best all purpose mic for $400-900

[mcnews]

i'd like a pros opinion with much experience with many mics to off er
their opinion on the best all purpose mic in the $400-900 range. i
will be using it mostly for vocals, acoustic guitar and upright bass.
my preamps are humble and will remain so for a while. please try to
stay on topic with your reply and please do not answer my question with
more questions. i am not a pro and have no aspirations to become one.
just want to make decent recordings.
how about the ev re-20 for example?
tia,
mcnewsxp

[Jay Kadis]

In article . com>,
"mcnews" > wrote:

> i'd like a pros opinion with much experience with many mics to off er
> their opinion on the best all purpose mic in the $400-900 range. i
> will be using it mostly for vocals, acoustic guitar and upright bass.
> my preamps are humble and will remain so for a while. please try to
> stay on topic with your reply and please do not answer my question with
> more questions. i am not a pro and have no aspirations to become one.
> just want to make decent recordings.
> how about the ev re-20 for example?
> tia,
> mcnewsxp

I've got a lot of mileage out of the AKG C414. It might not be the
absolute best on anything but it works pretty well on almost everything.
The multiple patterns give you a lot of flexibility.

If you really want to save money, try the AKG C535EB. It's promoted as
a condensor vocal mic but it sounds good on a lot of instruments. It'll
be below the $400 mark.

-Jay

--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x ---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

[Scott Dorsey]

In article . com>,
mcnews > wrote:
>i'd like a pros opinion with much experience with many mics to off er
>their opinion on the best all purpose mic in the $400-900 range. i
>will be using it mostly for vocals, acoustic guitar and upright bass.
>my preamps are humble and will remain so for a while. please try to
>stay on topic with your reply and please do not answer my question with
>more questions. i am not a pro and have no aspirations to become one.
>just want to make decent recordings.
>how about the ev re-20 for example?

Are you going to be spotmiking things, or mostly recording rooms?

The RE-20 is a good choice. It's okay on any vocal, on acoustic guitar,
and on upright bass. It's useless as a room mike, but that might be okay
for you. It's sufficiently uncolored that you can use it on all tracks
without the coloration building up.

I might be more apt to recommend a small diaphragm condenser mike like
the Josephson C4 or the Audio-Technica AT4051. It'll sound more detailed
and etched on acoustic guitar and it's a great mike on bass, but you might
find it a real pain to get good vocals with. The good news is that it will
be much better for room miking.

Although, for $900 you can probably pick up a C4 and a used RE-20 and still
not break your budget.

You should also have an EV 635A and an SM-57 in the closet somewhere. Both
are very highly colored, but they are useful colorations and they don't cost
much money. Don't spend more than $50 for a used 635A.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[mcnews]

or rode NT2-A

[mcnews]

Soundhaspriority wrote:
> "mcnews" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > or rode NT2-A
> >
> Rode NT-2000 ?

<http://www.swee****er.com/store/detail/NT2A/>

[Paul Stamler]

"mcnews" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> i'd like a pros opinion with much experience with many mics to off er
> their opinion on the best all purpose mic in the $400-900 range. i
> will be using it mostly for vocals, acoustic guitar and upright bass.
> my preamps are humble and will remain so for a while. please try to
> stay on topic with your reply and please do not answer my question with
> more questions. i am not a pro and have no aspirations to become one.
> just want to make decent recordings.
> how about the ev re-20 for example?

That would be my first recommendation. Also look at the Sennheiser MD441.

Peace,
Paul

[Doc Weaver]

mcnews wrote:
> i'd like a pros opinion with much experience with many mics to off er
> their opinion on the best all purpose mic in the $400-900 range. i
> will be using it mostly for vocals, acoustic guitar and upright bass.
> my preamps are humble and will remain so for a while. please try to
> stay on topic with your reply and please do not answer my question with
> more questions. i am not a pro and have no aspirations to become one.
> just want to make decent recordings.
> how about the ev re-20 for example?
> tia,
> mcnewsxp

I know it's not the world class name brand, but my swiss army mic is
the CAD M179. I bought one for simple experimentation, and after
trying it in many situations, I got rid of my AKG 414s. The 414s are
awesome mics, but the M179s seem to fit a few more options and cost
much less. I have more expensive mics that do much better at one or
two jobs, but I'll always keep a pair of M179s around.

Don't get me wrong, CAD makes some mics that aren't worth the shipping,
but the M179 is a good all purpose deal.

One man's opinion,
Doc Weaver

[Roy W. Rising]

"mcnews" > wrote:
> i'd like a pros opinion with much experience with many mics to off er
> their opinion on the best all purpose mic in the $400-900 range. i
> will be using it mostly for vocals, acoustic guitar and upright bass.
> my preamps are humble and will remain so for a while. please try to
> stay on topic with your reply and please do not answer my question with
> more questions. i am not a pro and have no aspirations to become one.
> just want to make decent recordings.
> how about the ev re-20 for example?
> tia,
> mcnewsxp

You can't go wrong with the EV RE20. For even less, find and EV RE15 on
eBay. It's supercardioid, smaller and just as flat, maybe flatter.

--
~ Roy
"It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[Roy W. Rising]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> You should also have an EV 635A and an SM-57 in the closet somewhere.
> Both are very highly colored, but they are useful colorations and they
> don't cost much money. Don't spend more than $50 for a used 635A.
> --scott

Scott ~ The EV 635A is anything BUT "highly colored"! It's quite flat,
with a smooth 3 dB (max) rise between 2 KHz and 12 KHz. The HF and LF are
intentionally rolled down outside the voice range.

--
~ Roy
"It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising > wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>> You should also have an EV 635A and an SM-57 in the closet somewhere.
>> Both are very highly colored, but they are useful colorations and they
>> don't cost much money. Don't spend more than $50 for a used 635A.
>
>Scott ~ The EV 635A is anything BUT "highly colored"! It's quite flat,
>with a smooth 3 dB (max) rise between 2 KHz and 12 KHz. The HF and LF are
>intentionally rolled down outside the voice range.

I'd consider that extreme roll-off on the ends to be "highly colored."
It can be a very powerful tool, though.
--scott

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

[mcnews]

or even Rode NT1-A

[hank alrich]

mcnews wrote:

> i'd like a pros opinion with much experience with many mics to off er
> their opinion on the best all purpose mic in the $400-900 range. i
> will be using it mostly for vocals, acoustic guitar and upright bass.
> my preamps are humble and will remain so for a while. please try to
> stay on topic with your reply and please do not answer my question with
> more questions.

I see, you're not a pro, but you want to ask some pros a question and
tell them how to answer it...

> i am not a pro and have no aspirations to become one.
> just want to make decent recordings.
> how about the ev re-20 for example?

Won't work so well with a ****ty preamp. Perahps you could \have told
us what preamp you have. In most cases getting a decent preamp before
one starts buying more mics makes sense, just so you can find out what
your mics sound like into something better than what you have.

An RNP from FMR Audio doesn't cost much more than an RE20. An RE20 isn't
so much fun into a Mackie or Behringer kinda preamp. An SM57 into the
RNP is better, etc.

--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"

[mcnews]

hank alrich wrote:
> mcnews wrote:
>
> > i'd like a pros opinion with much experience with many mics to off er
> > their opinion on the best all purpose mic in the $400-900 range. i
> > will be using it mostly for vocals, acoustic guitar and upright bass.
> > my preamps are humble and will remain so for a while. please try to
> > stay on topic with your reply and please do not answer my question with
> > more questions.
>
> I see, you're not a pro, but you want to ask some pros a question and
> tell them how to answer it...

i'm not a pro engineer, but i have been a pro musician and i have been
hanging around this group enough to watch threads go into crap land in
terms of useful info verses i know more than you know info.
if my questions looks too dumb to you to grant a simple answer then let
it pass.

>
> > i am not a pro and have no aspirations to become one.
> > just want to make decent recordings.
> > how about the ev re-20 for example?
>
> Won't work so well with a ****ty preamp. Perahps you could \have told
> us what preamp you have. In most cases getting a decent preamp before
> one starts buying more mics makes sense, just so you can find out what
> your mics sound like into something better than what you have.
>
> An RNP from FMR Audio doesn't cost much more than an RE20. An RE20 isn't
> so much fun into a Mackie or Behringer kinda preamp. An SM57 into the
> RNP is better, etc.
>

i use the ****ty ART DSP, TSP, Tubepac and the Behringer T1953.
budget will not permit an upgrade at this juncture.
i have SM57s SM58s, a couple of Behringer condensors, and an AKG C3000.
i am looking for a decent mic for vox.
how complicated and ambiguous is that............?

[Roy W. Rising]

"mcnews" > wrote:
>
> i use the ****ty ART DSP, TSP, Tubepac and the Behringer T1953.
> budget will not permit an upgrade at this juncture.
> i have SM57s SM58s, a couple of Behringer condensors, and an AKG C3000.
> i am looking for a decent mic for vox.
> how complicated and ambiguous is that............?

I've recorded some of the biggest names in the music world using an EV
635A. For general purposese, I suggest the EV RE20. I have friends with
"s____" Behringer mixers making good money recording voice from EV RE55s.
The following say a lot:

--
~ Roy
"It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[Steve King]

"mcnews" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> hank alrich wrote:
>> mcnews wrote:
>>
>> > i'd like a pros opinion with much experience with many mics to off er
>> > their opinion on the best all purpose mic in the $400-900 range. i
>> > will be using it mostly for vocals, acoustic guitar and upright bass.
>> > my preamps are humble and will remain so for a while. please try to
>> > stay on topic with your reply and please do not answer my question with
>> > more questions.
>>
>> I see, you're not a pro, but you want to ask some pros a question and
>> tell them how to answer it...
>
> i'm not a pro engineer, but i have been a pro musician and i have been
> hanging around this group enough to watch threads go into crap land in
> terms of useful info verses i know more than you know info.
> if my questions looks too dumb to you to grant a simple answer then let
> it pass.
>
>>
>> > i am not a pro and have no aspirations to become one.
>> > just want to make decent recordings.
>> > how about the ev re-20 for example?
>>
>> Won't work so well with a ****ty preamp. Perahps you could \have told
>> us what preamp you have. In most cases getting a decent preamp before
>> one starts buying more mics makes sense, just so you can find out what
>> your mics sound like into something better than what you have.
>>
>> An RNP from FMR Audio doesn't cost much more than an RE20. An RE20 isn't
>> so much fun into a Mackie or Behringer kinda preamp. An SM57 into the
>> RNP is better, etc.
>>
>
> i use the ****ty ART DSP, TSP, Tubepac and the Behringer T1953.
> budget will not permit an upgrade at this juncture.
> i have SM57s SM58s, a couple of Behringer condensors, and an AKG C3000.
> i am looking for a decent mic for vox.
> how complicated and ambiguous is that............?

Less ambiguous than, "i will be using it mostly for vocals, acoustic guitar
and upright bass." I'm voting for the AT2020. Love the RE20, but like a
mic that I like even more for voice, the Shure SM7, it requires about 10 db
more gain that your typical condenser mic. Many pre-amps cannot deliver
that extra gain without adding an unacceptable amount of noise. Can yours?
I don't know cuz I haven't used them. But, I do know that running an RE20
or a Shure SM7 through a Mackie board recording a softer voice (another
thing we don't know about you that might affect the recommendation) takes
the Mackie about to the limit. AT2020, therefore, is the safest bet IMO.

Steve King

[hank alrich]

mcnews wrote:

> i use the ****ty ART DSP, TSP, Tubepac and the Behringer T1953.
> budget will not permit an upgrade at this juncture.
> i have SM57s SM58s, a couple of Behringer condensors, and an AKG C3000.
> i am looking for a decent mic for vox.
> how complicated and ambiguous is that............?

Why would you seek to spend twice the cost of an RNP on a vocal mic
that'll you'll plug into a lousy preamp? I'm not trying to be an asshole
(I am, in fact, an asshole - I don't even need to try), but I am trying
to get you to realize that whatever mic you get is going to be
compromised by the preamp of your choice. Have you heard an SM57 through
an RNP? If not, looking to spend nearly a grand on a mic you expect is
going to make a big difference is not sensible given the rest of your
chain, in my own arrogant opinion. An RNP _will_ make a big difference
to all the mics you already have, and you'd still have half your budget
for another mic.

--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"

[thepaulthomas]

mcnews wrote:
> i use the ****ty ART DSP, TSP, Tubepac and the Behringer T1953.
> budget will not permit an upgrade at this juncture.

Sure it will. You've stated that you have up to $900 at your disposal
so you need to carefully consider the entire signal path, all the way
from the mic to your speakers. It won't do much good to spend a
disproportionate amount of money in just one particular category. You
might be better off spreading that $400-$900 across a few areas (better
speakers, better preamps, etc.). Do more research and ask more
questions in a variety or pro audio forums and be sure to accurately
describe all of the components in your signal path.

I suggest looking for a used Symetrix SX-202 preamp or any 1980's
model Yamaha mixer. Mic's worth considering include an older model
Sennheiser MD-421-U5 and, dare I say it, a used Peavey PVM-520. Either
of those preamps options along with one of those mic's will only set
you back about $350-$400 and will likely be a decent step up from your
current gear.

[Agent 86]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:44:52 +0000, hank alrich wrote:

> mcnews wrote:
>
>> i use the ****ty ART DSP, TSP, Tubepac and the Behringer T1953.
>> budget will not permit an upgrade at this juncture.
>> i have SM57s SM58s, a couple of Behringer condensors, and an AKG C3000.
>> i am looking for a decent mic for vox.
>> how complicated and ambiguous is that............?
>
> Why would you seek to spend twice the cost of an RNP on a vocal mic
> that'll you'll plug into a lousy preamp? I'm not trying to be an asshole
> (I am, in fact, an asshole - I don't even need to try), but I am trying
> to get you to realize that whatever mic you get is going to be
> compromised by the preamp of your choice. Have you heard an SM57 through
> an RNP? If not, looking to spend nearly a grand on a mic you expect is
> going to make a big difference is not sensible given the rest of your
> chain, in my own arrogant opinion. An RNP _will_ make a big difference
> to all the mics you already have, and you'd still have half your budget
> for another mic.

The asshole's right (sorry Hank, you asked for it).

What he forgot to mention is that you can get both an RE20 (which is
widely available far below MSRP) *AND* an RNP and only stretch your stated
budget a tiny bit.

But I'd still recommend you get the RNP first and try it out with your 57.

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:24:02 -0500, mcnews wrote
(in article . com>):

> i'd like a pros opinion with much experience with many mics to off er
> their opinion on the best all purpose mic in the $400-900 range. i
> will be using it mostly for vocals, acoustic guitar and upright bass.
> my preamps are humble and will remain so for a while. please try to
> stay on topic with your reply and please do not answer my question with
> more questions. i am not a pro and have no aspirations to become one.
> just want to make decent recordings.
> how about the ev re-20 for example?
> tia,
> mcnewsxp
>

Audio Technica AT4050; three patterns, nice neutral sound.

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=4RZJ9MptZmU

[John Albert]

hank wrote:
<< Why would you seek to spend twice the cost of an RNP on a vocal mic that'll
you'll plug into a lousy preamp? I'm not trying to be an asshole (I am, in
fact, an asshole - I don't even need to try), but I am trying to get you to
realize that whatever mic you get is going to be compromised by the preamp of
your choice. Have you heard an SM57 through an RNP? If not, looking to spend
nearly a grand on a mic you expect is going to make a big difference is not
sensible given the rest of your chain, in my own arrogant opinion. An RNP
_will_ make a big difference to all the mics you already have, and you'd still
have half your budget for another mic. >>

Hank, I assume you've used an RNP with various mics (my assumption might very
well be wrong).

If that's the case, have you discovered any mics that seem to work particulary
well with the RNP for "acoustic music" situations?

It's possible that the RNP is transparent enough so that my question has no relevance.

I have an RNP (bought after hearing good things about it in this group)... and
although I have a couple of mics that work OK with it, I might like one or
two more (I don't have the ability to do a lot of auditioning before I buy).

Thanks,
- John

[anahata]

John Albert wrote:
> hank wrote:
>> [snip]
>> ... Have you heard an SM57 through an RNP?
>> [snip]
>
> Hank, I assume you've used an RNP with various mics (my assumption might very
> well be wrong).
>
> If that's the case, have you discovered any mics that seem to work particulary
> well with the RNP for "acoustic music" situations?

Several people have discovered the RNP works exceptionally well on a
SM57, (e.g. see Harvey Gerst on http://www.mojopie.com/rnp.html). Hank's
suggestion quoted above was far from random.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[mcnews]

On Jan 19, 6:44 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
> mcnews wrote:
> > i use the ****ty ART DSP, TSP, Tubepac and the Behringer T1953.
> > budget will not permit an upgrade at this juncture.
> > i have SM57s SM58s, a couple of Behringer condensors, and an AKG C3000.
> > i am looking for a decent mic for vox.
> > how complicated and ambiguous is that............?Why would you seek to spend twice the cost of an RNP on a vocal mic
> that'll you'll plug into a lousy preamp? I'm not trying to be an asshole
> (I am, in fact, an asshole - I don't even need to try), but I am trying
> to get you to realize that whatever mic you get is going to be
> compromised by the preamp of your choice. Have you heard an SM57 through
> an RNP? If not, looking to spend nearly a grand on a mic you expect is
> going to make a big difference is not sensible given the rest of your
> chain, in my own arrogant opinion. An RNP _will_ make a big difference
> to all the mics you already have, and you'd still have half your budget
> for another mic.
>
> --
guess that does make sense.
i'll head over to atlanta pro audio next week for a demo.

[Mike Rivers]

mcnews wrote:
> i'd like a pros opinion with much experience with many mics to off er
> their opinion on the best all purpose mic in the $400-900 range.

Oh, my, there must be a hundred of them, all indistinguishable from the
best. See what your firendly local dealer (Guitar Center is not
friendly when it comes to microphones so they don't count unless you
have a VERY FRIENDLY personal salesman) sells, buy something, and
record with it for a week or two. If you don't like it, return it and
try something else. If you like it, that should nail your decision. It
might not be the best, but if it's good enough to make you happy, use
it.

My most recent experience with a mic in that price range was with the
CAD Trion 6000 (solid state) and 8000 (tube) mics. They both sounded
good enough to use any place that I'd use a U87, but that's just me and
my U87. And I don't mean to imply that either or both sounded just like
a U87, just that I could get a workable sound with them any place where
a U87 was a bad idea.

Scott Dorsey will tell you that using a U87 is almost always a bad idea
when you could use a nice, flat B&K or Josephson, but that's just
another opinion.

[Andre Majorel]

On 2007-01-19, hank alrich > wrote:
> mcnews wrote:
>
>> i'd like a pros opinion with much experience with many mics to off er
>> their opinion on the best all purpose mic in the $400-900 range. i
>> will be using it mostly for vocals, acoustic guitar and upright bass.
>> my preamps are humble and will remain so for a while. please try to
>> stay on topic with your reply and please do not answer my question
>> with more questions.
>
> I see, you're not a pro, but you want to ask some pros a question and
> tell them how to answer it...

That's the thing, you see. Being good at X does not necessarily
make you good at giving useful answers to questions on X.

--
André Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
(Counterfeit: )
First rule of Usenet : if we don't have an answer, it's not a
good question.

[Roy W. Rising]

"mcnews" > wrote:
>
> guess that does make sense.
> i'll head over to atlanta pro audio next week for a demo.

A "Fool and his money" are soon to be parted. It's sad.

--
~ Roy
"It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[hank alrich]

anahata wrote:

> John Albert wrote:
> > hank wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >> ... Have you heard an SM57 through an RNP?
> >> [snip]
> >
> > Hank, I assume you've used an RNP with various mics (my assumption might
> > very well be wrong).
> >
> > If that's the case, have you discovered any mics that seem to work
> > particulary well with the RNP for "acoustic music" situations?
>
> Several people have discovered the RNP works exceptionally well on a
> SM57, (e.g. see Harvey Gerst on http://www.mojopie.com/rnp.html). Hank's
> suggestion quoted above was far from random.

McQ went after that and nailed it. Facing reality, people paying
attention and who have hooked SM57's to good pres with transformer front
ends realize that the SM57 can deliver nicely in some contexts. Mark's
challenge was getting that without input iron, which would have driven
the cost above his target.

--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"

[hank alrich]

Roy W. Rising wrote:

> "mcnews" wrote:
> >
> > guess that does make sense.
> > i'll head over to atlanta pro audio next week for a demo.
>
> A "Fool and his money" are soon to be parted. It's sad.

Roy, the guy wants to drop $900 on a mic. I ask you again, have _you_
ever used an RNP? I have, and compared it to both low end (Mackie
original 1202), middling (Mackie Onyx) and very good (Millennia and
Great River MP2-MH) preamps. The Mackies were not in the running, at
all. Neither are the pres in my A&H 2200.

Why spend twice the cost of a decent preamp on a mic that one will then
connect to a truly mediocre preamp? Please explain how that makes sense.
An RNP is half his budget. I may have saved him almost half a grand.

When you were mixing for bigtime broadcast, how many Mackies were in the
suite? How many Behringers?

--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"

[Roy W. Rising]

(hank alrich) wrote:
> Roy W. Rising wrote:
>
> > "mcnews" wrote:
> > >
> > > guess that does make sense.
> > > i'll head over to atlanta pro audio next week for a demo.
> >
> > A "Fool and his money" are soon to be parted. It's sad.
>
> Roy, the guy wants to drop $900 on a mic. I ask you again, have _you_
> ever used an RNP? I have, and compared it to both low end (Mackie
> original 1202), middling (Mackie Onyx) and very good (Millennia and
> Great River MP2-MH) preamps. The Mackies were not in the running, at
> all. Neither are the pres in my A&H 2200.
>
> Why spend twice the cost of a decent preamp on a mic that one will then
> connect to a truly mediocre preamp? Please explain how that makes sense.
> An RNP is half his budget. I may have saved him almost half a grand.
>
> When you were mixing for bigtime broadcast, how many Mackies were in the
> suite? How many Behringers?

I guess it comes down to this: What, *exactly*, will a high-end
preamplifier do that the chips in lower cost mixers will not? I do not
refer to the added bells and whistles plus booster and/or line amplifier
that comes with the package ... just the preamplifier. Nor do I refer to a
few dB difference in noise or dynamic range, or a few microseconds
difference in transient response.

--
~ Roy
"It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[Paul Stamler]

"Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
...
> (hank alrich) wrote:
> > Why spend twice the cost of a decent preamp on a mic that one will then
> > connect to a truly mediocre preamp? Please explain how that makes sense.
> > An RNP is half his budget. I may have saved him almost half a grand.
> >
> > When you were mixing for bigtime broadcast, how many Mackies were in the
> > suite? How many Behringers?
>
> I guess it comes down to this: What, *exactly*, will a high-end
> preamplifier do that the chips in lower cost mixers will not? I do not
> refer to the added bells and whistles plus booster and/or line amplifier
> that comes with the package ... just the preamplifier. Nor do I refer to
a
> few dB difference in noise or dynamic range, or a few microseconds
> difference in transient response.

In this case, the OP is contemplating moving up from an ART and a Behringer
to an RNP. The question is not what the better preamp will do that the
cheapies won't. The question is, rather, what the better preamp WON'T do
that the cheaper preamps will. The answer is that it won't add the really
nasty high-order distortions that make cheap preamps unpleasant.

I've looked at the distortion spectra from cheap preamps, and they almost
invariably have lots of high-order distortion products. I've looked at the
spectra from better preamps, and, mostly, they don't.

Peace,
Paul

[hank alrich]

Roy W. Rising > wrote:

> (hank alrich) wrote:
> > Roy W. Rising wrote:
> >
> > > "mcnews" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > guess that does make sense.
> > > > i'll head over to atlanta pro audio next week for a demo.
> > >
> > > A "Fool and his money" are soon to be parted. It's sad.
> >
> > Roy, the guy wants to drop $900 on a mic. I ask you again, have _you_
> > ever used an RNP? I have, and compared it to both low end (Mackie
> > original 1202), middling (Mackie Onyx) and very good (Millennia and
> > Great River MP2-MH) preamps. The Mackies were not in the running, at
> > all. Neither are the pres in my A&H 2200.
> >
> > Why spend twice the cost of a decent preamp on a mic that one will then
> > connect to a truly mediocre preamp? Please explain how that makes sense.
> > An RNP is half his budget. I may have saved him almost half a grand.
> >
> > When you were mixing for bigtime broadcast, how many Mackies were in the
> > suite? How many Behringers?
>
> I guess it comes down to this: What, *exactly*, will a high-end
> preamplifier do that the chips in lower cost mixers will not? I do not
> refer to the added bells and whistles plus booster and/or line amplifier
> that comes with the package ... just the preamplifier. Nor do I refer to a
> few dB difference in noise or dynamic range, or a few microseconds
> difference in transient response.

Run an RNP alongside a Mackie and I doubt you will miss the difference.

There are situations where a "few dB" of noise makes a big difference,
as with mics like the Beyer M160's, which have a teensy little output,
and which sometimes want more gain than is to be found in _any_ of the
low priced spread pres, unless you wanted the sound of fries along with
the source. Even the MD441 and the RE20 often benefit from more gain
than I want to ask from my Mackie or A&H.

What I get personally, even in non demanding situations, from the better
preamps is a greater sense of the reality of the source, something akin
to a three-dimensional reality instead of merely getting a
two-dimensional representation.

I have suggested to several friends who've asked me what mic to get, and
who were budgeting two or three times the price of an RNP for that mic,
that they get an RNP first, and then see how they feel about their mics.
So far every one of those has come back with sincere appreciation for
the advice. One of them is now, two years later, starting to get some
better mics. The others no longer feel they need better mics.

--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"

[Roy W. Rising]

"Paul Stamler" > wrote:
> "Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I guess it comes down to this: What, *exactly*, will a high-end
> > preamplifier do that the chips in lower cost mixers will not? I do not
> > refer to the added bells and whistles plus booster and/or line
> > amplifier that comes with the package ... just the preamplifier. Nor
> > do I refer to
> a
> > few dB difference in noise or dynamic range, or a few microseconds
> > difference in transient response.
>
> In this case, the OP is contemplating moving up from an ART and a
> Behringer to an RNP. The question is not what the better preamp will do
> that the cheapies won't. The question is, rather, what the better preamp
> WON'T do that the cheaper preamps will. The answer is that it won't add
> the really nasty high-order distortions that make cheap preamps
> unpleasant.
>
> I've looked at the distortion spectra from cheap preamps, and they almost
> invariably have lots of high-order distortion products. I've looked at
> the spectra from better preamps, and, mostly, they don't.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

Ah, so it's the quality of distortion! I never used a preamp to add
distortion, so I guess I know not whereof I speak. Maybe Aphex' Marvin
Caesar has "made a lot of money on distortion", but I've made a lot of
money avoiding or getting rid of it.

--
~ Roy
"It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[Roy W. Rising]

(hank alrich) wrote:
> > Roy W. Rising wrote:
> >
> > I guess it comes down to this: What, *exactly*, will a high-end
> > preamplifier do that the chips in lower cost mixers will not? I do not
> > refer to the added bells and whistles plus booster and/or line
> > amplifier that comes with the package ... just the preamplifier. Nor
> > do I refer to a few dB difference in noise or dynamic range, or a few
> > microseconds difference in transient response.
>
> Run an RNP alongside a Mackie and I doubt you will miss the difference.
>
> There are situations where a "few dB" of noise makes a big difference,
> as with mics like the Beyer M160's, which have a teensy little output,
> and which sometimes want more gain than is to be found in _any_ of the
> low priced spread pres, unless you wanted the sound of fries along with
> the source. Even the MD441 and the RE20 often benefit from more gain
> than I want to ask from my Mackie or A&H.

I did not mention gain.
>
> What I get personally, even in non demanding situations, from the better
> preamps is a greater sense of the reality of the source, something akin
> to a three-dimensional reality instead of merely getting a
> two-dimensional representation.

"Sense of reality" is not a technical term. Subjectively, I prefer
honey-mustard dressing to ranch. The lettuce, however, must taste like
lettuce! ;-p

--
~ Roy
"It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[[email protected]]

mcnews wrote:
> hank alrich wrote:
> > mcnews wrote:
> >
> > > i'd like a pros opinion with much experience with many mics to off er
> > > their opinion on the best all purpose mic in the $400-900 range. i
> > > will be using it mostly for vocals, acoustic guitar and upright bass.
> > > my preamps are humble and will remain so for a while. please try to
> > > stay on topic with your reply and please do not answer my question with
> > > more questions.

> > An RNP from FMR Audio doesn't cost much more than an RE20. An RE20 isn't
> > so much fun into a Mackie or Behringer kinda preamp. An SM57 into the
> > RNP is better, etc.
> >
>
> i use the ****ty ART DSP, TSP, Tubepac and the Behringer T1953.
> budget will not permit an upgrade at this juncture.
> i have SM57s SM58s, a couple of Behringer condensors, and an AKG C3000.
> i am looking for a decent mic for vox.
> how complicated and ambiguous is that............?

You would indeed benefit from a better preamp than you currently have
at your disposal. The suggestion for the FMR RNP is a good one. Even a
Symetrix 302 (latest version has INA103 chips, approximately last 12~18
months now) at $280 would be a big improvement. You might be pleasantly
surprised at what you hear from your present collection of mics. Adding
an RE20 would also be a good move. It works well for voice over,
vocals, kick, and often a reasonable choice for other instruments. You
won't regret having one of those in your mic locker.

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaos
http://www.bsstudios.com

[Jake Saliba]

Ebay is your friend. If you really bide your time on ebay, you should
be able to get both an RNP and an RE-20 on ebay for $900. I did.
Also, someone mentioned an AT-4050. Also a great mic. Very versatile
for a condenser. I got mine under $400 on ebay. So you should
definately be able to get an RNP and either an RE-20 or an AT-4050 and
stay within budget.

Jake


mcnews wrote:
> i'd like a pros opinion with much experience with many mics to off er
> their opinion on the best all purpose mic in the $400-900 range. i
> will be using it mostly for vocals, acoustic guitar and upright bass.
> my preamps are humble and will remain so for a while. please try to
> stay on topic with your reply and please do not answer my question with
> more questions. i am not a pro and have no aspirations to become one.
> just want to make decent recordings.
> how about the ev re-20 for example?
> tia,
> mcnewsxp

[WillStG]

Ty Ford wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:24:02 -0500, mcnews wrote
> (in article . com>):
>
> > i'd like a pros opinion with much experience with many mics to off er
> > their opinion on the best all purpose mic in the $400-900 range. i
> > will be using it mostly for vocals, acoustic guitar and upright bass.
> > my preamps are humble and will remain so for a while. please try to
> > stay on topic with your reply and please do not answer my question with
> > more questions. i am not a pro and have no aspirations to become one.
> > just want to make decent recordings.
> > how about the ev re-20 for example?
> > tia,
> > mcnewsxp
> >
>
> Audio Technica AT4050; three patterns, nice neutral sound.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford

When someone asks about an "all purpose mic", depending on your
work situation different people think of different things. Were I
buying a closet of studio recording mics, the "all purpose mics" are
the utility players I would think of that are pretty good and could
cover a number of bases when I've used all the best 1st tier mics
already. If you mean a desert island" mic, one mic to record
everything, many who have worked in Radio or TV will tell you about an
SM7 or RE20. Because out on that "desert island" with only a couple of
mics to choose from at one time or another, they made the things work
and have gotten good results. They are rugged, and can take high signal
levels from really loud guys or kick drums, and even say Branford
Marsalis has had riders that specify a couple of RE20's for his Soprano
sax.

But I like Ty's suggestion of the 4050 and Jay suggesting the 414
for studio recording, an "all purpose" utility for me would mean a
multipattern mic that I could add a second mic and have stereo. Stereo
for Overheads on drums, on a guitar or some congas, maybe throw them up
over a piano. For that or for room mics, having a choice of omni,
figure 8 or cardiod is useful. Stereo with figure 8's/Blumlein stereo
is nice to reject noise in a room, a cardiod and a figure for M/S
stereo recording is a wonderful method for lots of things, and single
mics in figure 8 are great when you need a narrow pattern to reject
say, an acoustic guitar when you are recording a singer/songwriter.
Spaced omni if the space sounds good enough or if you are close enough
- well I personally love omni mics, having used omni lavs so much in my
career that I think you can do a lot with them to capture a live fell,
when you're used to using them.

The 414's are cheap enough used these days, but you do need to
back them off your sources a bit more than you might with other mics,
or they can get gritty too close. But a great sleep mic would be a
used multipattern Beyerdynamic MC 740, or the cardiod only version
MC834. The MC740 does M/S very very well, and it's a great vocal mic
as well.

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Paul Stamler]

"Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
...
> > In this case, the OP is contemplating moving up from an ART and a
> > Behringer to an RNP. The question is not what the better preamp will do
> > that the cheapies won't. The question is, rather, what the better preamp
> > WON'T do that the cheaper preamps will. The answer is that it won't add
> > the really nasty high-order distortions that make cheap preamps
> > unpleasant.
> >
> > I've looked at the distortion spectra from cheap preamps, and they
almost
> > invariably have lots of high-order distortion products. I've looked at
> > the spectra from better preamps, and, mostly, they don't.
> >
> > Peace,
> > Paul
>
> Ah, so it's the quality of distortion! I never used a preamp to add
> distortion, so I guess I know not whereof I speak. Maybe Aphex' Marvin
> Caesar has "made a lot of money on distortion", but I've made a lot of
> money avoiding or getting rid of it.

Read what I wrote again. One reason people buy better preamps is the lack of
distortion products that are annoying. LACK.

Peace,
Paul

[Roy W. Rising]

"Paul Stamler" > wrote:
> > "Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
> >
> > Ah, so it's the quality of distortion! I never used a preamp to add
> > distortion, so I guess I know not whereof I speak. Maybe Aphex' Marvin
> > Caesar has "made a lot of money on distortion", but I've made a lot of
> > money avoiding or getting rid of it.
>
> Read what I wrote again. One reason people buy better preamps is the lack
> of distortion products that are annoying. LACK.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

OK, I've read it again. Oh. I get it. Buy a preamp with distortion
products that don't annoy. But ... why work in the distortion region in
the first place?

--
~ Roy
"It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising > wrote:
>
>OK, I've read it again. Oh. I get it. Buy a preamp with distortion
>products that don't annoy. But ... why work in the distortion region in
>the first place?

Because there is no non-distortion region. There are only various regions
of different distortion.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Stamler]

"Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
...
> "Paul Stamler" > wrote:
> > > "Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > Ah, so it's the quality of distortion! I never used a preamp to add
> > > distortion, so I guess I know not whereof I speak. Maybe Aphex'
Marvin
> > > Caesar has "made a lot of money on distortion", but I've made a lot of
> > > money avoiding or getting rid of it.
> >
> > Read what I wrote again. One reason people buy better preamps is the
lack
> > of distortion products that are annoying. LACK.
> >
> > Peace,
> > Paul
>
> OK, I've read it again. Oh. I get it. Buy a preamp with distortion
> products that don't annoy. But ... why work in the distortion region in
> the first place?

You are always working in the distortion region; there are no preamps out
there that don't create distortion. The point is to keep the level of
annoying distortion products below audibility. Cheap preamps don't do that
very well, expecially at higher gains. Good preamps, operated properly,
don't produce distortion that is audible.

Peace,
Paul

[hank alrich]

Roy W. Rising wrote:

> "Paul Stamler" wrote:
> > > "Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
> > >
> > > Ah, so it's the quality of distortion! I never used a preamp to add
> > > distortion, so I guess I know not whereof I speak. Maybe Aphex' Marvin
> > > Caesar has "made a lot of money on distortion", but I've made a lot of
> > > money avoiding or getting rid of it.
> >
> > Read what I wrote again. One reason people buy better preamps is the lack
> > of distortion products that are annoying. LACK.
> >
> > Peace,
> > Paul
>
> OK, I've read it again. Oh. I get it. Buy a preamp with distortion
> products that don't annoy. But ... why work in the distortion region in
> the first place?

All the cheap preamps offer distortion. The better preamps I have offer
much less distortion. There is no perfect signal path.

And note that zillions of recordings have been sold wherein the team
went wild distorting things. I am reminded of Zappa's story of taking a
cut he did early on with Beefheart to a record honcho who said the label
wouldn't touch it because the guitar was distorted. Now think how many
units have since been sold with distorted guitar sounds. And sometimes
the distortion at the source was aided and abetted in the mixing stage.

Should a photographer be allowed to use filters? People will choose
preamps to get what they're after. One will get a more accurate
recording in general using an RNP than a Mackie preamp.

Audition one of Grant Carpenter's Gordon Electronics preamps. It made
clean pres sound much less clean in comparison. Info at:

http://www.gordonaudio.com/

--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"

[hank alrich]

Roy W. Rising wrote:

> (hank alrich wrote:
> > > Roy W. Rising wrote:
> > >
> > > I guess it comes down to this: What, *exactly*, will a high-end
> > > preamplifier do that the chips in lower cost mixers will not? I do not
> > > refer to the added bells and whistles plus booster and/or line
> > > amplifier that comes with the package ... just the preamplifier. Nor
> > > do I refer to a few dB difference in noise or dynamic range, or a few
> > > microseconds difference in transient response.
> >
> > Run an RNP alongside a Mackie and I doubt you will miss the difference.
> >
> > There are situations where a "few dB" of noise makes a big difference,
> > as with mics like the Beyer M160's, which have a teensy little output,
> > and which sometimes want more gain than is to be found in _any_ of the
> > low priced spread pres, unless you wanted the sound of fries along with
> > the source. Even the MD441 and the RE20 often benefit from more gain
> > than I want to ask from my Mackie or A&H.
>
> I did not mention gain.

Yet it happens to be one area where the good stuff creams the lousy
stuff.

> > What I get personally, even in non demanding situations, from the better
> > preamps is a greater sense of the reality of the source, something akin
> > to a three-dimensional reality instead of merely getting a
> > two-dimensional representation.
>
> "Sense of reality" is not a technical term.

It's not a technical term. It is a description of how I personally
perceive the difference between the cheese and the cheezwhiz.

> Subjectively, I prefer honey-mustard dressing to ranch. The lettuce,
> however, must taste like lettuce! ;-p

Okay, now we're on the same page. <g>

While we can tell "hey, that's an electric guitar" through most any
preamp, we may appreciate greater detail through a cleaner preamp, just
like we may see more detail through a clean window compared to a sumdged
one. And while one can tell that stale lettuce is still lettuce (up to a
point) fresh lettuce tastes better to me, regardless of dressing.

--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"

[Roy W. Rising]

(hank alrich) wrote:
> Roy W. Rising wrote:
>
> > "Paul Stamler" wrote:
> > > > "Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > Ah, so it's the quality of distortion! I never used a preamp to
> > > > add distortion, so I guess I know not whereof I speak. Maybe
> > > > Aphex' Marvin Caesar has "made a lot of money on distortion", but
> > > > I've made a lot of money avoiding or getting rid of it.
> > >
> > > Read what I wrote again. One reason people buy better preamps is the
> > > lack of distortion products that are annoying. LACK.
> > >
> > > Peace,
> > > Paul
> >
> > OK, I've read it again. Oh. I get it. Buy a preamp with distortion
> > products that don't annoy. But ... why work in the distortion region
> > in the first place?
>
> All the cheap preamps offer distortion. The better preamps I have offer
> much less distortion. There is no perfect signal path.
>
> Audition one of Grant Carpenter's Gordon Electronics preamps. It made
> clean pres sound much less clean in comparison. Info at:
>
> http://www.gordonaudio.com/

I looked at the Gordon link. NO distortion spec. I guess they don't have
any. Since others say that can't be so, someone is mistaken.

I maintain that any preamp with audible distortion is being abused. Unless,
of course, that's what you want. And then, I guess you want the more
expensive "less annoying" distortion rather than the less expensive more
annoying distortion.

--
~ Roy
"It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[Roy W. Rising]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Roy W. Rising > wrote:
> >
> >OK, I've read it again. Oh. I get it. Buy a preamp with distortion
> >products that don't annoy. But ... why work in the distortion region in
> >the first place?
>
> Because there is no non-distortion region. There are only various
> regions of different distortion.
> --scott

Agreed. When the user exceeds the region of acceptable distortion, then
the choice is more annoying or less annoying distortion.

Would a cheap preamp with a THD+N spec of 0.01% be OK ... in the
"acceptable distortion region"? Or must it be lower, given that the
general population considers THD below 0.7% "acceptable" (Tremaine)?

--
~ Roy
"It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[hank alrich]

Roy W. Rising wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > Roy W. Rising wrote:
> >
> > > "Paul Stamler" wrote:
> > > > > "Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, so it's the quality of distortion! I never used a preamp to
> > > > > add distortion, so I guess I know not whereof I speak. Maybe
> > > > > Aphex' Marvin Caesar has "made a lot of money on distortion", but
> > > > > I've made a lot of money avoiding or getting rid of it.
> > > >
> > > > Read what I wrote again. One reason people buy better preamps is the
> > > > lack of distortion products that are annoying. LACK.
> > > >
> > > > Peace,
> > > > Paul
> > >
> > > OK, I've read it again. Oh. I get it. Buy a preamp with distortion
> > > products that don't annoy. But ... why work in the distortion region
> > > in the first place?
> >
> > All the cheap preamps offer distortion. The better preamps I have offer
> > much less distortion. There is no perfect signal path.
> >
> > Audition one of Grant Carpenter's Gordon Electronics preamps. It made
> > clean pres sound much less clean in comparison. Info at:
> >
> > http://www.gordonaudio.com/
>
> I looked at the Gordon link. NO distortion spec. I guess they don't have
> any. Since others say that can't be so, someone is mistaken.

http://www.gordonaudio.com/specs.htm

Most complete set of pre specs I've found on the web. Even temp spec'd.

> I maintain that any preamp with audible distortion is being abused. Unless,
> of course, that's what you want. And then, I guess you want the more
> expensive "less annoying" distortion rather than the less expensive more
> annoying distortion.

There is no perfect signal path. Even sans abuse, a pre's distortion
products contribute to what we hear, or do not hear.

--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 21 Jan 2007 01:01:33 GMT, Roy W. Rising >
wrote:

>Would a cheap preamp with a THD+N spec of 0.01% be OK ... in the
>"acceptable distortion region"? Or must it be lower, given that the
>general population considers THD below 0.7% "acceptable" (Tremaine)?

Ruh Roh. It's gonna be one of *those* weeks on r.a.p.

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies,
while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths."
- Jean Cocteau

[Roy W. Rising]

(hank alrich) wrote:
> Roy W. Rising wrote:
>
> > > Audition one of Grant Carpenter's Gordon Electronics preamps. It made
> > > clean pres sound much less clean in comparison. Info at:
> > >
> > > http://www.gordonaudio.com/
> >
> > I looked at the Gordon link. NO distortion spec. I guess they don't
> > have any. Since others say that can't be so, someone is mistaken.
>
> http://www.gordonaudio.com/specs.htm
>
> Most complete set of pre specs I've found on the web. Even temp spec'd.
>
I looked again. Still NO DISTORTION SPECS.

> > I maintain that any preamp with audible distortion is being abused.
> > Unless, of course, that's what you want. And then, I guess you want
> > the more expensive "less annoying" distortion rather than the less
> > expensive more annoying distortion.
>
> There is no perfect signal path. Even sans abuse, a pre's distortion
> products contribute to what we hear, or do not hear.

So ... INAUDIBLE distortion, something we DO NOT hear, contributes to what
we DO hear? Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's ...
the sky!

--
~ Roy
"It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[Roger Norman]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...

> McQ went after that and nailed it. Facing reality, people paying
> attention and who have hooked SM57's to good pres with transformer front
> ends realize that the SM57 can deliver nicely in some contexts. Mark's
> challenge was getting that without input iron, which would have driven
> the cost above his target.


Yep. One only has to hook up a 57 with a Hardy M1 with Jensen 990s to find
an amazing microphone hidden deep in the 57. I don't know, but I believe
Mark may have decided to go after a superb 57 sound due to the fact that
most Mackie products don't do the mic justice. For a small fee, McQ makes
the 57 viable in a lot of studio and live situations. I don't know how
Shure did it what with most early 57s being pumped into Shure Vocalmasters
and little Bogens, but the mic certainly has more soul than most people will
know with the average mic pre these days.

And just to plug a little mixer, my Crest XR20 shows off a 57 very well. In
fact, most of my dynamics have taken a turn for the better since I bought
that beast 6+ years ago. JohnnyV and I have done all SM57 shows (by request
for vocals) and they can sound surprisingly full and natural. Far better
than a $99 price tag would suggest. So there are two mic pres I know of and
have used that show the true colors of inexpensive mics, so if the RNP fits
McQ's reputation for inexpensive quality products, I'd have to side with
Hank.

But, there's no guarantee that using one mic pre over another will do
anything good for you if attention isn't paid to other details like
placement.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

[Roger Norman]

"Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
...
> So ... INAUDIBLE distortion, something we DO NOT hear, contributes to what
> we DO hear? Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's ...
> the sky!

This is about one of the most inane responses I've seen on this newsgroup in
years.

Of course inaudible distortion contributes to what we DO hear. How can you
even write this dribble?

Let's try the intelligent approach. Have you heard about the camera that
equals gigapixels of resolution? People 5 miles away at the Grand Canyon
could be enlarged to a 5 foot photo and you could read the time on a man's
watch. The article (with accompanying pictures and blowups of small
portions) was in Popular Science maybe 5 months ago, but here's a place to
begin. http://www.cliffordross.com/R1/gigapixel.html

The idea is that there's no distortion within the range of the camera's
resolution in comparison to cheaper methods of making photos, so yes, we do
see more because there's less resolution distortion. And the same goes for
mic pres that don't produce audible noise at a given gain as opposed to
those that do.

Somehow I think you won't pay attention in class though.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/



> (hank alrich) wrote:
>> Roy W. Rising wrote:
>>
>> > > Audition one of Grant Carpenter's Gordon Electronics preamps. It made
>> > > clean pres sound much less clean in comparison. Info at:
>> > >
>> > > http://www.gordonaudio.com/
>> >
>> > I looked at the Gordon link. NO distortion spec. I guess they don't
>> > have any. Since others say that can't be so, someone is mistaken.
>>
>> http://www.gordonaudio.com/specs.htm
>>
>> Most complete set of pre specs I've found on the web. Even temp spec'd.
>>
> I looked again. Still NO DISTORTION SPECS.
>
>> > I maintain that any preamp with audible distortion is being abused.
>> > Unless, of course, that's what you want. And then, I guess you want
>> > the more expensive "less annoying" distortion rather than the less
>> > expensive more annoying distortion.
>>
>> There is no perfect signal path. Even sans abuse, a pre's distortion
>> products contribute to what we hear, or do not hear.
>
>
> --
> ~ Roy
> "It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[Roger Norman]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Because out on that "desert island" with only a couple of
> mics to choose from at one time or another, they made the things work
> and have gotten good results.

Welp, as a friend says "the last mic in the closet is ALWAYS the RIGHT mic".

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


> Ty Ford wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:24:02 -0500, mcnews wrote
>> (in article . com>):
>>
>> > i'd like a pros opinion with much experience with many mics to off er
>> > their opinion on the best all purpose mic in the $400-900 range. i
>> > will be using it mostly for vocals, acoustic guitar and upright bass.
>> > my preamps are humble and will remain so for a while. please try to
>> > stay on topic with your reply and please do not answer my question with
>> > more questions. i am not a pro and have no aspirations to become one.
>> > just want to make decent recordings.
>> > how about the ev re-20 for example?
>> > tia,
>> > mcnewsxp
>> >
>>
>> Audio Technica AT4050; three patterns, nice neutral sound.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ty Ford
>
> When someone asks about an "all purpose mic", depending on your
> work situation different people think of different things. Were I
> buying a closet of studio recording mics, the "all purpose mics" are
> the utility players I would think of that are pretty good and could
> cover a number of bases when I've used all the best 1st tier mics
> already. If you mean a desert island" mic, one mic to record
> everything, many who have worked in Radio or TV will tell you about an
> SM7 or RE20. They are rugged, and can take high signal
> levels from really loud guys or kick drums, and even say Branford
> Marsalis has had riders that specify a couple of RE20's for his Soprano
> sax.
>
> But I like Ty's suggestion of the 4050 and Jay suggesting the 414
> for studio recording, an "all purpose" utility for me would mean a
> multipattern mic that I could add a second mic and have stereo. Stereo
> for Overheads on drums, on a guitar or some congas, maybe throw them up
> over a piano. For that or for room mics, having a choice of omni,
> figure 8 or cardiod is useful. Stereo with figure 8's/Blumlein stereo
> is nice to reject noise in a room, a cardiod and a figure for M/S
> stereo recording is a wonderful method for lots of things, and single
> mics in figure 8 are great when you need a narrow pattern to reject
> say, an acoustic guitar when you are recording a singer/songwriter.
> Spaced omni if the space sounds good enough or if you are close enough
> - well I personally love omni mics, having used omni lavs so much in my
> career that I think you can do a lot with them to capture a live fell,
> when you're used to using them.
>
> The 414's are cheap enough used these days, but you do need to
> back them off your sources a bit more than you might with other mics,
> or they can get gritty too close. But a great sleep mic would be a
> used multipattern Beyerdynamic MC 740, or the cardiod only version
> MC834. The MC740 does M/S very very well, and it's a great vocal mic
> as well.
>
> Will Miho
> NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
>

[Roy W. Rising]

"Roger Norman" > wrote:
> "Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
> ...
> > So ... INAUDIBLE distortion, something we DO NOT hear, contributes to
> > what we DO hear? Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane!
> > It's ... the sky!
>
> This is about one of the most inane responses I've seen on this newsgroup
> in years.

My my! Thanks for the kudos!

> Of course inaudible distortion contributes to what we DO hear. How can
> you even write this dribble?
>
> Let's try the intelligent approach. Have you heard about the camera that
> equals gigapixels of resolution? People 5 miles away at the Grand Canyon
> could be enlarged to a 5 foot photo and you could read the time on a
> man's watch. The article (with accompanying pictures and blowups of
> small portions) was in Popular Science maybe 5 months ago, but here's a
> place to begin. http://www.cliffordross.com/R1/gigapixel.html
>
> The idea is that there's no distortion within the range of the camera's
> resolution in comparison to cheaper methods of making photos, so yes, we
> do see more because there's less resolution distortion. And the same
> goes for mic pres that don't produce audible noise at a given gain as
> opposed to those that do.
>
> Somehow I think you won't pay attention in class though.
>
> --
>
> Roger W. Norman
> SirMusic Studio
> "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
> http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

Your political position notwithstanding, ... Let's see ... just because I
can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. OK. Nonetheless, I CAN'T SEE
IT! And ... distortion I CAN'T HEAR cannot corrupt (or "improve") that
which I CAN hear. It just doesn't work that way. The tree that falls when
no one's there nonetheless makes a sound. However, from whense the class
excluded by "no one" listens, it makes no sound.

--
~ Roy
"It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[hank alrich]

Roy W. Rising wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > Roy W. Rising wrote:
> >
> > > > Audition one of Grant Carpenter's Gordon Electronics preamps. It made
> > > > clean pres sound much less clean in comparison. Info at:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.gordonaudio.com/
> > >
> > > I looked at the Gordon link. NO distortion spec. I guess they don't
> > > have any. Since others say that can't be so, someone is mistaken.
> >
> > http://www.gordonaudio.com/specs.htm
> >
> > Most complete set of pre specs I've found on the web. Even temp spec'd.
> >
> I looked again. Still NO DISTORTION SPECS.
>
> > > I maintain that any preamp with audible distortion is being abused.
> > > Unless, of course, that's what you want. And then, I guess you want
> > > the more expensive "less annoying" distortion rather than the less
> > > expensive more annoying distortion.
> >
> > There is no perfect signal path. Even sans abuse, a pre's distortion
> > products contribute to what we hear, or do not hear.
>
> So ... INAUDIBLE distortion, something we DO NOT hear, contributes to what
> we DO hear? Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's ...
> the sky!

Tell me how you separate the inherent distortion from the source signal?
Once the tea is in the water, what is the taste of the water?

I don't think you appreciate how good the broadcast gear you used really
was. <g>

--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"

[WillStG]

Roy W. Rising wrote:
> I guess it comes down to this: What, *exactly*, will a high-end
> preamplifier do that the chips in lower cost mixers will not?

Well Roy, why do *you* think people design micpres that use more
components and have more complex designs than the IC's you find in a
Behringer? Transformers, tubes, and discreet components do cost money
you know. A micpre could use a discrete semiconductor, vacuum tube,
integrated circuit, or hybrid design; but I think there are strengths
and drawbacks to most every design. And some designers are considered
to be, well "Rock Stars" I guess, because of their creative designs
and/or good taste.

Sometimes a certain design will interact with a particular
microphone better. Many have practically experienced that Behringer
and Mackie micepres, which are electronically balanced, interact with
Shure SM57's and Neumann U87's in a very unflattering way. The
loading causes the mics to perform less than optimally. These mics
were designed when transformered micspre were the norm and they work
well with transfomered pres. You could say this is not the micpre's
fault I guess, but 6 of one half dozen of the other. Or you could use
a C1 and be quoted in a recording mag saying that it sounds better than
a Neumann.

Some good micpres use transformers, and good transformers are
expensive, one can save money by not using them. Some good micpres do
not use transformers, Millennia HV-3's are for example balanced all the
way through and are not single ended anywhere. But to work optimally
with a ribbon mic, you get them modded.

Specs like gain, noise, frequency response, common mode rejection,
THD, slew rate, and phase response are important of course. But just
because something looks good on paper doesn't mean it sounds any good.
"The proof is in the eating", as they say...

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Roger Norman]

"Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
...

> Your political position notwithstanding, ... Let's see ... just because I
> can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. OK. Nonetheless, I CAN'T SEE
> IT! And ... distortion I CAN'T HEAR cannot corrupt (or "improve") that
> which I CAN hear. It just doesn't work that way. The tree that falls
> when
> no one's there nonetheless makes a sound. However, from whense the class
> excluded by "no one" listens, it makes no sound.

Well, since you want to get into the philosophical, I'd suggest watching
What The BLEEP Do We Know? In the world of the Observer, only that observed
can be seen or heard clearly, and yet without observation, the facts still
remain the facts.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


> "Roger Norman" > wrote:
>> "Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > So ... INAUDIBLE distortion, something we DO NOT hear, contributes to
>> > what we DO hear? Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane!
>> > It's ... the sky!
>>
>> This is about one of the most inane responses I've seen on this newsgroup
>> in years.
>
> My my! Thanks for the kudos!
>
>> Of course inaudible distortion contributes to what we DO hear. How can
>> you even write this dribble?
>>
>> Let's try the intelligent approach. Have you heard about the camera that
>> equals gigapixels of resolution? People 5 miles away at the Grand Canyon
>> could be enlarged to a 5 foot photo and you could read the time on a
>> man's watch. The article (with accompanying pictures and blowups of
>> small portions) was in Popular Science maybe 5 months ago, but here's a
>> place to begin. http://www.cliffordross.com/R1/gigapixel.html
>>
>> The idea is that there's no distortion within the range of the camera's
>> resolution in comparison to cheaper methods of making photos, so yes, we
>> do see more because there's less resolution distortion. And the same
>> goes for mic pres that don't produce audible noise at a given gain as
>> opposed to those that do.
>>
>> Somehow I think you won't pay attention in class though.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Roger W. Norman
>> SirMusic Studio
>> "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
>> http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
>
>
> --
> ~ Roy
> "It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 12:10:36 -0500, Roy W. Rising wrote
(in article >):

> (hank alrich) wrote:
>> Roy W. Rising wrote:
>>
>>> "mcnews" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> guess that does make sense.
>>>> i'll head over to atlanta pro audio next week for a demo.
>>>
>>> A "Fool and his money" are soon to be parted. It's sad.
>>
>> Roy, the guy wants to drop $900 on a mic. I ask you again, have _you_
>> ever used an RNP? I have, and compared it to both low end (Mackie
>> original 1202), middling (Mackie Onyx) and very good (Millennia and
>> Great River MP2-MH) preamps. The Mackies were not in the running, at
>> all. Neither are the pres in my A&H 2200.
>>
>> Why spend twice the cost of a decent preamp on a mic that one will then
>> connect to a truly mediocre preamp? Please explain how that makes sense.
>> An RNP is half his budget. I may have saved him almost half a grand.
>>
>> When you were mixing for bigtime broadcast, how many Mackies were in the
>> suite? How many Behringers?
>
> I guess it comes down to this: What, *exactly*, will a high-end
> preamplifier do that the chips in lower cost mixers will not? I do not
> refer to the added bells and whistles plus booster and/or line amplifier
> that comes with the package ... just the preamplifier. Nor do I refer to a
> few dB difference in noise or dynamic range, or a few microseconds
> difference in transient response.
>
>

So that would be a "no?"

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Roy W. Rising]

"Roger Norman" > wrote:
>
> Well, since you want to get into the philosophical, I'd suggest watching
> What The BLEEP Do We Know? In the world of the Observer, only that
> observed can be seen or heard clearly, and yet without observation, the
> facts still remain the facts.
>
> --
>
> Roger W. Norman
> SirMusic Studio
> "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
> http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
>
In fact, I have not entered the realm of the philosophical. If something
can't be heard or seen, what bearing does it have on that which can? The
"fact" you imply ... acceptable audio distortion, which exists albeit
"unobserved" (more correctly unheard)... remains ... well ... acceptable.

--
~ Roy
"It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[Roy W. Rising]

"WillStG" > wrote:
> Roy W. Rising wrote:
> > I guess it comes down to this: What, *exactly*, will a high-end
> > preamplifier do that the chips in lower cost mixers will not?
>
> Sometimes a certain design will interact with a particular
> microphone better. Many have practically experienced that Behringer
> and Mackie micepres, which are electronically balanced, interact with
> Shure SM57's and Neumann U87's in a very unflattering way. The
> loading causes the mics to perform less than optimally. These mics
> were designed when transformered micspre were the norm and they work
> well with transfomered pres. You could say this is not the micpre's
> fault I guess, but 6 of one half dozen of the other.
>
> Will Miho
> NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Thank you. You have made my point. The truth about obsolescent
microphones that require "special" loading is revealed by the more honest
NON-loading of a high quality modern preamp. After all, isn't verity,
accuracy, fidelity ... truth ... what it's all about?

At the other end of the spectrum, a near-zero source impedance power
amplifier "manages" a loudspeakder more effectively than a transformer
coupled tube amp with its inherent impedance aberations. Hence, the better
loudspeaker's quality is revealed without the need for critical source-load
matching to avoid "unflattering" results.

--
~ Roy
"It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[Roy W. Rising]

(hank alrich) wrote:
>
> Tell me how you separate the inherent distortion from the source signal?
> Once the tea is in the water, what is the taste of the water?
>
That's easy. I test the purity of the water before I steep the tea.
>
> I don't think you appreciate how good the broadcast gear you used really
> was. <g>

<g> back at you, thanks! The RCA BA-31C was bettered by the McCurdy
AT-242. Ward and Beck broke away from McCurdy and developed the
electronics of the M460-series modules. Each was a step forward. Since
then, folks like Analog Devices have refined the microphone preamplifier
chip in significant ways. Yesteryear's gear was as good as could be.
Today's gear is better by default.

--
~ Roy
"It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[Roy W. Rising]

Ty Ford > wrote:
> >> When you were mixing for bigtime broadcast, how many Mackies were in
> >> the suite? How many Behringers?
> >
> > I guess it comes down to this: What, *exactly*, will a high-end
> > preamplifier do that the chips in lower cost mixers will not? I do not
> > refer to the added bells and whistles plus booster and/or line
> > amplifier that comes with the package ... just the preamplifier. Nor
> > do I refer to a few dB difference in noise or dynamic range, or a few
> > microseconds difference in transient response.
> >
> So that would be a "no?"
>
> Ty Ford
>

Not as much a "no" as an incentive to think about the real nuts and bolts
of audio electronics.

--
~ Roy
"It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 21 Jan 2007 04:11:54 GMT, Roy W. Rising >
wrote:

> Yesteryear's gear was as good as could be.
>Today's gear is better by default.

Today's movies are better by default? Today's music
is... Well, like that.

Stuff's cheaper today, which is good, mostly. But not
all of it is as good as it could be, 'cause it doesn't
have to be anymore.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies,
while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths."
- Jean Cocteau

[Roy W. Rising]

Chris Hornbeck > wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2007 04:11:54 GMT, Roy W. Rising >
> wrote:
>
> > Yesteryear's gear was as good as could be. Today's gear is better by
> > default.
>
> Today's movies are better by default? Today's music is... Well, like
> that.
>
> Stuff's cheaper today, which is good, mostly. But not all of it is as
> good as it could be, 'cause it doesn't have to be anymore.
>
> Much thanks, as always,
>
> Chris Hornbeck

Invalid analogies. Moore's law is more applicable with regard to audio
gear.

--
~ Roy
"It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising > wrote:
>
>I maintain that any preamp with audible distortion is being abused. Unless,
>of course, that's what you want. And then, I guess you want the more
>expensive "less annoying" distortion rather than the less expensive more
>annoying distortion.

Take a good clean signal, run it into a 40 dB pad. Put it into your chosen
preamp with the preamp set for 40 dB gain, then flip between the original
signal and the preamp output.

You'll be able to tell the difference between the two. With the Millennia
HV-3, it takes some careful listening to tell the difference at 60 dB, and
I am not sure I could tell the difference on my monitors at 40 dB. I bet
I could tell on Trutone's monitors.

With the ART Tube MP, you could tell the difference on Auratones, listening
from the next room.

The straightwire test is always very, very interesting and reveals just how
colored realworld preamplifiers are.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[WillStG]

Roy W. Rising wrote:
> Thank you. You have made my point. The truth about obsolescent
> microphones that require "special" loading is revealed by the more honest
> NON-loading of a high quality modern preamp. After all, isn't verity,
> accuracy, fidelity ... truth ... what it's all about?

My friend, audio lesson #1 is that all audio is by *definition* -
"distortion". Nothing you record is "the truth" itself, everything you
record is a mere reflection in a mirror dimly of what "the truth" was.
And art is beauty after all, so really - and I digress - but how does
listening to the recording make you _feel_? Does it make you feel what
you were feeling when you witnessed the musical event? Why do some
people call certain recordings "clinical"? Could not a recording be
more "true" if it had an emotional impact closer to the listening
experience at the moment it occured, would that not be a truer
reflection on the emotional level, closer to "true beauty"?

In any event, you asked what is different about expensive micpres.
They usually sound better. More compelling. They involve the listener
more, They can reveal more of the source to the listener, they can have
more dimensionality, more depth, richer color, be more liquid, more
vivid, and many other things merre specs cannot describe. With the
right microphone of course. Specs do not tell the whole story,
certainly micpres with virtually identical specs can sound totally
different. Our ears can discern qualities far more subtle than
published specs reflect. Hey, you can be developing cancer before it
shows up in modern tests as well.

And the Mackie and Behringer preamps you call "high quality modern
preamps" certainly DO in fact present a load to a microphone. The way
devices interact can be a good thing if you know what is going on, or a
bad thing if you don't. This hardly renders entirely usable top of the
line but older mics obsolete. Many of these mics are still prefered day
in and out by longtime professionals who enjoy success at least as
great as that which has shaped your opinions. And sadly, your tone
suggests you have little respect for such people and consider yourself
their superior.

I really don't get the impression you have done much comparitive
listening, I get the impression your intellectual preconceptions (as
opposed to sensitive comparisons) are "coloring" your viewpoint. Maybe
buy some test cds and compare how different converters, mics and
micpres sound. Or if if you can hear it at all.

http://www.mercenary.com/3daudio.html

Or test your listening environment with some of these -

http://www.chesky.com/core/productlist.cfm?productcategoryid=1&genre_sysid=10016&name=Test%20Discs

I love the LEDR tests on the Chesky Test Vol.1.

Or read "Drawing on the right side of the brain" By Betty Edwards
for practical excersises that show clearly the effect intellectual
preconceptions (the left brain's domain) has on our ability to create
an image as it actually presents itself. When we learn to "see" as
things are, rather than as we believe them to be, we become better
artists (here's a few before and after examples of people's drawings,
and practicing this disclipline for 5 days.)

http://www.drawright.com/gallery.htm

A cross-discliplinary paradigm, if you will.

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising > wrote:
>
>Would a cheap preamp with a THD+N spec of 0.01% be OK ... in the
>"acceptable distortion region"? Or must it be lower, given that the
>general population considers THD below 0.7% "acceptable" (Tremaine)?

Depends on the spectrum. If third harmonic is dominant, 0.7% is probably
just fine. If sixth and eighth harmonic is dominant, 0.01% is probably
way too much. Unfortunately this is the problem with a scalar THD number;
it doesn't correlate well with audibility and so it's really only useful
for comparing equipment of similar topology and devices.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Roger Norman > wrote:
>Yep. One only has to hook up a 57 with a Hardy M1 with Jensen 990s to find
>an amazing microphone hidden deep in the 57. I don't know, but I believe
>Mark may have decided to go after a superb 57 sound due to the fact that
>most Mackie products don't do the mic justice. For a small fee, McQ makes
>the 57 viable in a lot of studio and live situations. I don't know how
>Shure did it what with most early 57s being pumped into Shure Vocalmasters
>and little Bogens, but the mic certainly has more soul than most people will
>know with the average mic pre these days.

Those Vocalmasters were pretty crappy, but they presented the SM-57 with
about the right load that they expect.... something around 600 ohms and
slightly inductive. Folks forget that everything, even the crappiest
equipment from that era, all used input transformers. That makes a big
difference with the SM-57.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 21 Jan 2007 05:01:25 GMT, Roy W. Rising >
wrote:

>> Stuff's cheaper today, which is good, mostly. But not all of it is as
>> good as it could be, 'cause it doesn't have to be anymore.

>Invalid analogies. Moore's law is more applicable with regard to audio
>gear.

Moore's law only applies in a very specific context, where
fixed costs totally dominate and where the market is saturated.

A ten year old computer (like mine!) is worthless today. A
ten year old microphone is just developing its bar tan.

Ten year old electronics might be either way. Folks will
have gotten a handle on its performance and reliability and
some anecdotal history will have evolved. Some things age faster,
some are just a POS out-of-box and some are treasures.
But it's a fluid market, and based on perceived value.

Maybe the thing that I can't agree with is that recording
hardware is at the computer rather than at the microphone
end of the spectrum.... yet(! Arf.)

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"History consists of truths which in the end turn into lies,
while myth consists of lies which finally turn into truths."
- Jean Cocteau

[hank alrich]

Roy W. Rising wrote:

> Ty Ford wrote:
> > >> When you were mixing for bigtime broadcast, how many Mackies were in
> > >> the suite? How many Behringers?
> > >
> > > I guess it comes down to this: What, *exactly*, will a high-end
> > > preamplifier do that the chips in lower cost mixers will not? I do not
> > > refer to the added bells and whistles plus booster and/or line
> > > amplifier that comes with the package ... just the preamplifier. Nor
> > > do I refer to a few dB difference in noise or dynamic range, or a few
> > > microseconds difference in transient response.
> > >
> > So that would be a "no?"
> >
> > Ty Ford
> >
>
> Not as much a "no" as an incentive to think about the real nuts and bolts
> of audio electronics.

I don't talk about mixing for television broadcast, because I have never
done that. I've mixed a bunch of SR, lots of live recording, and some
stuff straight to radio, from the stage at AWHQ to KLBJ-FM in Austin TX.

But you're talking about how a Mackie preamp sounds versus an RNP. I ask
again, have you actually run those side by side? If so, could you please
convey your experience with that?

--
ha
"Iraq" is Arabic for "Vietnam"

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:18:06 -0500, Roy W. Rising wrote
(in article >):

> Ty Ford > wrote:
>>>> When you were mixing for bigtime broadcast, how many Mackies were in
>>>> the suite? How many Behringers?
>>>
>>> I guess it comes down to this: What, *exactly*, will a high-end
>>> preamplifier do that the chips in lower cost mixers will not? I do not
>>> refer to the added bells and whistles plus booster and/or line
>>> amplifier that comes with the package ... just the preamplifier. Nor
>>> do I refer to a few dB difference in noise or dynamic range, or a few
>>> microseconds difference in transient response.
>>>
>> So that would be a "no?"
>>
>> Ty Ford
>>
>
> Not as much a "no" as an incentive to think about the real nuts and bolts
> of audio electronics.
>
>

I am fascinated by sociological studies that indicate that people in the US
have great difficulty saying, "no."

One of the best things I learned in my first marriage was that I could say "I
don't know" with impunity. The freedom that resulted from that awareness made
my digestion and bowels move much better.

Don't know why this occured to me.

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=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 00:58:54 -0500, Chris Hornbeck wrote
(in article >):

> On 21 Jan 2007 05:01:25 GMT, Roy W. Rising >
> wrote:
>
>>> Stuff's cheaper today, which is good, mostly. But not all of it is as
>>> good as it could be, 'cause it doesn't have to be anymore.
>
>> Invalid analogies. Moore's law is more applicable with regard to audio
>> gear.
>
> Moore's law only applies in a very specific context, where
> fixed costs totally dominate and where the market is saturated.
>
> A ten year old computer (like mine!) is worthless today. A
> ten year old microphone is just developing its bar tan.
>
> Ten year old electronics might be either way. Folks will
> have gotten a handle on its performance and reliability and
> some anecdotal history will have evolved. Some things age faster,
> some are just a POS out-of-box and some are treasures.
> But it's a fluid market, and based on perceived value.
>
> Maybe the thing that I can't agree with is that recording
> hardware is at the computer rather than at the microphone
> end of the spectrum.... yet(! Arf.)
>
> Much thanks, as always,
>
> Chris Hornbeck

"Arf!", said Sandy.

Just had a guitar player in yesterday who was amazed by my 1964-5 Fender
Vibrolux. I had a good tube guy work it over about two years ago and put new
glass in it. It's solid as a rock and apparently worth almost $2k to the
right buyer. (Yes, it still has the red power light jewel.)

I think I remember paying about $250 for it used back in the late 60s.
I think I paid about $250 to have it overhauled. It was sounding pretty funky
(not a good funky) before I took it in for refurbishing.

It's nice that one can maintain something like that and have it continue to
provide good service while it appreciates.

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=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising > wrote:
> Yesteryear's gear was as good as could be.
>Today's gear is better by default.

Sadly not, because there is a degree of cost-containment engineering that
goes on today, that was never seen before.

In addition, there is a lot of gear today that is far more sophisticated
and therefore has more problems. For example, the gain blocks in the SSL
consoles are a lot cleaner than anything Ward-Beck ever made... but whereas
in an old Ward-Beck console you might have three or four gain stages in
the 2-buss signal path with the EQ bypassed, with the SSL you can wind up
with literally a thousand gain blocks between input and output... and
a block that has minimal coloration turns into a serious problem when you
chain a thousand of them together.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Roger Norman" wrote ...
> Roger W. Norman
> SirMusic Studio
> "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush

"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is".
William J. Clinton

[Richard Crowley]

"Roger Norman" wrote ...
> Roger W. Norman
> SirMusic Studio
> "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush

"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
William J. Clinton

[Richard Crowley]

"Roger Norman" wrote ...
> Roger W. Norman
> SirMusic Studio
> "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush

"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
William J. Clinton

[Richard Crowley]

"Roger Norman" wrote ...
> Roger W. Norman
> SirMusic Studio
> "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush

"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
William J. Clinton

[Richard Crowley]

"Roger Norman" wrote ...
> Roger W. Norman
> SirMusic Studio
> "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush

"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
William J. Clinton

[Richard Crowley]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote ...
> Moore's law only applies in a very specific context, where
> fixed costs totally dominate and where the market is saturated.

That is an extraordinarily narrow view. The effect is seen
almost everywhere. The global economy is one result of
it.

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> "Roger Norman" wrote ...
> > Roger W. Norman
> > SirMusic Studio
> > "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
>
> "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
> William J. Clinton


You're right. There's an enormous intellectual gap between the two.

[AT]

very true. i it has happened to me a lot.

Roger Norman wrote:
> "WillStG" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Because out on that "desert island" with only a couple of
>> mics to choose from at one time or another, they made the things work
>> and have gotten good results.
>
> Welp, as a friend says "the last mic in the closet is ALWAYS the RIGHT mic".
>

[Les Cargill]

Roy W. Rising wrote:

> Chris Hornbeck > wrote:
>
>>On 21 Jan 2007 04:11:54 GMT, Roy W. Rising >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yesteryear's gear was as good as could be. Today's gear is better by
>>>default.
>>
>>Today's movies are better by default? Today's music is... Well, like
>>that.
>>
>>Stuff's cheaper today, which is good, mostly. But not all of it is as
>>good as it could be, 'cause it doesn't have to be anymore.
>>
>>Much thanks, as always,
>>
>>Chris Hornbeck
>
>
> Invalid analogies. Moore's law is more applicable with regard to audio
> gear.
>

Not so much; no. Moore's law applies to systems with
large numbers of gates - where something with dozens
or so of things in the parts list, like a preamp,
are increasingly being moved *away* from in the
marketplace.

The RNCompressor uses a DSP, so it benefeits from
Moore's Law, but audio gear that is not
microprocessor based does not. And the
principal tachnology influencing microphones is
containerization.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Richard Crowley wrote:

> "Chris Hornbeck" wrote ...
>
>> Moore's law only applies in a very specific context, where
>> fixed costs totally dominate and where the market is saturated.
>
>
> That is an extraordinarily narrow view. The effect is seen
> almost everywhere. The global economy is one result of
> it.
>
>
>

I don't know of anty serious work widening the scope of Moore's
Law beyond the cost/count of transistors in integrated
circuits.

--
Les Cargill

[Paul Stamler]

"Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
...

> > Stuff's cheaper today, which is good, mostly. But not all of it is as
> > good as it could be, 'cause it doesn't have to be anymore.
> >
> > Much thanks, as always,
> >
> > Chris Hornbeck
>
> Invalid analogies. Moore's law is more applicable with regard to audio
> gear.

Except it ain't. What has happened is *not* that gear of equivalent quality
has gotten cheaper. What has happened, instead, is that -- with respect to
the microphone preamps that were the start of this discussion -- a market
has developed for cheap, not-so-good gear that wasn't there before. (Digital
converters are a whole 'nother discussion. Your argument has a lot more
validity there.) Good gear still isn't cheap, although there are a very few
products out there which deliver unusually high value for money, like the
RNP. But the cheap Mackie, ART and Behringer gear is still, mostly, junk,
and sounds like it.

Peace,
Paul

[Paul Stamler]

"Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
...
> (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> > Because there is no non-distortion region. There are only various
> > regions of different distortion.
> > --scott
>
> Agreed. When the user exceeds the region of acceptable distortion, then
> the choice is more annoying or less annoying distortion.
>
> Would a cheap preamp with a THD+N spec of 0.01% be OK ... in the
> "acceptable distortion region"? Or must it be lower, given that the
> general population considers THD below 0.7% "acceptable" (Tremaine)?

THD+N is a fundamentally meaningless number, because it doesn't take into
account the hugely varying audibility of different harmonics. A cheap preamp
with .01% measured THD, if that distortion includes significant levels of
7th, 9th 11th harmonics and up, will fail Scott's straight-wire test, while
a well-designed preamp with ten times the THD but the THD is all 2nd and 3rd
harmonic (which is the case with many good preamps) is a lot more likely to
pass the straight-wire bypass test.

Peace,
Paul

[Arny Krueger]

"Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message


> Would a cheap preamp with a THD+N spec of 0.01% be OK ...
> in the "acceptable distortion region"?

THD+N can be so low that no matter what the constituent parts, no matter
what accentuation of high-order nonlinearities, no matter how many spurious
responses and noise are midband and correlated or uncorrelated, nobody hears
nuttin'. This point is generally agreed to be around -100 dB (example: ITU
recommendation BS 1116). 100 dB corresponds to 0.001%, a distortion figure
that is available to anybody who can get a cheap (<$0.25 per op amp section)
NE 5532 chip into a relevant circuit and onto a real world board without
messing things up.

OTOH, if the nonlinearities and spurious responses happen to be, or are
chosen to be as inconspicious as possible, 0.05% can pass.

> Or must it be lower, given that the general population considers THD
> below 0.7% "acceptable" (Tremaine)?

It's not clear that people in Tremaine's era had clean enough source
material, production equipment, and transducers at their disposal to really
make adequate judgements in this regard.

This raises the question as to whether in 20 years, we'll look back at -100
dB, and say the same thing. I think we've done enough isolated experiments
related to the limits of perception to have good reason to believe that -100
dB will be about it.

We've got far other far more serious problems than distortion and noise
residuals to solve. In fact just about every practical recording and
playback system introduces massive amounts of linear distortion (readily
measurable frequency response and phase distortion) and spurious responses
in the forms of reflections. We need to get our noses out of the electronics
and into the rest of the reproduction chain.

[Roy W. Rising]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Would a cheap preamp with a THD+N spec of 0.01% be OK ...
> > in the "acceptable distortion region"?
>
> THD+N can be so low that no matter what the constituent parts, no matter
> what accentuation of high-order nonlinearities, no matter how many
> spurious responses and noise are midband and correlated or uncorrelated,
> nobody hears nuttin'. This point is generally agreed to be around -100 dB
> (example: ITU recommendation BS 1116). 100 dB corresponds to 0.001%, a
> distortion figure that is available to anybody who can get a cheap
> (<$0.25 per op amp section) NE 5532 chip into a relevant circuit and onto
> a real world board without messing things up.
>
> OTOH, if the nonlinearities and spurious responses happen to be, or are
> chosen to be as inconspicious as possible, 0.05% can pass.
>
> > Or must it be lower, given that the general population considers THD
> > below 0.7% "acceptable" (Tremaine)?
>
> It's not clear that people in Tremaine's era had clean enough source
> material, production equipment, and transducers at their disposal to
> really make adequate judgements in this regard.
>
> This raises the question as to whether in 20 years, we'll look back at
> -100 dB, and say the same thing. I think we've done enough isolated
> experiments related to the limits of perception to have good reason to
> believe that -100 dB will be about it.
>
> We've got far other far more serious problems than distortion and noise
> residuals to solve. In fact just about every practical recording and
> playback system introduces massive amounts of linear distortion (readily
> measurable frequency response and phase distortion) and spurious
> responses in the forms of reflections. We need to get our noses out of
> the electronics and into the rest of the reproduction chain.

As they say on Family Feud, "Good Answer"!

--
~ Roy
"It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[Paul Stamler]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> THD+N can be so low that no matter what the constituent parts, no matter
> what accentuation of high-order nonlinearities, no matter how many
spurious
> responses and noise are midband and correlated or uncorrelated, nobody
hears
> nuttin'. This point is generally agreed to be around -100 dB (example: ITU
> recommendation BS 1116). 100 dB corresponds to 0.001%, a distortion
figure
> that is available to anybody who can get a cheap (<$0.25 per op amp
section)
> NE 5532 chip into a relevant circuit and onto a real world board without
> messing things up.

Yes, but. A couple of points:

1) The number of people who can get a 5532 into a circuit without messing
things up seems limited, based on the number of 5532-based products I've
heard that sounded crummy. It *can* be done; Benchmark's designers have
essentially built the company around 5532 and 5534 opamps, and have produced
very transparent, good-sounding designs. And Focusrite have too; the
processor sections of their Platinum series, which are quite transparent
when not actually doing any processing, are 5532-based. (I'm not
enthusiastic about the mic preamps in those boxes, but the high-level
circuits are good -- i.e., you can't hear them when they're not working on
something.)

2) Getting good results out of 5532s requires a few steps, like bandlimiting
the opamps' feedback loops (explained nicely by the head honcho of Benchmark
some years ago) and biasing the outputs up to class-A (which is what
Focusrite's people did).

3) There are 5532s and 5532s. The 5534 is essentially the same chip without
an internal unity-gain compensation cap, in a single-amplifier package; a
few years ago I compared the harmonic distortion spectra of two chips from
different manufacturers. One had typical opamp distortion: a series of odd
harmonics, diminishing slowly up to about the 11th, where they dwindled into
the noise floor; the other had third harmonic and nothing else; anything
higher was down below the noise floor. You'd have thought I was measuring a
pentode. Being surprised, I tested other samples of the chip from the same
two manufacturers. Distortion performance varied, but the general pattern
remained: one manufacturer's chip produced typical opamp distortion
patterns, one produced distortion more like the low-order distortion found
with discrete class-A circuits (tube or transistor). Both chips had low
levels of THD, but the distortion spectra were anything but the same -- this
between two chips with the same part number. These days, there are three or
four companies making 5534s and 5532s; one of these months I'm planning to
repeat the tests.

4) The people making cheap gear, unfortunately, don't use 5532s, which cost
about a quarter a channel. Instead, they use 4560s and their cousins, which
cost about a nickel a channel. 5532s would be a huge improvement, even
without the application of the techniques that make them perform at their
best.

Peace,
Paul

"mcnews" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> i'd like a pros opinion with much experience with many mics to off er
> their opinion on the best all purpose mic in the $400-900 range. i
> will be using it mostly for vocals, acoustic guitar and upright bass.
> my preamps are humble and will remain so for a while. please try to
> stay on topic with your reply and please do not answer my question with
> more questions. i am not a pro and have no aspirations to become one.
> just want to make decent recordings.
> how about the ev re-20 for example?
> tia,
> mcnewsxp

Just out of curiosity, why do you insist on spending at least $400? Would
you refuse to consider a $350 mike?

Norm

[Bob Cain]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> We've got far other far more serious problems than distortion and noise
> residuals to solve. In fact just about every practical recording and
> playback system introduces massive amounts of linear distortion (readily
^
and non-linear

> measurable frequency response and phase distortion) and spurious responses
> in the forms of reflections. We need to get our noses out of the electronics
> and into the rest of the reproduction chain.

Hear, ****ing hear!


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[chestek]

Paul Stamler wrote:

>
> 3) There are 5532s and 5532s. The 5534 is essentially the same chip without
> an internal unity-gain compensation cap, in a single-amplifier package; a
> few years ago I compared the harmonic distortion spectra of two chips from
> different manufacturers. One had typical opamp distortion: a series of odd
> harmonics, diminishing slowly up to about the 11th, where they dwindled into
> the noise floor; the other had third harmonic and nothing else; anything
> higher was down below the noise floor. You'd have thought I was measuring a
> pentode. Being surprised, I tested other samples of the chip from the same
> two manufacturers. Distortion performance varied, but the general pattern
> remained: one manufacturer's chip produced typical opamp distortion
> patterns, one produced distortion more like the low-order distortion found
> with discrete class-A circuits (tube or transistor). Both chips had low
> levels of THD, but the distortion spectra were anything but the same -- this
> between two chips with the same part number. These days, there are three or
> four companies making 5534s and 5532s; one of these months I'm planning to
> repeat the tests.
>
You wouldn't care to be a little more specific about the two
manufacturers, would you?

Who's 5532s would YOU buy?

JChestek

[Paul Stamler]

"chestek" > wrote in message
news:Z3hth.1170$JB.73@trnddc05...
> > 3) There are 5532s and 5532s. The 5534 is essentially the same chip
without
> > an internal unity-gain compensation cap, in a single-amplifier package;
a
> > few years ago I compared the harmonic distortion spectra of two chips
from
> > different manufacturers. One had typical opamp distortion: a series of
odd
> > harmonics, diminishing slowly up to about the 11th, where they dwindled
into
> > the noise floor; the other had third harmonic and nothing else; anything
> > higher was down below the noise floor. You'd have thought I was
measuring a
> > pentode. Being surprised, I tested other samples of the chip from the
same
> > two manufacturers. Distortion performance varied, but the general
pattern
> > remained: one manufacturer's chip produced typical opamp distortion
> > patterns, one produced distortion more like the low-order distortion
found
> > with discrete class-A circuits (tube or transistor). Both chips had low
> > levels of THD, but the distortion spectra were anything but the same --
this
> > between two chips with the same part number. These days, there are three
or
> > four companies making 5534s and 5532s; one of these months I'm planning
to
> > repeat the tests.
> >
> You wouldn't care to be a little more specific about the two
> manufacturers, would you?
>
> Who's 5532s would YOU buy?

At the moment, no, because the chips I tested were both ten years old, and
may not be representative of current output [pardon the expresson]. I want
to test the current chips from all three or four manufacturers before
publishing the results, even in as informal a forum as this.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

chestek > wrote:
>You wouldn't care to be a little more specific about the two
>manufacturers, would you?
>
>Who's 5532s would YOU buy?

I order 2N5088s from Motorola. Sometimes they come in bags marked "Made in
Thailand" and sometimes in bags marked "Made in Korea." The two have
slightly different curve shapes and very different noise levels. I keep
the Korean ones and send the Thai ones back. The manufacturer is the same,
but the facility is sure not.
--scott

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

[Roger Norman]

Air can neither be seen nor heard. Wind can, but that's different. Hearing
air would be the ability to hear Brownian Movement. Oops, mics can be
affected by Brownian Movement. Can you hear it? Probably not, but the fact
is the effect is there.

You reject physics and philosophical arguments you've made, yet you believe
you have a leg to stand upon. It must be interesting hopping there with no
leg to stand upon whilst both physics and philosophical arguments bear down
upon you.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
...
> "Roger Norman" > wrote:
>>
>> Well, since you want to get into the philosophical, I'd suggest watching
>> What The BLEEP Do We Know? In the world of the Observer, only that
>> observed can be seen or heard clearly, and yet without observation, the
>> facts still remain the facts.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Roger W. Norman
>> SirMusic Studio
>> "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
>> http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
>>
> In fact, I have not entered the realm of the philosophical. If something
> can't be heard or seen, what bearing does it have on that which can? The
> "fact" you imply ... acceptable audio distortion, which exists albeit
> "unobserved" (more correctly unheard)... remains ... well ... acceptable.
>
> --
> ~ Roy
> "It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"

[Roger Norman]

And yes, Richard Crowley, I know, "It depends on what the meaning of "is"
is."

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Roger Norman" > wrote in message
...
> Air can neither be seen nor heard. Wind can, but that's different.
> Hearing air would be the ability to hear Brownian Movement. Oops, mics
> can be affected by Brownian Movement. Can you hear it? Probably not, but
> the fact is the effect is there.
>
> You reject physics and philosophical arguments you've made, yet you
> believe you have a leg to stand upon. It must be interesting hopping
> there with no leg to stand upon whilst both physics and philosophical
> arguments bear down upon you.
>
> --
>
>
> Roger W. Norman
> SirMusic Studio
> "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
> http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
>
>
> "Roy W. Rising" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Roger Norman" > wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, since you want to get into the philosophical, I'd suggest watching
>>> What The BLEEP Do We Know? In the world of the Observer, only that
>>> observed can be seen or heard clearly, and yet without observation, the
>>> facts still remain the facts.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Roger W. Norman
>>> SirMusic Studio
>>> "Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
>>> http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
>>>
>> In fact, I have not entered the realm of the philosophical. If something
>> can't be heard or seen, what bearing does it have on that which can? The
>> "fact" you imply ... acceptable audio distortion, which exists albeit
>> "unobserved" (more correctly unheard)... remains ... well ... acceptable.
>>
>> --
>> ~ Roy
>> "It's NOT the mic, it's NOT the preamp!"
>
>