shannon wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:14:45 +0000, Ralph Staub wrote:

Bob Cap wrote:
Guys,

I'm interested in which pre amps you guys are using for your digital mixers.
And if you can let me know why you chose the one you did.

Thanks

Bob Cap


In the $1000 market, the Behringer ADA8000 is the clear winner, not
because it's the cheapest ($200) but because it's as good or better than
the other units in the category. The Focusrite Octopre can be had with
the ADAT card option for about $1150. Once I figured out the correct
magic with the word clock (without a 75ohm terminator, it tends to lose
clocking mid show) I've been quite happy with it. The Yamaha AD8HR is a
fine package that's remote controllable, but will cost some coin. For
those who like overkill, the ATI 8MX2 can be teamed up with your choice
of A/Ds.

Ralph

How do you rate the Presonus Digimax Ralph ?
Its a smidgeon over the $1k but their preamps have a good reputation.

What never fails to amaze me is the myth that pre-amps are somehow 'magical' and
belong almost in the audiophool category.

There's nothing that special about a mic pre compared to any other damn part of the
electronics in the signal path.

It simply has to deal with quite low signal levels and is thus fairly important.
It's not rocket science though.

Shame that no-one compares EQs the same way. There's *much* more room for being
inventive there.


Graham

On 10/19/05 1:11 PM, in article , "Pooh Bear"
wrote:



shannon wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:14:45 +0000, Ralph Staub wrote:

Bob Cap wrote:
Guys,

I'm interested in which pre amps you guys are using for your digital
mixers.
And if you can let me know why you chose the one you did.

Thanks

Bob Cap


In the $1000 market, the Behringer ADA8000 is the clear winner, not
because it's the cheapest ($200) but because it's as good or better than
the other units in the category. The Focusrite Octopre can be had with
the ADAT card option for about $1150. Once I figured out the correct
magic with the word clock (without a 75ohm terminator, it tends to lose
clocking mid show) I've been quite happy with it. The Yamaha AD8HR is a
fine package that's remote controllable, but will cost some coin. For
those who like overkill, the ATI 8MX2 can be teamed up with your choice
of A/Ds.

Ralph

How do you rate the Presonus Digimax Ralph ?
Its a smidgeon over the $1k but their preamps have a good reputation.

What never fails to amaze me is the myth that pre-amps are somehow 'magical'
and
belong almost in the audiophool category.

There's nothing that special about a mic pre compared to any other damn part
of the
electronics in the signal path.

It simply has to deal with quite low signal levels and is thus fairly
important.
It's not rocket science though.

Shame that no-one compares EQs the same way. There's *much* more room for
being
inventive there.


Graham

Indeed, last two days I had a quick-n-dirty guy-with-a-guitar demo to do and
just grabbed a couple of cases and ran. Inside was the old (CRINGE!) APHEX
107 (with power supply thank goodness), a (GASP!) dbx 262 (?) dual/stereo
compressor, (COWER!) an ALESIS nano and an original (GAG!) Mackie 1202
recorded to a DAP1
AIEEEE! "where's Mister Multitrack??"
What HORRID gear!
Where Is Clik-Trak??
16/44!!!! OH NOOOO!
Absolutely Must sound like bad cell phone!
Stuck up the pair of At 4050's in bi on vox and guit thru the 107 into the
1202. Taylor had a (!) -nice- (!) sound down it's wire so that got added
in, added 'verb, light stereo comp, Dialed things in for levels, In 1/2
hour we were laying down 4 songs an hour with breaks. 3/12 required more
than 1 take.
I've bought worse sounding records.
Artist had fun... Now THERE"s a no-no!

Now, For Extra credit:
WHY DID THIS SOUND GOOD?

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:11:31 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:


What never fails to amaze me is the myth that pre-amps are somehow 'magical' and
belong almost in the audiophool category.

There's nothing that special about a mic pre compared to any other damn part of the
electronics in the signal path.

It simply has to deal with quite low signal levels and is thus fairly important.
It's not rocket science though.



Have you ever bothered to compare the sonic differences between
preamps? If you can't tell the difference between a "Mackie" class
unit and those from the likes of Great River, FMR Audio, John Hardy -
just to name a few, you are in the wrong business.



Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

Rick Ruskin wrote:

Have you ever bothered to compare the sonic differences between
preamps? If you can't tell the difference between a "Mackie" class
unit and those from the likes of Great River, FMR Audio, John Hardy -
just to name a few, you are in the wrong business.

I think for the most part, though, this has less to do with how great
the good preamps are than how bad the bad preamps are.
--scott


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

"Rick Ruskin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:11:31 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:


What never fails to amaze me is the myth that pre-amps are somehow
'magical' and
belong almost in the audiophool category.

There's nothing that special about a mic pre compared to any other damn
part of the
electronics in the signal path.

It simply has to deal with quite low signal levels and is thus fairly
important.
It's not rocket science though.



Have you ever bothered to compare the sonic differences between
preamps? If you can't tell the difference between a "Mackie" class
unit and those from the likes of Great River, FMR Audio, John Hardy -
just to name a few, you are in the wrong business.



True. But it's also generally true that one has to be in the business to be
able to detect the differences between the mic preamps.

Most people can easily detect differences between microphones, equalizers
etc. without having trained ears.

That's the difference, isn't it?

Predrag

Pooh Bear wrote:

shannon wrote:


On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:14:45 +0000, Ralph Staub wrote:


Bob Cap wrote:

Guys,

I'm interested in which pre amps you guys are using for your digital mixers.
And if you can let me know why you chose the one you did.

Thanks

Bob Cap



In the $1000 market, the Behringer ADA8000 is the clear winner, not
because it's the cheapest ($200) but because it's as good or better than
the other units in the category. The Focusrite Octopre can be had with
the ADAT card option for about $1150. Once I figured out the correct
magic with the word clock (without a 75ohm terminator, it tends to lose
clocking mid show) I've been quite happy with it. The Yamaha AD8HR is a
fine package that's remote controllable, but will cost some coin. For
those who like overkill, the ATI 8MX2 can be teamed up with your choice
of A/Ds.

Ralph

How do you rate the Presonus Digimax Ralph ?
Its a smidgeon over the $1k but their preamps have a good reputation.


What never fails to amaze me is the myth that pre-amps are somehow 'magical' and
belong almost in the audiophool category.

There's nothing that special about a mic pre compared to any other damn part of the
electronics in the signal path.

It simply has to deal with quite low signal levels and is thus fairly important.
It's not rocket science though.

Shame that no-one compares EQs the same way. There's *much* more room for being
inventive there.


Graham



shrug
Preamps sound different.
If you don't know that perhaps you are the phool

We are specifically discussing combination mic preamp AD converters and
ADAT optical interfaces, I'd like to know how the whole package compares.

There are proponents of various outboard preamps in r.a.p, they will no
doubt fill you in on their endless debate.

Rick Ruskin wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:11:31 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

What never fails to amaze me is the myth that pre-amps are somehow 'magical' and
belong almost in the audiophool category.

There's nothing that special about a mic pre compared to any other damn part of the
electronics in the signal path.

It simply has to deal with quite low signal levels and is thus fairly important.
It's not rocket science though.



Have you ever bothered to compare the sonic differences between
preamps? If you can't tell the difference between a "Mackie" class
unit and those from the likes of Great River, FMR Audio, John Hardy -
just to name a few, you are in the wrong business.


OK - so what's the difference ?

A Mackie XDR mic pre for example produces essentially a technically 'perfect' magnified
replica of the input at its output. The same can be said of most of the mic pres to be
found in the majority of credible consoles.

I can only assume that the 'magic' mic pres are actually *adding colouration*.


Graham

Predrag Trpkov wrote:

But it's also generally true that one has to be in the business to be
able to detect the differences between the mic preamps.

And how exactly would you do that ?

What difference do you actually hear ?

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Predrag Trpkov wrote:

But it's also generally true that one has to be in the business to be
able to detect the differences between the mic preamps.

And how exactly would you do that ?

What difference do you actually hear ?

Graham


My point is that I needed to train my ears before being able to hear any
differences between mic preamps, whereas with microphones and equalizers I
could tell them apart right from the beginning. I'm still not totally
confident in describing what I hear there, partly because there are so many
variables involved, which makes the exercise far from being scientific and
partly because more often than not the differences are rather subtle. That's
why I believe that he whole issue of mic preamps is less important in the
big picture than its popularity would suggest.

Predrag

Pooh Bear wrote:

Rick Ruskin wrote:


On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:11:31 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:


What never fails to amaze me is the myth that pre-amps are somehow 'magical' and
belong almost in the audiophool category.

There's nothing that special about a mic pre compared to any other damn part of the
electronics in the signal path.

It simply has to deal with quite low signal levels and is thus fairly important.
It's not rocket science though.



Have you ever bothered to compare the sonic differences between
preamps? If you can't tell the difference between a "Mackie" class
unit and those from the likes of Great River, FMR Audio, John Hardy -
just to name a few, you are in the wrong business.



OK - so what's the difference ?

A Mackie XDR mic pre for example produces essentially a technically 'perfect' magnified
replica of the input at its output. The same can be said of most of the mic pres to be
found in the majority of credible consoles.

I can only assume that the 'magic' mic pres are actually *adding colouration*.


Graham

Thats quite possible, they are in circuit with a mechanical transducer
which has its own colouration that may vary according to the attached
circuitry
In magic preamp world, different microphones suit different preamps with
and without transformers

Rick Ruskin wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

What never fails to amaze me is the myth that pre-amps are somehow
'magical' and belong almost in the audiophool category.

There's nothing that special about a mic pre compared to any other damn
part of the electronics in the signal path.

It simply has to deal with quite low signal levels and is thus fairly
Itimportant. 's not rocket science though.

Have you ever bothered to compare the sonic differences between
preamps? If you can't tell the difference between a "Mackie" class
unit and those from the likes of Great River, FMR Audio, John Hardy -
just to name a few, you are in the wrong business.

Thanks for that, Rick. I have attempted to get this accross, but there
are appraently those who don't discern between Stradivarii and Suzuki.

And perhaps the same crowd will slather over the difference between a
Rane EQ and an API, Speck, or Great River? Well, it has knobs to turn
where you can change the sound, and that makes all the difference.

Whatever. Ain't swapping out the good stuff for some mediocre stuff only
to claim there's no difference. Hell, we hear enough one-dimensional
recording work already.

--
ha

Pooh Bear wrote:

OK - so what's the difference ?

A Mackie XDR mic pre for example produces essentially a technically
'perfect' magnified replica of the input at its output.

If you feed it a line level and gain-stage properly. I often get great
results live feeding a lowly "vintage" 1202 with really good pres. Swap
back to the built-in pres and go "Whaddafuk happened??"

The same can be said of most of the mic pres to be
found in the majority of credible consoles.

I can only assume that the 'magic' mic pres are actually *adding
colouration*.

Graham, please, have you not been at this long enough to know we don't
hear numbers?

Assume what you wish, then put a Great River and a Mackie up next to
each other and listen.

--
ha

Pooh Bear wrote:

OK - so what's the difference ?

A Mackie XDR mic pre for example produces essentially a technically 'perfect' magnified
replica of the input at its output. The same can be said of most of the mic pres to be
found in the majority of credible consoles.

I don't buy that. Run a distortion spectrum on an XDR preamp, for instance.

I can only assume that the 'magic' mic pres are actually *adding colouration*.

A lot of them, probably most of them, are adding coloration. A lot of them
are much better about providing proper loading to the microphone (one place
where the XDR fails miserably), which gives better characteristics from
dynamic mikes (and some transformer-output condensers) that are sensitive
to loading. Some just have a better-sounding distortion spectrum, either
because it's lower or just because the distribution is more pleasant.
--scott

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:

A lot of them
are much better about providing proper loading to the microphone (one place
where the XDR fails miserably), which gives better characteristics from
dynamic mikes (and some transformer-output condensers) that are sensitive
to loading.

I think this has a LOT to do with it... hence Hank's earlier post about
how nice an SM58 sounds through a Great River pre.

I like to A/B things like preamps, mics, and converters and then play
the recordings to my wife and sons and ask them what they think sounds
"best"...or if the differences are very sublte to my ears, ask them if
they can tell the difference between the takes. The can hear
differences in pre's and mic's but don't always pick the good stuff as
best. WIth pre's, I have had mackies, I now have an avalon 737 and a
GR that has 2 channels with transformers and 2 without. There is a
slight differnce between the 2 brands. I happen to like the avalon on
my voice and it's compressor makes it a nice box for vocals and bass
DI.

There was a much greater difference between them and the mackie pre's
which sounded "thinner". I am using and E-Mu 1820m that has built in
pre's that sound OK, atleast as good as my memory of the mackies.
BTW...I am selling an Apogee Rosetta and using the e-mu converters. I
can't hear anything but the most subtle difference in sound there.
THis is a sweet card if you want a PCI card...lots of I/O options.

Given all of thaT...my ear is developing and I appreciate the GR and
Avalon and, although I have sold of lots of gear in the last 3 years, I
don't sell them.

Tom

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:14:45 +0000, Ralph Staub wrote:

Bob Cap wrote:
Guys,

I'm interested in which pre amps you guys are using for your digital mixers.
And if you can let me know why you chose the one you did.

Thanks

Bob Cap


In the $1000 market, the Behringer ADA8000 is the clear winner, not
because it's the cheapest ($200) but because it's as good or better than
the other units in the category. The Focusrite Octopre can be had with
the ADAT card option for about $1150. Once I figured out the correct
magic with the word clock (without a 75ohm terminator, it tends to lose
clocking mid show) I've been quite happy with it. The Yamaha AD8HR is a
fine package that's remote controllable, but will cost some coin. For
those who like overkill, the ATI 8MX2 can be teamed up with your choice
of A/Ds.

Ralph

How do you rate the Presonus Digimax Ralph ?
Its a smidgeon over the $1k but their preamps have a good reputation.

What never fails to amaze me is the myth that pre-amps are somehow 'magical' and
belong almost in the audiophool category.

There's nothing that special about a mic pre compared to any other damn part of the
electronics in the signal path.

It simply has to deal with quite low signal levels and is thus fairly important.
It's not rocket science though.

Shame that no-one compares EQs the same way. There's *much* more room for being
inventive there.


Graham

Scott, you wrote, "A lot of [preamps] are much better about providing
proper loading to the microphone (one place where the XDR fails
miserably) ...". What problem is there with the load presented by the
XDR preamps? I don't know any details of their input circuit.

--best regards

wrote:
I like to A/B things like preamps, mics, and converters and then play
the recordings to my wife and sons and ask them what they think sounds
"best"...or if the differences are very sublte to my ears, ask them if
they can tell the difference between the takes.

Why don't you just use what you like and get the job done? Or is what
fascinates you about this business not making recordings of real
sounds, but finding out what your small group of test subjects likes?
Isn't it cheaper to try this experiment with pizza or ice cream?

Most people in this business don't have the budget to try a wide
variety of devices, hence the "Which sounds best?" question that's so
common. Unfortunately, we have so many choices which makes it difficult
to accept about five answers, prompting the follow-up of "Well, how
about the Pqrst? It got a good review on the Geargluts forum."

David Satz wrote:
Scott, you wrote, "A lot of [preamps] are much better about providing
proper loading to the microphone (one place where the XDR fails
miserably) ...". What problem is there with the load presented by the
XDR preamps? I don't know any details of their input circuit.

It's actually not a bad circuit at all, the front end just being a long-tailed
differential pair with a common mode inductor in front of it. But it presents
a very high-Z load to the microphone, and it's pretty much a purely resistive
load. If you put a shunt resistor between pins 2 and 3, I bet a buck that
an SM-57 will sound a lot better and the measured noise performance will be
a lot worse. The SM-57 really wants to see a slightly inductive, fairly low
impedance load... it tends to be very happy with transformer-input preamps
and have trouble with anything else.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Pooh Bear wrote:

OK - so what's the difference ?

A Mackie XDR mic pre for example produces essentially a technically 'perfect' magnified
replica of the input at its output. The same can be said of most of the mic pres to be
found in the majority of credible consoles.

I don't buy that. Run a distortion spectrum on an XDR preamp, for instance.

I can only assume that the 'magic' mic pres are actually *adding colouration*.

A lot of them, probably most of them, are adding coloration. A lot of them
are much better about providing proper loading to the microphone (one place
where the XDR fails miserably), which gives better characteristics from
dynamic mikes (and some transformer-output condensers) that are sensitive
to loading. Some just have a better-sounding distortion spectrum, either
because it's lower or just because the distribution is more pleasant.
--scott

Loading does seem to be one of the cornerstones of perceived sonic
differences. Another is how the circuits are powered and decoupled (power
supply Z). Point-of-use regulation (a main regulated power bus then
individual regulators at each channel) help as well. Yet another is how
well the pre deals with long cable runs in and out, and the precision of
the balancing, in and out.

Budget pres generally pass the basic numbers test no problem, but start
falling apart in the areas just noted, which all too often translate into
how the unit performs sonically.

And this can mean a bunch of things -- from breath-taking clarity that has
a wow factor of realism you never knew was there until you tried the
better unit, to mixes that just seem to fall together without much sweat
and minimal EQ and other processing.

But, your music may show or hide these differences. A screaming metal
guitar may not reveal sonic differences in the electronics as quickly as a
hand-built acoustic instrument played by a master. If the former, get the
Mackie. Woo hoo! If the latter, get the Hardy, Grace, Millenia, et al.

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio
--

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:21:34 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

Artist had fun... Now THERE"s a no-no!

Now, For Extra credit:
WHY DID THIS SOUND GOOD?

Dunno fer sure, but see paragraph one above.

Nobody talks much about the retail end of the
recording biz, but if it affects product, it
matters. You made good session vibes; good
session resulted; what's not to like? Retail
is all about the person-to-person "details".

"Parentheses" used sardonically (?, or some
similar but better word of your choice).

Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
Gen. Miller, Gen. Sanchez, Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 23:50:48 +0200, Chel van Gennip
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:11:31 +0200, Pooh Bear wrote:

It simply has to deal with quite low signal levels and is thus fairly
important. It's not rocket science though.

A true 24 bit AD converter should not need any pre-amp to cover the whole
range from -130 dBm to 10 dBm.

Being first in line is an added responsibility.
All us "oldest children", especially first sons
can attest.

But seriously, problems upstream are magnified
in any complex system. Position in the signal
stream weights significance of artifacts.

Good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
Gen. Miller, Gen. Sanchez, Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush.

shannon wrote:

In magic preamp world, different microphones suit different preamps with
and without transformers

What he said, and this is very often not subtle at all.

--
ha

David Satz wrote:

Scott, you wrote, "A lot of [preamps] are much better about providing
proper loading to the microphone (one place where the XDR fails
miserably) ...". What problem is there with the load presented by the
XDR preamps? I don't know any details of their input circuit.

David,

Except for the HV-3D I have here and an RNP brought over by a friend,
SM57's and some other older dynamics seem not to appreciate being shown
a transformerless front end at the preamp. We both know I have no real
technical explanation for this g, but it is very easy to hear. Even
the Peavey VMP2 worked wonders with a 57 compared to the Mackies. The
Great River MP2-MH turns the 57 into something to appreciate.

Those mics are from an era where any decent kit weighed a lot, just
carrying all that iron. That's what the mics like to see. I still find
it startling. First time was moving a 57 from the Mackie 1202 to a Neve
33122.

--
ha

Scott Dorsey wrote:

David Satz wrote:
Scott, you wrote, "A lot of [preamps] are much better about providing
proper loading to the microphone (one place where the XDR fails
miserably) ...". What problem is there with the load presented by the
XDR preamps? I don't know any details of their input circuit.

It's actually not a bad circuit at all, the front end just being a long-tailed
differential pair with a common mode inductor in front of it. But it presents
a very high-Z load to the microphone, and it's pretty much a purely resistive
load. If you put a shunt resistor between pins 2 and 3, I bet a buck that
an SM-57 will sound a lot better and the measured noise performance will be
a lot worse. The SM-57 really wants to see a slightly inductive, fairly low
impedance load... it tends to be very happy with transformer-input preamps
and have trouble with anything else.

I wonder what happens if we put a Jensen in a box and then feed the
Mackie pre from that?

--
ha

Chel van Gennip wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:11:31 +0200, Pooh Bear wrote:

It simply has to deal with quite low signal levels and is thus fairly
important. It's not rocket science though.

A true 24 bit AD converter should not need any pre-amp to cover the whole
range from -130 dBm to 10 dBm.

You've missed the resolution issue though.

A 1mV signal would only produce something like a 10 bit signal. It would
sound crunchy as hell.


Graham

On 10/19/05 8:09 PM, in article ,
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:21:34 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

Artist had fun... Now THERE"s a no-no!

Now, For Extra credit:
WHY DID THIS SOUND GOOD?

Dunno fer sure,

Actually the answer I was looking for was

THE ARTIST CAN PLAY (and sing)

Gimme that at the head, all I need is some basic competence and the ability
to know how to stay out of the way of a sound... and I look GOLDEN.

Damn... One more of the Top Engineers' Secrets out of the bag...




Chris Hornbeck
Gen. Miller, Gen. Sanchez, Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush.

Why wasn't Carl on this list...?! hmmmn?!

Chel van Gennip wrote:

A true 24 bit AD converter should not need any pre-amp to cover the whole
range from -130 dBm to 10 dBm.

Are you suggesting then that one might be able
to get away with plugging straight into the
converter without any signal amplification ?
This may be just interesting enough to try.

rd

"Pooh Bear" wrote
in message
Chel van Gennip wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:11:31 +0200, Pooh Bear wrote:

It simply has to deal with quite low signal levels and
is thus fairly important. It's not rocket science
though.

A true 24 bit AD converter should not need any pre-amp
to cover the whole range from -130 dBm to 10 dBm.

You've missed the resolution issue though.

A 1mV signal would only produce something like a 10 bit
signal. It would sound crunchy as hell.

One word: dither.

"RD Jones" wrote in message
ps.com
Chel van Gennip wrote:

A true 24 bit AD converter should not need any pre-amp
to cover the whole range from -130 dBm to 10 dBm.

Are you suggesting then that one might be able
to get away with plugging straight into the
converter without any signal amplification ?
This may be just interesting enough to try.

The tricky part is coming up with a true 24 bit converter.
;-)

On 10/19/05 9:21 PM, in article
, "RD Jones"
wrote:


Chel van Gennip wrote:

A true 24 bit AD converter should not need any pre-amp to cover the whole
range from -130 dBm to 10 dBm.

Are you suggesting then that one might be able
to get away with plugging straight into the
converter without any signal amplification ?
This may be just interesting enough to try.

What's gone unsaid here is: WHAT kind of ANALOG front end, welded to the AD
convertor, is going to match that kind of dynamic range...
Just because you CAN record without getting levels up doesn;t mean you;re
going to like all the noise that comes with it...

Sheeshe people...

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 02:35:34 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

On 10/19/05 9:21 PM, in article
om, "RD Jones"
wrote:


Chel van Gennip wrote:

A true 24 bit AD converter should not need any pre-amp to cover the whole
range from -130 dBm to 10 dBm.

Are you suggesting then that one might be able
to get away with plugging straight into the
converter without any signal amplification ?
This may be just interesting enough to try.

What's gone unsaid here is: WHAT kind of ANALOG front end, welded to the AD
convertor, is going to match that kind of dynamic range...
Just because you CAN record without getting levels up doesn;t mean you;re
going to like all the noise that comes with it...

To phrase the question another way: what would you
call a device that could linearly accept that large
a range of signals (while outputting a selected, usable
window of that range), provide differential input
and phantom powering, and provide a buffered, low-Z
source to an A/D chip? Ideally including some
(impending) clipping indicators?

While I'm wishing, it needs to have seamless, noiseless
remote gain control, but only in fairly crude steps.

Soon come,

Chris Hornbeck
Gen. Miller, Gen. Sanchez, Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush.

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:40:44 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

Gen. Miller, Gen. Sanchez, Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush.

Why wasn't Carl on this list...?! hmmmn?!

You saw the nature of the puzzle immediately.

"I expected no less." -Conrad Veidt as Major Strasse
in _Casablanca_. (Perhaps interesting, but likely
not, he also played the sleepwalker/German public
role in _Das Cabinet_ in his younger days.)

Come to think of it, maybe _Das Cabinet_ is even
more relevant today.

Too scary. Stop thinking. Good. Better now.

Chris Hornbeck
Gen. Miller, Gen. Sanchez, Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush.

On 10/19/05 11:10 PM, in article ,
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 02:35:34 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

On 10/19/05 9:21 PM, in article
, "RD Jones"
wrote:


Chel van Gennip wrote:

A true 24 bit AD converter should not need any pre-amp to cover the whole
range from -130 dBm to 10 dBm.

Are you suggesting then that one might be able
to get away with plugging straight into the
converter without any signal amplification ?
This may be just interesting enough to try.

What's gone unsaid here is: WHAT kind of ANALOG front end, welded to the AD
convertor, is going to match that kind of dynamic range...
Just because you CAN record without getting levels up doesn;t mean you;re
going to like all the noise that comes with it...

To phrase the question another way: what would you
call a device that could linearly accept that large
a range of signals (while outputting a selected, usable
window of that range), provide differential input
and phantom powering, and provide a buffered, low-Z
source to an A/D chip? Ideally including some
(impending) clipping indicators?

"A real nice line-level input"...?


While I'm wishing, it needs to have seamless, noiseless
remote gain control, but only in fairly crude steps.

APHEX 1100?

On 10/19/05 11:29 PM, in article ,
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:40:44 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

Gen. Miller, Gen. Sanchez, Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush.

Why wasn't Carl on this list...?! hmmmn?!

You saw the nature of the puzzle immediately.

"I expected no less." -Conrad Veidt as Major Strasse
in _Casablanca_. (Perhaps interesting, but likely
not, he also played the sleepwalker/German public
role in _Das Cabinet_ in his younger days.)

Ach! Never thought of it... Hadn;t put 2+2...

Son & I watched METROPOLIS over two evenings.
He Got It.
I just wish they'd done the project at 20fps or so...

American Film Institute here in DC/Maryland is running a Halloween series
with
DER GOLEM and NOSFERATU
Both with (each different) live musicians


Come to think of it, maybe _Das Cabinet_ is even
more relevant today.

If you haven;t, get ahold of the FIRST handfull of REN & STIMPY cartoons...
Genius... Particularly STIMPY's INVENTION
It's an astoundingly intellectually frightening 7 minutes


Too scary. Stop thinking. Good. Better now.

Chris Hornbeck
Gen. Miller, Gen. Sanchez, Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote
in message
Chel van Gennip wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:11:31 +0200, Pooh Bear wrote:

It simply has to deal with quite low signal levels and
is thus fairly important. It's not rocket science
though.

A true 24 bit AD converter should not need any pre-amp
to cover the whole range from -130 dBm to 10 dBm.

You've missed the resolution issue though.

A 1mV signal would only produce something like a 10 bit
signal. It would sound crunchy as hell.

One word: dither.

Even with dither 10 bits would sound pretty rubbish.

The self-noise of the circuitry is enough to dither a 24 bit converter
anyway !

Graham

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 02:35:34 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

On 10/19/05 9:21 PM, in article
om, "RD Jones"
wrote:


Chel van Gennip wrote:

A true 24 bit AD converter should not need any pre-amp to cover the whole
range from -130 dBm to 10 dBm.

Are you suggesting then that one might be able
to get away with plugging straight into the
converter without any signal amplification ?
This may be just interesting enough to try.

What's gone unsaid here is: WHAT kind of ANALOG front end, welded to the AD
convertor, is going to match that kind of dynamic range...
Just because you CAN record without getting levels up doesn;t mean you;re
going to like all the noise that comes with it...

To phrase the question another way: what would you
call a device that could linearly accept that large
a range of signals (while outputting a selected, usable
window of that range), provide differential input
and phantom powering, and provide a buffered, low-Z
source to an A/D chip? Ideally including some
(impending) clipping indicators?

While I'm wishing, it needs to have seamless, noiseless
remote gain control, but only in fairly crude steps.

TI's PGA 2500 ?

http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folder...t/pga2500.html


Graham

"hank alrich" wrote in message
.. .

It's actually not a bad circuit at all, the front end just being a
long-tailed
differential pair with a common mode inductor in front of it. But it
presents
a very high-Z load to the microphone, and it's pretty much a purely
resistive
load. If you put a shunt resistor between pins 2 and 3, I bet a buck
that
an SM-57 will sound a lot better and the measured noise performance will
be
a lot worse. The SM-57 really wants to see a slightly inductive, fairly
low
impedance load... it tends to be very happy with transformer-input
preamps
and have trouble with anything else.

I wonder what happens if we put a Jensen in a box and then feed the
Mackie pre from that?

If it's a 1:1 transformer, probably not a lot of change. If it's a 1:1
transformer with some additional loading on the secondary, it might sound
rather better. Someone got a 1:1 Jensen sitting around?

Peace,
Paul

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Pooh Bear" wrote
in message
Chel van Gennip wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:11:31 +0200, Pooh Bear wrote:

It simply has to deal with quite low signal levels and
is thus fairly important. It's not rocket science
though.

A true 24 bit AD converter should not need any pre-amp
to cover the whole range from -130 dBm to 10 dBm.

You've missed the resolution issue though.

A 1mV signal would only produce something like a 10 bit
signal. It would sound crunchy as hell.

One word: dither.

Fine, then it'll sound *noisy* as hell.

Peace,
Paul

Just for grins, when I was testing out the Microtech Gefell M930s,
transformerless condensers that don't give a rat's ass about loading, I hung
a pair over a drum kit and ran them through an old, transformer-coupled
phantom supply straight into a Protools input (don't remember which one).
Sounded pretty nice, but boy, could you hear those old transformers; it took
me right back to 1965.

Peace,
Paul

"Pooh Bear" wrote
in message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear"
wrote in message
Chel van Gennip wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:11:31 +0200, Pooh Bear wrote:

It simply has to deal with quite low signal levels and
is thus fairly important. It's not rocket science
though.

A true 24 bit AD converter should not need any pre-amp
to cover the whole range from -130 dBm to 10 dBm.

You've missed the resolution issue though.

A 1mV signal would only produce something like a 10 bit
signal. It would sound crunchy as hell.

1 mv would be what 20-40 dB below typical operating levels
for a mic, right?

One word: dither.

Even with dither 10 bits would sound pretty rubbish.

It might be hissy, but 10 bits need not sound "crunchy".
IOW, no modulation noise.

Graham, I think you'd be amazed about what can be done with
10 bits and highly shaped quantizing.

Highly shaped quantization is good for a 2-3+ bit
improvement in perceived noise, and 13 bits ain't bad audio.

The self-noise of the circuitry is enough to dither a 24
bit converter anyway !

The self-noise of just about *anything* will decorrelate 24
bit quantization! ;-)

Almost the same can be said of true 20 bit quantizing which
is the current happy land for way good converters. SOTA is
more like 22 bits.

A true 24 bits is still almost like mission impossible. That
is unless the SOTA moved while I wasn't looking, which of
course could happen. ;-)

Seriously, it looks like production converter chips have
kinda stalled around 20 bits. Of course you could parallel 4
of them for 21 bits, and 16 for 22 bits, etc.