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.

"Agent 86" wrote in message
...
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.)

Good point, thanks.

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?

Hey, it was a speculation on my part that, since so much processing is done
anyway, that careful use of tubes for this purpose would be par for the
course. Look, when I was younger, I used to actually maintain the 8-track
Ampex 350 conversion for somebody whose name you might recognize.

This guy was so desperate to hold onto this 350 that he kept paying me to
come out, even though the reel motor resistors kept burning up, and those
little tin connectors kept falling off the circuit boards. The construction
of a 350 preamp was laughably bad compared even to consumer stuff now days.
The reason why he wanted to keep it was the sound. The last time I spoke to
him, he wished he still had it.

So I put the question out there, and I'm getting a lot of guff, but a lot of
useful info also. Don't think for a moment I'm not taking it in.

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.

Well I used it too. I had a Crown BX-822. God, I wish they still made
affordable open reel tape.

"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

Well I used it too. I had a Crown BX-822. God, I wish
they still made affordable open reel tape.

Very few working pros shed many tears over the obsolescence of analog tape.
If you want a high quality product without a lot of dinking around, forget
it.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

Well I used it too. I had a Crown BX-822. God, I wish
they still made affordable open reel tape.

Very few working pros shed many tears over the obsolescence of analog tape.
If you want a high quality product without a lot of dinking around, forget
it.

I don't understand the problem. Quantegy 641 is still in production,
something like six bucks for a pancake, and will work fine on those old
Crown machines. It's low output stuff, but it still sounds pretty good.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
: Arny Krueger wrote:
: "soundhaspriority"
: wrote in message
:
: Well I used it too. I had a Crown BX-822. God, I wish
: they still made affordable open reel tape.
:
: Very few working pros shed many tears over the obsolescence of analog tape.
: If you want a high quality product without a lot of dinking around, forget
: it.
:
: I don't understand the problem. Quantegy 641 is still in production,
: something like six bucks for a pancake, and will work fine on those old
: Crown machines. It's low output stuff, but it still sounds pretty good.
: --scott
: --
: "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Well, with a Tascam HD-P2, 10GB .85" Toshiba drives or solid state
memory cards that fit comfortably in your shirt pocket, seems a better
solution for Robert, altogether, is now available

Rudy