High Quality Preamps Help

[hank alrich]

Saturday night Shaidri and I played a concert at the Gaslight Baker
Theater in Lockhart TX. Fletcher Clark promoted and produced the show
and also operated the sound system. We opened for Rose Kimball and Judy
Painter, who are very fine artists, and we had a wonderful time. The
room sounds quite good for music like ours, which isn't at all loud. We
had a nice and very appreciative crowd.

We also had an unusually fine level of audio kit with us. Chet Himes
loaned us a pair of Shure KSM9 stage vocal condenser mics, I provided my
pair of Schoeps CMC6 + Mk4 mics for the instruments, and we had two Red
Eye Twins on stage, too.

Further, all those sources were fed first to six channels of Great River
MP2 world-class mic preamps. I had my GR MP2-MH and a friend's MP4. We
fed the outputs of those both to Fletcher's small Mackie mixer and to
the inputs of my Metric Halo 2882+DSP2d computer audio interface. FOH
speakers were Fletcher's little Mackie SRM350's, and the stage monitor
was my Klein & Hummel TRA100. The quality of the system was way over the
top compared to what we've used lately, and it showed.

I'd gotten used to hearing the Red Eyes through the typical Allen &
Heath and Mackie preamps, and they do always sound good. That said,
using those Great River preamps took it to a whole new level, and
brought the sound of the acoustic instruments via pickups and Red Eyes
very much closer to the sound through the mics. The improvement was
quite impressive, and I'm looking forward to the next time we get to do
that.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:54:45 -0500, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>Saturday night Shaidri and I played a concert at the Gaslight Baker
>Theater in Lockhart TX. Fletcher Clark promoted and produced the show
>and also operated the sound system. We opened for Rose Kimball and Judy
>Painter, who are very fine artists, and we had a wonderful time. The
>room sounds quite good for music like ours, which isn't at all loud. We
>had a nice and very appreciative crowd.
>
>We also had an unusually fine level of audio kit with us. Chet Himes
>loaned us a pair of Shure KSM9 stage vocal condenser mics, I provided my
>pair of Schoeps CMC6 + Mk4 mics for the instruments, and we had two Red
>Eye Twins on stage, too.
>
>Further, all those sources were fed first to six channels of Great River
>MP2 world-class mic preamps. I had my GR MP2-MH and a friend's MP4. We
>fed the outputs of those both to Fletcher's small Mackie mixer and to
>the inputs of my Metric Halo 2882+DSP2d computer audio interface. FOH
>speakers were Fletcher's little Mackie SRM350's, and the stage monitor
>was my Klein & Hummel TRA100. The quality of the system was way over the
>top compared to what we've used lately, and it showed.
>
>I'd gotten used to hearing the Red Eyes through the typical Allen &
>Heath and Mackie preamps, and they do always sound good. That said,
>using those Great River preamps took it to a whole new level, and
>brought the sound of the acoustic instruments via pickups and Red Eyes
>very much closer to the sound through the mics. The improvement was
>quite impressive, and I'm looking forward to the next time we get to do
>that.

Interesting that you consider the GR pre-amp world class. Its
distortion is ten times that available at the cheap end of the market,
and its noise figure is about 4dB shy of where it should be. I suspect
you may have been overly impressed by names here, maybe?

d

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

(Don Pearce) wrote in news:4da32569.1208601225
@news.eternal-september.org:

> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:54:45 -0500, (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
>>Saturday night Shaidri and I played a concert at the Gaslight Baker
>>Theater in Lockhart TX. Fletcher Clark promoted and produced the show
>>and also operated the sound system. We opened for Rose Kimball and Judy
>>Painter, who are very fine artists, and we had a wonderful time. The
>>room sounds quite good for music like ours, which isn't at all loud. We
>>had a nice and very appreciative crowd.
>>
>>We also had an unusually fine level of audio kit with us. Chet Himes
>>loaned us a pair of Shure KSM9 stage vocal condenser mics, I provided
my
>>pair of Schoeps CMC6 + Mk4 mics for the instruments, and we had two Red
>>Eye Twins on stage, too.
>>
>>Further, all those sources were fed first to six channels of Great
River
>>MP2 world-class mic preamps. I had my GR MP2-MH and a friend's MP4. We
>>fed the outputs of those both to Fletcher's small Mackie mixer and to
>>the inputs of my Metric Halo 2882+DSP2d computer audio interface. FOH
>>speakers were Fletcher's little Mackie SRM350's, and the stage monitor
>>was my Klein & Hummel TRA100. The quality of the system was way over
the
>>top compared to what we've used lately, and it showed.
>>
>>I'd gotten used to hearing the Red Eyes through the typical Allen &
>>Heath and Mackie preamps, and they do always sound good. That said,
>>using those Great River preamps took it to a whole new level, and
>>brought the sound of the acoustic instruments via pickups and Red Eyes
>>very much closer to the sound through the mics. The improvement was
>>quite impressive, and I'm looking forward to the next time we get to do
>>that.
>
> Interesting that you consider the GR pre-amp world class. Its
> distortion is ten times that available at the cheap end of the market,
> and its noise figure is about 4dB shy of where it should be. I suspect
> you may have been overly impressed by names here, maybe?
>
> d

Then again, some folks don't seem to understand that in audio, tone is
sometimes the goal, not specifications.

Steve Hawkins

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>
>Interesting that you consider the GR pre-amp world class. Its
>distortion is ten times that available at the cheap end of the market,
>and its noise figure is about 4dB shy of where it should be. I suspect
>you may have been overly impressed by names here, maybe?

Yeah, but it sure sounds good.

It doesn't sound clean, but it sounds good. The original GR before they
went to the NV model was a lot cleaner and lower distortion, but it seems
more people like the NV. Personally I liked the original one more, but oh
well.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce > wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:54:45 -0500, (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
> >Saturday night Shaidri and I played a concert at the Gaslight Baker
> >Theater in Lockhart TX. Fletcher Clark promoted and produced the show
> >and also operated the sound system. We opened for Rose Kimball and Judy
> >Painter, who are very fine artists, and we had a wonderful time. The
> >room sounds quite good for music like ours, which isn't at all loud. We
> >had a nice and very appreciative crowd.
> >
> >We also had an unusually fine level of audio kit with us. Chet Himes
> >loaned us a pair of Shure KSM9 stage vocal condenser mics, I provided my
> >pair of Schoeps CMC6 + Mk4 mics for the instruments, and we had two Red
> >Eye Twins on stage, too.
> >
> >Further, all those sources were fed first to six channels of Great River
> >MP2 world-class mic preamps. I had my GR MP2-MH and a friend's MP4. We
> >fed the outputs of those both to Fletcher's small Mackie mixer and to
> >the inputs of my Metric Halo 2882+DSP2d computer audio interface. FOH
> >speakers were Fletcher's little Mackie SRM350's, and the stage monitor
> >was my Klein & Hummel TRA100. The quality of the system was way over the
> >top compared to what we've used lately, and it showed.
> >
> >I'd gotten used to hearing the Red Eyes through the typical Allen &
> >Heath and Mackie preamps, and they do always sound good. That said,
> >using those Great River preamps took it to a whole new level, and
> >brought the sound of the acoustic instruments via pickups and Red Eyes
> >very much closer to the sound through the mics. The improvement was
> >quite impressive, and I'm looking forward to the next time we get to do
> >that.
>
> Interesting that you consider the GR pre-amp world class. Its
> distortion is ten times that available at the cheap end of the market,
> and its noise figure is about 4dB shy of where it should be. I suspect
> you may have been overly impressed by names here, maybe?
>
> d

The original MP series, not the NV series, is clean and quiet, right at
the limits of what can be achieved for pres with transformer front ends.
Have you ever used one? I'm not the only RAPster here who thinks highly
of their audio hygiene.

I suspect I have been doing this stuff for decades and don't buy into
hype of any kind. I see and hear the action from both sides of the glass
and both sides of the stage, and I rely on what I hear to make
decisions.

Neither measuring on a test bench nor reading specs compares to actually
using the gear for real jobs.

I'd like to have a pair of the GR NV series pres, for their coloration,
which sounds most excellent on certain things, and I'd like to be able
to pair those with the NV series EQ's, too, which are among the sweetest
sounding EQ's I've ever heard.

I would not trade my original MP's for the NV series. Dan originally
designed and built that model because he couldn't afford a Hardy and he
needed something with a lot of clean gain to record orchestras with low
sensitivty ribbon mics. He discontinued that model because it wasn't
designed for modern manufacturiing methods and the cost of hand assembly
was becoming too expensive to be sensible.

Reading specs would lead some to think the original Mackie pres batted
almost in the same league as a Millennia. Using them would dispel such
illusions.


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:26:33 GMT, Steve Hawkins
> wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote in news:4da32569.1208601225
:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:54:45 -0500, (hank alrich)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Saturday night Shaidri and I played a concert at the Gaslight Baker
>>>Theater in Lockhart TX. Fletcher Clark promoted and produced the show
>>>and also operated the sound system. We opened for Rose Kimball and Judy
>>>Painter, who are very fine artists, and we had a wonderful time. The
>>>room sounds quite good for music like ours, which isn't at all loud. We
>>>had a nice and very appreciative crowd.
>>>
>>>We also had an unusually fine level of audio kit with us. Chet Himes
>>>loaned us a pair of Shure KSM9 stage vocal condenser mics, I provided
>my
>>>pair of Schoeps CMC6 + Mk4 mics for the instruments, and we had two Red
>>>Eye Twins on stage, too.
>>>
>>>Further, all those sources were fed first to six channels of Great
>River
>>>MP2 world-class mic preamps. I had my GR MP2-MH and a friend's MP4. We
>>>fed the outputs of those both to Fletcher's small Mackie mixer and to
>>>the inputs of my Metric Halo 2882+DSP2d computer audio interface. FOH
>>>speakers were Fletcher's little Mackie SRM350's, and the stage monitor
>>>was my Klein & Hummel TRA100. The quality of the system was way over
>the
>>>top compared to what we've used lately, and it showed.
>>>
>>>I'd gotten used to hearing the Red Eyes through the typical Allen &
>>>Heath and Mackie preamps, and they do always sound good. That said,
>>>using those Great River preamps took it to a whole new level, and
>>>brought the sound of the acoustic instruments via pickups and Red Eyes
>>>very much closer to the sound through the mics. The improvement was
>>>quite impressive, and I'm looking forward to the next time we get to do
>>>that.
>>
>> Interesting that you consider the GR pre-amp world class. Its
>> distortion is ten times that available at the cheap end of the market,
>> and its noise figure is about 4dB shy of where it should be. I suspect
>> you may have been overly impressed by names here, maybe?
>>
>> d
>
>Then again, some folks don't seem to understand that in audio, tone is
>sometimes the goal, not specifications.
>
>Steve Hawkins

The tone arises from the specifications.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>>
>>Then again, some folks don't seem to understand that in audio, tone is
>>sometimes the goal, not specifications.
>>
>>Steve Hawkins
>
>The tone arises from the specifications.

No, both the tone AND the specifications arise from the transfer function of
the device.

And sadly specifications like THD don't bear very much relationship to
perceived tonality these days, although a real distortion spectrum can
be quite valuable.

Were you to do a real distortion spectrum on a Mackie and the GR, you will
find a very different distribution in distortion products. You'll also find
that the distortion products on the GR don't change and move around with
changes in gain either, the way they do on the Mackie.
--scott

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 11 Apr 2011 13:40:40 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Don Pearce > wrote:
>>>
>>>Then again, some folks don't seem to understand that in audio, tone is
>>>sometimes the goal, not specifications.
>>>
>>>Steve Hawkins
>>
>>The tone arises from the specifications.
>
>No, both the tone AND the specifications arise from the transfer function of
>the device.
>
>And sadly specifications like THD don't bear very much relationship to
>perceived tonality these days, although a real distortion spectrum can
>be quite valuable.
>
>Were you to do a real distortion spectrum on a Mackie and the GR, you will
>find a very different distribution in distortion products. You'll also find
>that the distortion products on the GR don't change and move around with
>changes in gain either, the way they do on the Mackie.
>--scott

Hopefully the transfer function results from the specification rather
than the other way round.

And of course these days there is no "magic" distortion. Distortion
products are what they are, and it is by now pretty hard, an effort
indeed, to make them pathological.

And I for one don't subscribe to the idea of preamps with "nice
sounding" distortion. If you want that, do it later once the recording
has been made as clean as you can get it. The process is not
reversible.

d

[John Sorell[_2_]]

(Don Pearce) wrote in news:4da32569.1208601225
@news.eternal-september.org:

> I suspect
> you may have been overly impressed by names here, maybe?
>

d,

Was your last sentence really necessary? Is there something else
eating at you that you need to get off your chest?

We're here to help...

Dr. John

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>Hopefully the transfer function results from the specification rather
>than the other way round.

No, the "specifications" on the datasheet are made up after the fact these
days. Sometimes they bear little relationship to the actual performance of
the product too.

>And of course these days there is no "magic" distortion. Distortion
>products are what they are, and it is by now pretty hard, an effort
>indeed, to make them pathological.

Sometimes coloration is a good thing. Sometimes coloration is a bad thing.
It's nice that we live in a world with choices.

>And I for one don't subscribe to the idea of preamps with "nice
>sounding" distortion. If you want that, do it later once the recording
>has been made as clean as you can get it. The process is not
>reversible.

Well, then don't buy one. That's fine.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 11 Apr 2011 17:53:07 GMT, John Sorell >
wrote:

(Don Pearce) wrote in news:4da32569.1208601225
:
>
>> I suspect
>> you may have been overly impressed by names here, maybe?
>>
>
>d,
>
>Was your last sentence really necessary? Is there something else
>eating at you that you need to get off your chest?
>
Yes of course it was. It is the essence of the matter.

>We're here to help...
>
You can't help if you don't face this sort of thing.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 11 Apr 2011 14:04:22 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Don Pearce > wrote:
>>Hopefully the transfer function results from the specification rather
>>than the other way round.
>
>No, the "specifications" on the datasheet are made up after the fact these
>days. Sometimes they bear little relationship to the actual performance of
>the product too.
>

I always start from the specification. And failing to meet it is not
an option.

>>And of course these days there is no "magic" distortion. Distortion
>>products are what they are, and it is by now pretty hard, an effort
>>indeed, to make them pathological.
>
>Sometimes coloration is a good thing. Sometimes coloration is a bad thing.
>It's nice that we live in a world with choices.
>

Exactly my point. If you start with a coloured preamp, you have just
blown your choices away.

d

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:30:26 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article >):
It doesn't sound clean, but it sounds good. The original GR before they
> went to the NV model was a lot cleaner and lower distortion, but it seems
> more people like the NV. Personally I liked the original one more, but oh
> well.
> --scott
>

+1

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[John Sorell[_2_]]

(Don Pearce) wrote in news:4da44296.1216069913
@news.eternal-september.org:

> On 11 Apr 2011 17:53:07 GMT, John Sorell
>
> wrote:
>
(Don Pearce) wrote in news:4da32569.1208601225
:
>>
>>> I suspect
>>> you may have been overly impressed by names here, maybe?
>>>
>>
>>d,
>>
>>Was your last sentence really necessary? Is there something
else
>>eating at you that you need to get off your chest?
>>
> Yes of course it was. It is the essence of the matter.
>
>>We're here to help...
>>
> You can't help if you don't face this sort of thing.
>
> d
>

So, the "essence of the matter" is people blindly following the
lead of people who you don't agree with...not a discussion about
the quality of sound equipment?

I think first you will have to want to help yourself. Then you
will need to stop being a manipulator and just state what your
problem is. You'll have to face those "sort of things" before you
can recover.

Regardless, you'll get plenty of help here, whether you want it
or not....and without me.

John

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:30:28 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in article >):

> Reading specs would lead some to think the original Mackie pres batted almost

> in the same league as a Millennia. Using them would dispel such illusions.

Well Put As the owner of four GML and a Millennia Media STT-1, and having
owned a 1604 and 1604 VLZ XDR, I can attest to your comment concerning specs
being illusional.

John's preamps are quite good, but I like the Jensen he makes a touch better

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce > wrote:

> On 11 Apr 2011 17:53:07 GMT, John Sorell >
> wrote:
>
> (Don Pearce) wrote in news:4da32569.1208601225
> :
> >
> >> I suspect
> >> you may have been overly impressed by names here, maybe?
> >>
> >
> >d,
> >
> >Was your last sentence really necessary? Is there something else
> >eating at you that you need to get off your chest?
> >
> Yes of course it was. It is the essence of the matter.

Bluntly, it was bull**** from a prejudiced point of view favoring
printed materials over what one hears. You didn't even realize which
model I was taliking about or you wouldn't have mentioned the specs,
which for the original Great River preamps are exemplary for that
topology.

They are the cleanest transformer-fronted pres I've ever used or heard.
Dancing about architecture is no guarantee to anybody that you have seen
the buiiding.

Sorry if these aren't good enough specs for you:

http://tinyurl.com/3gqzcdq

> >We're here to help...
> >
> You can't help if you don't face this sort of thing.
>
> d

You can't talk out your ass about stuff without being suspected of
talking out your ass, Don. I respect your technical knowledge, but when
it's misapplied to something you haven't tried while you mistake one
model for another you cannot be taken seriously. If you are not actually
deaf I know for certain that you would have agreed with me were you to
have been there and heard that.

Whatever your own preferences for recording your posture suggests that
were you teaching painting you'd demand that your students work only
monochrome. I don't care what others choose. If I want color in a track
I go after it. If I don't I avoid it the best I can.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[PStamler]

On Apr 11, 11:30*am, (hank alrich) wrote:

> Reading specs would lead some to think the original Mackie pres batted
> almost in the same league as a Millennia. Using them would dispel such
> illusions.

And so would doing proper, thorough measurements.

Peace,
Paul

[PStamler]

NICE distortion is distortion that isn't there.

The original GR preamps were not designed to add distortion, euphonic
or otherwise. The designer's goal was to create electronics with
distortion that was (a) very low, and (b) entirely low-order, under
all conditions of use. He succeeded.

Peace,
Paul

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

(Don Pearce) wrote in
:

> On 11 Apr 2011 14:04:22 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>Don Pearce > wrote:
>>>Hopefully the transfer function results from the specification rather
>>>than the other way round.
>>
>>No, the "specifications" on the datasheet are made up after the fact
>>these days. Sometimes they bear little relationship to the actual
>>performance of the product too.
>>
>
> I always start from the specification. And failing to meet it is not
> an option.
>
>>>And of course these days there is no "magic" distortion. Distortion
>>>products are what they are, and it is by now pretty hard, an effort
>>>indeed, to make them pathological.
>>
>>Sometimes coloration is a good thing. Sometimes coloration is a bad
>>thing. It's nice that we live in a world with choices.
>>
>
> Exactly my point. If you start with a coloured preamp, you have just
> blown your choices away.
>
> d

I don't know your background, but it's very obvious to me you don't
understand what everyone else is trying to explain to you. BTW, my ears
can't read specifications.

Steve Hawkins

[PStamler]

On Apr 11, 7:23*pm, Les Cargill > wrote:
> Don Pearce wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:54:45 -0500, (hank alrich)
> > wrote:
>
> >> Saturday night Shaidri and I played a concert at the Gaslight Baker
> >> Theater in Lockhart TX. Fletcher Clark promoted and produced the show
> >> and also operated the sound system. We opened for Rose Kimball and Judy
> >> Painter, who are very fine artists, and we had a wonderful time. The
> >> room sounds quite good for music like ours, which isn't at all loud. We
> >> had a nice and very appreciative crowd.
>
> >> We also had an unusually fine level of audio kit with us. Chet Himes
> >> loaned us a pair of Shure KSM9 stage vocal condenser mics, I provided my
> >> pair of Schoeps CMC6 + Mk4 mics for the instruments, and we had two Red
> >> Eye Twins on stage, too.
>
> >> Further, all those sources were fed first to six channels of Great River
> >> MP2 world-class mic preamps. I had my GR MP2-MH and a friend's MP4. We
> >> fed the outputs of those both to Fletcher's small Mackie mixer and to
> >> the inputs of my Metric Halo 2882+DSP2d computer audio interface. FOH
> >> speakers were Fletcher's little Mackie SRM350's, and the stage monitor
> >> was my Klein& *Hummel TRA100. The quality of the system was way over the
> >> top compared to what we've used lately, and it showed.
>
> >> I'd gotten used to hearing the Red Eyes through the typical Allen&
> >> Heath and Mackie preamps, and they do always sound good. That said,
> >> using those Great River preamps took it to a whole new level, and
> >> brought the sound of the acoustic instruments via pickups and Red Eyes
> >> very much closer to the sound through the mics. The improvement was
> >> quite impressive, and I'm looking forward to the next time we get to do
> >> that.
>
> > Interesting that you consider the GR pre-amp world class. Its
> > distortion is ten times that available at the cheap end of the market,
> > and its noise figure is about 4dB shy of where it should be. I suspect
> > you may have been overly impressed by names here, maybe?
>
> > d
>
> Legend has it that somebody put wirewound resistors and precision
> caps throughout a Fender Twin, and managed to make it sound *very very
> bad*. Some pearls need a grain of sand to get started - we are
> dealing with people who have bought records made on $DEITY only
> knows what sorta one-off gear.
>
> Since this group is about something that is at the intersection of
> art & engineering....
>
> --
> Les Cargill

Well, I put high-quality resistors (mostly metal film, not wirewound),
precision coupling caps and whopper reservoir caps into a Fender
Deluxe, and it sounds more like a Twin. Been schlepping it to gigs for
some 35 years now. It sounds really good.

Peace,
Paul

[Nate Najar]

On Apr 11, 8:23*pm, Les Cargill > wrote:
> Don Pearce wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:54:45 -0500, (hank alrich)
> > wrote:
>
> >> Saturday night Shaidri and I played a concert at the Gaslight Baker
> >> Theater in Lockhart TX. Fletcher Clark promoted and produced the show
> >> and also operated the sound system. We opened for Rose Kimball and Judy
> >> Painter, who are very fine artists, and we had a wonderful time. The
> >> room sounds quite good for music like ours, which isn't at all loud. We
> >> had a nice and very appreciative crowd.
>
> >> We also had an unusually fine level of audio kit with us. Chet Himes
> >> loaned us a pair of Shure KSM9 stage vocal condenser mics, I provided my
> >> pair of Schoeps CMC6 + Mk4 mics for the instruments, and we had two Red
> >> Eye Twins on stage, too.
>
> >> Further, all those sources were fed first to six channels of Great River
> >> MP2 world-class mic preamps. I had my GR MP2-MH and a friend's MP4. We
> >> fed the outputs of those both to Fletcher's small Mackie mixer and to
> >> the inputs of my Metric Halo 2882+DSP2d computer audio interface. FOH
> >> speakers were Fletcher's little Mackie SRM350's, and the stage monitor
> >> was my Klein& *Hummel TRA100. The quality of the system was way over the
> >> top compared to what we've used lately, and it showed.
>
> >> I'd gotten used to hearing the Red Eyes through the typical Allen&
> >> Heath and Mackie preamps, and they do always sound good. That said,
> >> using those Great River preamps took it to a whole new level, and
> >> brought the sound of the acoustic instruments via pickups and Red Eyes
> >> very much closer to the sound through the mics. The improvement was
> >> quite impressive, and I'm looking forward to the next time we get to do
> >> that.
>
> > Interesting that you consider the GR pre-amp world class. Its
> > distortion is ten times that available at the cheap end of the market,
> > and its noise figure is about 4dB shy of where it should be. I suspect
> > you may have been overly impressed by names here, maybe?
>
> > d
>
> Legend has it that somebody put wirewound resistors and precision
> caps throughout a Fender Twin, and managed to make it sound *very very
> bad*. Some pearls need a grain of sand to get started - we are
> dealing with people who have bought records made on $DEITY only
> knows what sorta one-off gear.
>
> Since this group is about something that is at the intersection of
> art & engineering....
>
> --
> Les Cargill

finally something in the thread I can comment on!

A fender twin needs no help sounding bad. Harsh, harsh amp. when I'm
doing sideman road gigs, I cringe when I see it's the only thing
available as backline.

N

[hank alrich]

Nate Najar > wrote:

> A fender twin needs no help sounding bad. Harsh, harsh amp. when I'm
> doing sideman road gigs, I cringe when I see it's the only thing
> available as backline.

Nate,

This amp is an awesome little thing:

http://www.shubb.com/cub/index.html

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Mike Brown]

In article >,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:26:33 GMT, Steve Hawkins
> > wrote:
>
> (Don Pearce) wrote in news:4da32569.1208601225
> :
> >
> >> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:54:45 -0500, (hank alrich)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Saturday night Shaidri and I played a concert at the Gaslight Baker
> >>>Theater in Lockhart TX. Fletcher Clark promoted and produced the show
> >>>and also operated the sound system. We opened for Rose Kimball and Judy
> >>>Painter, who are very fine artists, and we had a wonderful time. The
> >>>room sounds quite good for music like ours, which isn't at all loud. We
> >>>had a nice and very appreciative crowd.
> >>>
> >>>We also had an unusually fine level of audio kit with us. Chet Himes
> >>>loaned us a pair of Shure KSM9 stage vocal condenser mics, I provided
> >my
> >>>pair of Schoeps CMC6 + Mk4 mics for the instruments, and we had two Red
> >>>Eye Twins on stage, too.
> >>>
> >>>Further, all those sources were fed first to six channels of Great
> >River
> >>>MP2 world-class mic preamps. I had my GR MP2-MH and a friend's MP4. We
> >>>fed the outputs of those both to Fletcher's small Mackie mixer and to
> >>>the inputs of my Metric Halo 2882+DSP2d computer audio interface. FOH
> >>>speakers were Fletcher's little Mackie SRM350's, and the stage monitor
> >>>was my Klein & Hummel TRA100. The quality of the system was way over
> >the
> >>>top compared to what we've used lately, and it showed.
> >>>
> >>>I'd gotten used to hearing the Red Eyes through the typical Allen &
> >>>Heath and Mackie preamps, and they do always sound good. That said,
> >>>using those Great River preamps took it to a whole new level, and
> >>>brought the sound of the acoustic instruments via pickups and Red Eyes
> >>>very much closer to the sound through the mics. The improvement was
> >>>quite impressive, and I'm looking forward to the next time we get to do
> >>>that.
> >>
> >> Interesting that you consider the GR pre-amp world class. Its
> >> distortion is ten times that available at the cheap end of the market,
> >> and its noise figure is about 4dB shy of where it should be. I suspect
> >> you may have been overly impressed by names here, maybe?
> >>
> >> d
> >
> >Then again, some folks don't seem to understand that in audio, tone is
> >sometimes the goal, not specifications.
> >
> >Steve Hawkins
>
> The tone arises from the specifications.
>
> d

Personal taste may not agree that the "best" specs give the "best" sound.

MJRB

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:54:45 -0500, (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
>> Saturday night Shaidri and I played a concert at the Gaslight Baker
>> Theater in Lockhart TX. Fletcher Clark promoted and produced the show
>> and also operated the sound system. We opened for Rose Kimball and Judy
>> Painter, who are very fine artists, and we had a wonderful time. The
>> room sounds quite good for music like ours, which isn't at all loud. We
>> had a nice and very appreciative crowd.
>>
>> We also had an unusually fine level of audio kit with us. Chet Himes
>> loaned us a pair of Shure KSM9 stage vocal condenser mics, I provided my
>> pair of Schoeps CMC6 + Mk4 mics for the instruments, and we had two Red
>> Eye Twins on stage, too.
>>
>> Further, all those sources were fed first to six channels of Great River
>> MP2 world-class mic preamps. I had my GR MP2-MH and a friend's MP4. We
>> fed the outputs of those both to Fletcher's small Mackie mixer and to
>> the inputs of my Metric Halo 2882+DSP2d computer audio interface. FOH
>> speakers were Fletcher's little Mackie SRM350's, and the stage monitor
>> was my Klein& Hummel TRA100. The quality of the system was way over the
>> top compared to what we've used lately, and it showed.
>>
>> I'd gotten used to hearing the Red Eyes through the typical Allen&
>> Heath and Mackie preamps, and they do always sound good. That said,
>> using those Great River preamps took it to a whole new level, and
>> brought the sound of the acoustic instruments via pickups and Red Eyes
>> very much closer to the sound through the mics. The improvement was
>> quite impressive, and I'm looking forward to the next time we get to do
>> that.
>
> Interesting that you consider the GR pre-amp world class. Its
> distortion is ten times that available at the cheap end of the market,
> and its noise figure is about 4dB shy of where it should be. I suspect
> you may have been overly impressed by names here, maybe?
>
> d

Legend has it that somebody put wirewound resistors and precision
caps throughout a Fender Twin, and managed to make it sound *very very
bad*. Some pearls need a grain of sand to get started - we are
dealing with people who have bought records made on $DEITY only
knows what sorta one-off gear.

Since this group is about something that is at the intersection of
art & engineering....

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:54:45 -0500, (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
>> Saturday night Shaidri and I played a concert at the Gaslight Baker
>> Theater in Lockhart TX. Fletcher Clark promoted and produced the show
>> and also operated the sound system. We opened for Rose Kimball and Judy
>> Painter, who are very fine artists, and we had a wonderful time. The
>> room sounds quite good for music like ours, which isn't at all loud. We
>> had a nice and very appreciative crowd.
>>
>> We also had an unusually fine level of audio kit with us. Chet Himes
>> loaned us a pair of Shure KSM9 stage vocal condenser mics, I provided my
>> pair of Schoeps CMC6 + Mk4 mics for the instruments, and we had two Red
>> Eye Twins on stage, too.
>>
>> Further, all those sources were fed first to six channels of Great River
>> MP2 world-class mic preamps. I had my GR MP2-MH and a friend's MP4. We
>> fed the outputs of those both to Fletcher's small Mackie mixer and to
>> the inputs of my Metric Halo 2882+DSP2d computer audio interface. FOH
>> speakers were Fletcher's little Mackie SRM350's, and the stage monitor
>> was my Klein& Hummel TRA100. The quality of the system was way over the
>> top compared to what we've used lately, and it showed.
>>
>> I'd gotten used to hearing the Red Eyes through the typical Allen&
>> Heath and Mackie preamps, and they do always sound good. That said,
>> using those Great River preamps took it to a whole new level, and
>> brought the sound of the acoustic instruments via pickups and Red Eyes
>> very much closer to the sound through the mics. The improvement was
>> quite impressive, and I'm looking forward to the next time we get to do
>> that.
>
> Interesting that you consider the GR pre-amp world class. Its
> distortion is ten times that available at the cheap end of the market,
> and its noise figure is about 4dB shy of where it should be. I suspect
> you may have been overly impressed by names here, maybe?
>
> d

Legend has it that somebody put wirewound resistors and precision
caps throughout a Fender Twin, and managed to make it sound *very very
bad*. Some pearls need a grain of sand to get started - we are
dealing with people who have bought records made on $DEITY only
knows what sorta one-off gear.

Since this group is about something that is at the intersection of
art & engineering....

--
Les Cargill

[Nate Najar]

On Apr 11, 7:45*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
> Nate Najar > wrote:
> > A fender twin needs no help sounding bad. *Harsh, harsh amp. *when I'm
> > doing sideman road gigs, I cringe when I see it's the only thing
> > available as backline.
>
> Nate,
>
> This amp is an awesome little thing:
>
> http://www.shubb.com/cub/index.html
>
> --
> shut up and play your guitar *http://hankalrich.com/http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.htmlhttp://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

Hank,

I have one of those....

here's the best part- I got it at Sam Ash brand new when they first
came out a few years ago for $200...... the store had it in stock and
didn't want it, so a blowout was easier than returning it. Mine's
branded as phil jones.

it sounds great, but has very little power. and if you goose it with
a preamp, the limiter kicks in and prevents volume anyway. I know
with my classical (has a baggs ribbon transducer and endpin preamp) I
can turn both the guitar and the amp all the way up and still not be
able to play with a trio. too bad, it seems like the perfect amp!

N

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

PStamler wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:23 pm, Les > wrote:
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:54:45 -0500, (hank alrich)
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Saturday night Shaidri and I played a concert at the Gaslight Baker
>>>> Theater in Lockhart TX. Fletcher Clark promoted and produced the show
>>>> and also operated the sound system. We opened for Rose Kimball and Judy
>>>> Painter, who are very fine artists, and we had a wonderful time. The
>>>> room sounds quite good for music like ours, which isn't at all loud. We
>>>> had a nice and very appreciative crowd.
>>
>>>> We also had an unusually fine level of audio kit with us. Chet Himes
>>>> loaned us a pair of Shure KSM9 stage vocal condenser mics, I provided my
>>>> pair of Schoeps CMC6 + Mk4 mics for the instruments, and we had two Red
>>>> Eye Twins on stage, too.
>>
>>>> Further, all those sources were fed first to six channels of Great River
>>>> MP2 world-class mic preamps. I had my GR MP2-MH and a friend's MP4. We
>>>> fed the outputs of those both to Fletcher's small Mackie mixer and to
>>>> the inputs of my Metric Halo 2882+DSP2d computer audio interface. FOH
>>>> speakers were Fletcher's little Mackie SRM350's, and the stage monitor
>>>> was my Klein& Hummel TRA100. The quality of the system was way over the
>>>> top compared to what we've used lately, and it showed.
>>
>>>> I'd gotten used to hearing the Red Eyes through the typical Allen&
>>>> Heath and Mackie preamps, and they do always sound good. That said,
>>>> using those Great River preamps took it to a whole new level, and
>>>> brought the sound of the acoustic instruments via pickups and Red Eyes
>>>> very much closer to the sound through the mics. The improvement was
>>>> quite impressive, and I'm looking forward to the next time we get to do
>>>> that.
>>
>>> Interesting that you consider the GR pre-amp world class. Its
>>> distortion is ten times that available at the cheap end of the market,
>>> and its noise figure is about 4dB shy of where it should be. I suspect
>>> you may have been overly impressed by names here, maybe?
>>
>>> d
>>
>> Legend has it that somebody put wirewound resistors and precision
>> caps throughout a Fender Twin, and managed to make it sound *very very
>> bad*. Some pearls need a grain of sand to get started - we are
>> dealing with people who have bought records made on $DEITY only
>> knows what sorta one-off gear.
>>
>> Since this group is about something that is at the intersection of
>> art& engineering....
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
> Well, I put high-quality resistors (mostly metal film, not wirewound),
> precision coupling caps and whopper reservoir caps into a Fender
> Deluxe, and it sounds more like a Twin.


!*AWESOME*! :)

> Been schlepping it to gigs for
> some 35 years now. It sounds really good.
>

I will bet it does.


> Peace,
> Paul

--
Les Cargill

[Mark]

I find it interesting that it is usually the expensive boutique grade
of gear that people seem to believe has that 'desirable' distortion...

The cheap gear always seems to have the undesirable type of
distortion.

Just an observation...

Mark

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/11/2011 12:01 PM, Don Pearce wrote:

> Interesting that you consider the GR pre-amp world class. Its
> distortion is ten times that available at the cheap end of the market,

That's what makes it sound good.

"World class" is pretty meaningless. I like my Great River
preamp, but then I don't have any "world class" preamps with
which to compare it. And I don't have a problem with noise.

Sometimes our ears don't agree with the spec sheets -
sometimes better, sometimes worse.



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

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

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/11/2011 12:57 PM, Don Pearce wrote:

> The tone arises from the specifications.

That's precisely why the Great River has "tone." Also
transformers.

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

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Mark > wrote:
>I find it interesting that it is usually the expensive boutique grade
>of gear that people seem to believe has that 'desirable' distortion...
>
>The cheap gear always seems to have the undesirable type of
>distortion.

Sometimes. Occasionally there's a real winner among the cheap gear,
though.

Unfortunately when that happens, usually the cheap gear becomes expensive
on the aftermarket, which is why those bargain basement MXR limiters and
the cheap Peavey tube preamps now sell used for more than they sold for new.

And don't get me started on stuff like the Roland 808.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/11/2011 1:49 PM, Don Pearce wrote:

> Hopefully the transfer function results from the specification rather
> than the other way round.

That's how it works if you write the specification first,
then design the product to meet the specification. But
published specs are primarily for marketing these days, not
to define the design.

If you were to write a design specification for a preamp,
you'll need a lot more than THD and noise levels.

> And I for one don't subscribe to the idea of preamps
with "nice
> sounding" distortion.

Don, we know you don't like anything very much. OK, give it
a rest.

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

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Nate Najar wrote:
> On Apr 11, 8:23 pm, Les > wrote:
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:54:45 -0500, (hank alrich)
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Saturday night Shaidri and I played a concert at the Gaslight Baker
>>>> Theater in Lockhart TX. Fletcher Clark promoted and produced the show
>>>> and also operated the sound system. We opened for Rose Kimball and Judy
>>>> Painter, who are very fine artists, and we had a wonderful time. The
>>>> room sounds quite good for music like ours, which isn't at all loud. We
>>>> had a nice and very appreciative crowd.
>>
>>>> We also had an unusually fine level of audio kit with us. Chet Himes
>>>> loaned us a pair of Shure KSM9 stage vocal condenser mics, I provided my
>>>> pair of Schoeps CMC6 + Mk4 mics for the instruments, and we had two Red
>>>> Eye Twins on stage, too.
>>
>>>> Further, all those sources were fed first to six channels of Great River
>>>> MP2 world-class mic preamps. I had my GR MP2-MH and a friend's MP4. We
>>>> fed the outputs of those both to Fletcher's small Mackie mixer and to
>>>> the inputs of my Metric Halo 2882+DSP2d computer audio interface. FOH
>>>> speakers were Fletcher's little Mackie SRM350's, and the stage monitor
>>>> was my Klein& Hummel TRA100. The quality of the system was way over the
>>>> top compared to what we've used lately, and it showed.
>>
>>>> I'd gotten used to hearing the Red Eyes through the typical Allen&
>>>> Heath and Mackie preamps, and they do always sound good. That said,
>>>> using those Great River preamps took it to a whole new level, and
>>>> brought the sound of the acoustic instruments via pickups and Red Eyes
>>>> very much closer to the sound through the mics. The improvement was
>>>> quite impressive, and I'm looking forward to the next time we get to do
>>>> that.
>>
>>> Interesting that you consider the GR pre-amp world class. Its
>>> distortion is ten times that available at the cheap end of the market,
>>> and its noise figure is about 4dB shy of where it should be. I suspect
>>> you may have been overly impressed by names here, maybe?
>>
>>> d
>>
>> Legend has it that somebody put wirewound resistors and precision
>> caps throughout a Fender Twin, and managed to make it sound *very very
>> bad*. Some pearls need a grain of sand to get started - we are
>> dealing with people who have bought records made on $DEITY only
>> knows what sorta one-off gear.
>>
>> Since this group is about something that is at the intersection of
>> art& engineering....
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
> finally something in the thread I can comment on!
>
> A fender twin needs no help sounding bad. Harsh, harsh amp. when I'm
> doing sideman road gigs, I cringe when I see it's the only thing
> available as backline.
>
> N


But in the right hands... like Keef's...

My point is that what will work is not always what will spec the
"best". The Twin Paradox is s'posed to be a koan or metaphor, and not to
be taken as literally true in any way.

And as we have seen already in the thread, there is more than
one issue of GR preamp. Bada boom.

--
les Cargill

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:23:35 -0700, Les Cargill
> wrote:


>Legend has it that somebody put wirewound resistors and precision
>caps throughout a Fender Twin, and managed to make it sound *very very
>bad*. Some pearls need a grain of sand to get started - we are
>dealing with people who have bought records made on $DEITY only
>knows what sorta one-off gear.
>
>Since this group is about something that is at the intersection of
>art & engineering....

Technically: this sounds like sh*t.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fM2qhG8mA4

But I LIKE the way that sh*t sounds.
Dave

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 4/11/2011 12:01 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>
> > Interesting that you consider the GR pre-amp world class. Its
> > distortion is ten times that available at the cheap end of the market,
>
> That's what makes it sound good.
>
> "World class" is pretty meaningless. I like my Great River
> preamp, but then I don't have any "world class" preamps with
> which to compare it. And I don't have a problem with noise.
>
> Sometimes our ears don't agree with the spec sheets -
> sometimes better, sometimes worse.

Don doesn't even know which GR he's talking about. He's basing his spout
on reading specs on the 'net.

We all know how easy it is to infer the sound of a device from reading
specs on the 'net.

I hope nobody lets the violas double the cellos and cause all that
distortion. You read it hear first.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Trevor]

"Steve Hawkins" > wrote in message
>> Exactly my point. If you start with a coloured preamp, you have just
>> blown your choices away.
>>
>> d
>
> I don't know your background, but it's very obvious to me you don't
> understand what everyone else is trying to explain to you. BTW, my ears
> can't read specifications.

Seems to me he does, but simply disagrees, as do I. One can always run a
clean signal through any "dirty" conditioning device of your choice after
recording. And you get to listen and choose at your leasure. As Don says, it
is impossible to get a clean signal if you record through a "dirty" device
in the first place though.
I used to argue it was far easier and cheaper to run a digital recording
through a tape machine *after* recording, many years ago, when some still
thought it necessary to record on 24 track tape at huge expense. Of course
they didn't want to know, or to compare for themselves. The cost of tape and
recorder repairs has pretty much put paid to that practice though
fortunately.

Trevor.

[hank alrich]

Trevor > wrote:

> "Steve Hawkins" > wrote in message
> >> Exactly my point. If you start with a coloured preamp, you have just
> >> blown your choices away.
> >>
> >> d
> >
> > I don't know your background, but it's very obvious to me you don't
> > understand what everyone else is trying to explain to you. BTW, my ears
> > can't read specifications.
>
> Seems to me he does, but simply disagrees, as do I. One can always run a
> clean signal through any "dirty" conditioning device of your choice after
> recording. And you get to listen and choose at your leasure. As Don says, it
> is impossible to get a clean signal if you record through a "dirty" device
> in the first place though.
> I used to argue it was far easier and cheaper to run a digital recording
> through a tape machine *after* recording, many years ago, when some still
> thought it necessary to record on 24 track tape at huge expense. Of course
> they didn't want to know, or to compare for themselves. The cost of tape and
> recorder repairs has pretty much put paid to that practice though
> fortunately.
>
> Trevor.

The catch with all this crap is that the original Great River pramps are
clean, very clean, and very quiet. So y'all can skip your preaching
about "conditioning" and the rest of it.

Or just go ahead and stand on the soapboxes ranting about that which has
nothing to do with my original post.

In this case, Don, who is generally very well informed, didn't know what
the hell he was talking about.

From the chosen mics and acoustic pickup preamps to the Great Rivers we
had an extraoridinarily clean and quiet signal chain.

I've shot out the GR's against a Millennia HV-3D, a Grace 201, and a
Gordon Model 4. Only the latter stood out as cleaner. Go look at the
specs for all of those.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
>> >> Exactly my point. If you start with a coloured preamp, you have just
>> >> blown your choices away.
>> >>
>> >> d
>> >
>> > I don't know your background, but it's very obvious to me you don't
>> > understand what everyone else is trying to explain to you. BTW, my
>> > ears
>> > can't read specifications.
>>
>> Seems to me he does, but simply disagrees, as do I. One can always run a
>> clean signal through any "dirty" conditioning device of your choice after
>> recording. And you get to listen and choose at your leasure. As Don says,
>> it
>> is impossible to get a clean signal if you record through a "dirty"
>> device
>> in the first place though.
>> I used to argue it was far easier and cheaper to run a digital recording
>> through a tape machine *after* recording, many years ago, when some still
>> thought it necessary to record on 24 track tape at huge expense. Of
>> course
>> they didn't want to know, or to compare for themselves. The cost of tape
>> and
>> recorder repairs has pretty much put paid to that practice though
>> fortunately.
>>
> The catch with all this crap is that the original Great River pramps are
> clean, very clean, and very quiet. So y'all can skip your preaching
> about "conditioning" and the rest of it.

That may well be the case, however I was making a more general observation
as was the bit I replied to, and is what I included.


> Or just go ahead and stand on the soapboxes ranting

I see no rant of mine, can you point it out for me?


>about that which has nothing to do with my original post.

That may also be true, I suspect Don does not have that exact pre-amp, and
nor do I. Sad world when nobody can make any comment at all without it being
restricted to a very particular case, lest it upset someone.


> In this case, Don, who is generally very well informed, didn't know what
> the hell he was talking about.

As to the particular pre-amp, no doubt. As to his more general comment which
is all I referred to, I totally disagree.


> From the chosen mics and acoustic pickup preamps to the Great Rivers we
> had an extraoridinarily clean and quiet signal chain.

I have no reason to doubt you.

Trevor.

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message


> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:54:45 -0500, (hank
> alrich) wrote:

>> I'd gotten used to hearing the Red Eyes through the
>> typical Allen & Heath and Mackie preamps, and they do
>> always sound good. That said, using those Great River
>> preamps took it to a whole new level, and brought the
>> sound of the acoustic instruments via pickups and Red
>> Eyes very much closer to the sound through the mics. The
>> improvement was quite impressive, and I'm looking
>> forward to the next time we get to do that.

> Interesting that you consider the GR pre-amp world class.
> Its distortion is ten times that available at the cheap
> end of the market, and its noise figure is about 4dB shy
> of where it should be. I suspect you may have been overly
> impressed by names here, maybe?

I see neither of those facts to be compelling. Nonlinear distortion is
almost entirely moot when the spurious products are 60 dB or better down, in
virtually every case moot when they are 80 dB or more down, and beyond all
reasonable doubts moot when 100 dB down. Cheap equipment with all spurious
responses 100 plus dB down seems to grow on trees these days so something
up to 40 dB worse is probably still fairly benign, if a bit ugly looking on
the spec sheet.

Without bench tests and a schematic, it is hard to guess why the GR sounds
like it does.

Of course, the evaluations we get of the product don't come from anything
like a bias-controlled listening test.

I suspect that the input transformers may provide some practical advantages
in say high EMI contexts, and also add some measurable and audible (FR)
effects.

The high price makes it *sparkle* a lot. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Steve Hawkins" >
wrote in message

> I don't know your background, but it's very obvious to me
> you don't understand what everyone else is trying to
> explain to you. BTW, my ears can't read specifications.

Yes Steve, and you seem to be the sort of guy who has no time to do any
bias-controlled listening tests.

People who talk like you generally find them to be pretty humiliating.

We all know that audio is almost all art and very little science... ;-)
Well it is to people who know no science!

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message


> The catch with all this crap is that the original Great
> River pramps are clean, very clean, and very quiet. So
> y'all can skip your preaching about "conditioning" and
> the rest of it.

If you haven't noticed the original point was that the GRs are far less
clean and even just a little noiser than some of the better cheap stuff.

> Or just go ahead and stand on the soapboxes ranting about
> that which has nothing to do with my original post.

Um, your OP where you bragged about lining up some multi-kilobuck mic
preamps for yourself?

> In this case, Don, who is generally very well informed,
> didn't know what the hell he was talking about.

More like he was talking over your head, Hank.

> From the chosen mics and acoustic pickup preamps to the
> Great Rivers we had an extraoridinarily clean and quiet
> signal chain.

All good except the extraordinarily clean and quiet part. Clean and quiet
perhaps, extraordinary - how would you really know that for sure?

> I've shot out the GR's against a Millennia HV-3D, a Grace
> 201, and a Gordon Model 4. Only the latter stood out as
> cleaner. Go look at the specs for all of those.

I'd bet money that in a blind test you'd be reduced to random guessing, even
if I threw in a Symmetrix and a Behringer.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message

> On 4/11/2011 12:57 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> The tone arises from the specifications.
>
> That's precisely why the Great River has "tone." Also
> transformers.

Also, a reputation which may or may not related to anything audible.

[Arny Krueger]

"PStamler" > wrote in message

> NICE distortion is distortion that isn't there.
>
> The original GR preamps were not designed to add
> distortion, euphonic or otherwise. The designer's goal
> was to create electronics with distortion that was (a)
> very low, and (b) entirely low-order, under all
> conditions of use. He succeeded.

One solid source of evidence to support that would of course be the right
measurements.

Unless of course the designer was addressing "unmeasurable distortion." ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"John Sorell" > wrote in message

> (Don Pearce) wrote in
> news:4da32569.1208601225 @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> I suspect
>> you may have been overly impressed by names here, maybe?
>>
>
> d,
>
> Was your last sentence really necessary?


It appears that the name dropping addressed some need of the person who made
the OP.

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in
:

> "Steve Hawkins" >
> wrote in message
>
>> I don't know your background, but it's very obvious to me
>> you don't understand what everyone else is trying to
>> explain to you. BTW, my ears can't read specifications.
>
> Yes Steve, and you seem to be the sort of guy who has no time to do any
> bias-controlled listening tests.
>
> People who talk like you generally find them to be pretty humiliating.
>
> We all know that audio is almost all art and very little science... ;-)
> Well it is to people who know no science!

Still smarting from your Facebook debacle I see. First off, my
professiom has been Engineering for over 30 years, about half that time
in spectrum analyzers. I helped design and manufacture the test
equipment that builds and tests the gear you use.

Second, I've been a working musician since I was 12 and have a CD out
that a lot of folks seem to enjoy. I also do live sound and will be
happy to compare my client list to yours anytime you care to post it.

Steve Hawkins

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>Without bench tests and a schematic, it is hard to guess why the GR sounds
>like it does.

If we are talking about the original GR, it's mostly because the distortion
is very low. It is, in fact, lower than any other transformer-input preamp
I have ever measured. It's also very quiet, with the thermal noise of the
input transformer being dominant.

>I suspect that the input transformers may provide some practical advantages
>in say high EMI contexts, and also add some measurable and audible (FR)
>effects.

Yup. The original GR isn't as clean-sounding as the Millennia HV-3, but it
is remarkably close and the CMRR is amazing.

The newer GR NV model is a totally different beast.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

"Trevor" > wrote in
u:

>
> "Steve Hawkins" > wrote in
> message
>>> Exactly my point. If you start with a coloured preamp, you have just
>>> blown your choices away.
>>>
>>> d
>>
>> I don't know your background, but it's very obvious to me you don't
>> understand what everyone else is trying to explain to you. BTW, my
>> ears can't read specifications.
>
> Seems to me he does, but simply disagrees, as do I. One can always run
> a clean signal through any "dirty" conditioning device of your choice
> after recording. And you get to listen and choose at your leasure. As
> Don says, it is impossible to get a clean signal if you record through
> a "dirty" device in the first place though.
> I used to argue it was far easier and cheaper to run a digital
> recording through a tape machine *after* recording, many years ago,
> when some still thought it necessary to record on 24 track tape at
> huge expense. Of course they didn't want to know, or to compare for
> themselves. The cost of tape and recorder repairs has pretty much put
> paid to that practice though fortunately.
>
> Trevor.

Sorry, but you don't understand either. You and Don are fixed on the
studio world which is always focused on "do no harm" until it's time for
processing.

Hank is a guitarist, until he pulls out that damn banjo, and so am I.
Our entire signal chain is all about tone, from the strings to the final
amp or DI. It's hard to explain to a non-player, but we "play" the gear
the same as we play the instrument. I pay more attention to features
than specs and the final arbiter is my ears.

Steve Hawkins

[George's Pro Sound Company]

the final arbiter is my ears.
>
> Steve Hawkins
>

as it should be. I am sick to death of people try to tell me what something
sounds like by reading a spec sheet!!
get the damn thing , hook it up and listen to the sound
all the rest is for those who have sniffed too many solder fumes to argue
over
George

[PStamler]

On Apr 12, 7:50*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> Without bench tests and a schematic, it is hard to guess why the GR sounds
> like it does.

Maybe because it doesn't do anything? It's designed to add as little
to the signal as possible, and succeeds.

> I suspect that the input transformers may provide some practical advantages
> in say high EMI contexts, and also add some measurable and audible (FR)
> effects.

You probably suspect right on the first clause; they also add
excellent rejection of RFI, which is useful in today's RF jungle.

You probably suspect wrong on the second clause. Frequency response
when properly terminated, as spec'd by the transformer manufacturer,
is typically -0.08dB at 20Hz and 20kHz, and dead flat in between. The
transformer only adds 1dB of noise (due to coil resistance) to the
thermal noise of a 150 ohm microphone. And unless you hit it with 0dBu
of signal at <40Hz, distortion is negligible.

These are really, really good transformers (Jensen JT-13k7-A), and are
part of the reason the preamps sound so good. By "sound good", I mean
not having a sound at all. I wish the market had supported GR in its
effort to sell a really uncolored preamp. Alas, the later version (NV
series) is more popular.

Peace,
Paul

[Arny Krueger]

"Steve Hawkins" >
wrote in message
5.250
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Steve Hawkins" >
>> wrote in message
>>
>>> I don't know your background, but it's very obvious to
>>> me you don't understand what everyone else is trying to
>>> explain to you. BTW, my ears can't read specifications.
>>
>> Yes Steve, and you seem to be the sort of guy who has no
>> time to do any bias-controlled listening tests.
>>
>> People who talk like you generally find them to be
>> pretty humiliating.
>>
>> We all know that audio is almost all art and very little
>> science... ;-) Well it is to people who know no science!

> Still smarting from your Facebook debacle I see.

Ah, the attempt to distract with an OT comment.

> First off, my professiom has been Engineering for over 30
> years, about half that time in spectrum analyzers. I
> helped design and manufacture the test equipment that
> builds and tests the gear you use.

And that qualifies you to comment how?

> Second, I've been a working musician since I was 12 and
> have a CD out that a lot of folks seem to enjoy. I also
> do live sound and will be happy to compare my client list
> to yours anytime you care to post it.

IOW, no relevant answer at all.

Sadly, very characteristic of people who think they are not accountable to
anybody but their own prejudices.

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
u...
>
> "Steve Hawkins" > wrote in message
>>> Exactly my point. If you start with a coloured preamp, you have just
>>> blown your choices away.
>>>
>>> d
>>
>> I don't know your background, but it's very obvious to me you don't
>> understand what everyone else is trying to explain to you. BTW, my ears
>> can't read specifications.
>
> Seems to me he does, but simply disagrees, as do I. One can always run a
> clean signal through any "dirty" conditioning device of your choice after
> recording. And you get to listen and choose at your leasure. As Don says,
> it
> is impossible to get a clean signal if you record through a "dirty" device
> in the first place though.


Keeping your choices open and delaying decisions in a music production
process can do more harm than good.

If you know what you are doing, the time it takes to finish tracking a
rock/pop production using coloured preamps of your choice (as well as
compressors, EQs etc.) is more or less the same as if you used the cleanest
preamps and no processing.

When you get to mix such clean tracks you need to spend an X amount of time
experimenting with different colours and the way they interact, trying to
figure out what it was that you or the person who did the tracking wanted in
the first place. The more tracks and the more time that passed since
tracking, the more complicated the task. At that stage you can't use the
colour of the preamps anymore, so you are limited to compressors, EQ and
similar processing. If you use hardware processors you'll need a lot of
them. That's probably acceptable to someone with the lack of experience or
someone keen on extensive experimentation, but it's too time consuming to be
the norm in the world of commercial music production.

Most of the people who do that for a living have no problem with committing
to "tape", not only when it comes to the colour of the preamps. That way, by
the mix time, you just need to push the faders and the mix is already there.
Ok, you can keep tweaking and sweetening till the cows come home, but more
often than not, mixing such material is a breeze because you know right from
the beginning what the poet meant. If the tracking is done right, it mixes
itself.

Apart from the efficiency there are also the artistic issues; the way the
colour of individual instruments affects the perceived vibe of the whole
track and consequently the performance of the musicians, inspiration of the
producer and/or composer, motivation of the engineer, comments by the band
members' girlfriends...


> I used to argue it was far easier and cheaper to run a digital recording
> through a tape machine *after* recording, many years ago, when some still
> thought it necessary to record on 24 track tape at huge expense. Of course
> they didn't want to know, or to compare for themselves. The cost of tape
> and
> recorder repairs has pretty much put paid to that practice though
> fortunately.


I did the comparison and found it to be the worst of both worlds, analog and
digital.

Predrag

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in
:

> "Steve Hawkins" >
> wrote in message
> 5.250
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Steve Hawkins" >
>>> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> I don't know your background, but it's very obvious to
>>>> me you don't understand what everyone else is trying to
>>>> explain to you. BTW, my ears can't read specifications.
>>>
>>> Yes Steve, and you seem to be the sort of guy who has no
>>> time to do any bias-controlled listening tests.
>>>
>>> People who talk like you generally find them to be
>>> pretty humiliating.
>>>
>>> We all know that audio is almost all art and very little
>>> science... ;-) Well it is to people who know no science!
>
>> Still smarting from your Facebook debacle I see.
>
> Ah, the attempt to distract with an OT comment.
>
>> First off, my professiom has been Engineering for over 30
>> years, about half that time in spectrum analyzers. I
>> helped design and manufacture the test equipment that
>> builds and tests the gear you use.
>
> And that qualifies you to comment how?
>
>> Second, I've been a working musician since I was 12 and
>> have a CD out that a lot of folks seem to enjoy. I also
>> do live sound and will be happy to compare my client list
>> to yours anytime you care to post it.
>
> IOW, no relevant answer at all.
>
> Sadly, very characteristic of people who think they are not
> accountable to anybody but their own prejudices.

LOL!!! I now dub thee Saint Arny; Holier Than All. However, you're
right, that was a bit wordy. I could have just said I know a lot more
about it than you do. Mea Culpa. There's a boatload of folks here who
know way more about it than I do, which is why I hang out. Don't let
that Halo get too tight now.

Steve Hawkins

[hank alrich]

Predrag Trpkov > wrote:

> Keeping your choices open and delaying decisions in a music production
> process can do more harm than good.
>
> If you know what you are doing, the time it takes to finish tracking a
> rock/pop production using coloured preamps of your choice (as well as
> compressors, EQs etc.) is more or less the same as if you used the cleanest
> preamps and no processing.
>
> When you get to mix such clean tracks you need to spend an X amount of time
> experimenting with different colours and the way they interact, trying to
> figure out what it was that you or the person who did the tracking wanted in
> the first place. The more tracks and the more time that passed since
> tracking, the more complicated the task. At that stage you can't use the
> colour of the preamps anymore, so you are limited to compressors, EQ and
> similar processing. If you use hardware processors you'll need a lot of
> them. That's probably acceptable to someone with the lack of experience or
> someone keen on extensive experimentation, but it's too time consuming to be
> the norm in the world of commercial music production.
>
> Most of the people who do that for a living have no problem with committing
> to "tape", not only when it comes to the colour of the preamps. That way, by
> the mix time, you just need to push the faders and the mix is already there.
> Ok, you can keep tweaking and sweetening till the cows come home, but more
> often than not, mixing such material is a breeze because you know right from
> the beginning what the poet meant. If the tracking is done right, it mixes
> itself.
>
> Apart from the efficiency there are also the artistic issues; the way the
> colour of individual instruments affects the perceived vibe of the whole
> track and consequently the performance of the musicians, inspiration of the
> producer and/or composer, motivation of the engineer, comments by the band
> members' girlfriends...

Nicely stated. Lots of folks who knwo what they want go for it from the
gitgo. Letting a mix emerge right from the tracking is both a very
efficient and a very inpsiring way to work, IME.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[David Hajicek]

Hank:

Any thoughts on WHY it sounded better? Is the input impedance or line
length the cause of loss without a preamp? If your guitar pickups do not
have active electronics, the output impedance can be so high that just 40
ft. of cable could load them down.

Dave

[hank alrich]

David Hajicek > wrote:

> Hank:
>
> Any thoughts on WHY it sounded better? Is the input impedance or line
> length the cause of loss without a preamp? If your guitar pickups do not
> have active electronics, the output impedance can be so high that just 40
> ft. of cable could load them down.
>
> Dave

One of my instrument cables is 12' and the other 15', and they are the
same cables with which I have played over a hundred gigs in the last
three of years, and thirteen gigs in the last four weeks.

The Red Eyes are on stage with us, where I can reach the boost button
for a solo if I want to. We run them on P48 whenever possible. They are
designed to amplify passive acoustic instrument pickups and are fed by
the K&K Pure Minis in our guitars, or the Baggs saddle on the Gibson
mandolin.

The difference is between the preamps in the Mackie and Allen & Heath
consoles we typically find at our gigs, and the Great Rivers. If we read
the specs on those preamps we'd think them very close. In usage the GR's
deliver a sound that much more closely resembles the instruments,
shrinking the vestigial evidence of pickup sound, bringing the result
much closer to the sound of the instruments through the Schoeps mics.

The people who dislike my Schoeps complain that they lack "character".
Indeed, they do, and that's one of the things I like about them. The
instruments, in this case, have terrific character and that's what I'm
interested in converying to an audience.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Trevor]

"Steve Hawkins" > wrote in message
5.250...
> Sorry, but you don't understand either. You and Don are fixed on the
> studio world which is always focused on "do no harm" until it's time for
> processing.
>
> Hank is a guitarist, until he pulls out that damn banjo, and so am I.
> Our entire signal chain is all about tone, from the strings to the final
> amp or DI. It's hard to explain to a non-player, but we "play" the gear
> the same as we play the instrument. I pay more attention to features
> than specs and the final arbiter is my ears.


I do live sound as well as studio. I have NO problem with musicians doing
*whatever* it takes to get the sound they want, so MY job is NOT to alter it
in any way that changes it into something they don't want.

I'm sorry if that was not clear from my original post.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Predrag Trpkov > wrote:
> Nicely stated. Lots of folks who knwo what they want go for it from the
> gitgo. Letting a mix emerge right from the tracking is both a very
> efficient and a very inpsiring way to work, IME.

Fine if everyone is in agreement and can hear things perfectly well so as to
make those critical judgements. However that's not always the case, and very
few here would not have spent time trying to fix someone elses poor choices.
If you never have, then you are indeed lucky.
Of course no argument from me when it does work! :-)

Trevor.

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

(hank alrich) wrote in
:

> David Hajicek > wrote:
>
>> Hank:
>>
>> Any thoughts on WHY it sounded better? Is the input impedance or
>> line length the cause of loss without a preamp? If your guitar
>> pickups do not have active electronics, the output impedance can be
>> so high that just 40 ft. of cable could load them down.
>>
>> Dave
>
> One of my instrument cables is 12' and the other 15', and they are the
> same cables with which I have played over a hundred gigs in the last
> three of years, and thirteen gigs in the last four weeks.
>
> The Red Eyes are on stage with us, where I can reach the boost button
> for a solo if I want to. We run them on P48 whenever possible. They
> are designed to amplify passive acoustic instrument pickups and are
> fed by the K&K Pure Minis in our guitars, or the Baggs saddle on the
> Gibson mandolin.
>
> The difference is between the preamps in the Mackie and Allen & Heath
> consoles we typically find at our gigs, and the Great Rivers. If we
> read the specs on those preamps we'd think them very close. In usage
> the GR's deliver a sound that much more closely resembles the
> instruments, shrinking the vestigial evidence of pickup sound,
> bringing the result much closer to the sound of the instruments
> through the Schoeps mics.
>
> The people who dislike my Schoeps complain that they lack "character".
> Indeed, they do, and that's one of the things I like about them. The
> instruments, in this case, have terrific character and that's what I'm
> interested in converying to an audience.

Remember the days when every guitar had the early Fishman ribbon under
the saddle? People were conditioned to think that plastic quack is how
an acoustic guitar is supposed to sound. When better, more natural
pickups started to come out a lot of people didn't like them.

Steve Hawkins

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

"Trevor" > wrote in
:

>
> "Steve Hawkins" > wrote in
> message 5.250...
>> Sorry, but you don't understand either. You and Don are fixed on the
>> studio world which is always focused on "do no harm" until it's time
>> for processing.
>>
>> Hank is a guitarist, until he pulls out that damn banjo, and so am I.
>> Our entire signal chain is all about tone, from the strings to the
>> final amp or DI. It's hard to explain to a non-player, but we "play"
>> the gear the same as we play the instrument. I pay more attention to
>> features than specs and the final arbiter is my ears.
>
>
> I do live sound as well as studio. I have NO problem with musicians
> doing *whatever* it takes to get the sound they want, so MY job is NOT
> to alter it in any way that changes it into something they don't want.
>
> I'm sorry if that was not clear from my original post.
>
> Trevor.

No worries, we're cool!

Steve Hawkins

[David Hajicek]

"Steve Hawkins" > wrote in message
5.250...
> (hank alrich) wrote in
> :
>
>> David Hajicek > wrote:
>>
>>> Hank:
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on WHY it sounded better? Is the input impedance or
>>> line length the cause of loss without a preamp? If your guitar
>>> pickups do not have active electronics, the output impedance can be
>>> so high that just 40 ft. of cable could load them down.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>
>> One of my instrument cables is 12' and the other 15', and they are the
>> same cables with which I have played over a hundred gigs in the last
>> three of years, and thirteen gigs in the last four weeks.
>>
>> The Red Eyes are on stage with us, where I can reach the boost button
>> for a solo if I want to. We run them on P48 whenever possible. They
>> are designed to amplify passive acoustic instrument pickups and are
>> fed by the K&K Pure Minis in our guitars, or the Baggs saddle on the
>> Gibson mandolin.
>>
>> The difference is between the preamps in the Mackie and Allen & Heath
>> consoles we typically find at our gigs, and the Great Rivers. If we
>> read the specs on those preamps we'd think them very close. In usage
>> the GR's deliver a sound that much more closely resembles the
>> instruments, shrinking the vestigial evidence of pickup sound,
>> bringing the result much closer to the sound of the instruments
>> through the Schoeps mics.
>>
>> The people who dislike my Schoeps complain that they lack "character".
>> Indeed, they do, and that's one of the things I like about them. The
>> instruments, in this case, have terrific character and that's what I'm
>> interested in converying to an audience.
>
> Remember the days when every guitar had the early Fishman ribbon under
> the saddle? People were conditioned to think that plastic quack is how
> an acoustic guitar is supposed to sound. When better, more natural
> pickups started to come out a lot of people didn't like them.
>
> Steve Hawkins
>

Hank obviously needs a TUBE preamp. ;>)

Dave

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

"Trevor" > wrote in
u:

>
> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Predrag Trpkov > wrote:
>> Nicely stated. Lots of folks who knwo what they want go for it from
>> the gitgo. Letting a mix emerge right from the tracking is both a
>> very efficient and a very inpsiring way to work, IME.
>
> Fine if everyone is in agreement and can hear things perfectly well so
> as to make those critical judgements. However that's not always the
> case, and very few here would not have spent time trying to fix
> someone elses poor choices. If you never have, then you are indeed
> lucky. Of course no argument from me when it does work! :-)
>
> Trevor.

One man's poor choice is often anothers signature sound. :-)

Steve Hawkins

[Bill Ruys[_2_]]

"George's Pro Sound Company" > wrote in message
rlakestechnologygroup...
> the final arbiter is my ears.
>>
>> Steve Hawkins
>>
>
> as it should be. I am sick to death of people try to tell me what
> something sounds like by reading a spec sheet!!
> get the damn thing , hook it up and listen to the sound
> all the rest is for those who have sniffed too many solder fumes to argue
> over
> George
Most of these spec sheets are generic and often don't even come close to
representing the actual performance of the device. I was A/Bing a couple of
pairs of SDC mics. Based on their frq response charts, pair A should have
been much brighter than pair B. Turned out the opposite was true. Your
ears have to be the final judge. And if you can't hear the difference, the
state of the art is at a high enough level that it ceases to matter.

Bill.

[hank alrich]

Steve Hawkins > wrote:

> (hank alrich) wrote in
> :
>
> > David Hajicek > wrote:
> >
> >> Hank:
> >>
> >> Any thoughts on WHY it sounded better? Is the input impedance or
> >> line length the cause of loss without a preamp? If your guitar
> >> pickups do not have active electronics, the output impedance can be
> >> so high that just 40 ft. of cable could load them down.
> >>
> >> Dave
> >
> > One of my instrument cables is 12' and the other 15', and they are the
> > same cables with which I have played over a hundred gigs in the last
> > three of years, and thirteen gigs in the last four weeks.
> >
> > The Red Eyes are on stage with us, where I can reach the boost button
> > for a solo if I want to. We run them on P48 whenever possible. They
> > are designed to amplify passive acoustic instrument pickups and are
> > fed by the K&K Pure Minis in our guitars, or the Baggs saddle on the
> > Gibson mandolin.
> >
> > The difference is between the preamps in the Mackie and Allen & Heath
> > consoles we typically find at our gigs, and the Great Rivers. If we
> > read the specs on those preamps we'd think them very close. In usage
> > the GR's deliver a sound that much more closely resembles the
> > instruments, shrinking the vestigial evidence of pickup sound,
> > bringing the result much closer to the sound of the instruments
> > through the Schoeps mics.
> >
> > The people who dislike my Schoeps complain that they lack "character".
> > Indeed, they do, and that's one of the things I like about them. The
> > instruments, in this case, have terrific character and that's what I'm
> > interested in converying to an audience.
>
> Remember the days when every guitar had the early Fishman ribbon under
> the saddle? People were conditioned to think that plastic quack is how
> an acoustic guitar is supposed to sound. When better, more natural
> pickups started to come out a lot of people didn't like them.
>
> Steve Hawkins

Yeah, I skipped that part of it. I didn't accept a pickup for the
acoustic guitars until Lance said to put a K&K in it.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[hank alrich]

David Hajicek > wrote:

> "Steve Hawkins" > wrote in message
> 5.250...
> > (hank alrich) wrote in
> > :
> >
> >> David Hajicek > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hank:
> >>>
> >>> Any thoughts on WHY it sounded better? Is the input impedance or
> >>> line length the cause of loss without a preamp? If your guitar
> >>> pickups do not have active electronics, the output impedance can be
> >>> so high that just 40 ft. of cable could load them down.
> >>>
> >>> Dave
> >>
> >> One of my instrument cables is 12' and the other 15', and they are the
> >> same cables with which I have played over a hundred gigs in the last
> >> three of years, and thirteen gigs in the last four weeks.
> >>
> >> The Red Eyes are on stage with us, where I can reach the boost button
> >> for a solo if I want to. We run them on P48 whenever possible. They
> >> are designed to amplify passive acoustic instrument pickups and are
> >> fed by the K&K Pure Minis in our guitars, or the Baggs saddle on the
> >> Gibson mandolin.
> >>
> >> The difference is between the preamps in the Mackie and Allen & Heath
> >> consoles we typically find at our gigs, and the Great Rivers. If we
> >> read the specs on those preamps we'd think them very close. In usage
> >> the GR's deliver a sound that much more closely resembles the
> >> instruments, shrinking the vestigial evidence of pickup sound,
> >> bringing the result much closer to the sound of the instruments
> >> through the Schoeps mics.
> >>
> >> The people who dislike my Schoeps complain that they lack "character".
> >> Indeed, they do, and that's one of the things I like about them. The
> >> instruments, in this case, have terrific character and that's what I'm
> >> interested in converying to an audience.
> >
> > Remember the days when every guitar had the early Fishman ribbon under
> > the saddle? People were conditioned to think that plastic quack is how
> > an acoustic guitar is supposed to sound. When better, more natural
> > pickups started to come out a lot of people didn't like them.
> >
> > Steve Hawkins
> >
>
> Hank obviously needs a TUBE preamp. ;>)
>
> Dave

Yes! Funny thing is, until I got the Red Eye the best DI I'd found was
the Evil Twin, which is a tubular unit of extraordinary quality, size,
and cost. It could be very clean or nicely distorted, and I used it for
all kinds of great guitar sounds. When I again started traveling to play
I sold it because no way could I haul it around.

The ET if operated to be clean was cleaner than the Baggs PADI I used
until I discovered the Red Eye.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/12/2011 6:24 AM, Trevor wrote:

> One can always run a
> clean signal through any "dirty" conditioning device of your choice after
> recording. And you get to listen and choose at your leasure. As Don says, it
> is impossible to get a clean signal if you record through a "dirty" device
> in the first place though.

And Don is correct. But making sound isn't about always getting the
cleanest signal path, it's about doing what you need to do in order to
get the sound that you want. In ths case, Hank wanted a clean sound, and
used a clean preamp. It has transformers in and out, so it sounds a
little "organic" but certainly not dirty.

If one wants a dirty sound, it's best to get it up front. And if one
doesn't know what sound he wants, he should probably do some more
homework. The multitrack recording process has lulled us into the
working mode of making all the decisions after the music's gone home.

> I used to argue it was far easier and cheaper to run a digital recording
> through a tape machine *after* recording, many years ago, when some still
> thought it necessary to record on 24 track tape at huge expense.

Oh, I'll bet there's a difference. But the reason why sensible people
want to use tape recorders is so they won't have to fool with computers
when there's real work to be done. I think that a good digital recording
can sound as good as a good analog recording. A bad digital recording
can't be made better by trying to cover up a poor signal chain with tape
crud.

Today we have CLASP, which allow you to work in your DAW and get the
analog tape sound, using the same reel of tape over and over until it
wears out. Have you priced a CLASP system lately?

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

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Trevor]

"Steve Hawkins" > wrote in message
5.250...
> One man's poor choice is often anothers signature sound. :-)

Right, and it's not always good to be stuck with someone else's "signature
sound" when the client, producer, or record company wants something else :-(
If you're simply recording yourself for private distribution, you can do
what you like of course:-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Bill Ruys" > wrote in message
...
> Most of these spec sheets are generic and often don't even come close to
> representing the actual performance of the device.

Usually quite true.

>I was A/Bing a couple of pairs of SDC mics. Based on their frq response
>charts, pair A should have been much brighter than pair B. Turned out the
>opposite was true.

Unless they were omni's there are usually lot's of ways you could get either
result of course, even if the spec sheet was right for their particular test
conditions.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> Oh, I'll bet there's a difference. But the reason why sensible people want
> to use tape recorders is so they won't have to fool with computers when
> there's real work to be done. I think that a good digital recording can
> sound as good as a good analog recording.

Right, but rarely vice versa.


>A bad digital recording can't be made better by trying to cover up a poor
>signal chain with tape crud.

Right, nor can a bad tape recording simply because the crud is inherent.


> Today we have CLASP, which allow you to work in your DAW and get the
> analog tape sound, using the same reel of tape over and over until it
> wears out. Have you priced a CLASP system lately?

Nope, not interested in the slightest. Even those who once wanted the "tape
sound" seem to have disappeared. IF I needed to I can still run tracks
through my own tape machine. I don't seem to have much other use for it
these days :-)

Trevor.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Ruys" > wrote in message

> "George's Pro Sound Company" > wrote in
> message
> rlakestechnologygroup...
>> the final arbiter is my ears.
>>>
>>> Steve Hawkins
>>>
>>
>> as it should be. I am sick to death of people try to
>> tell me what something sounds like by reading a spec
>> sheet!! get the damn thing , hook it up and listen to the sound
>> all the rest is for those who have sniffed too many
>> solder fumes to argue over
>> George

> Most of these spec sheets are generic and often don't
> even come close to representing the actual performance of
> the device.

I agree. Spec sheets are often marketing tools that are designed to appeal
to the great unwashed, not technical experts.

> I was A/Bing a couple of pairs of SDC mics. Based on their frq response
> charts, pair A should have
> been much brighter than pair B. Turned out the opposite
> was true.

Well, microphone spec sheets - in general they are about as opaque as they
come. Interestingly enough if you know what you are doing you can see why
Schoeps mics sound so good from their spec sheets.

> Your ears have to be the final judge. And if
> you can't hear the difference, the state of the art is at
> a high enough level that it ceases to matter.

One of the most acoustically savvy tech guys in the world today is Earl
Geddes, who is a personal friend. If people got serious about spec sheets
for transducers it would be a windfall for him, becuase he has some
wonderful patents and other technology in the area. So imagine Earl
Geddes, Dave Clark and others such as myself sitting around a bar in Earl's
basement, sipping our favorite beverages and talking about the state of the
art of characterizing transducers and bemoaning the huge gap between what
can be done and what is done.

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/13/2011 12:15 AM, Bill Ruys wrote:

> Most of these spec sheets are generic and often don't even come clse to
> representing the actual performance of the device. I was A/Bing a couple of
> pairs of SDC mics. Based on their frq response charts, pair A should have
> been much brighter than pair B. Turned out the opposite was true.

Test results can be meaningful, but if the test results don't support
what you hear, then you're testing the wrong thing (or only publishing
the results of the wrong tests). Don has the principle correct - you
should decide on a complete set of specifications and then keep working
on the design until those specifications are met. But not all designers
specify their design criteria correctly. THD is a good example.
Depending on the distribution of the distortion products, you can hear a
few tenths of a percent, or you can tolerate (or even prefer to none) as
much as 10%.

But few manufacturers publish a spectrum analysis along with distortion
figures. Sometimes they simply don't make those measurements, sometimes
they do and don't want to show them because they reveal things the
manufactuerr may not want you to know. But mostly it's because marketing
departments want a single number that customers can compare, and they
try to make that number look as good as possible.

> ears have to be the final judge. And if you can't hear the difference, the
> state of the art is at a high enough level that it ceases to matter.

This, too, is true. It's difficult to find a really bad A/D converter
these days, but it's still difficult (hence expensive) to make a good
microphone.

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

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Dale A. Francis]

On Apr 12, 1:47*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> IOW, no relevant answer at all.
>
> Sadly, very characteristic of people who think they are not accountable to
> anybody but their own prejudices.

words from the horse's mouth that apply to the horse itself

[Arny Krueger]

"Dale A. Francis" > wrote in
message

> On Apr 12, 1:47 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>> IOW, no relevant answer at all.

>> Sadly, very characteristic of people who think they are
>> not accountable to anybody but their own prejudices.

> words from the horse's mouth that apply to the horse
> itself

In the sense that they apply to everybody, yes.

[RD Jones]

On Apr 11, 5:40*pm, PStamler > wrote:

> Well, I put high-quality resistors (mostly metal film, not wirewound),
> precision coupling caps and whopper reservoir caps into a Fender
> Deluxe, and it sounds more like a Twin. Been schlepping it to gigs for
> some 35 years now. It sounds really good.

So a mid '70s or older. 5U4 or GZ34 ?
Any issues with the rectifier service life ?
Large caps are supposed to be harder on tube rectifiers.

rd

[PStamler]

On Apr 14, 8:01*pm, RD Jones > wrote:
> On Apr 11, 5:40*pm, PStamler > wrote:
>
> > Well, I put high-quality resistors (mostly metal film, not wirewound),
> > precision coupling caps and whopper reservoir caps into a Fender
> > Deluxe, and it sounds more like a Twin. Been schlepping it to gigs for
> > some 35 years now. It sounds really good.
>
> So a mid '70s or older. 5U4 or GZ34 ?
> Any issues with the rectifier service life ?
> Large caps are supposed to be harder on tube rectifiers.

Early 60s, actually. GZ34. I got it used around 1973. Nope, no problem
with rectifier life that I can see; they last several years. The amp
doesn't get hard use - 2-3 gigs a month.

Peace,
Paul

[Randy Yates]

On 04/11/2011 11:11 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:23:35 -0700, Les Cargill
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Legend has it that somebody put wirewound resistors and precision
>> caps throughout a Fender Twin, and managed to make it sound *very very
>> bad*. Some pearls need a grain of sand to get started - we are
>> dealing with people who have bought records made on $DEITY only
>> knows what sorta one-off gear.
>>
>> Since this group is about something that is at the intersection of
>> art& engineering....
>
> Technically: this sounds like sh*t.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fM2qhG8mA4
>
> But I LIKE the way that sh*t sounds.

No sh*t!
--
Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs
919-577-9882 http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Steve Hawkins wrote:

> I don't know your background, but it's very obvious to me you don't
> understand what everyone else is trying to explain to you. BTW, my
> ears can't read specifications.

What I miss in this thread is that the outcome is from a combination of
equipment, some equipment tends to combine well, and some doesn't but may be
good in other contexts.

Generally I tend to be in favour of Don Pearces way of seeing this - ie. bad
specs equals broken stuff, but - with all due respect - sessions and gigs
are about what makes the end result good and currently I tend to make
recordings that are in high regard via a lucky combination of stuff with
lesser specs.

I have a nice setup of C42's - one pair and two - that didn't work well in
the first owners context and work very well in my context. They do need
frequency response compensation, but I am very happy with them not having it
ex works and just having so very very very very clean electronics giving me
the choice of how to use their properties.

Dunno about the two, having also the pair those are the ones that get used
most, but the pair regularly outperforms a friends pair of what they are
said to be "the cheaper alternative to", brand name intentionally omitted
since this is about context and about what sounds best on my recorder and
via my process when we record together at a chamber music society.

Oh - and the recordings made with all 4 turned out wonderful, the pair for
front and the two for "rear/ambience". Quality equipment helps. As for the
Mackie preamps - I have a 1202 that I bought second or third hand, probably
at too high a price, the first version. Only using its mic pres at 30'ish dB
gain to feed a MR8HD(*) sounds great, using the rest of it doesn't, but is
OK for on site monitor mix.

(*) found a little used one at a good price to replace the one I broke ...

> Steve Hawkins

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[hank alrich]

Peter Larsen > wrote:

> I have a nice setup of C42's

I'd like to try a piar of those in place of the Schoeps to see how they
do in the ocntext I'm using mics on stage for instruments.

I mount them to the stand with an Atlas CO1-B clamp, a 6" gooseneck, and
a shock mount. I really like the position, aimed from below (floor
monitor winds up in or very near the null of a cardioid pattern) angled
to hear across the top, aimed roughly at the bridge.

The Josephsons cost significiantly less than the Scheops, always a
consideration for road gear.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[donh]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:29:22 -0500, hank alrich wrote:

> David Hajicek > wrote:
>
>> Hank:
>>
>> Any thoughts on WHY it sounded better? Is the input impedance or line
>> length the cause of loss without a preamp? If your guitar pickups do
>> not have active electronics, the output impedance can be so high that
>> just 40 ft. of cable could load them down.
>>
>> Dave
>
> One of my instrument cables is 12' and the other 15', and they are the
> same cables with which I have played over a hundred gigs in the last
> three of years, and thirteen gigs in the last four weeks.
>
> The Red Eyes are on stage with us, where I can reach the boost button
> for a solo if I want to. We run them on P48 whenever possible. They are
> designed to amplify passive acoustic instrument pickups and are fed by
> the K&K Pure Minis in our guitars, or the Baggs saddle on the Gibson
> mandolin.
>
> The difference is between the preamps in the Mackie and Allen & Heath
> consoles we typically find at our gigs, and the Great Rivers. If we read
> the specs on those preamps we'd think them very close. In usage the GR's
> deliver a sound that much more closely resembles the instruments,
> shrinking the vestigial evidence of pickup sound, bringing the result
> much closer to the sound of the instruments through the Schoeps mics.
>
> The people who dislike my Schoeps complain that they lack "character".
> Indeed, they do, and that's one of the things I like about them. The
> instruments, in this case, have terrific character and that's what I'm
> interested in conveying to an audience.

I find the Allen&Heath to be head and shoulders above the Mackie, but
have no experience with the Great River stuff. It's mostly a wasteland
in this area

--
donh
donh at audiosys dot com

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

hank alrich wrote:

> Peter Larsen > wrote:

>> I have a nice setup of C42's

> I'd like to try a piar of those in place of the Schoeps to see how
> they do in the ocntext I'm using mics on stage for instruments.

Detail, detail, detail, they're good for Bach with cremonese catgut
implemements and a cembalo, then they are good for guitar. They could be
"too good" if proper parametric eq is not implemented, I think that is why
they didn't quite work in the context of what their first owners wanted to
use them for. My first recording with them was of a choir and a (too
distant) Fazioli, without eq they almost made the Fazioli sound like a steel
guitar, but choral clarity was so wonderful and it was fun to try a "Brucks
Sputnik" setup.

> I mount them to the stand with an Atlas CO1-B clamp, a 6" gooseneck,
> and a shock mount. I really like the position, aimed from below (floor
> monitor winds up in or very near the null of a cardioid pattern)
> angled to hear across the top, aimed roughly at the bridge.

> The Josephsons cost significiantly less than the Scheops, always a
> consideration for road gear.

You really need to try also a Shure KSM 137/141 pair, they don't have the
spatial ambience clarity and ultimate detail of the C42's, but they are the
SM57 reincarnate in terms of picking up the instrument aimed at when in
cardioid mode and worth trying also for vox at 10". The additional cost for
the 141 is modest as is the additional cost, if any, for a pair but not
having an on mic adjustment that can be adjusted incorrectly may be best for
stage use. Suitable parametric eq helps not only their on axis sound but
also their ambience, but not eq'ing is quite possibly best for vox, be it
single or choir, in a mix context.

Note: they above suggestions work for my way of setting up mics, eq'ing and
mixing, something else may well work better for someone else, no single
brand of shoe fits everybody and it is always about how it all combines,
just as with cooking.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/16/2011 9:15 PM, donh wrote:

> I find the Allen&Heath to be head and shoulders above the Mackie, but
> have no experience with the Great River stuff. It's mostly a wasteland
> in this area

These days there are very few preamps, particularly those built into
modestly priced mixers, that are "head and shoulders" above any others.
It may be possible, because of the internal levels and bus headroom, EQ,
length of fader throw, and such, that you can come up with a better
sounding mix with an A&H than with a Mackie in roughly the same
ballpark, but it isn't going to be because of the mic preamps.

But thanks for trying, and for listening to your own work.


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

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Mark]

>
> These days there are very few preamps, particularly those built into
> modestly priced mixers, that are "head and shoulders" above any others.
> It may be possible, because of the internal levels and bus headroom, EQ,
> length of fader throw, and such, that you can come up with a better
> sounding mix with an A&H than with a Mackie in roughly the same
> ballpark, but it isn't going to be because of the mic preamps.
>
>
Oh Mike, you going to spoil the party...

this is no place for facts. :-)

Mark

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 4/16/2011 9:15 PM, donh wrote:
>
> > I find the Allen&Heath to be head and shoulders above the Mackie, but
> > have no experience with the Great River stuff. It's mostly a wasteland
> > in this area
>
> These days there are very few preamps, particularly those built into
> modestly priced mixers, that are "head and shoulders" above any others.
> It may be possible, because of the internal levels and bus headroom, EQ,
> length of fader throw, and such, that you can come up with a better
> sounding mix with an A&H than with a Mackie in roughly the same
> ballpark, but it isn't going to be because of the mic preamps.
>
> But thanks for trying, and for listening to your own work.

I think the Mackie Onyx preamps are better than those in the previous
versions of Mackies, and that the EQ, and DI inputs, too, are very much
better than in the older models. However, working with an Onyx recently
installed in a church, I suspect that overall there are huge tolerances
in things like faders, resistors, capacitors, etc. Observing level
variances in outputs fed by identical sources leads me to that
suspicion.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Scott Dorsey]

donh > wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:29:22 -0500, hank alrich wrote:
>
>I find the Allen&Heath to be head and shoulders above the Mackie, but
>have no experience with the Great River stuff. It's mostly a wasteland
>in this area

The new Mackie Onyx stuff is head and shoulders above the old Mackie stuff,
but the original Great River is a big step above all of the Mackie/A&H grade
stuff for transparency and noise rejection.

I recommend that if you live in the middle of nowhere (like I do) that you
take a trip to the AES show just to see what is out there and touch it
and try to listen to it (not that you can hear much at a show).
--scott

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

[hank alrich]

PStamler > wrote:

> On Apr 12, 7:50 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > Without bench tests and a schematic, it is hard to guess why the GR sounds
> > like it does.
>
> Maybe because it doesn't do anything? It's designed to add as little
> to the signal as possible, and succeeds.
>
> > I suspect that the input transformers may provide some practical advantages
> > in say high EMI contexts, and also add some measurable and audible (FR)
> > effects.
>
> You probably suspect right on the first clause; they also add
> excellent rejection of RFI, which is useful in today's RF jungle.
>
> You probably suspect wrong on the second clause. Frequency response
> when properly terminated, as spec'd by the transformer manufacturer,
> is typically -0.08dB at 20Hz and 20kHz, and dead flat in between. The
> transformer only adds 1dB of noise (due to coil resistance) to the
> thermal noise of a 150 ohm microphone. And unless you hit it with 0dBu
> of signal at <40Hz, distortion is negligible.
>
> These are really, really good transformers (Jensen JT-13k7-A), and are
> part of the reason the preamps sound so good. By "sound good", I mean
> not having a sound at all. I wish the market had supported GR in its
> effort to sell a really uncolored preamp. Alas, the later version (NV
> series) is more popular.

The original series sold decently, but was never designed for modfern
mass production. It was all hand-built and the process raeched a point
in economic time that made it too costly to continue that approach.

Those are still terrific preamps, in my mind, and one can find them used
for reasonable money, though not cheaply priced.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri