Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#2
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#3
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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." |
#4
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio |