Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Julien BH Julien BH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 309
Default Why use tubes instead of Solid State?

I'm talking about Equalizers, Compressors and preamps here.
Any ideas?

  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Roy W. Rising[_2_] Roy W. Rising[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Julien BH Julien BH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 309
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul Stamler Paul Stamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,614
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Julien BH Julien BH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 309
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Julien BH Julien BH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 309
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] therealroach@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
David Grant David Grant is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 396
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Agent 86[_2_] Agent 86[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mogens V. Mogens V. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 375
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Geoff Geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,562
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Julien BH Julien BH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 309
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Chris Hornbeck Chris Hornbeck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,744
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul Stamler Paul Stamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,614
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul Stamler Paul Stamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,614
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul Stamler Paul Stamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,614
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul Stamler Paul Stamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,614
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul Stamler Paul Stamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,614
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Paul Stamler Paul Stamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,614
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_] Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_7_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Julien BH Julien BH is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 309
Default 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

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
tubes vs solid state Arny Krueger Audio Opinions 0 May 5th 06 02:39 AM
solid state vs tubes? tai fu Tech 17 January 18th 06 02:09 AM
Solid state AMP [email protected] Pro Audio 12 February 25th 05 01:33 PM
60's Solid State V.S. 70' Solid State Tuners Robert Morein Audio Opinions 2 July 1st 04 03:02 AM
Damping factor - tubes versus solid state? Scott Gardner Vacuum Tubes 8 December 5th 03 04:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:09 PM.

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"