Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
HenryShap
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
hank alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
hank alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
hank alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
hank alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
hank alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Garthrr
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #49   Report Post  
Paul Stamler
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Paul Stamler
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Brotherdave
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Ricky W. Hunt
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Ricky W. Hunt
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #60   Report Post  
Powell
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Powell
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Powell
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
hank alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Powell
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
hank alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Powell
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Powell
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Ricky W. Hunt
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
hank alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Kurt Albershardt
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Kurt Albershardt
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
hank alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Monte P McGuire
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
hank alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Steve King
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Steve King
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Steve King
 
Posts: n/a
Default Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?

The Troll is stinking up the place.

Steve King
"Powell" wrote in message
...

(drivel)


  #78   Report Post  
Kurt Albershardt
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Monte P McGuire
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Mike Rivers
 
Posts: n/a
Default Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?


In article writes:

FMR RNP?


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.


There are rack mount shelves available at reasonably low cost. Many
(probaly the majority of) "studios" today are little more than a table
top with a computer and a couple of external pieces of gear, and the
RNP fits nicely in that environment. If you want to rack-mount your
gear, there is an easy way to do it. Part of "professional" is being
able to use what's out there to best advantage, not necessarily
letting someone else make all the decisions for you - because they may
not be the decisions YOU'D make for yourself. (witness the "Why the
RNMP sucks" blurb on the manufacturer's web site).

Weak power supply.


Um . . . have you analyzed the requirements of the unit and the
capability of the power supply? If you read carefully, Mark states
that the unit will indicate when the power supply is inadequate, the
example he gives being the use of his RNC power supply (which is
different from the RNMP power supply, obviously). I realize that power
supplies are often the weak spot in a contemporarly design, but just
because it's external doesn't mean it's "weak." I suspect that it's
completely adequate, there's plenty of filtering and regulation inside
the preamp box itself, and getting the power transformer away from the
audio wiring is helpful in designing out hum.

It also
only has three LED lights to represent the entire audio
spectrum, that not very useful.


I, too, would like to see more indication as to where you're sitting
within the gain range, but in the studio, you tend to work closer to
the top of the headroom range because you have more control. Knowing
that you can reach that point on the loudest sounds and backing off
just a bit is really no serious compromise. You can't run at maximum
level all the time unless you strip the dynamics totally out of the
music. I haven't used this particular preamp, but I find that the two
"signal present" and "clipping" lights that are commonly found on
consoles for monitoring the input stage are a reasonably useful and
adequate guide for setup. You're expected to have other metering
further down the chain, and that's what you use to monitor the
recording level.

The incomplete
specification sheet is particularly troubling, too.


Specifications tell very little about the sound of a preamp since the
sound you get from the output is largely dependent on the interface
between the mic and the preamp. With a dynamic mic, the input
impedance of the preamp affects the damping of the "motor" inside the
mic, on a mic with an output transformer, it affects the load on the
transformer, and with a condenser mic with a non-differential output,
the way the input stage reacts to single-ended signals can be
significant. There is no correlation between a number and a sound
here. Knowing gain, THD under fixed (unrealistic, but what choice do
you have?) lab conditions, and frequency response is usually about all
the information you can actually use.

_Flat response_ is a single aspect of performance and not
necessarily indicative of any unit's sound.

Well, yes and no.


The "yes" part is easy to fix. It's not difficult to build an
amplifier with very flat frequency response. What's difficult is to
predict the frequency response at the input of the amplifier when
there's a real microphone connected to it. That depends on the
microphone, and that, of course, depends on YOUR microphone. In a
preamp like the Gordon, which has an input impedance of 2 megohms,
there's virtually no interaction with the mic. This can be a good or
bad thing, depending on the mic you connect.

similar technology like phono pre-amps, for example, one
has to invest $2-10 K per channel to reach that level.


Phono cartridges are a little easier to design for than microphones
because there are some industry standards that cartritge manufacturers
try to adhere to as far as required loading. If there were only about
five different microphones instead of a few thousand, perhaps they
would be closer together in output characteristics and you would hear
more of the sound of the microphone alone rather than the mic/preamp
interface influencing it. Bottom line - you can't predict the
performance of a mic preamp by the numbers unless something's badly
wrong.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 2/5) Ian D. Bjorhovde Car Audio 0 March 6th 04 07:54 AM
DIY Multi Channel Tube Preamp High End Audio 1 March 3rd 04 09:42 PM
Tube preamp low freq loss Jeffrey Landgraf Pro Audio 3 December 22nd 03 01:31 AM
AES Show Report (LONG!!!!) Mike Rivers Pro Audio 17 October 31st 03 03:57 PM
art tube mp mic preamp John L Rice Pro Audio 2 September 8th 03 03:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:47 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"