"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:22:15 -0400, soundhaspriority wrote
(in article ):


"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:13:04 -0400, soundhaspriority wrote
(in article ):

I am interested in flattering the human voice with some recording
equipment.
Possibilities include a "tube mic" with a "vintage romantic sound", a
tube
preamp, or a Behringer Ultravoice Digital VX2496,
http://www.behringer.com/VX2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG, which is alleged to
do
what the first two alternatives do, and would give me two extra
channels.
It
also does a lot of worrisome things. A simple tube in the recording
chain
limits the damage.

I'm soliciting recommendations, for vocal use, in the area of
inexpensive
1. tube mics
2. tube preamps
3. processor?
4. Pros and cons of the above three approaches



Good solid state is better than bad tubes. Good tubes are better than
bad
solid state.

Period.

That is true only if accuracy is the criteria. Personally, I have always
sensed that tube equipment adds something to the signal that may or may
not
be desirable. When equipment adds, there can be no universal agreement on
what's good or bad.

Well personally, equipment always "adds" or subtracts. Once you connect a
mic
to a preamp, accuracy is out the window. Therefore, your complaint with my
comment is unsubstantiated or based on a misunderstanding.

To make the point again, regardless or accuracy, and specifically as
regards
objectivity, good solid state is better than bad tubes. Good tubes are
better
than bad solid state.

If by suggesting, as you do, that you prefer tubes because they are
inaccurate, then you have left the grid and are on your own to discover
what
combinations of this and that may please you. There are an equal number of
solid state devices that aren't particularly accurate.

Four days ago, at the most recent NAB in Vegas, I was shown a new Neumann
TLM
49 that's a solid state, cardioid, condenser mic with a special sauce that
imparts tube-like qualities to the audio. I held it in my hands, and no it
wasn't plugged in. One will be here sooner than later.

Do have a nice trip and do send us postcards from time to time to let us
know
how that's working for you. Perhaps the grail you seek will be a tube
design.
most of us who have been here a while are certain that you could make that
happen. We also know that solid state solutions are equally viable should
you
decide to go for it.

Regards,

Ty Ford


Ty, thanks for your response. I have made the disclaimer, though it appears
to have been lost in the din, that I have no particular attachment to tubes.
I used it as a label, because I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that people
would understand from that label what I'm after, which is some insight into
the class of products reputed to improve the subjective qualities of a
recording through subtle alteration. Many of these devices appear to have
been designed after careful examination of "vintage" tube devices in order
to dissect what they do. In some cases, the deisgns appear to to copy the
circuit; in others, they attempt to copy the effect.

As an audiophile, I can tell you that I have never been as pleased with tube
as with good solid state; all the high priced tube preamps I've heard appear
to add a second layer of sheen on the sound, which apparently makes them
attractive to customers. Unfortunately, in the lower price tier, there is a
tendency to add a tube for marketing purposes.

OTOH, some of my favorite recordings, ie., the Jazz at the Pawnshop series,
used Ampex open reel.

The points made here by working professionals are informative, but must also
be taken with a grain of salt. Working professionals have invested large
amounts of money and faith in high priced equipment.