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

soundhaspriority wrote:
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.

"Damage?"

Why not stop worrying about whether it has a tube in it, but instead
pick something that sounds good?

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

Well, what sort of voice is it, and what do you want it to sound like?
The microphone I'd recommend for a somewhat nasal baritone is totally
different than what I'd recommend for a soprano who is a little harsh,
and that's totally different than what I'd recommend for a tenor who
wants an exaggeratedly airy top end. What I'd recommend for a traditional
singer is very different than what I'd recommend for a crooner.

Get a mike that sounds good on the vocalist, THEN worry about the rest
of the chain.
--scott

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

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
soundhaspriority wrote:
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.

"Damage?"

Why not stop worrying about whether it has a tube in it, but instead
pick something that sounds good?

I'm not worried . I do not believe in the magic power of tubes. A tube is
simply an analog effects processor.

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

Well, what sort of voice is it, and what do you want it to sound like?
The microphone I'd recommend for a somewhat nasal baritone is totally
different than what I'd recommend for a soprano who is a little harsh,
and that's totally different than what I'd recommend for a tenor who
wants an exaggeratedly airy top end. What I'd recommend for a traditional
singer is very different than what I'd recommend for a crooner.

The above is a good argument for decoupling the tube and the mic.


Get a mike that sounds good on the vocalist, THEN worry about the rest
of the chain.
--scott

The way I'm inclined to use your advice is to use a tube preamp, so that I
can apply it's "effect" to more than one mic.

soundhaspriority wrote:

I'm not worried . I do not believe in the magic power of tubes. A tube is
simply an analog effects processor.

If that's your belief, then you believe in magic. A tube is a gain
element, nothing more, nothing less.

The way I'm inclined to use your advice is to use a tube preamp, so that I
can apply it's "effect" to more than one mic.

If that's what you want, go for it. But don't ask which one.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
ups.com...

soundhaspriority wrote:

I'm not worried . I do not believe in the magic power of tubes. A tube
is
simply an analog effects processor.

If that's your belief, then you believe in magic. A tube is a gain
element, nothing more, nothing less.

Let's not go there. Perhaps if I backpeddle a little:
Tubes are frequently incorporated into equipment said to have a
characteristic sound that is felt by many people to be desirable. I agree
that equipment has been constructed that has all of the "preferences"
associated with tubes, without the principle drawback, which is greater
noise.

With that out of the way, would you be so kind as to address my question?

soundhaspriority wrote:
Let's not go there. Perhaps if I backpeddle a little:
Tubes are frequently incorporated into equipment said to have a
characteristic sound that is felt by many people to be desirable. I agree
that equipment has been constructed that has all of the "preferences"
associated with tubes, without the principle drawback, which is greater
noise.

Right, but WHICH desireable characteristic sound do you WANT? There is
not just one "tube sound" but there are many different sounds all possible
to obtain, both with tubes and transistors.

With that out of the way, would you be so kind as to address my question?

I suspect Mike can't, because you haven't asked a valid question yet.

I mean, I can tell you the Manley preamps sound great, and that would be
true. And they do have tubes in them. But whether they sound anything
like what you want, I have no idea.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

soundhaspriority wrote:

Let's not go there.

What's this "let's?" You went there.

Perhaps if I backpeddle a little:
Tubes are frequently incorporated into equipment said to have a
characteristic sound that is felt by many people to be desirable.

No, equipment said to have a characteristic sound that is felt by many
people to be desireable may have tubes or not. One could make the same
statement about transistors, or transformers, or gold plated switch
contacts.

I agree
that equipment has been constructed that has all of the "preferences"
associated with tubes, without the principle drawback, which is greater
noise.

What preferences are associated with tubes? If you were talking about
guitar amplifiers, I could see that certain high levels of distortion
of the type that's easy to get with an overloaded tube might be
considered an important part of the sound, but you're talking about
microphones and preamps. You don't want distortion there, particularly
10% or more 2nd harmonic distortion.

With that out of the way, would you be so kind as to address my question?

I think I already have. Find something that has the sound you like and
don't be biased (pun intended) if you discover that it doesn't have a
tube in it.

soundhaspriority wrote:

I'm not worried . I do not believe in the magic power of tubes. A tube is
simply an analog effects processor.

No, it's not.

It's a gain stage.

You can build effects devices with tubes. But you can also build very
transparent-sounding electronics with tubes.

If you build effects devices with tubes, you can make them sound all sorts
of different ways. You can make harsh tube circuits and mellow tube circuits.
In fact, most of the sound of a typical tube circuit comes from the required
transformers, not from the gain stages themselves.

The above is a good argument for decoupling the tube and the mic.

Not really, because you can build a mike with a tube front end that is
just frighteningly transparent and accurate. This is a good thing. You
won't find it for $100 at Guitar Center, mind you, but it's been done and
it's out there.

The way I'm inclined to use your advice is to use a tube preamp, so that I
can apply it's "effect" to more than one mic.

If you get a good clean tube preamp, it won't have any "effect" at all.
If you get a colored one, you need to pick one with coloration that you
like. The UA reissue, for instance, sounds very different than the Manley.
Mostly because they use different transformers and all of the actual
coloration is coming from the input and output transformers.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
soundhaspriority wrote:
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.

"Damage?"

Why not stop worrying about whether it has a tube in it, but instead
pick something that sounds good?

I'm not worried . I do not believe in the magic power of tubes. A tube
is simply an analog effects processor.

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

Well, what sort of voice is it, and what do you want it to sound like?
The microphone I'd recommend for a somewhat nasal baritone is totally
different than what I'd recommend for a soprano who is a little harsh,
and that's totally different than what I'd recommend for a tenor who
wants an exaggeratedly airy top end. What I'd recommend for a
traditional
singer is very different than what I'd recommend for a crooner.

The above is a good argument for decoupling the tube and the mic.


Get a mike that sounds good on the vocalist, THEN worry about the rest
of the chain.
--scott

The way I'm inclined to use your advice is to use a tube preamp, so that I
can apply it's "effect" to more than one mic.

Maybe you should change your email handle to "tube has priority". The
"vintage" sound has many facets and components, mic and preamp are just 2 of
them. Talent, performance, mic placement, arrangement and room are among
other components.

Don't make the mistake of thinking a 'toob' is automatically going to give
you the sound you want.

Mikey
Nova Music Productions

"Michael Wozniak" wrote in message
k.net...

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
soundhaspriority wrote:
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.

"Damage?"

Why not stop worrying about whether it has a tube in it, but instead
pick something that sounds good?

I'm not worried . I do not believe in the magic power of tubes. A tube
is simply an analog effects processor.

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

Well, what sort of voice is it, and what do you want it to sound like?
The microphone I'd recommend for a somewhat nasal baritone is totally
different than what I'd recommend for a soprano who is a little harsh,
and that's totally different than what I'd recommend for a tenor who
wants an exaggeratedly airy top end. What I'd recommend for a
traditional
singer is very different than what I'd recommend for a crooner.

The above is a good argument for decoupling the tube and the mic.


Get a mike that sounds good on the vocalist, THEN worry about the rest
of the chain.
--scott

The way I'm inclined to use your advice is to use a tube preamp, so that
I can apply it's "effect" to more than one mic.

Maybe you should change your email handle to "tube has priority". The
"vintage" sound has many facets and components, mic and preamp are just 2
of them. Talent, performance, mic placement, arrangement and room are
among other components.

Don't make the mistake of thinking a 'toob' is automatically going to give
you the sound you want.

Mikey, you are of course, right. But there seems to be a reluctance to
address the simple fact that there is equipment which is said by many to
have a vintage sound. It may be due to transformers; it may be mistakenly
associated with tubes, it may be due to other aspects of circuit design, but
it does exist. My question is about mics and preamps, not about all the
other elements that go into making a good recording.

Don't make the mistake of thinking a 'toob' is automatically going to
give you the sound you want.

Mikey, you are of course, right. But there seems to be a reluctance to
address the simple fact that there is equipment which is said by many to
have a vintage sound. It may be due to transformers; it may be mistakenly
associated with tubes, it may be due to other aspects of circuit design,
but it does exist. My question is about mics and preamps, not about all
the other elements that go into making a good recording.

Keep in mind that there are many types of "vintage" sound. Some "vintage"
sounds like ass. I'm guess that you may be mistaking a vintage sound for
really great mikes and really great preamps in a nice room with a great
engineer recording great talent with great instruments. It's a combination,
I don't see how you can seperate it. You will get many different answers to
your question, because it's a matter of personal taste. So here's mine:

U-47---GML Mic Pre---TubeTech Opto Cell Compressor

Lemmee see, yep... there's a tube in there :-)

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Michael Wozniak" wrote in message
k.net...

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
soundhaspriority wrote:
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.

"Damage?"

Why not stop worrying about whether it has a tube in it, but instead
pick something that sounds good?

I'm not worried . I do not believe in the magic power of tubes. A
tube is simply an analog effects processor.

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

Well, what sort of voice is it, and what do you want it to sound like?
The microphone I'd recommend for a somewhat nasal baritone is totally
different than what I'd recommend for a soprano who is a little harsh,
and that's totally different than what I'd recommend for a tenor who
wants an exaggeratedly airy top end. What I'd recommend for a
traditional
singer is very different than what I'd recommend for a crooner.

The above is a good argument for decoupling the tube and the mic.


Get a mike that sounds good on the vocalist, THEN worry about the rest
of the chain.
--scott

The way I'm inclined to use your advice is to use a tube preamp, so that
I can apply it's "effect" to more than one mic.

Maybe you should change your email handle to "tube has priority". The
"vintage" sound has many facets and components, mic and preamp are just 2
of them. Talent, performance, mic placement, arrangement and room are
among other components.

Don't make the mistake of thinking a 'toob' is automatically going to
give you the sound you want.

Mikey, you are of course, right. But there seems to be a reluctance to
address the simple fact that there is equipment which is said by many to
have a vintage sound. It may be due to transformers; it may be mistakenly
associated with tubes, it may be due to other aspects of circuit design,
but it does exist. My question is about mics and preamps, not about all
the other elements that go into making a good recording.

If I had to pick one mic I've used that sounded 'vintage' to me, it would be
the Neuman M147. I had 2 & sold them both - they didn't have the top-end
clarity I wanted. I sold my Rode NTK, too. Just plain bad (the AKG C1000 of
tube mics, IMO). My peavey/AMR VMP-2 preamp sounds very 'tubey' when pushed
hard, but not necessarily vintage.

Best wishes,
Mikey
Nova Music Productions

Get a mike that sounds good on the vocalist, THEN worry about the rest
of the chain.
--scott

So simple, so perfect.
Please audition thru the same pre. ;-)

Tom

I'm soliciting recommendations, for vocal use, in the area of
inexpensive
1. tube mics

The tube mics I know which get you what I think you're describing are
not inexpensive. Solid state mics which will flatter voice are less
expensive, though still not cheap.

2. tube preamps

The sound you're talking about is not the result of having a tube in
the circuit as much as a result of having a transformer or two in
circuit.

3. processor?

You mean the Behringer thing you mentioned? No, the mic & preamp make
the sound. No amount of convolution processing is ever going to make an
SM57 plugged into a Mackie sound like a U47 plugged into a Helios pre.
Just isn't going to happen. Get the sound first, process later if you
want.

4. Pros and cons of the above three approaches

You need to listen for the sound you're after, not concern yourself
with the circuit design. What you're descibing can be achieved with
solid state equipment. It's not the tubes, it's the overall circuit
design, which usually involves transformers. Remember, Neve preamps are
all solid state, U87s are all solid state.

Scott Fraser

"Scott Fraser" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm soliciting recommendations, for vocal use, in the area of
inexpensive
1. tube mics

The tube mics I know which get you what I think you're describing are
not inexpensive. Solid state mics which will flatter voice are less
expensive, though still not cheap.

2. tube preamps

The sound you're talking about is not the result of having a tube in
the circuit as much as a result of having a transformer or two in
circuit.

3. processor?

You mean the Behringer thing you mentioned? No, the mic & preamp make
the sound. No amount of convolution processing is ever going to make an
SM57 plugged into a Mackie sound like a U47 plugged into a Helios pre.
Just isn't going to happen. Get the sound first, process later if you
want.

Thanks for clarifying this. Since many people consider all large diaphram
mics to be "effects" devices, I was sort of hoping that Behringer could do
it in firmware.


4. Pros and cons of the above three approaches

You need to listen for the sound you're after, not concern yourself
with the circuit design.

The sound may not be one article, but it is commonly associated with vintage
equipment, and has been sought after in guitar amps, Ampex recording
electronics, "tube" mics, etc.

What you're descibing can be achieved with
solid state equipment. It's not the tubes, it's the overall circuit
design, which usually involves transformers. Remember, Neve preamps are
all solid state, U87s are all solid state.

Scott Fraser

And that would be preferable, since tubes are significantly noisier. But if
I can afford one device to get me that flattering, vintage sound, what
should it be? How about one of these?
http://www.mxlmics.com/siliconValve/silicon_index.html
Or can you recommend an affordable preamp?

But if
I can afford one device to get me that flattering, vintage sound, what
should it be?

I think I'd get a used U87. It's not perfec t for everything but it
never sucks on anything.

How about one of these?
http://www.mxlmics.com/siliconValve/silicon_index.html

I don't know anything about the Chinese mic infestation. I've never
heard any of them, but my jaded vintage hunch is they probably fall
well short of the target.

Or can you recommend an affordable preamp?

How about a Vintech 73? A modern recreation of a Neve 1073 that sounds
like the old ones.

Scott Fraser

I was hoping the thread was about recording vocals through industrial
tubing.


Highly recommended!!!

wrote in message
oups.com...
I was hoping the thread was about recording vocals through industrial
tubing.


Highly recommended!!!

Now that electrical conduit has gone to plastic, the metal is collectible.

wrote:
I was hoping the thread was about recording vocals through industrial
tubing.

Highly recommended!!!

Does it work as well as the coffee can? I always liked the coffee can.

Of course, there's always the Cooper Timecube....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

The sound may not be one article, but it is commonly associated with
vintage
equipment, and has been sought after in guitar amps, Ampex recording
electronics, "tube" mics, etc.

There's a reason all those "vintage" recordings used tube microphones;
transistors hadn't been invented yet. The engineers didn't sit around &
say "You know, we've got Charlie Parker coming in tomorrow. Wanna use
the tube stuff on him?" They used what was available, & that happened
to be tube gear. It also happened to be top drawer pro recording gear
because there wasn't any semi-pro stuff, there were no home studios
using mediocre equipment made in China, & the rooms tended to be large
spaces built by record labels with a lot of financial backing. Yeah, a
lot of older recordings sounded really good.

Scott Fraser

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.

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

"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.

Here are two problems:
1. I have a female vocalist, who has a rather smooth voice, and I want to
add some top end sheen, so she sounds more like the exhibits at the NY Hifi
Show of SET amplifiers playing through exotic speakers.
2. I have a male vocalist who needs some additional midrange body.

Suggestions for either/both of these are requested. Something simple,
something cheap, that will give 55% of the benefit of a $10K tube preamp
that can't be all that accurate.

soundhaspriority wrote:

Here are two problems:
1. I have a female vocalist, who has a rather smooth voice, and I want to
add some top end sheen, so she sounds more like the exhibits at the NY Hifi
Show of SET amplifiers playing through exotic speakers.

First thing I'd think of would be the U87. It's got a very exaggerated
top end, for that sense of air, but it's not completely out of control.
And people will find it a very familiar sound.

2. I have a male vocalist who needs some additional midrange body.

Beyer M-500. I know it's not very popular today, but it really does
a lot to kill nasal sounds and bring out the the depth in a baritone.

Another suggestion might be to use a more neutral mike, but add a chest
mike. Or try pulling the mike back and dropping it down to get more
of the chest voice. Even something like an RE-20 is fine for this.

Suggestions for either/both of these are requested. Something simple,
something cheap, that will give 55% of the benefit of a $10K tube preamp
that can't be all that accurate.

First you get the sound in the room. Then you get the sound from the
mike. Then you worry about the preamp.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
soundhaspriority wrote:

Here are two problems:
1. I have a female vocalist, who has a rather smooth voice, and I want to
add some top end sheen, so she sounds more like the exhibits at the NY
Hifi
Show of SET amplifiers playing through exotic speakers.

First thing I'd think of would be the U87. It's got a very exaggerated
top end, for that sense of air, but it's not completely out of control.
And people will find it a very familiar sound.

2. I have a male vocalist who needs some additional midrange body.

Beyer M-500. I know it's not very popular today, but it really does
a lot to kill nasal sounds and bring out the the depth in a baritone.

Another suggestion might be to use a more neutral mike, but add a chest
mike. Or try pulling the mike back and dropping it down to get more
of the chest voice. Even something like an RE-20 is fine for this.

Interesting. Is this technique akin to using the human body as a boundary
surface, or is there actually radiation from the chest? Where does the mic
go? At approximately the level of the collar bone, 15" out?

soundhaspriority wrote:

Another suggestion might be to use a more neutral mike, but add a chest
mike. Or try pulling the mike back and dropping it down to get more
of the chest voice. Even something like an RE-20 is fine for this.

Interesting. Is this technique akin to using the human body as a boundary
surface, or is there actually radiation from the chest? Where does the mic
go? At approximately the level of the collar bone, 15" out?

There is substantial radiation from the chest. (This is for singers,
not crooners). Where the mike goes depends on the singer and how you
want to balance things, but use the finger-in-the-ear trick and give
a listen for yourself.

You'll find this is more a big deal for basses than baritones, more for
baritones than tenors, and folks that use their head voice (sopranos,
countertenors), don't have much at all from the chest. Crooners, who
aren't trying to project, tend to sing from much farther up and don't
have so much chest radiation.

Usually pulling the mike back will get enough of this, unless you're
using a very tight microphone or are forced (by virtue of having a lousy
room) to mike in closely.

Take a look at some of the photos of the PA rig for the Three Tenors.
Each of the guys have two Schoeps cardioids, one on the mouth and one
a bit below breastbone level.
--scott

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

Suggestions for either/both of these are requested. Something simple,
something cheap, that will give 55% of the benefit of a $10K tube preamp
that can't be all that accurate.

You don't ask for much, do you?

I think your "sense" about tube gear is misplaced. You keep coming back
to tubes, as though this one factor is going to make everything better.
But I'll wager you couldn't tell the difference when put to the test.

My suggestion, since you continue to think people are not addressing
your original question, though we are -- just not in the way you like
or want -- is to test gear. You don't like that, I understand. But in
order to find whatever esoteric sound you're looking for can only be
accomplished by actually going to your pro audio gear place of choice
and test driving different components, both microphones and pre amps,
until you arrive at the combination that does what you want.

I could recommend TAB/Funkenverks V-78 update, an all tube pre that
runs about a grand; I could recommend a Lawson or Korby or Peluso tube
mic, which will run anywhere from 1200 up to 8000 clams. But none of
this may be what you're looking for.

You want cheap, your words not ours, but you want it to accomplish 55%
of the benefit of a high end tube pre? That's not going to happen,
ever.

So stop going on in this thread about how unsupportive and
uncooperative we are. We've been more than patient with your questions,
answered them in the professional manner we occupy, the way we should
-- without being overly rude -- and made our recommendations.

What more can we do, except offer to bring our gear into your situation
and then do all the work for you? Never gonna happen, by the way.

--Fletch

"Fletch" wrote in message
oups.com...
Suggestions for either/both of these are requested. Something simple,
something cheap, that will give 55% of the benefit of a $10K tube preamp
that can't be all that accurate.

You don't ask for much, do you?

I think your "sense" about tube gear is misplaced. You keep coming back
to tubes, as though this one factor is going to make everything better.
But I'll wager you couldn't tell the difference when put to the test.

You're probably right. I'm just using it as a label. Unfortunately,
respondents seem to want to educate me on this point: "Learn it! Learn it
good! Listen to what I'm telling you son, their ain't no air in toobes."

I

My suggestion, since you continue to think people are not addressing
your original question, though we are -- just not in the way you like
or want -- is to test gear. You don't like that, I understand. But in
order to find whatever esoteric sound you're looking for can only be
accomplished by actually going to your pro audio gear place of choice
and test driving different components, both microphones and pre amps,
until you arrive at the combination that does what you want.

That is very viable for the working pro. Let me tell you where I'm at: I
have a Tascam FW-1082 firewire desk that gives me ten channels in. I have
two Midiman preamps, their better model. The newest mike I have is an AT
MB4K which is a handheld vocal back-electret cardioid. I have a pair of
AT33R, cardioids and an RE27ND. With the exception of the last, I suspect
you'll feel they're all junk, and I won't be insulted. OTOH, if you see any
virtue in an MB4K, lemme know. I have eight MXL mikes coming, six are 603s,
two are 2003. General reports suggest that the MXL mikes I've chosen are
reasonably mainstream middle-of-the road for what they a six small
diaphram wide cardioids, and two large diaphram cardioids.

Now as it happens, I'm both a hifi nut, and someone who looks for ways to
network with the film and TV production community. Sometimes it's actually
cheaper to provide a service than to pay the going rate for services and
talent. These are the two reasons I do this. It opens door. It makes
friends. But I'm not a working pro, and as such, I don't have a singer handy
to drag down to the mic shop, and it actually might be counterproductive. I
certainly don't want someone to know I'm buying a mic so I can record their
voice, but sometimes, I might do that, because the person might be available
to me on a friendly basis as talent.

That said, any suggestions are appreciated. For my purpose, I am restricted
to the lower tier of equipment. But as much as people have invested in very
expensive stuff, there are some remarkable things that have developed in the
lower tier, such as Octavas, followed by MXL's.




I could recommend TAB/Funkenverks V-78 update, an all tube pre that
runs about a grand; I could recommend a Lawson or Korby or Peluso tube
mic, which will run anywhere from 1200 up to 8000 clams. But none of
this may be what you're looking for.

You want cheap, your words not ours, but you want it to accomplish 55%
of the benefit of a high end tube pre? That's not going to happen,
ever.

So stop going on in this thread about how unsupportive and
uncooperative we are. We've been more than patient with your questions,
answered them in the professional manner we occupy, the way we should
-- without being overly rude -- and made our recommendations.

What more can we do, except offer to bring our gear into your situation
and then do all the work for you? Never gonna happen, by the way.

--Fletch

soundhaspriority wrote:

You're probably right. I'm just using it as a label. Unfortunately,
respondents seem to want to educate me on this point: "Learn it! Learn it
good! Listen to what I'm telling you son, their ain't no air in toobes."

Then stop using it as a label, because it's obscuring you from figuring
out what the sound you want really is.
--scott

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

soundhaspriority wrote:

Suggestions for either/both of these are requested. Something simple,
something cheap, that will give 55% of the benefit of a $10K tube preamp
that can't be all that accurate.

You'd be amazed at how accurate a $10K tube preamp can be. That's part of
what people are trying to tell you.

"Agent 86" wrote in message
...
soundhaspriority wrote:

Suggestions for either/both of these are requested. Something simple,
something cheap, that will give 55% of the benefit of a $10K tube preamp
that can't be all that accurate.

You'd be amazed at how accurate a $10K tube preamp can be. That's part of
what people are trying to tell you.

That's a very snide remark.

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 Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

"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.

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"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.

You are wrong. Working professionals, at least all those that are studio
owners, are absolutely the very first to adopt high value quality equipment.
The $199 RNC1773 stereo compressor from FMR, the same folks who make the RNP
preamp, was an instant hit among professionals with thousands sold. Same
with the RNP. Because both are a bargain, it is easy to make the purchase.
Because they sound great, it is easy to choose to use them on a session.
The AT2020 microphone seems to be an exception to the rule that cheap is
bad. Professionals have been snapping them up. Same with a few of the Rode
mics. Professionals don't get struck dumb just because they have a few
superb toys in the closet.

Steve King

soundhaspriority wrote:

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.

No, they've been designed after careful examination of what will induce
inexperienced people who've never actually used vintage tube gear, and
therefore have no real frame of reference, to part with their hard earned
cash. I don't know what "Vintage" means over at r.a opinion, but the truth
is the tube gear used back in the 50's & 60's was remarkably clean &
accurate. It's only been since about the 90's that this idea of adding
distortion to vocals has reared it's ugly head. (Not counting things like I
am the Walrus, where the vocal distortion was a special 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.

Then why do you think it would be any different in the production world?
There are some excellent tube mic preamps out there. They're pretty easy to
recognize. They have names like Manley and DW Fearn and EAR, and they start
at about 2 grand per channel.


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.

Some have. Most have also used enough cheap gear to understand the concept
of "False economy". And having actually used real vintage tube gear, they
actually know what it really sounds like. They know what it is, and more
to the point, they know what it ain't.

"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

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.

Which of course never affects points made here by audiophiles...

LOL!

Fact of the matter is that working pros are generally better-educated, more
experienced, and more pragmatic than audiophiles. For example, working pros
generally reject common audiophile urban myths like bi-wiring, upsampling,
so-called hi-rez distribution formats, very high sample rates, exotic cables
and wires, etc.