DAW through any number of distortion plug-ins. Or reamp the signal through a cranked guitar amp. Good under-$1k preamps include a used Peavey VMP2 (tubed), the Very Nice Preamp from FMR Acoustics, and the Sytek preamp (both solid-state). The Sytek is very clear-sounding, at least until you mess with it in the distortion plug-in. Peace, Paul WHen I hear tracks by the Beatles such as I am the Walrus I can't help but think it wasn't about the preamp. Was it through a cranked guitar amp? |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Julien BH wrote:
WHen I hear tracks by the Beatles such as I am the Walrus I can't help but think it wasn't about the preamp. Was it through a cranked guitar amp? We refer to that sort of thing as a "cheesy vocal effect." It's not something you get from a preamp, it's something you get from an effects box and it's something you want to use very sparingly because it can very easily be quite over the top. John's vocal has some extreme clipping on that vocal, along with what sounds like a little plate reverb. John hated the sound of his own voice and was always trying to get all sorts of goofy effects thrown on it. Preamp coloration tends to be pretty subtle, at least with decent quality preamps that you would expect to find in a real studio. The vocal clipping on "I am the Walrus" is not subtle. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
On Jul 10, 3:32 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Julien BH wrote: WHen I hear tracks by the Beatles such as I am the Walrus I can't help but think it wasn't about the preamp. Was it through a cranked guitar amp? We refer to that sort of thing as a "cheesy vocal effect." It's not something you get from a preamp, it's something you get from an effects box and it's something you want to use very sparingly because it can very easily be quite over the top. John's vocal has some extreme clipping on that vocal, along with what sounds like a little plate reverb. John hated the sound of his own voice and was always trying to get all sorts of goofy effects thrown on it. Preamp coloration tends to be pretty subtle, at least with decent quality preamps that you would expect to find in a real studio. The vocal clipping on "I am the Walrus" is not subtle. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Haha cheesy, but I still like it. Anyway I don't want to deviate from the original topic so I'll end this with: Should I remove my ProVla of my chain since it's tube (but probably cheaply assembled). I use it only on my vocals to keep my voice "in the mix" because I don't control my vocals very well. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
On Jul 10, 2:43 pm, Julien BH wrote:
On Jul 10, 1:33 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: In article , Roy W. Rising wrote: Eeyore wrote: Julien BH wrote: I'm talking about Equalizers, Compressors and preamps here. Any ideas? For added distortion. I'll gladly second that! Of course, we're talking about "nice" distortion, not that other kind. ;-) Well, sometimes it's distortion that isn't "nice," when that's what you need. And sometimes tube circuits are good because they are free of that "transistory" distortion. The Forssell transformerless tube mike preamp is an example. Really, people get way too hung up about what is inside the box, and they spend too little time listening to it and figuring out what it really sounds like. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Maybe it's because most "music store staff" I know of here in Canada are total dumbasses and won't let you listen to the equipment without a severe look. (hear: If you try you BUY, else get out). I'd so love to have all that equipment to use at will (please don't tell me to rent them, it'll cost me a fortune). That way I'd know what I'd need. But now I'll listen to you guys, still better than nothing. Normally what would you recommend as a preamp if I like a touch of tube distortion in my vocals? Under 1K please... TL Audio has a model called the "5001". It has four valve pre's in one 2U rack. If you're specifically looking for that soft fuzz on your inputs then this is your box for $1000 Cdn. It's received decent reviews and i've used it frequently at a studio that also has Millenia, Great River, and Focusrite Red stuff (the opposite in style I would say). It's built well too. The pots are smooth, the construction feel substantial and there is 6-step LED metering for each channel. Roach |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Maybe it's because most "music store staff" I know of here in Canada are total dumbasses and won't let you listen to the equipment without a severe look. (hear: If you try you BUY, else get out). I'd so love to have all that equipment to use at will (please don't tell me to rent them, it'll cost me a fortune). That way I'd know what I'd need. Their policy may have changed, but last time I visited Long and Mcquade here in Toronto I was told that I could return the product within 7 days (I think... it might even have been 30) provided there's no damage to the product. The clerk said he wouldn't care if my reason was because I didn't like the colour of his tie, he'd refund 100% Sounds like a free rental to me. David -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Julien BH wrote:
WHen I hear tracks by the Beatles such as I am the Walrus I can't help but think it wasn't about the preamp. Was it through a cranked guitar amp? According to Geoff Emerick, it was the console preamps being intentionally overloaded as an effect. Being 1967, it would have been a tube console. But on the same album, listen to Fool on the Hill or Your Mother Should Know. That's what those same tube console preamps sound like when used the way they were designed to be used. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Chel van Gennip wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:17:02 +0200, Roy W. Rising wrote: Eeyore wrote: Julien BH wrote: I'm talking about Equalizers, Compressors and preamps here. Any ideas? For added distortion. Graham I'll gladly second that! Of course, we're talking about "nice" distortion, not that other kind. ;-) Don't forget the warmth. The power consumption of tube gear is a multiple of that cold solid state gear. And against freezing noses in the Canadian winter, a tube mike may do No pun intended of cause. -- Kind regards, Mogens V. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
"Agent 86" wrote in message ... Julien BH wrote: WHen I hear tracks by the Beatles such as I am the Walrus I can't help but think it wasn't about the preamp. Was it through a cranked guitar amp? According to Geoff Emerick, it was the console preamps being intentionally overloaded as an effect. Being 1967, it would have been a tube console. Naa. It would have had to be a valve console. REDD whatever. geoff |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
On 10 juil, 23:19, "Geoff" wrote:
"Agent 86" wrote in message ... Julien BH wrote: WHen I hear tracks by the Beatles such as I am the Walrus I can't help but think it wasn't about the preamp. Was it through a cranked guitar amp? According to Geoff Emerick, it was the console preamps being intentionally overloaded as an effect. Being 1967, it would have been a tube console. Naa. It would have had to be a valve console. REDD whatever. geoff Yeah, well both of these songs have that "fuzzy" vocals in them. I like that effect. But could I achieve that sound with the 5001 previously mentionned? |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Paul Stamler wrote: *Good* tubed mic preamps don't add significant distortion. In which case they'll sound no different to good solid state mic pres. There's a myth out there that the reason some tubed preamps sound good is that they're acting like fuzzboxes and adding distortion, and that's why older recordings sound so good. Whilst some tube mic pres may be intentionally adding high level of distortion, it's still a fact the a 'good' tube mic pre will have considerably more distortion than a typical 'good' modern solid state one (which can be considered to be virtually 'distortion free' for all practical meanings of the term). Graham |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Agent 86 wrote: Julien BH wrote: WHen I hear tracks by the Beatles such as I am the Walrus I can't help but think it wasn't about the preamp. Was it through a cranked guitar amp? According to Geoff Emerick, it was the console preamps being intentionally overloaded as an effect. Being 1967, it would have been a tube console. Not neccesarily so at all. EMI had some transistor consoles including ones using germanium devices. I even saw one such beast very recently. And Geoff Emerick too as it happens. Graham |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Geoff wrote: "Agent 86" wrote Julien BH wrote: WHen I hear tracks by the Beatles such as I am the Walrus I can't help but think it wasn't about the preamp. Was it through a cranked guitar amp? According to Geoff Emerick, it was the console preamps being intentionally overloaded as an effect. Being 1967, it would have been a tube console. Naa. It would have had to be a valve console. REDD whatever. As I said elsewhere, EMI had some transistor consoles around that time. Graham |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 05:46:55 +0100, Eeyore
wrote: Whilst some tube mic pres may be intentionally adding high level of distortion, it's still a fact the a 'good' tube mic pre will have considerably more distortion than a typical 'good' modern solid state one (which can be considered to be virtually 'distortion free' for all practical meanings of the term). Although tempted to add qualifiers to my remarks, on reconsideration I won't. This is just not literally correct. It may be accepted dogma, but it's not defensible in practice. I just HATE those horrible Szell, Walter, Reiner, Dorati, etc. etc. recordings made before we had transistors. They're just so distorted. Chris Hornbeck "The air is always curved if you choose to see it." -Steve McMullen reviewing the first Curved Air album |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Chris Hornbeck wrote: Eeyore wrote: Whilst some tube mic pres may be intentionally adding high level of distortion, it's still a fact the a 'good' tube mic pre will have considerably more distortion than a typical 'good' modern solid state one (which can be considered to be virtually 'distortion free' for all practical meanings of the term). Although tempted to add qualifiers to my remarks, on reconsideration I won't. This is just not literally correct. It may be accepted dogma, but it's not defensible in practice. Well, come on then, what objection do you have to today's near distortion free solid state mic pres ? Graham |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
"Julien BH" wrote in message
ups.com... WHen I hear tracks by the Beatles such as I am the Walrus I can't help but think it wasn't about the preamp. Was it through a cranked guitar amp? Actually, you've hit on one of the few classic tracks from the tubed era that *did* use preamp distortion -- according to Geoff Emerick, the distortion on John's voice was in fact the result of running the Telefunken tubed preamp into severe overload. You probably won't find one of those for under $1000. They were pretty decent preamps. One of the other great distorted tracks out there was the Coasters' "Searchin'". The Atlantic engineer told the producer during the take, "Hey, I think the mic is busted." The producer said, "Let them continue; it sounds like a Chess record." Probably a U 47 that went on the fritz. Peace, Paul |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
"Julien BH" wrote in message
ups.com... According to Geoff Emerick, it was the console preamps being intentionally overloaded as an effect. Being 1967, it would have been a tube console. Naa. It would have had to be a valve console. REDD whatever. geoff Yeah, well both of these songs have that "fuzzy" vocals in them. I like that effect. But could I achieve that sound with the 5001 previously mentionned? No. The way to get a particular sound is to use exactly the same equipment set exactly the same way, which is usually impossible. If you want to experiment with distorted vocals get yourself a used Peavey VMP2 and pad down the overloaded output. But you should also try using it in undistorted mode, because it's really a nice-sounding preamp. Peace, Paul |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
"Eeyore" wrote in message
... Geoff wrote: "Agent 86" wrote Julien BH wrote: WHen I hear tracks by the Beatles such as I am the Walrus I can't help but think it wasn't about the preamp. Was it through a cranked guitar amp? According to Geoff Emerick, it was the console preamps being intentionally overloaded as an effect. Being 1967, it would have been a tube console. Naa. It would have had to be a valve console. REDD whatever. As I said elsewhere, EMI had some transistor consoles around that time. They may have, but per Geoff Emerick they weren't used on a Beatles album until "Abbey Road". Neither were the new solid-state Studer 8-tracks. He didn't like the solid-state gear. Interestingly, his description of the difference was that the tube stuff sounded taut and crisp while the transistor stuff sounded soft and mushy. Rather different than the usual stereotypes about tubed vs. solid-state gear, but listening to Abbey Road against other Beatle albums I can hear what he was trying to describe. Peace, Paul |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
"Eeyore" wrote in message
... Paul Stamler wrote: *Good* tubed mic preamps don't add significant distortion. In which case they'll sound no different to good solid state mic pres. Or at least not very different. Often there are still some differences to the ear, and I'm quite curious why that should be. One possible culprit: different loadings on the microphone. There's a myth out there that the reason some tubed preamps sound good is that they're acting like fuzzboxes and adding distortion, and that's why older recordings sound so good. Whilst some tube mic pres may be intentionally adding high level of distortion, it's still a fact the a 'good' tube mic pre will have considerably more distortion than a typical 'good' modern solid state one (which can be considered to be virtually 'distortion free' for all practical meanings of the term). Try some measurements and be surprised. Most good tubed preamps these days use pretty substantial amounts of feedback (contrary to folklore) and measure very low distortion, on the order of .005% or less at most operating levels, and if you weight the distortion according to harmonic content good tubed circuits can actually measure lower than many IC-based circuits and some (not all) discrete solid-state circuits. Big caveat: This assumes operation into modern line-level inputs, i.e. 10k input impedance. Load the tubed circuit with 600 ohms and forget about the low distortion; this is where solid-state walks all over tubes. Peace, Paul |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Paul Stamler wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Paul Stamler wrote: *Good* tubed mic preamps don't add significant distortion. In which case they'll sound no different to good solid state mic pres. Or at least not very different. Often there are still some differences to the ear, and I'm quite curious why that should be. One possible culprit: different loadings on the microphone. Indeed. The loading can (fairly) easily be varied independently though. Other subtle diffeences in 'tone' could easily be subtle frequency response variations Graham |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
"Eeyore" wrote in message
... Or at least not very different. Often there are still some differences to the ear, and I'm quite curious why that should be. One possible culprit: different loadings on the microphone. Indeed. The loading can (fairly) easily be varied independently though. Not necessarily. If both the tubed and solid-state devices are transformer-coupled (necessary for a valid comparison), then the capacitance on the transformer secondary will affect the input impedance, to a greater or lesser degree. And if the tubed and solid-state device have different input capacitances, then even if the same transformer is used the mic loading may be slightly different. Other subtle diffeences in 'tone' could easily be subtle frequency response variations Could be. Or not. If there are freq. response differences between two preamps they may be inherent in the electronics, or in the mic loading (see above). This stuff is more subtle than it looks at first glance. And before one can say that two preamps, one tubed, the other solid-state, sound the same or different, one has to take frequency response effects and (possibly related) mic-loading effects into account. In any case, though, it's possible to make very clean-sounding preamps with either technology. Peace, Paul |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
"Chel van Gennip" wrote in message
... Or at least not very different. Often there are still some differences to the ear, and I'm quite curious why that should be. One possible culprit: different loadings on the microphone. Indeed. The loading can (fairly) easily be varied independently though. A good condensor microphone, with an output impedance of about 50 0hm, should not be sensitive for different loadings in the 5k ohm range. Especially if the loading is purely resistive. Just for the record, most transformerless mic preamps have input Z in the 2k range; most transformer-coupled preamps have input Z about 1.35k (1.5k from the input transformer, in parallel with 13.6k of the two 6.8k phantom resistors). Oh, and many condenser microphones have output Z closer to 150-200 ohms, with transformer coupling. The transformer response will vary to a lesser or greater degree with loading. Other microphones should be designed to give the best results with a pure resistive load. And these days, for the most part, they are, and loading doesn't make much difference in their response. But older microphones, including such dynamic mics as the Shure SM57, have less mechanical damping, and the varying electrical damping of varying loads causes noticeable differences in sound. Other subtle diffeences in 'tone' could easily be subtle frequency response variations A preamp should have a flat frequency response. Yep. But most don't quite, because the requirement for a flat frequency response conflicts with the desirability of bandlimiting to keep extraneous crud out, or the reality of transformer response in a transformer-coupled circuit. It's possible to get pretty close, though. If a setup is based on strange loadings and a not flat frequency response, the result is based on a lottery. Yep. Which is why it's not possible to say with any certainty either than tubed circuits sound the same as solid state or sound different purely as a result of the electronic design. Too many extraneous factors still in the way, factors that WILL cause different sounds between different preamps. Peace, Paul |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Chel van Gennip wrote: Eeyore wrote: Other subtle diffeences in 'tone' could easily be subtle frequency response variations A preamp should have a flat frequency response. I'm referring to the slight response variations that are quite normal. For example transformers will often give a degree of boost as much as 2dB in the bass region and where the HF starts to roll offf can be very different too. How about +2dB @ 60Hz and -0.5dB @ 20kHz. Audible or not ? Graham |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Paul Stamler wrote: This stuff is more subtle than it looks at first glance. And before one can say that two preamps, one tubed, the other solid-state, sound the same or different, one has to take frequency response effects and (possibly related) mic-loading effects into account. I'm certainly in agreement with that. I was working recently on some 'replica' Neve mic amps and had to substitiute another input transformer as the Neve toroids picked up too much hum. The response variations from the 3 transformers I measured was quite remarakble. Graham |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Paul Stamler wrote: Just for the record, most transformerless mic preamps have input Z in the 2k range; most transformer-coupled preamps have input Z about 1.35k (1.5k from the input transformer, in parallel with 13.6k of the two 6.8k phantom resistors). Where do you get that 1k5 from ? Graham |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Geoff wrote: "Agent 86" wrote Julien BH wrote: WHen I hear tracks by the Beatles such as I am the Walrus I can't help but think it wasn't about the preamp. Was it through a cranked guitar amp? According to Geoff Emerick, it was the console preamps being intentionally overloaded as an effect. Being 1967, it would have been a tube console. And in some cases Geoff even ran one console preamp into another to get that extra bit of distortion and risk being fired from EMI. At least that is what he says in his book. peace dawg |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Julien BH wrote:
Haha cheesy, but I still like it. Anyway I don't want to deviate from the original topic so I'll end this with: Should I remove my ProVla of my chain since it's tube (but probably cheaply assembled). I use it only on my vocals to keep my voice "in the mix" because I don't control my vocals very well. The ProVLA is a solid-state compressor with a standard VCA circuit, with a somewhat cheesy tube effects stage added into it. It's actually not all that bad, even if it's a little heavy handed, and it can be a useful thing on bass. Find out for yourself if it's the tool for you. Record yourself with it, record yourself without it, and then ride the gain on the raw track so that the levels are nice and even. Then compare the two and see which you like more. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Eeyore wrote:
Whilst some tube mic pres may be intentionally adding high level of distortion, it's still a fact the a 'good' tube mic pre will have considerably more distortion than a typical 'good' modern solid state one (which can be considered to be virtually 'distortion free' for all practical meanings of the term). In most cases, the transformers are the prime distortion sources in both cases, and the electronics are comparatively unimportant. There are plenty of transformerless solid-state preamps, and a couple of transformerless tube ones. But of course you lose the wonderful common mode rejection and RF rejection of the transformer input stage. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Paul Stamler wrote:
Big caveat: This assumes operation into modern line-level inputs, i.e. 10k input impedance. Load the tubed circuit with 600 ohms and forget about the low distortion; this is where solid-state walks all over tubes. Huh? That's why we have cathode followers. Even a 12AT7 can drive a 50 ohm load to -10 dB. Followers are your friend. Of course, most old tube preamps had transformer-coupled outputs since it was a 600 ohm world back then. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
Chel van Gennip wrote:
A good condensor microphone, with an output impedance of about 50 0hm, should not be sensitive for different loadings in the 5k ohm range. Especially if the loading is purely resistive. This is easy to do with a transformerless microphone. Not impossible to do with a transformer-output one, but not trivial. Other microphones should be designed to give the best results with a pure resistive load. Unfortunately this has not been the case for many microphones made in the past, which were designed to go into slightly inductive transformer loads. Since that includes things like the SM-57, the most popular microphone in the world, the large installed base of microphones that _do_ want to see such loads is a major bar to the implementation of a new standard. A preamp should have a flat frequency response. If a setup is based on strange loadings and a not flat frequency response, the result is based on a lottery. And that's what makes audio fun! --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why use tubes instead of Solid State?
On Jul 11, 8:30 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Julien BH wrote: Haha cheesy, but I still like it. Anyway I don't want to deviate from the original topic so I'll end this with: Should I remove my ProVla of my chain since it's tube (but probably cheaply assembled). I use it only on my vocals to keep my voice "in the mix" because I don't control my vocals very well. The ProVLA is a solid-state compressor with a standard VCA circuit, with a somewhat cheesy tube effects stage added into it. It's actually not all that bad, even if it's a little heavy handed, and it can be a useful thing on bass. Find out for yourself if it's the tool for you. Record yourself with it, record yourself without it, and then ride the gain on the raw track so that the levels are nice and even. Then compare the two and see which you like more. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Ok I'll try that. But I don't know WHEN the tube actually comes in, in that compressor. The more I push the ratio the more I get tube distortion? Or is it all about the gain? (ie: If my attacks are clipping. The thing is I never let it clip so do I have that sound anyway?) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
tubes vs solid state | Audio Opinions | |||
solid state vs tubes? | Tech | |||
Solid state AMP | Pro Audio | |||
60's Solid State V.S. 70' Solid State Tuners | Audio Opinions | |||
Damping factor - tubes versus solid state? | Vacuum Tubes |