Thanks to everyone for their help so far. I just have one thing I would like
to try and understand before I decide whether to persue this field, and that
is with regards to Pried's standpoint at

http://recpit.prosoundweb.com/viewto...r=&start=1 80

(his 2nd post on that page)

If I understand correctly, he's saying that it costs peanuts to put together
a fairly *technically accurate* preamp. Yet most people who want a "good"
preamp (and i'm reffering to the "clean" preamp classification ie. for use
in accurate classical/jazz type applications), from what I've read, spend
far more than this - even for units that contain no expensive components
like transformers.

Is it that these more expensive units are technically superior by a degree
which is significant enough to make an audible difference, or is it that
they aren't necessarily technically superior and as a result colour the
sound in a way that people like? How much of it is the price tag that
determines how good it sounds to the general public?

Pried comments on the Mackie preamps. I own 6 of these and have to disagree
with what he says; I grit my teeth over the sound I get out of them through
my sm57s in particular, and if this is what technical accuracy brings, then
I'm bittery dissapointed.

It doesn't appear like there's much room for improvement on the technical
side, and that's where my interests lie. I'm not so interested in randomly
trying different components and straying from the technical ideal in search
of a sound that I and hopefully others will like. If a
straight-wire-with-gain isn't going to sound good to me (this is impossible
to know I realize) then I'm not really keen on getting deep into this stuff.
If that's how I feel, what would be your recommendation?

Thanks again,

Dave

Is it that these more expensive units are technically superior by a degree
which is significant enough to make an audible difference, or is it that
they aren't necessarily technically superior and as a result colour the
sound in a way that people like? How much of it is the price tag that
determines how good it sounds to the general public?

Many better preamps are, in fact, "technically superior". The critical question
is, how? Preid's definition seems to be limited to noise and THD; noise is a
perfectly reasonable criterion, while THD, if it's below gross levels, has
little or no correlation with how good something sounds. The only way in which
harmonic distortion measurements are meaningful is to look at the individual
harmonic levels, something manufacturers typically don't do. It's possible, for
example, for a preamp testing at 0.5% THD to sound cleaner than one testing at
0.1% THD, if the first one is exhibiting 2nd harmonic while the second is
exhibiting 7th harmonic. It's not that 2nd is somehow "euphonic", it's that we
can't hear that level of 2nd harmonic, while we definitely can hear
surprisingly low levels of 7th.

Pried comments on the Mackie preamps. I own 6 of these and have to disagree
with what he says; I grit my teeth over the sound I get out of them through
my sm57s in particular, and if this is what technical accuracy brings, then
I'm bittery dissapointed.

It's not techinical accuracy.

If a
straight-wire-with-gain isn't going to sound good to me (this is impossible
to know I realize) then I'm not really keen on getting deep into this stuff.

You've never heard a straight wire with gain. Neither have I; neither has any
of us. Some manufacturers get a lot closer than others, and the last 1% is
HARD. Some manufacturers that get close include Millenia Media and John Hardy.

It's a pretty steep hurdle to try and get closer than they do; contrary to what
Preid says, it's not all that easy to get genuinely good performance that will
avoid assaulting the ear as well as the measuring bench. It takes very careful
attention to such things as power supply design, RFI proofing, microphone
loading, phantom power implementation, and of course the basic question of what
kind of distortion the amplifiers generate under real-world conditions.

There's still room for improvement, as Millennia and Hardy's engineers will be
happy to tell you; they're working on it themselves. If you want to get into
the field, you'll find there's plenty to do. But the learning curve is steep,
and right now there's still a certain amount of trying-and-rejecting involved,
because there are some things which are audible which are still difficult or
impossible to measure on the bench. (They won't always be impossible, but we
haven't yet devised the right tools.)

Come on in; the water's turbulent and exciting.

Peace,
Paul

Chris Hornbeck wrote:


There is huge room for improvement in sound reproduction, and it
can only come from the technical side. IOW, folks like you.


Not sure I agree. At least that it can only come from the technical
side. There is even more room for improvement in the choices being made
in sound reproduction. A listen of most modern balls to the walls
recordings seems to indicate that any technical shortcomings pale
compared to what humans are intentionally doing to the sound.

-Rob

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:27:28 -0600, Rob Adelman
wrote:

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
There is huge room for improvement in sound reproduction, and it
can only come from the technical side. IOW, folks like you.


Not sure I agree. At least that it can only come from the technical
side. There is even more room for improvement in the choices being made
in sound reproduction. A listen of most modern balls to the walls
recordings seems to indicate that any technical shortcomings pale
compared to what humans are intentionally doing to the sound.

I'd guess we differ only in terminology. I'd call those issues
production rather than reproduction. You say potato, I say tomato..

Thanks,

Chris Hornbeck
"That is my Theory, and what it is too."
Anne Elk

Chris Hornbeck wrote:


I'd guess we differ only in terminology. I'd call those issues
production rather than reproduction. You say potato, I say tomato..


Good point, I think you are correct. Still, any improvement in
reproduction seems like it will make little difference considering the
the butchering going on in production. Sad to say.

-Rob

Chris Hornbeck wrote:


I'd guess we differ only in terminology. I'd call those issues
production rather than reproduction. You say potato, I say tomato..


Good point, I think you are correct. Still, any improvement in
reproduction seems like it will make little difference considering the
the butchering going on in production. Sad to say.

-Rob

Not sure I follow.. Are you reffering to what's being done to the sound
after the recording stage in question?

Dave

David Grant wrote:



Not sure I follow.. Are you reffering to what's being done to the sound
after the recording stage in question?

During and after the recording stage. The way the levels are all being
slammed I don't see how any subtle improvements in the recording stage
would even be audible. Certainly improved dynamic range would seem to be
moot.

-Rob

David Grant wrote:

Thanks to everyone for their help so far. I just have one thing I would like
to try and understand before I decide whether to persue this field, and that
is with regards to Pried's standpoint at

http://recpit.prosoundweb.com/viewto...r=&start=1 80

(his 2nd post on that page)

If I understand correctly, he's saying that it costs peanuts to put together
a fairly *technically accurate* preamp.

That's perfectly true. Costs less than a dollar at OEM cost to get a quite acceptable
perfoming mic pre when manufacturing in thousands. It won't be the best but can be
quite good.

About another 50 cents will make it much better.

Skimmed the link you gave. This is very true....

"All inputs should be true differential-input, insulated grounds, medium-Z. True diff
means a 2-opamp or 3-opamp design: the popular 1-opamp plan can not be balanced for
both differential and common-mode inputs."

Sadly most 'economy designs' use the 1 op-amp solution. I'm guilty of this too but
have put the 2 op-amp solution in some products. Especially beneficial is that it
allows differential feedback.


Yet most people who want a "good"
preamp (and i'm reffering to the "clean" preamp classification ie. for use
in accurate classical/jazz type applications), from what I've read, spend
far more than this - even for units that contain no expensive components
like transformers.

Low quantity manufacturing probably puts up any cost as much as 5x alone ! The labour
will be more expensive than in China too.

Then there will likely be higher 'quality' components used. Not necessarily radical
stuff, just likely to be 1% or better resistors throughout etc. Caps will be premium
grade and so on. Pots and switches will be especially likely to be premium grade,
along with connectors.

A decent outbaord pre will also probably have an RFI filter than an economy desk
won't.

There's the cost of a case and power supply ( these are 'shared' between channels in
the case of a mixer ).

The cost mounts quickly.


Is it that these more expensive units are technically superior by a degree
which is significant enough to make an audible difference, or is it that
they aren't necessarily technically superior and as a result colour the
sound in a way that people like?

They will be better than the 1-2 dollar mass produced pres inside the Mackies and
Behringers of this world

Colouration is another issue. That requires intentional 'imprecise design'.

How much of it is the price tag that
determines how good it sounds to the general public?

The general public would probably never notice if you used a Radio Shack pre-amp.

It's to please the engineer / producer.


Pried comments on the Mackie preamps. I own 6 of these and have to disagree
with what he says; I grit my teeth over the sound I get out of them through
my sm57s in particular, and if this is what technical accuracy brings, then
I'm bittery dissapointed.

Are they XDRs ? I haven't actually seen a schematic for them.


It doesn't appear like there's much room for improvement on the technical
side, and that's where my interests lie.

Compared to the standard economy mic pre there's plenty of room for improvement
technically without even using esoteric components.

I'm not so interested in randomly trying different components and straying from the
technical ideal in search of a sound that I and hopefully others will like.

Wise. Random choice of component is for the 'golden ears' audiophiles who also believe
in unidirectional speaker cables.

It's amazing what spending money can do to ppls' perception.

If a straight-wire-with-gain isn't going to sound good to me (this is impossible
to know I realize) then I'm not really keen on getting deep into this stuff.
If that's how I feel, what would be your recommendation?

Keep researching. I wasn't much impressed by the links you were given Almost all were
op-amp only implementations.


Graham

David Grant wrote:

snip

Pried comments on the Mackie preamps. I own 6 of these and have to disagree
with what he says; I grit my teeth over the sound I get out of them through
my sm57s in particular, and if this is what technical accuracy brings, then
I'm bittery dissapointed.

I nearly missed this bit.

Do you seriously expect to be able to audition a mic pre with an SM57 ? One of the
most over-hyped and truly miserable mics ever ( bar the '58 ).

To me, using one is a bit like listening through a wet sock. Check the response graph.

http://www.shure.com/images/response/fsm57_large.gif

Look at - the bass rolloff below 200Hz ( -10dB @ 50Hz ) - the 'presence rise' ( +6dB @
6.5kHz ) the HF rolloff ( -10dB @ ~ 17kHz ).

In fact the section between 6.5k and 17k looks close to a 6dB/octave rolloff overall.
That's like turning the treble control to minimum. Oh, also check the 'comb filtering'
effect above 6.5k.

Being from the UK, I'll suggest using almost any European mic such as those from
Beyer, Sennheiser or AKG. My 'cheapest' general purpose mic before I bought an SM48
which I prefer over the 58 ) to please ppl who insist on a shure, was the AKG D190E. I
admit I got a shock when I saw the current price ! I bought most of mine for about £30
- Ok that was trade and many years ago.

Compare the rather smoother response !

http://www.akg.com/products/powersla...iew,specs.html

The US guys here can advise which EVor other model to try. They're likely to be
expensive though.


Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
David Grant wrote:

snip

Pried comments on the Mackie preamps. I own 6 of these and have to
disagree
with what he says; I grit my teeth over the sound I get out of them
through
my sm57s in particular, and if this is what technical accuracy brings,
then
I'm bittery dissapointed.

I nearly missed this bit.

Do you seriously expect to be able to audition a mic pre with an SM57 ?
One of the
most over-hyped and truly miserable mics ever ( bar the '58 ).


I guess that's the result of listening to popular opinion rather than the
device itself. Hadn't honestly crossed my mind for more than a split second
that it could be the mic....

....And I'm always laughing at others for being taken in by marketing and
following the crowd.

David Grant wrote:

Pried comments on the Mackie preamps. I own 6 of these and have to disagree
with what he says; I grit my teeth over the sound I get out of them through
my sm57s in particular, and if this is what technical accuracy brings, then
I'm bittery dissapointed.

It's not technical accuracy, as Dorsey (IIRC) pointed out. Look at the
distortion spectra on them sometime.




Pooh Bear wrote:

Being from the UK, I'll suggest using almost any European mic such as those from
Beyer, Sennheiser or AKG. My 'cheapest' general purpose mic before I bought an SM48
which I prefer over the 58 ) to please ppl who insist on a shure, was the AKG D190E. I
admit I got a shock when I saw the current price ! I bought most of mine for about £30
- Ok that was trade and many years ago.

Compare the rather smoother response !

http://www.akg.com/products/powersla...iew,specs.html

The US guys here can advise which EVor other model to try. They're likely to be
expensive though.


Some of us US guys would suggest the Beyer M201, which took the "SM-57"
position in my kit 20+ years ago
http://www.beyerdynamic.com/com/prod...sheet/m201.pdf

Pooh Bear wrote:

Kurt Albershardt wrote:


Some of us US guys would suggest the Beyer M201, which took the "SM-57"
position in my kit 20+ years ago
http://www.beyerdynamic.com/com/prod...sheet/m201.pdf


Oh yes indeed !
That's a nice mic. It seems bizarre to even compare it to a '57.

It's similar in shape and size and useable in all the same applications
(as well as in many places most would use use a condenser these days.)

It does cost about twice as much (a bit more at the moment thanks to the
$-€ slide) but is still quite an affordable mic, one I prefer to the
vast majority of the offshore LDC clones.




Lovely - like certain AKGs I have, even shows the proximity effect at calibrated distances.

Anyone got any comment about EV's 'Variable D' mics btw in that respect ? I have an RE11 that I
bought for a vocalist originally and ended up buying back from him when he gave up rock 'n roll.

I'm kicking myself for having sold my RE-15s now that EV no longer
offers them. Always sounded good to my ears (but never got trendy in
rock-n-roll, mabey due to the rather stodgy cosmetics and skinny body
profile?)

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

Kurt Albershardt wrote:


Some of us US guys would suggest the Beyer M201, which took the "SM-57"
position in my kit 20+ years ago
http://www.beyerdynamic.com/com/prod...sheet/m201.pdf


Oh yes indeed !
That's a nice mic. It seems bizarre to even compare it to a '57.

It's similar in shape and size and useable in all the same applications
(as well as in many places most would use use a condenser these days.)

Indeed, without knowing it, I would think 'condensor' just by the looks !



It does cost about twice as much (a bit more at the moment thanks to the
$-€ slide) but is still quite an affordable mic, one I prefer to the
vast majority of the offshore LDC clones.

Lovely - like certain AKGs I have, even shows the proximity effect at calibrated distances.

Anyone got any comment about EV's 'Variable D' mics btw in that respect ? I have an RE11 that I
bought for a vocalist originally and ended up buying back from him when he gave up rock 'n roll.

I'm kicking myself for having sold my RE-15s now that EV no longer
offers them. Always sounded good to my ears (but never got trendy in
rock-n-roll, mabey due to the rather stodgy cosmetics and skinny body
profile?)

I'll have to look that one up. I recall EV doing a 'cheap' RE11 as a DS35 ? IIRC. Anyone got one of
those ?


Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
David Grant wrote:

snip

Pried comments on the Mackie preamps. I own 6 of these and have to
disagree
with what he says; I grit my teeth over the sound I get out of them
through
my sm57s in particular, and if this is what technical accuracy brings,
then
I'm bittery dissapointed.

I nearly missed this bit.

Do you seriously expect to be able to audition a mic pre with an SM57 ?
One of the
most over-hyped and truly miserable mics ever ( bar the '58 ).

To me, using one is a bit like listening through a wet sock. Check the
response graph.


I agree that's probably part of it. But I do also own some marshall 603s
which sound equally ugly ( though according to Ty Ford's post earlier on
this NG this mic also has issues with the VLZs). I rented out an AKG 414 for
a day (as long as I could afford) and found it to be not much better than
the 603s. I expect some mics must get along better but the problem is I
don't own or have access to them

I hope I'm on the right track in thinking that by getting a few more mics,
and another preamp (I'm been looking at the RNP and Quadmic) I'd have an
easier time furthering my understanding of how performance varies across
different designs given different conditions (mics for example).

The problem of course is budget...But hey, if this is ends up as my career I
figure it's a worthwhile educational investment. There - I just justified
the possibility of spending some of my student loan on studio gear!

David Grant wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
David Grant wrote:

snip

Pried comments on the Mackie preamps. I own 6 of these and have to
disagree
with what he says; I grit my teeth over the sound I get out of them
through
my sm57s in particular, and if this is what technical accuracy brings,
then
I'm bittery dissapointed.

I nearly missed this bit.

Do you seriously expect to be able to audition a mic pre with an SM57 ?
One of the
most over-hyped and truly miserable mics ever ( bar the '58 ).

To me, using one is a bit like listening through a wet sock. Check the
response graph.

I agree that's probably part of it. But I do also own some marshall 603s
which sound equally ugly ( though according to Ty Ford's post earlier on
this NG this mic also has issues with the VLZs). I rented out an AKG 414 for
a day (as long as I could afford) and found it to be not much better than
the 603s. I expect some mics must get along better but the problem is I
don't own or have access to them

I hope I'm on the right track in thinking that by getting a few more mics,
and another preamp (I'm been looking at the RNP and Quadmic) I'd have an
easier time furthering my understanding of how performance varies across
different designs given different conditions (mics for example).

The problem of course is budget...But hey, if this is ends up as my career I
figure it's a worthwhile educational investment. There - I just justified
the possibility of spending some of my student loan on studio gear!

Live and learn !

Good sources and good reproducers make an awesome difference.

When I was 21, I bought a seriously underpriced Neumann U87 - as new too. Ended
up selling it for a handsome profit a year later.

That mic will reveal just about anything, good pre-amp or no. Sounds awesome
live on a snare too ! Just make sure it's out of reach of the drummer's sticks !



Graham

"David Grant" wrote in message


I agree that's probably part of it. But I do also own some marshall
603s which sound equally ugly ( though according to Ty Ford's post
earlier on this NG this mic also has issues with the VLZs). I rented
out an AKG 414 for a day (as long as I could afford) and found it to
be not much better than the 603s. I expect some mics must get along
better but the problem is I don't own or have access to them

I've been using 603s with a Mackie SR-32 which has XDR mic preamps and VLZ
busses. IME the 603 can be used by itself in low-SPL applications
(specifically for a baptistery), but needs 10-20 dB worth of attenuation to
sound acceptable in high-SPL applications (specifically for a trombone at
about 6'). I've also used an attenuator with a flute and it helped there as
well. A-T's switchable mic attenuator rose to the occasion again!

I'd go so far as to say that a small basket full of mic attenuators is what
you need if you want to use higher-output condenser mics with these
consoles.

I have a recording made this way that I would be really be quite proud of,
except there was a direct box on stage that was making rasping humming
noises that while barely tolerable for the live sound, really trashed the
recording through the stage monitors. It didn't sound that bad in the
room...

I don't know that this console sounds especially evil with SM-57s, as I am
of the opinion that SM-57s generally don't sound very good. I've read the
anecdotes about magic expensive mic preamps that make even SM57s sound good,
but the economics of good cheap mics seems to go against them.

"anthony.gosnell" wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote
Do you seriously expect to be able to audition a mic pre with an SM57 ?
One of the
most over-hyped and truly miserable mics ever ( bar the '58 ).

If you are auditioning a mic pre you need to use a microphone which needs a
lot of gain. This is why an sm57 will let you hear more of the pre than a
much higher quality condensor.

Utter rubbish.

The SM57 is quite sensitive.

Its response will nullify any meaningful attempt at analysis.


Graham

Arny Krueger wrote:

I don't know that this console sounds especially evil with SM-57s, as I am
of the opinion that SM-57s generally don't sound very good. I've read the
anecdotes about magic expensive mic preamps that make even SM57s sound good,
but the economics of good cheap mics seems to go against them.

SM-57s are very touchy about loading. They need to see the right load Z
(and it's reactive), in order to work well.

They generally don't sound very good at all into high-Z solid state
mike input like the Mackies, but they tend to sound very good into
just about anything with an input transformer.

I suppose you could make a solid state input with a reactive shunt
that modelled an input transformer, but I could imagine it would cost
more than it's worth and you'd be taking a noise hit.

In general, most dynamics tend to be this way, and in general, the
higher the mike output on a moving coil dynamic, the more the loading
is a problem. Ribbon mikes tend to be even worse. So the problem is
not just limited to the SM-57.
--scott

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

Pooh Bear wrote:

The SM57 is quite sensitive.

Its response will nullify any meaningful attempt at analysis.

Its response changes totally with load impedance, which is what makes it
a good choice for testing a preamp. You get a good sense of how the preamp
load is going to affect the mike's sound.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Its response changes totally with load impedance, which is what makes it
a good choice for testing a preamp. You get a good sense of how the preamp
load is going to affect the mike's sound.

Of course, it's a pretty limited test. You'll find out how the preamp affects
an SM57. That result, unfortunately, can't be generalized to other microphones,
so it's only useful if you plan to use SM57s. Another reason why I don't.

Peace,
Paul

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

The SM57 is quite sensitive.

Its response will nullify any meaningful attempt at analysis.

Its response changes totally with load impedance, which is what makes it
a good choice for testing a preamp. You get a good sense of how the preamp
load is going to affect the mike's sound.

Hi Scott,

I've noticed you mention the loading aspect a number of times and it's caught
my interest. I design for a 2kOhm load which seems to be pretty universal, at
least with UK mixers.

It would be easy enough to offer a selection of loads but would mean even more
switches on an already busy panel.

Makes sense on a dedicated mic pre though. Any suggestions as to the 'best'
loads ? I wonder what load Shure used when measuring the SM57's response too.


Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:

I've noticed you mention the loading aspect a number of times and it's caught
my interest. I design for a 2kOhm load which seems to be pretty universal, at
least with UK mixers.

2k resistive?

It would be easy enough to offer a selection of loads but would mean even more
switches on an already busy panel.

Yup.

Makes sense on a dedicated mic pre though. Any suggestions as to the 'best'
loads ? I wonder what load Shure used when measuring the SM57's response too.

Take a look at the Groove Tubes Vi Pre, which has a bunch of different loads
into a transformer with a multi-tapped primary.

If you are going the transformer route, just having the normal 50, 150, 300,
600, 1200 inputs would be a good start. The Altec consoles, for instance,
would let you do 50 through 600, though you had to get underneath and swap
jumpers around to do it.

If you are going the transformerless route, you can offer a much greater
range. Who was it, Nelson Pass, that had those little preamps in metal
cans that mounted at the mike at the 2001 AES show? He had a nice selection
of input impedances but they were all purely resistive.
--scott

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Who was it, Nelson Pass, that had those little preamps in metal
cans that mounted at the mike at the 2001 AES show? He had a nice selection
of input impedances but they were all purely resistive.

Maybe Dick Sequerra?

In article writes:

Who was it, Nelson Pass, that had those little preamps in metal
cans that mounted at the mike at the 2001 AES show?

Maybe Dick Sequerra?

That's who. The project (and the company) didn't last more than a
couple of months beyond the show.




--
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

Rob Adelman wrote in message ...
Chris Hornbeck wrote:





Not sure I agree. At least that it can only come from the technical
side. There is even more room for improvement in the choices being made
in sound reproduction. A listen of most modern balls to the walls
recordings seems to indicate that any technical shortcomings pale
compared to what humans are intentionally doing to the sound.

-Rob

Amen Rob, Amen. A fellow at some review mag decried the awful sound of
the latest release of his beloved Rush (the band). He showed a sample
audiograph of three of their albums, including the latest, and the
degradation from one to the next was pretty dramatic.

Now, if we're talking Korn or Pumpkins, squash might be appropriate,
but who cares anyway, as i don't listen to such. My despondancy over
the matter arises when those same sensibilities permeate seemingly
anything i hear nowadays, howevermuch to a lesser degree.

shecky wrote:


A fellow at some review mag decried the awful sound of
the latest release of his beloved Rush (the band). He showed a sample
audiograph of three of their albums, including the latest, and the
degradation from one to the next was pretty dramatic.

Good example. I have many old Rush albums and the new one. Part of their
draw for me was always about the quality of the recordings, production,
etc.

Vapor Trails (the latest) sounds like crap. They could have used nothing
but the cheapest microphones all into a Mackie board vs: the best gear
money could buy and it would be hard to tell the difference.

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:


If you are going the transformerless route, you can offer a much greater
range. Who was it, Nelson Pass, that had those little preamps in metal
cans that mounted at the mike at the 2001 AES show? He had a nice selection
of input impedances but they were all purely resistive.
--scott

Wasn't it Dick Sequerra?

DC

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Who was it, Nelson Pass, that had those little preamps in metal
cans that mounted at the mike at the 2001 AES show? He had a nice selection
of input impedances but they were all purely resistive.

Maybe Dick Sequerra?

Yes! It was Sequerra! I think the device never went into full scale
production, but it was a fine idea.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

I've noticed you mention the loading aspect a number of times and it's caught
my interest. I design for a 2kOhm load which seems to be pretty universal, at
least with UK mixers.

2k resistive?

Almost entirely. Discrete front end.


Graham

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:znr1070830813k@trad...
In article writes:

Who was it, Nelson Pass, that had those little preamps in metal
cans that mounted at the mike at the 2001 AES show?

Maybe Dick Sequerra?

That's who. The project (and the company) didn't last more than a
couple of months beyond the show.


Speaking of mikes, has anyone heard the Weavers Reunion Album recorded
in the 60s? I don't know what kind of mike they used but the sound is
very lifelike.

Also, the Direct-to-Disk recording of Harry James which was recorded
in that little church building is interesting.

Ren wrote:

Speaking of mikes, has anyone heard the Weavers Reunion Album recorded
in the 60s? I don't know what kind of mike they used but the sound is
very lifelike.

If you mean the Carnegie Hall album, it's a cokebottle.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Speaking of mikes, has anyone heard the Weavers Reunion Album recorded
in the 60s? I don't know what kind of mike they used but the sound is
very lifelike.

If you mean the Carnegie Hall album, it's a cokebottle.

There were four Weavers albums recorded at Carnegie Hall. The first ("The
Weavers at Carnegie Hall") was the most famous one, recorded Christmas Eve,
1955, which brought them out of blacklist-enforced retirement (what Lee Hays
called "a sabbatical that turned into a mondical and a tuesdical"); that was
recorded in mono, and although it's hard to tell from the cover photo, it looks
like an Altec condenser mike. Personnel: Ronnie Gilbert, Lee Hays, Fred
Hellerman & Pete Seeger (the original Weavers).

The second one ("The Weavers at Carnegie Hall, Vol. 2") was recorded in 1960
and was done in stereo, and the microphone is a weird stereo mike -- Scott, is
that an Altec? Erik Darling replaces Pete Seeger.

The third, which I think is the one the original poster was asking about, was
"The Weavers' Reunion at Carnegie Hall", recorded 1963. It's justly famous
among audiophiles, but I don't have it, so can't look at the picture on the
cover. That may be the "coke-bottle" one -- perhaps a spaced pair of
coke-bottles? Those were Altecs, yes? The personnel included everyone who'd
been in the Weavers over the years: Gilbert, Hays, Hellerman, Seeger, Darling,
Frank Hamilton, and Bernie Krause (yes, the same one who did electronic music
recordings later). The Weavers broke up a few months later.

Finally, the 1980 "Together Again" album, which was recorded during the concert
featured in the film "Wasn't That a Time?", was multi-miked, and I thought I
saw some Beyer M260s in use, and a Sennheiser 441 on Pete's vocal if I recall
correctly. It featured the original Weavers (Gilbert, Hays, Hellerman, Seeger),
and unlike all the others (which were on Vanguard), it came out on Loom
Records.

By the way, it's possible there were actually five Carnegie Hall records; I've
never seen the recording credits for "The Weavers on Tour", but it may have
consisted of more material from that original 1955 concert.

Probably more than anybody wanted to know, but what the heck. Merry Christmas,
folks.

Peace,
Paul

P Stamler wrote:
There were four Weavers albums recorded at Carnegie Hall. The first ("The
Weavers at Carnegie Hall") was the most famous one, recorded Christmas Eve,
1955, which brought them out of blacklist-enforced retirement (what Lee Hays
called "a sabbatical that turned into a mondical and a tuesdical"); that was
recorded in mono, and although it's hard to tell from the cover photo, it looks
like an Altec condenser mike. Personnel: Ronnie Gilbert, Lee Hays, Fred
Hellerman & Pete Seeger (the original Weavers).

Yes. This one was done with an Altec condenser of some kind, but not
a cokebottle.

The second one ("The Weavers at Carnegie Hall, Vol. 2") was recorded in 1960
and was done in stereo, and the microphone is a weird stereo mike -- Scott, is
that an Altec? Erik Darling replaces Pete Seeger.

I have no idea what this one was done with offhand, but I can ask.

The third, which I think is the one the original poster was asking about, was
"The Weavers' Reunion at Carnegie Hall", recorded 1963. It's justly famous
among audiophiles, but I don't have it, so can't look at the picture on the
cover. That may be the "coke-bottle" one -- perhaps a spaced pair of
coke-bottles? Those were Altecs, yes? The personnel included everyone who'd
been in the Weavers over the years: Gilbert, Hays, Hellerman, Seeger, Darling,
Frank Hamilton, and Bernie Krause (yes, the same one who did electronic music
recordings later). The Weavers broke up a few months later.

Yes, this was done with a pair of Altec cokebottles.

Finally, the 1980 "Together Again" album, which was recorded during the concert
featured in the film "Wasn't That a Time?", was multi-miked, and I thought I
saw some Beyer M260s in use, and a Sennheiser 441 on Pete's vocal if I recall
correctly. It featured the original Weavers (Gilbert, Hays, Hellerman, Seeger),
and unlike all the others (which were on Vanguard), it came out on Loom
Records.

Is this any good? I've never aheard of this.

By the way, it's possible there were actually five Carnegie Hall records; I've
never seen the recording credits for "The Weavers on Tour", but it may have
consisted of more material from that original 1955 concert.

People who like these should also listen to "Calypso at Midnight" and
"Calypso After Midnight," if only to hear Alan Lomax playing emcee.
Cokebottle into a Presto portable lathe.
--scott

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

Finally, the 1980 "Together Again" album, which was recorded during the
concert
featured in the film "Wasn't That a Time?", was multi-miked, and I thought I
saw some Beyer M260s in use, and a Sennheiser 441 on Pete's vocal if I
recall
correctly. It featured the original Weavers (Gilbert, Hays, Hellerman,
Seeger),
and unlike all the others (which were on Vanguard), it came out on Loom
Records.

Is this any good? I've never aheard of this.

I enjoyed it, but then I grew up on the Weavers and am not an unbiased source.
It's about half Weavers classics -- Darling Corey, Wasn't That a Time, Kisses
Sweeter than Wine, Wimoweh, Irene -- and half stuff from their solo careers --
Ronnie sings two Holly Near songs, Pete sings Get Up and Go, Fred does a couple
of numbers. For me the best cut is All Night Long, with a monologue by Lee Hays
as intro; I'd forgotten that he was a great stand-up comic, and every Weavers
concert always included a segment where he'd let rip. There's also an excellent
version of Dark as a Dungeon.

Everyone was in good voice, and the old stuff sounded damned close to the
originals. It would be Lee Hays's last performance -- he died not long after.
It's worth checking out, at least.

Quotation marks omitted to save previous natural resources.

Peace,
Paul