I've posted two other questions in the last week regarding my need for a
cheap mic preamp capable of powering my 48V phantom powered condenser mic
and then feeding the signal into the line-in on my sound card. Right now, I
have a midiman audio buddy, but since it's incapable of providing the mic
with the necessary 48V phantom power, I need a new preamp. Someone in my
last post indicated that I don't necessarily need a tube preamp, but didn't
make any alternative suggestions. All of the cheap preamps out there
(sub-$75) seem to be tube preamps, unless I'm missing something.

In case you haven't realized, I'm a newbie to all this stuff, and as someone
who only needs to do some simple voiceover work for my flash cartoons, I was
wondering what exactly I need? Do I need one of these tube preamps, or is
there an even cheaper solution that doesn't employ a tube? What even is a
tube and what is their benefit? Are my alternatives cheaper or more
expensive? Any help would be appreciated--thanks.

"TheKeith" wrote in message
...
I've posted two other questions in the last week regarding my need for a
cheap mic preamp capable of powering my 48V phantom powered condenser mic
and then feeding the signal into the line-in on my sound card. Right now,
I
have a midiman audio buddy, but since it's incapable of providing the mic
with the necessary 48V phantom power, I need a new preamp. Someone in my
last post indicated that I don't necessarily need a tube preamp, but
didn't
make any alternative suggestions. All of the cheap preamps out there
(sub-$75) seem to be tube preamps, unless I'm missing something.


Because "toobs" is a big marketing ploy (at least in this low end market).
Some don't even employ the so-called "tube" but it's stuck in there just so
they can market it as tube.

TheKeith wrote:

I've posted two other questions in the last week regarding my need for a
cheap mic preamp capable of powering my 48V phantom powered condenser mic
and then feeding the signal into the line-in on my sound card. Right now, I
have a midiman audio buddy, but since it's incapable of providing the mic
with the necessary 48V phantom power, I need a new preamp. Someone in my
last post indicated that I don't necessarily need a tube preamp, but didn't
make any alternative suggestions. All of the cheap preamps out there
(sub-$75) seem to be tube preamps, unless I'm missing something.

You're missing something.


In case you haven't realized, I'm a newbie to all this stuff, and as someone
who only needs to do some simple voiceover work for my flash cartoons, I was
wondering what exactly I need? Do I need one of these tube preamps, or is
there an even cheaper solution that doesn't employ a tube? What even is a
tube and what is their benefit? Are my alternatives cheaper or more
expensive? Any help would be appreciated--thanks.

'Tubes' colour the sound ( intentionally and to some ppls' liking ) to be vague.

If you want accuracy look elsewhere - won't be hard.


Graham

In article ,
"TheKeith" writes:
In case you haven't realized, I'm a newbie to all this stuff, and as someone

Wow... someone who is very new to electronic devices, has a short
memory, or is a youngster. Didn't radios have tubes in them when you
were a youngster, and didn't you see the tube testers in drug stores
and hardware stores? ;-)

who only needs to do some simple voiceover work for my flash cartoons, I was
wondering what exactly I need? Do I need one of these tube preamps, or is
there an even cheaper solution that doesn't employ a tube? What even is a
tube and what is their benefit?

Here's a very breif, and greatly over-simplified, explanation:

It's a thermionic valve, a.k.a. a vacuum tube. It's a glass tube
containing a vacuum, getter, a plate, a filament to boil the electrons
off the cathode (or off itself if no separate cathode is used), one or
more grids (except in the case of diodes) to control the flow of
electrons, etc. Think of it as a valve that controls the flow of
electrons through a circuit. A very small change in the voltage
applied to the grid can result in a very large change in voltage in a
circuit using a tube. which is why a microphone, producing a small
voltage, connected to a circuit using tubes can make a loudspeaker's
cone move (to do so requires a larger voltage). It's like you use
just a little pressure on the gas pedal in your car, with your foot,
to make something much larger move with little effort on your part
.... ok, not a very good analogy, techically, but hopefully you get the
point... it's very late, I'm getting sleepy, and can't think of a
better analogy at the moment.

A tube is basically what transistors were designed to replace (only
the transistor is current controlled, not voltage controlled, and is
much smaller, typically requiring lower voltages in its circuitry,
etc. Tubes and transistors exhibit different forms of distortion,
which is basically why amplifiers using tubes and transistors are said
to sound different (tube distortion is more pleasing to the ear), and
why tube amps can sound louder at the same power levels as transistor
amplifiers, etc.

--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.

TheKeith wrote:

I've posted two other questions in the last week regarding my need for a
cheap mic preamp capable of powering my 48V phantom powered condenser mic
and then feeding the signal into the line-in on my sound card. Right now, I
have a midiman audio buddy, but since it's incapable of providing the mic
with the necessary 48V phantom power, I need a new preamp. Someone in my
last post indicated that I don't necessarily need a tube preamp, but didn't
make any alternative suggestions. All of the cheap preamps out there
(sub-$75) seem to be tube preamps, unless I'm missing something.

In case you haven't realized, I'm a newbie to all this stuff, and as someone
who only needs to do some simple voiceover work for my flash cartoons, I was
wondering what exactly I need? Do I need one of these tube preamps, or is
there an even cheaper solution that doesn't employ a tube? What even is a
tube and what is their benefit? Are my alternatives cheaper or more
expensive? Any help would be appreciated--thanks.



You should be able to find a cheap mixer with a preamp (and phantom
power) built in.

You don't need tubes. Most people who think they need tubes don't,
either.

--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie

"R. D. Davis" wrote in message
...
were a youngster, and didn't you see the tube testers in drug stores

Most kids today would think you're talking about a home pregnancy test kit
if you said that.

TheKeith wrote:

make any alternative suggestions. All of the cheap preamps out
there (sub-$75) seem to be tube preamps, unless I'm missing
something.

Probably the only way to make them costly enough.

In case you haven't realized, I'm a newbie to all this stuff,
and as someone who only needs to do some simple voiceover
work for my flash cartoons, I was wondering what exactly
I need?

From the specs about the smallest Behringer mixer you can get will be
able do to all you need.

Do I need one of these tube preamps,

No, steer well clear of them, they intentionally distort and are
intended for special effects use in a musical context.

Any help would be appreciated--thanks.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* \\\\\\\ Quality Ascii handcrafted by Peter Larsen /////// *
* \\\\\\\ My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk /////// *
************************************************** ***********

From the specs about the smallest Behringer mixer you can get will be
able do to all you need.

is this what you had in mind: http://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHUB802 -- this
is actually the second cheapest; the cheapest one doesn't seems to have the
48V phantom I need. This is good because it will allow me to do other things
also. Thanks for the suggestion.



Do I need one of these tube preamps,

No, steer well clear of them, they intentionally distort and are
intended for special effects use in a musical context.


this is what I suspected -- I just need a straight forward preamp.

"R. D. Davis" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"TheKeith" writes:
In case you haven't realized, I'm a newbie to all this stuff, and as
someone

Wow... someone who is very new to electronic devices, has a short
memory, or is a youngster. Didn't radios have tubes in them when you
were a youngster, and didn't you see the tube testers in drug stores
and hardware stores? ;-)

well, I have heard of them of course--I'm not that young, but I never knew
exactly what they did from a technical standpoint, and never knew why so
many people like them for music. I just wasn't sure why all preamps seem to
have tubes and why there aren't any ordinary, inexpensive, one-channel,
non-tube preamps available.



who only needs to do some simple voiceover work for my flash cartoons, I
was
wondering what exactly I need? Do I need one of these tube preamps, or
is
there an even cheaper solution that doesn't employ a tube? What even is
a
tube and what is their benefit?

Here's a very breif, and greatly over-simplified, explanation:

It's a thermionic valve, a.k.a. a vacuum tube. It's a glass tube
containing a vacuum, getter, a plate, a filament to boil the electrons
off the cathode (or off itself if no separate cathode is used), one or
more grids (except in the case of diodes) to control the flow of
electrons, etc. Think of it as a valve that controls the flow of
electrons through a circuit. A very small change in the voltage
applied to the grid can result in a very large change in voltage in a
circuit using a tube. which is why a microphone, producing a small
voltage, connected to a circuit using tubes can make a loudspeaker's
cone move (to do so requires a larger voltage). It's like you use
just a little pressure on the gas pedal in your car, with your foot,
to make something much larger move with little effort on your part
... ok, not a very good analogy, techically, but hopefully you get the
point... it's very late, I'm getting sleepy, and can't think of a
better analogy at the moment.

A tube is basically what transistors were designed to replace (only
the transistor is current controlled, not voltage controlled, and is
much smaller, typically requiring lower voltages in its circuitry,
etc. Tubes and transistors exhibit different forms of distortion,
which is basically why amplifiers using tubes and transistors are said
to sound different (tube distortion is more pleasing to the ear), and
why tube amps can sound louder at the same power levels as transistor
amplifiers, etc.


I appreciate the good explanation--thanks.

You should be able to find a cheap mixer with a preamp (and phantom
power) built in.

You don't need tubes. Most people who think they need tubes don't,
either.



thanks--that's what I'll do.

TheKeith wrote:

From the specs about the smallest Behringer mixer you can get will be
able do to all you need.

is this what you had in mind: http://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHUB802 ...

Yes, exactly the one, it appears to be "about the smallest", it was not
an absolutely exact statement on purpose but it is the one I recall
seeing on some webpage and considering for a system I suggested. Again,
I haven't actually listened to it ....


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* \\\\\\\ Quality Ascii handcrafted by Peter Larsen /////// *
* \\\\\\\ My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk /////// *
************************************************** ***********

"TheKeith" wrote:

[ ... ] Right now, I have a midiman audio buddy, but since it's
incapable of providing the mic with the necessary 48V phantom power,
I need a new preamp.

Or you could get a good outboard phantom power supply (e.g. Denecke) and
use it between the "Audio Buddy" preamp and your microphone--provided
that your mike doesn't put out any signals greater than about 100 mV.
Above that level, the inputs of the "Audio Buddy" tend to overload.

But the question you ask in the subject line is an interesting one, too.
It has mainly to do with marketing. In this day and age, technical
features have become marketing categories: "large-diaphragm condensers"
are marketed as if "everyone knows" what one of those sounds like, and
similarly, equipment that uses a vacuum tube somewhere in the circuit is
placed in a category as if "everyone knows" what it will sound like just
from knowing that it has a tube inside. Both assumptions are false, but
the prospect of selling more boxes if they say they have "tubes" in them
now causes companies to design tube equipment for its own sake. I've
even seen one ad for a microphone (not a stereo mike, either) that boasts
of having two tubes in it, almost as if that were something that no other
microphone manufacturer could have accomplished.

I'm old enough to have lived in the era when _all_ audio equipment was
vacuum tube equipment, and I began recording during the transition from
tube to solid state (transistorized) equipment. Back then, it was
"solid state" that served as the phony marketing category--the newness
of the technology allowed certain products of poor sound quality to enter
the market, for a while at least. So there was occasionally a real reason
to sneer at the inferior quality of certain transistorized products, just
as there has been real reason to sneer at certain digital audio products
along the way. Pardon this digression, but the parallel is instructive:

I can well remember how interesting it was when Hitachi introduced their
first CD player, which was obviously not up to the quality level of the
other players that had preceded it on the market. People were trying to
wrap their heads around the concept that not all CD players sounded alike.
(You'd hardly fathom that today, when the prevailing ideology says that
every component naturally has a "sound" of its own.)

I was involved in the production of a number of the first CDs released
in the United States, and I know the processes that were followed. It
doesn't surprise me at all that many people hated digital audio based
on the quality of some of those early releases! The need for careful
remastering--with careful listening to the result by competent people--
was not generally recognized at first. Instead, the labels mostly threw
their grungy fourth-generation analog cutting masters our way and told
us to generate unequalized digital transfers from them. Then they sent
those tapes right to the CD pressing plants. Yuck.

Even worse, some labels which were bringing out their first CDs wanted to
make extra sure that their customers would hear enough difference between
the LPs and CDs to justify repurchasing their records in the new medium.
Unfortunately many producers seem to equate "new sounding" with "bright
sounding" so when those masters were transferred, their defects became
even more glaring.

Many labels realized only too late that their asses had been being saved
by LP mastering engineers all along--but those people, the ultimate
guardians of audio quality in the record production universe, were cut
out of the CD mastering process at first. It was a while before the
labels realized the folly of that, and engaged those same people to
master CDs for release.

But as soon as you hear one really good-sounding CD, you have to give up
any general prejudice against digital audio. Similarly, most engineers
who started out suspicious of solid-state gear learned that for most
applications it could be as good as the best tube gear. Not necessarily
identical under any and all operating conditions--but as good as, and a
heck of a lot more practical (less delicate; more reliable; lower size,
weight and cost).

The two areas of audio in which tubes remained predominant were the final
stages of high-powered VHF and UHF transmitters and, for some folks, guitar
and bass amplifiers. The former was for straightforward technical reasons
(capacitance, heat dissipation) while the latter was because some players
liked the sound they got when they overdrove certain amplifiers. Those
players tended to be picky about what kind of circuitry and which exact
type of tubes they were using, so it wasn't a generic "tube" thing by
any means--it was a particular tone effect caused by treatment which might
well be considered a kind of misuse of the equipment under any other
circumstances.

I'm no expert on the social history of the home studio market but I do
think that many people come into it starting as guitar players, and the
idea that tube sound is rounder and fuller makes some sense if you start
from the assumption that you're going to overdrive an amp for a cool
tone effect. It makes much less sense in any other context, however--
especially if the equipment handles signals with varying dynamic content.

Most of all, the type of rounding of overloaded sound which some (not all)
tube equipment can do under some (not even most) conditions has little or
nothing to do with tube sound in the era when "tubes were king". Tube
sound back then was just sound. So is solid-state or digital sound today,
when it's done right. If you do it right, no one should be able to tell
how you did it or with what type of equipment; the music itself should be
the thing they hear, and that has never changed.

Tubes add "warmth" to your vocals.

A lot of folks seem to think their vocals will sound like crap without
a $1000+ tube mike.

Personally, IMHO, I think you can record just about anything you need
to do vocal wise on a SM58 - for around a hundred bucks.

If you want to warm up the track, use your VST's :-)


On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 03:15:55 -0500, "TheKeith" wrote:


"R. D. Davis" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"TheKeith" writes:
In case you haven't realized, I'm a newbie to all this stuff, and as
someone

Wow... someone who is very new to electronic devices, has a short
memory, or is a youngster. Didn't radios have tubes in them when you
were a youngster, and didn't you see the tube testers in drug stores
and hardware stores? ;-)

well, I have heard of them of course--I'm not that young, but I never knew
exactly what they did from a technical standpoint, and never knew why so
many people like them for music. I just wasn't sure why all preamps seem to
have tubes and why there aren't any ordinary, inexpensive, one-channel,
non-tube preamps available.



who only needs to do some simple voiceover work for my flash cartoons, I
was
wondering what exactly I need? Do I need one of these tube preamps, or
is
there an even cheaper solution that doesn't employ a tube? What even is
a
tube and what is their benefit?

Here's a very breif, and greatly over-simplified, explanation:

It's a thermionic valve, a.k.a. a vacuum tube. It's a glass tube
containing a vacuum, getter, a plate, a filament to boil the electrons
off the cathode (or off itself if no separate cathode is used), one or
more grids (except in the case of diodes) to control the flow of
electrons, etc. Think of it as a valve that controls the flow of
electrons through a circuit. A very small change in the voltage
applied to the grid can result in a very large change in voltage in a
circuit using a tube. which is why a microphone, producing a small
voltage, connected to a circuit using tubes can make a loudspeaker's
cone move (to do so requires a larger voltage). It's like you use
just a little pressure on the gas pedal in your car, with your foot,
to make something much larger move with little effort on your part
... ok, not a very good analogy, techically, but hopefully you get the
point... it's very late, I'm getting sleepy, and can't think of a
better analogy at the moment.

A tube is basically what transistors were designed to replace (only
the transistor is current controlled, not voltage controlled, and is
much smaller, typically requiring lower voltages in its circuitry,
etc. Tubes and transistors exhibit different forms of distortion,
which is basically why amplifiers using tubes and transistors are said
to sound different (tube distortion is more pleasing to the ear), and
why tube amps can sound louder at the same power levels as transistor
amplifiers, etc.


I appreciate the good explanation--thanks.

In article , TheKeith wrote:
I've posted two other questions in the last week regarding my need for a
cheap mic preamp capable of powering my 48V phantom powered condenser mic
and then feeding the signal into the line-in on my sound card. Right now, I
have a midiman audio buddy, but since it's incapable of providing the mic
with the necessary 48V phantom power, I need a new preamp. Someone in my
last post indicated that I don't necessarily need a tube preamp, but didn't
make any alternative suggestions. All of the cheap preamps out there
(sub-$75) seem to be tube preamps, unless I'm missing something.

None of them are actually tube preamps. They are all cheap solid-state
preamps with a fake tube distortion stage in them, so they can put tube
on the box. Basically, this stuff is all aimed at people who think tubes
are cool and don't have any clue what equipment is supposed to sound like.

In case you haven't realized, I'm a newbie to all this stuff, and as someone
who only needs to do some simple voiceover work for my flash cartoons, I was
wondering what exactly I need? Do I need one of these tube preamps, or is
there an even cheaper solution that doesn't employ a tube? What even is a
tube and what is their benefit? Are my alternatives cheaper or more
expensive? Any help would be appreciated--thanks.

Tubes are what people used before the transistor was invented in 1947. They
have some advantages and some disadvantages, but in most of the cheap gear
they are gimmicks.

I am sorry to admit it, but I think your best bet is to get a Mackie 1202
console and use the mike preamps out of it. You should be able to find one
for $200 or so used. They are basically the cheapest mike preamps I would
ever recommend.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In Article , "TheKeith"
wrote:
I've posted two other questions in the last week regarding my need for a
cheap mic preamp capable of powering my 48V phantom powered condenser mic
and then feeding the signal into the line-in on my sound card. Right now, I
have a midiman audio buddy, but since it's incapable of providing the mic
with the necessary 48V phantom power, I need a new preamp. Someone in my
last post indicated that I don't necessarily need a tube preamp, but didn't
make any alternative suggestions. All of the cheap preamps out there
(sub-$75) seem to be tube preamps, unless I'm missing something.

In case you haven't realized, I'm a newbie to all this stuff, and as someone
who only needs to do some simple voiceover work for my flash cartoons, I was
wondering what exactly I need? Do I need one of these tube preamps, or is
there an even cheaper solution that doesn't employ a tube? What even is a
tube and what is their benefit? Are my alternatives cheaper or more
expensive? Any help would be appreciated--thanks.


Keith,

Just get a phantom power supply.

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

If you're happy with your current preamp, then just get a little Rolls
Phantom Power box. That'll run you about $25-30. I think ART makes
one as well. If you're looking for an upgrade to what you have for
under $100, then just about the only thing I can think of is a
Symetrix SX202...but you'll have to find one used....and that would be
a pretty good price to get one for $100. They seem to usually go a
bit over that, closer to $200. Other than that...you're probably
better off sticking with what you've got until you can afford or want
to spend the extra money for something better...usually in the $500
range...primarily for an RNP that is.
later,
m

In article writes:

I can well remember how interesting it was when Hitachi introduced their
first CD player, which was obviously not up to the quality level of the
other players that had preceded it on the market. People were trying to
wrap their heads around the concept that not all CD players sounded alike.
(You'd hardly fathom that today, when the prevailing ideology says that
every component naturally has a "sound" of its own.)

On the other hand, there are people who believe that digital is the
great equalizer (as in "playing-field-leveller", not "frequency
response distorter") and that everything in digital, by necessity,
sounds the same.

I'm no expert on the social history of the home studio market but I do
think that many people come into it starting as guitar players, and the
idea that tube sound is rounder and fuller makes some sense if you start
from the assumption that you're going to overdrive an amp for a cool
tone effect. It makes much less sense in any other context, however--
especially if the equipment handles signals with varying dynamic content.

The usual reason for this type of user to want a tube somewhere in the
digital chain is because their digital equipment is not sufficiently
accurate, and that it needs something to take the "digital edge" off
their recordings. A tube is perceived as doing this, and sometimes it
actually does. It's not the best solution to the problem, but it can
be inexpensive and, at least for a while, satisfying. If you like what
you hear, it's in general a good thing. If someone else doesn't like
what you hear, it's either a bad thing or simply a difference of
opinion.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

On 22 Dec 2003 10:15:44 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:


In article writes:

I can well remember how interesting it was when Hitachi introduced their
first CD player, which was obviously not up to the quality level of the
other players that had preceded it on the market. People were trying to
wrap their heads around the concept that not all CD players sounded alike.
(You'd hardly fathom that today, when the prevailing ideology says that
every component naturally has a "sound" of its own.)

On the other hand, there are people who believe that digital is the
great equalizer (as in "playing-field-leveller", not "frequency
response distorter") and that everything in digital, by necessity,
sounds the same.

It does, unless you screw it up! Note that many so-called 'high end'
components screw it up *royally*!!

I'm no expert on the social history of the home studio market but I do
think that many people come into it starting as guitar players, and the
idea that tube sound is rounder and fuller makes some sense if you start
from the assumption that you're going to overdrive an amp for a cool
tone effect. It makes much less sense in any other context, however--
especially if the equipment handles signals with varying dynamic content.

The usual reason for this type of user to want a tube somewhere in the
digital chain is because their digital equipment is not sufficiently
accurate, and that it needs something to take the "digital edge" off
their recordings.

Excuse me? Given that digital done right is far *more* accurate than
any analogue equivalent, this doesn't make sense.

A tube is perceived as doing this, and sometimes it
actually does. It's not the best solution to the problem, but it can
be inexpensive and, at least for a while, satisfying. If you like what
you hear, it's in general a good thing. If someone else doesn't like
what you hear, it's either a bad thing or simply a difference of
opinion.

It depends whether you like the same signal to come out of the output
as went in the input. For that, you don't need tubes.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 Dec 2003 10:15:44 -0500, (Mike Rivers)

I'm no expert on the social history of the home studio market but I do
think that many people come into it starting as guitar players, and the
idea that tube sound is rounder and fuller makes some sense if you start
from the assumption that you're going to overdrive an amp for a cool
tone effect. It makes much less sense in any other context, however--
especially if the equipment handles signals with varying dynamic content.

The usual reason for this type of user to want a tube somewhere in the
digital chain is because their digital equipment is not sufficiently
accurate, and that it needs something to take the "digital edge" off
their recordings.

Excuse me? Given that digital done right is far *more* accurate than
any analogue equivalent, this doesn't make sense.

Most digital isn't done right at all, sad to say.
--scott

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

snip
It depends whether you like the same signal to come out of the output
as went in the input. For that, you don't need tubes.

It's easier to achieve a "wire with gain" using solid state than vacuum
tube, IMHO.


--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie

David Satz wrote:
snip excellent material for brevity

WELL SAID!


--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie

"CJT" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

snip
It depends whether you like the same signal to come out of the output
as went in the input. For that, you don't need tubes.

It's easier to achieve a "wire with gain" using solid state than vacuum
tube, IMHO.

That's my feeling too. In fact I believe one we reason we like analog
(though don't want to admit it) is because it DOESN'T sound like we really
do. I covers a multitude of sins and makes us (well, at least me) sound
better than am at times.

Ricky W. Hunt wrote:
"CJT" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

snip
It depends whether you like the same signal to come out of the output
as went in the input. For that, you don't need tubes.

It's easier to achieve a "wire with gain" using solid state than vacuum
tube, IMHO.

That's my feeling too. In fact I believe one we reason we like analog
(though don't want to admit it) is because it DOESN'T sound like we really
do. I covers a multitude of sins and makes us (well, at least me) sound
better than am at times.

Well, it depends a lot on what you want to do. On a condenser microphone
input stage, it can be a lot easier to design a very clean sounding one with
a tube than a transistor, in part because it's easy to get very high Z tube
stages with low input capacitance.

It's very hard to design a good mike preamp that is transparent using tubes,
because it's hard to match the low-Z mike output efficiently to a tube input
circuit without using a transformer, and transformers are not transparent
(especially high ratio, high-Z ones like you need here). It can be done,
and Frank Forssell has done a great job of it but it's not easy.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"TheKeith" wrote in message

I've posted two other questions in the last week regarding my need
for a cheap mic preamp capable of powering my 48V phantom powered
condenser mic and then feeding the signal into the line-in on my
sound card. Right now, I have a midiman audio buddy, but since it's
incapable of providing the mic with the necessary 48V phantom power,
I need a new preamp. Someone in my last post indicated that I don't
necessarily need a tube preamp, but didn't make any alternative
suggestions. All of the cheap preamps out there (sub-$75) seem to be
tube preamps, unless I'm missing something.

AFAIK, you've missed all of the low-end Behringer mixers.

In article writes:

. . . and that everything in digital, by necessity,
sounds the same.

It does, unless you screw it up! Note that many so-called 'high end'
components screw it up *royally*!!

Excuse me? Given that digital done right is far *more* accurate than
any analogue equivalent, this doesn't make sense.

The trick is to change culture. The majority of people today have
become accustomed to paying (only) the cost of digital not done right.
Analog recording was pretty darn good when done right, too, but the
cassette has set the standard there, and so digital, even bad digital,
has become perceived as better by most people.

We know it isn't as good, most of the time, as it could be, and we
know how to get digital-done-right, but how many people are willing to
pay for it? Or more accurately, how many looking for "professoinal
studio quality" and who will build a studio will actually pay for top
quality digital equipment? By proportion, not many.

It depends whether you like the same signal to come out of the output
as went in the input. For that, you don't need tubes.

If that's all you want, most people can afford to do it right. The
thing is that what goes in isn't exactly what they want to hear, so
they need something to change it. Enter "the toob."



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

CJT wrote in message ...
TheKeith wrote:

I've posted two other questions in the last week regarding my need for a
cheap mic preamp capable of powering my 48V phantom powered condenser mic
and then feeding the signal into the line-in on my sound card. Right now, I
have a midiman audio buddy, but since it's incapable of providing the mic
with the necessary 48V phantom power, I need a new preamp. Someone in my
last post indicated that I don't necessarily need a tube preamp, but didn't
make any alternative suggestions. All of the cheap preamps out there
(sub-$75) seem to be tube preamps, unless I'm missing something.

In case you haven't realized, I'm a newbie to all this stuff, and as someone
who only needs to do some simple voiceover work for my flash cartoons, I was
wondering what exactly I need? Do I need one of these tube preamps, or is
there an even cheaper solution that doesn't employ a tube? What even is a
tube and what is their benefit? Are my alternatives cheaper or more
expensive? Any help would be appreciated--thanks.



You should be able to find a cheap mixer with a preamp (and phantom
power) built in.

You don't need tubes. Most people who think they need tubes don't,
either.

Well then,I guess I don't *need* them,I could use a SS power amp,and
it would work just dandy..But I prefer them,and I *do* need a tube
"fix" every now and then! (Tubes are a habit,ya know!) ;-)

On 22 Dec 2003 13:41:00 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 Dec 2003 10:15:44 -0500, (Mike Rivers)

I'm no expert on the social history of the home studio market but I do
think that many people come into it starting as guitar players, and the
idea that tube sound is rounder and fuller makes some sense if you start
from the assumption that you're going to overdrive an amp for a cool
tone effect. It makes much less sense in any other context, however--
especially if the equipment handles signals with varying dynamic content.

The usual reason for this type of user to want a tube somewhere in the
digital chain is because their digital equipment is not sufficiently
accurate, and that it needs something to take the "digital edge" off
their recordings.

Excuse me? Given that digital done right is far *more* accurate than
any analogue equivalent, this doesn't make sense.

Most digital isn't done right at all, sad to say.

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you, Scooter? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 22 Dec 2003 19:30:31 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Ricky W. Hunt wrote:
"CJT" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

snip
It depends whether you like the same signal to come out of the output
as went in the input. For that, you don't need tubes.

It's easier to achieve a "wire with gain" using solid state than vacuum
tube, IMHO.

That's my feeling too. In fact I believe one we reason we like analog
(though don't want to admit it) is because it DOESN'T sound like we really
do. I covers a multitude of sins and makes us (well, at least me) sound
better than am at times.

Well, it depends a lot on what you want to do. On a condenser microphone
input stage, it can be a lot easier to design a very clean sounding one with
a tube than a transistor, in part because it's easy to get very high Z tube
stages with low input capacitance.

You can do the same thing with high-voltage FETs, which also have
nicely low output impedance.

It's very hard to design a good mike preamp that is transparent using tubes,
because it's hard to match the low-Z mike output efficiently to a tube input
circuit without using a transformer, and transformers are not transparent
(especially high ratio, high-Z ones like you need here). It can be done,
and Frank Forssell has done a great job of it but it's not easy.

Agreed it can be done, and of course every mic has a sonic signature,
so the tube amp can still be a matter of preference, and can
reasonably be counted as part of the original performance.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"TheKeith" wrote in message
...

All of the cheap preamps out there
(sub-$75) seem to be tube preamps, unless I'm missing something.


I honestly did not know there was such a thing as a sub-$75 preamp, much
less a choice of tubes or not.


--
Rick Knepper
MicroComputer Support Services
Knepper Audio
Ft. Worth, TX
817-239-9632
413-215-1267 Fax
PC Tech Support & Equipment Sales
CDR Duplication & Audio Mastering
Recording
http://www.rknepper.com

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 22 Dec 2003 19:30:31 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Well, it depends a lot on what you want to do. On a condenser microphone
input stage, it can be a lot easier to design a very clean sounding one with
a tube than a transistor, in part because it's easy to get very high Z tube
stages with low input capacitance.

You can do the same thing with high-voltage FETs, which also have
nicely low output impedance.

You can, but it's not easy. Compare the Miller capacitance on a 6AU6
mini pentode with that of a 2SK170 FET. It's really a nightmare getting
good input FETs for mikes. Even so, there are some big issues with linearity
caused by the capacitance varying with modulation like a varactor diode.
There are sneaky tricks like input compensation and substrate biasing, but
with a 6AU6 you just drop it in and it works.

It's very hard to design a good mike preamp that is transparent using tubes,
because it's hard to match the low-Z mike output efficiently to a tube input
circuit without using a transformer, and transformers are not transparent
(especially high ratio, high-Z ones like you need here). It can be done,
and Frank Forssell has done a great job of it but it's not easy.

Agreed it can be done, and of course every mic has a sonic signature,
so the tube amp can still be a matter of preference, and can
reasonably be counted as part of the original performance.

Absolutely, but the original question was what is easier to make a clean
sounding device with.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."