Michael Wozniak wrote:
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.

If someone said "a vintage vocal sound to me," I'd be more apt to think
of Chris Connors singing into a 77DX. Totally different sound than the
M147, but still full and lush. Of course, Connors' vocal styling is also
totally different than anything you encounter today too.
--scott

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

You never heard it on a blues singer's acoustic guitar when the blues
singer
started shouting. 90 degrees off-axis, I can assure you that it sucked.


Sounds like maybe it was the singer who sucked. You, of course, had the
mic in figure 8 for a guitarist who is also singing?

Scott Fraser

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.

"Scott Fraser" wrote in message
oups.com...
You never heard it on a blues singer's acoustic guitar when the blues
singer
started shouting. 90 degrees off-axis, I can assure you that it sucked.


Sounds like maybe it was the singer who sucked. You, of course, had the
mic in figure 8 for a guitarist who is also singing?

No, he was an excellent singer. Just loud. And no, I didn't have the mic in
figure 8, because in that position I got way, way too much proximity effect,
more than I could EQ out. (He played a particularly bassy dreadnaught.)

So I switched to a pair of KM84s, which are flat off-axis, and the problem
went away.

Peace,
Paul

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."

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

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.

Some tube equipment adds something. Other tube equipment, which I would
class as "the good stuff", doesn't. What it does is avoid adding the icy
chill of bad solid-state gear.

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.

Well, if you must...try something like a Soundelux U195 microphone; run it
through the Great River NV preamp that Mike R. suggested. EQ as necessary,
preferably with the new Great River NV-series EQ. Use the "Air" band.

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

Electro-Voice RE20.

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.

There ain't no 10k tube preamps to my knowledge; the priciest tube pre out
there is about 3k for two channels, I think. And it has a reputation for
being quite accurate.

You want something cheap that does what the expensive gear does. Most of the
time, it doesn't exist. Once in a while, you find something cheap that works
in a particular situation, like the time I discovered my buddy Paul Ovaitt's
mandolin sounds better on an Oktava MC012 microphone than on a Neumann
KM-84. I wouldn't expect that to apply to the next mandolin down the pike,
and it didn't.

You want a long-term solution, not super cheap but not astronomical either,
get yourself three microphones (get the first two on ebay:

Electro-Voice RE20

Beyer M260

Microtech Gefell M930

With those three, I suspect you can handle 95% of the vocalists in the
world. For the moment, use the preamp you have; when your bank account
recovers, get a Peavey VMP2 preamp and then a Great River. You'll be pretty
much set for life.

Peace,
Paul

"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:

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.

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."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
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

Well, it's not obscuring my thought, but it may be obscuring what I want to
know. Let me ask you this: Are we at the point where all
pleasantly-sound-modifying mics, preamps, etc., are available in solid state
equivalents? I hope the answer is yes, because the only piece of tube
equipment I like to tinker with is my Tek 555, which has 131 tubes

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

Well, it's not obscuring my thought, but it may be obscuring what I want
to
know. Let me ask you this: Are we at the point where all
pleasantly-sound-modifying mics, preamps, etc., are available in solid
state
equivalents? I hope the answer is yes, because the only piece of tube
equipment I like to tinker with is my Tek 555, which has 131 tubes

Not at all. All of the pleasantly-sound-modifying solid-state pieces sound
different from one another, and they sound different from the
pleasantly-sound-modifying tubed pieces, which also sound different from
each other.

Gear which aims at neutrality begins to converge as the technology improves;
gear which doesn't aim at neutrality can go in a hundred directions, and
does.

Sooner or later you'll have to do some trying, with a friendly uki, either
at a dealer's showroom or via internet order from a place that will let you
return what you don't like. (This latter dealer will not be a cheap as a
dealer which doesn't let you return stuff.)

Peace,
Paul

soundhaspriority wrote:

Let me ask you this: Are we at the point where all
pleasantly-sound-modifying mics, preamps, etc., are available in solid state
equivalents?

There are no equivalents when it comes to mics or preamps. But there
are plenty of choices, and if you listen to them all, I'm sure you'll
find some that you consider to sound pleasant. You can narrow down your
range a bit by figuring that all of the "Neve 1073" clones will sound
enough alike, and different from, say a Millenia Media, that you can
decide which of those two branches to take on your quest.

My dealer once had a customer who, like you, wanted to buy a tube
preamp. He loaned the customer two preamps to try, a Focusrite Red and
the tube preamp that the customer had asked about. The customer
returned the tube preamp, kept the Focusrite, saying he thought it had
more of a "tube" sound. Then my dealer told him that it was solid
state, but they guy kept it anyway.

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

soundhaspriority wrote:

Let me ask you this: Are we at the point where all
pleasantly-sound-modifying mics, preamps, etc., are available in solid
state
equivalents?

There are no equivalents when it comes to mics or preamps. But there
are plenty of choices, and if you listen to them all, I'm sure you'll
find some that you consider to sound pleasant. You can narrow down your
range a bit by figuring that all of the "Neve 1073" clones will sound
enough alike, and different from, say a Millenia Media, that you can
decide which of those two branches to take on your quest.

My dealer once had a customer who, like you, wanted to buy a tube
preamp. He loaned the customer two preamps to try, a Focusrite Red and
the tube preamp that the customer had asked about. The customer
returned the tube preamp, kept the Focusrite, saying he thought it had
more of a "tube" sound. Then my dealer told him that it was solid
state, but they guy kept it anyway.

I believe that. Unfortunately, I suspect that most equipment in the lower
priced category with a "tube" sound actually has a tube, for marketing
purposes. At the price point of the Focusrite, the customer will be more
sophisticated.

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.

"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

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.

"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."

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.

Yeah, but there's a lot of guys in here that brag about their expensive mic
and preamp combos and make fun of other folks that use different gear.
Sometimes they even insult their intelligence or hearing when they disagree.
It's a little club, just like the audiophools. I've heard the same kind of
stupid **** coming from "working pros" as the **** coming from the
audiophile type people.

"Romeo Rondeau" said:


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.


Yeah, but there's a lot of guys in here that brag about their expensive mic
and preamp combos and make fun of other folks that use different gear.
Sometimes they even insult their intelligence or hearing when they disagree.
It's a little club, just like the audiophools. I've heard the same kind of
stupid **** coming from "working pros" as the **** coming from the
audiophile type people.


To be fair to Arny, he said "working pros in general".

However, each and every "metier" has its share of clowns, wannabees
and braggers.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

Yeah, but there's a lot of guys in here that brag about their expensive
mic
and preamp combos and make fun of other folks that use different gear.
Sometimes they even insult their intelligence or hearing when they
disagree.
It's a little club, just like the audiophools. I've heard the same kind of
stupid **** coming from "working pros" as the **** coming from the
audiophile type people.


To be fair to Arny, he said "working pros in general".

Oh, I'm not trying to criticize Arny, more like trying to point something
out.



However, each and every "metier" has its share of clowns, wannabees
and braggers.

So true.

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in
. net:

Yeah, but there's a lot of guys in here that brag about their
expensive mic and preamp combos and make fun of other folks that use
different gear. Sometimes they even insult their intelligence or
hearing when they disagree. It's a little club, just like the
audiophools. I've heard the same kind of stupid **** coming from
"working pros" as the **** coming from the audiophile type people.

As one of the guys in here with expensive mics (relative to the topic,
at least) I can say that having come from the world of cheap mics, I
would only go back under duress.

My first electret condensers came from Olson's (yeah, I'm that old.).
Then I went through a whole series of whatever I could afford as a
high school and college student. I inherited an RCA 77D, followed by
a pair of AKG C451's. I then went Chinese with pairs of Rode NT-2's
(very early issue) and MXL V67's (later Dorsey modded).

My go to microphones now are Schoeps, DPA, and BLUE. I still have and
use the Rodes and MXL, but they only come out in unusual
circumstances, or when I just need more mics.

On the preamp side, I started with the built-in amplifiers of Pioneer
reel-to-reel recorders, moved up (yes, up) to an original Mackie 1604,
then to a 1202 VLZ, then to Great River and finally to CraneSong.
Nowhere along that path do I look back, although the jump from Great
River to Crane Song was more sideways.

In my experience, my more expensive microphones capture more sound. I
don't mean louder, I mean softer. They capture signal well below the
loudest level being captured, and do it better than cheaper
microphones. Off axis response is better. Noise levels are lower.

The preamps also create less noise and capture more of what the
microphone sends their way.

On the grand scale, I do not own expensive microhones. The most
expensive in my collection run $1,000 to $1,600 each. A U-87
currently runs about $2,220 and a U-89 is over $2,500. And those are
"standard" micophones.

There are jobs for which an inexpensive microphone is absolutely the
best solution, but there are more applications in which the right
expensive microphone will outperform it.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
"Romeo Rondeau" said:

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.

Yeah, but there's a lot of guys in here that brag about
their expensive mic and preamp combos and make fun of
other folks that use different gear.

A tiny list of exceptions does not disprove the rule.

Sometimes they even
insult their intelligence or hearing when they disagree.

More commonly, they insult the hearing or intelligence of whoever they
disagree with.

Interestingly enough many of these exceptions are like our local clown who
posts under the alias "Dr. Donothing" or something like that. He's quick to
insult the ears of the people he disagrees with and demand a first-rate
resume if one is to have any credibility. However, the "Dr. Donothing" types
generally post under unknown, untracable, unverifiable aliases. They are
apparently legends only in their own minds.

It's a little club, just like the audiophools. I've
heard the same kind of stupid **** coming from "working
pros" as the **** coming from the audiophile type
people.

Again this would be that sometime-noisy tiny minority.

To be fair to Arny, he said "working pros in general".

Exactly - not the exceptions, the general rule.

However, each and every "metier" has its share of clowns,
wannabees and braggers.

There are also some working pros who obviously cater to audiophile type
people. The audiophile market in the US is about 200,000 people. If you have
a recording that is way out of the mainstream, the idea of selling to say
10% of the audiophile market can look pretty good. You may not get your
recording mentioned in Rolling Stone, but there's always TAS and SP.

If you know anything about cross-marketing you then cater to the
audiophile's other biases - brag about your golden mic cable and other
tweaks. You can even set up a catalog where you sell both recordings and
the tweaks you say you used to make the recordings. Mapleshade, anybody?

Tommy B wrote:
down to the lowly RE-20 which is probably the most useful vocal mike made.

So my buddy's auditioning for this VO, and it's a cattle call. When he get
in the studio, he see's they're using an an RE-20, but THE DIAPHRAM IS
FACING THE FLOOR, and everyone is talking in the side of the mic! This is a
big NYC Ad agency too! So, he then reset the mic the "right way", and got
the gig. All those other guys were so "muffled", hmmm.
This is a true story.
Why?
Because you can't make up stuff this stupid!

When we first got the RE-20 replacing the 421Ls, everyone wanted to do
this because it gave them that huge bass boost. They'd talk into the
side of it, or even into the rear vents. And you could hardly understand
a word when they talked into the rear vents.

I can see turning them sideways and talking over them if you are a P-popper,
but talking into the side seems like a really bad idea.
--scott


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

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Tommy B wrote:
down to the lowly RE-20 which is probably the most useful vocal mike
made.

So my buddy's auditioning for this VO, and it's a cattle call. When he
get
in the studio, he see's they're using an an RE-20, but THE DIAPHRAM IS
FACING THE FLOOR, and everyone is talking in the side of the mic! This is
a
big NYC Ad agency too! So, he then reset the mic the "right way", and got
the gig. All those other guys were so "muffled", hmmm.
This is a true story.
Why?
Because you can't make up stuff this stupid!

When we first got the RE-20 replacing the 421Ls, everyone wanted to do
this because it gave them that huge bass boost. They'd talk into the
side of it, or even into the rear vents. And you could hardly understand
a word when they talked into the rear vents.

I can see turning them sideways and talking over them if you are a
P-popper,
but talking into the side seems like a really bad idea.

They think it's a side-address mic, because that's what the pros use.

On the other side, when I was studio manager at a small college which will
remain nameless, I walked into the studio to find the head student engineer
singing earnestly into the end of a U-87. He'd seen "Concert for Bangla
Desh", where all the vocal mics were 421's, and just assumed the U-87 worked
the same way. When I showed him how to sing into the side, he said, "Wow,
man, that's a lot better sound." Unfortunately, the better sound didn't help
his inept lyrics at all.

I hated the '70s.

Peace,
Paul

"Carey Carlan" wrote in message
...
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in
. net:

Yeah, but there's a lot of guys in here that brag about their
expensive mic and preamp combos and make fun of other folks that use
different gear. Sometimes they even insult their intelligence or
hearing when they disagree. It's a little club, just like the
audiophools. I've heard the same kind of stupid **** coming from
"working pros" as the **** coming from the audiophile type people.

As one of the guys in here with expensive mics (relative to the topic,
at least) I can say that having come from the world of cheap mics, I
would only go back under duress.

My first electret condensers came from Olson's (yeah, I'm that old.).
Then I went through a whole series of whatever I could afford as a
high school and college student. I inherited an RCA 77D, followed by
a pair of AKG C451's. I then went Chinese with pairs of Rode NT-2's
(very early issue) and MXL V67's (later Dorsey modded).

My go to microphones now are Schoeps, DPA, and BLUE. I still have and
use the Rodes and MXL, but they only come out in unusual
circumstances, or when I just need more mics.

Your words are an appropriate note of caution. On the other hand, Chinese
mikes have been in a state of rapid evolution. Since 2001, there has been
rapid improvement. Your early Rodes, or your single MXL V67, are not enough
to draw conclusions from.

soundhaspriority wrote:

Your words are an appropriate note of caution. On the other hand, Chinese
mikes have been in a state of rapid evolution. Since 2001, there has been
rapid improvement. Your early Rodes, or your single MXL V67, are not enough
to draw conclusions from.

I think you'd be surprised to see how little fundamental improvement there
really has been. Trust me, I have tested an awful lot of them.
--scott

r.a.o removed from newsgroups line due to mindless flaming idiocy.
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in
:

soundhaspriority wrote:

Your words are an appropriate note of caution. On the other hand,
Chinese mikes have been in a state of rapid evolution. Since 2001,
there has been rapid improvement. Your early Rodes, or your single
MXL V67, are not enough to draw conclusions from.

I think you'd be surprised to see how little fundamental improvement
there really has been. Trust me, I have tested an awful lot of them.
--scott

I agree. Although I haven't bought any more, I have used several,
including both bottom feeders and a couple of useful ones.

There are many applications where a quality microphone just isn't
necessary. (Heresy!) Capturing the "true sound" can actually be a
detriment when recording some pop sounds (electric guitar & bass, heavily
processed vocals, etc.).

I don't do much of that. I record almost exclusively acoustic sources.
There isn't much room for a noisy or colored microphone in what I do.
Even more important, I record live concerts--one chance to record it, and
no opportunities to reset during the show. The better the mic, the
better the odds on getting a good take.

r.a.o removed from newsgroups line due to mindless flaming idiocy.

Thanks for responding to this, Scott. I just applied a newsreader filter
to eliminate all crossposted messages, and wouldn't have seen this
response without your note.

"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