I am interested in flattering the human voice with some recording equipment.
Possibilities include a "tube mic" with a "vintage romantic sound", a tube
preamp, or a Behringer Ultravoice Digital VX2496,
http://www.behringer.com/VX2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG, which is alleged to do
what the first two alternatives do, and would give me two extra channels. It
also does a lot of worrisome things. A simple tube in the recording chain
limits the damage.

I'm soliciting recommendations, for vocal use, in the area of inexpensive
1. tube mics
2. tube preamps
3. processor?
4. Pros and cons of the above three approaches

I'm soliciting recommendations, for vocal use, in the area of
inexpensive
1. tube mics

The tube mics I know which get you what I think you're describing are
not inexpensive. Solid state mics which will flatter voice are less
expensive, though still not cheap.

2. tube preamps

The sound you're talking about is not the result of having a tube in
the circuit as much as a result of having a transformer or two in
circuit.

3. processor?

You mean the Behringer thing you mentioned? No, the mic & preamp make
the sound. No amount of convolution processing is ever going to make an
SM57 plugged into a Mackie sound like a U47 plugged into a Helios pre.
Just isn't going to happen. Get the sound first, process later if you
want.

4. Pros and cons of the above three approaches

You need to listen for the sound you're after, not concern yourself
with the circuit design. What you're descibing can be achieved with
solid state equipment. It's not the tubes, it's the overall circuit
design, which usually involves transformers. Remember, Neve preamps are
all solid state, U87s are all solid state.

Scott Fraser

soundhaspriority wrote:
I am interested in flattering the human voice with some recording equipment.
Possibilities include a "tube mic" with a "vintage romantic sound", a tube
preamp, or a Behringer Ultravoice Digital VX2496,
http://www.behringer.com/VX2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG, which is alleged to do
what the first two alternatives do, and would give me two extra channels. It
also does a lot of worrisome things. A simple tube in the recording chain
limits the damage.

"Damage?"

Why not stop worrying about whether it has a tube in it, but instead
pick something that sounds good?

I'm soliciting recommendations, for vocal use, in the area of inexpensive
1. tube mics
2. tube preamps
3. processor?
4. Pros and cons of the above three approaches

Well, what sort of voice is it, and what do you want it to sound like?
The microphone I'd recommend for a somewhat nasal baritone is totally
different than what I'd recommend for a soprano who is a little harsh,
and that's totally different than what I'd recommend for a tenor who
wants an exaggeratedly airy top end. What I'd recommend for a traditional
singer is very different than what I'd recommend for a crooner.

Get a mike that sounds good on the vocalist, THEN worry about the rest
of the chain.
--scott

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

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
soundhaspriority wrote:
I am interested in flattering the human voice with some recording
equipment.
Possibilities include a "tube mic" with a "vintage romantic sound", a tube
preamp, or a Behringer Ultravoice Digital VX2496,
http://www.behringer.com/VX2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG, which is alleged to do
what the first two alternatives do, and would give me two extra channels.
It
also does a lot of worrisome things. A simple tube in the recording chain
limits the damage.

"Damage?"

Why not stop worrying about whether it has a tube in it, but instead
pick something that sounds good?

I'm not worried . I do not believe in the magic power of tubes. A tube is
simply an analog effects processor.

I'm soliciting recommendations, for vocal use, in the area of inexpensive
1. tube mics
2. tube preamps
3. processor?
4. Pros and cons of the above three approaches

Well, what sort of voice is it, and what do you want it to sound like?
The microphone I'd recommend for a somewhat nasal baritone is totally
different than what I'd recommend for a soprano who is a little harsh,
and that's totally different than what I'd recommend for a tenor who
wants an exaggeratedly airy top end. What I'd recommend for a traditional
singer is very different than what I'd recommend for a crooner.

The above is a good argument for decoupling the tube and the mic.


Get a mike that sounds good on the vocalist, THEN worry about the rest
of the chain.
--scott

The way I'm inclined to use your advice is to use a tube preamp, so that I
can apply it's "effect" to more than one mic.

"Scott Fraser" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm soliciting recommendations, for vocal use, in the area of
inexpensive
1. tube mics

The tube mics I know which get you what I think you're describing are
not inexpensive. Solid state mics which will flatter voice are less
expensive, though still not cheap.

2. tube preamps

The sound you're talking about is not the result of having a tube in
the circuit as much as a result of having a transformer or two in
circuit.

3. processor?

You mean the Behringer thing you mentioned? No, the mic & preamp make
the sound. No amount of convolution processing is ever going to make an
SM57 plugged into a Mackie sound like a U47 plugged into a Helios pre.
Just isn't going to happen. Get the sound first, process later if you
want.

Thanks for clarifying this. Since many people consider all large diaphram
mics to be "effects" devices, I was sort of hoping that Behringer could do
it in firmware.


4. Pros and cons of the above three approaches

You need to listen for the sound you're after, not concern yourself
with the circuit design.

The sound may not be one article, but it is commonly associated with vintage
equipment, and has been sought after in guitar amps, Ampex recording
electronics, "tube" mics, etc.

What you're descibing can be achieved with
solid state equipment. It's not the tubes, it's the overall circuit
design, which usually involves transformers. Remember, Neve preamps are
all solid state, U87s are all solid state.

Scott Fraser

And that would be preferable, since tubes are significantly noisier. But if
I can afford one device to get me that flattering, vintage sound, what
should it be? How about one of these?
http://www.mxlmics.com/siliconValve/silicon_index.html
Or can you recommend an affordable preamp?

soundhaspriority wrote:

I'm not worried . I do not believe in the magic power of tubes. A tube is
simply an analog effects processor.

If that's your belief, then you believe in magic. A tube is a gain
element, nothing more, nothing less.

The way I'm inclined to use your advice is to use a tube preamp, so that I
can apply it's "effect" to more than one mic.

If that's what you want, go for it. But don't ask which one.

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

soundhaspriority wrote:

I'm not worried . I do not believe in the magic power of tubes. A tube
is
simply an analog effects processor.

If that's your belief, then you believe in magic. A tube is a gain
element, nothing more, nothing less.

Let's not go there. Perhaps if I backpeddle a little:
Tubes are frequently incorporated into equipment said to have a
characteristic sound that is felt by many people to be desirable. I agree
that equipment has been constructed that has all of the "preferences"
associated with tubes, without the principle drawback, which is greater
noise.

With that out of the way, would you be so kind as to address my question?

soundhaspriority wrote:

I'm not worried . I do not believe in the magic power of tubes. A tube is
simply an analog effects processor.

No, it's not.

It's a gain stage.

You can build effects devices with tubes. But you can also build very
transparent-sounding electronics with tubes.

If you build effects devices with tubes, you can make them sound all sorts
of different ways. You can make harsh tube circuits and mellow tube circuits.
In fact, most of the sound of a typical tube circuit comes from the required
transformers, not from the gain stages themselves.

The above is a good argument for decoupling the tube and the mic.

Not really, because you can build a mike with a tube front end that is
just frighteningly transparent and accurate. This is a good thing. You
won't find it for $100 at Guitar Center, mind you, but it's been done and
it's out there.

The way I'm inclined to use your advice is to use a tube preamp, so that I
can apply it's "effect" to more than one mic.

If you get a good clean tube preamp, it won't have any "effect" at all.
If you get a colored one, you need to pick one with coloration that you
like. The UA reissue, for instance, sounds very different than the Manley.
Mostly because they use different transformers and all of the actual
coloration is coming from the input and output transformers.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

soundhaspriority wrote:
Let's not go there. Perhaps if I backpeddle a little:
Tubes are frequently incorporated into equipment said to have a
characteristic sound that is felt by many people to be desirable. I agree
that equipment has been constructed that has all of the "preferences"
associated with tubes, without the principle drawback, which is greater
noise.

Right, but WHICH desireable characteristic sound do you WANT? There is
not just one "tube sound" but there are many different sounds all possible
to obtain, both with tubes and transistors.

With that out of the way, would you be so kind as to address my question?

I suspect Mike can't, because you haven't asked a valid question yet.

I mean, I can tell you the Manley preamps sound great, and that would be
true. And they do have tubes in them. But whether they sound anything
like what you want, I have no idea.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
soundhaspriority wrote:
Let's not go there. Perhaps if I backpeddle a little:
Tubes are frequently incorporated into equipment said to have a
characteristic sound that is felt by many people to be desirable. I agree
that equipment has been constructed that has all of the "preferences"
associated with tubes, without the principle drawback, which is greater
noise.

Right, but WHICH desireable characteristic sound do you WANT? There is
not just one "tube sound" but there are many different sounds all possible
to obtain, both with tubes and transistors.

Alright. I want Ampex 350. I used to service one of those.

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
soundhaspriority wrote:
I am interested in flattering the human voice with some recording
equipment.
Possibilities include a "tube mic" with a "vintage romantic sound", a
tube
preamp, or a Behringer Ultravoice Digital VX2496,
http://www.behringer.com/VX2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG, which is alleged to
do
what the first two alternatives do, and would give me two extra channels.
It
also does a lot of worrisome things. A simple tube in the recording chain
limits the damage.

"Damage?"

Why not stop worrying about whether it has a tube in it, but instead
pick something that sounds good?

I'm not worried . I do not believe in the magic power of tubes. A tube
is simply an analog effects processor.

I'm soliciting recommendations, for vocal use, in the area of inexpensive
1. tube mics
2. tube preamps
3. processor?
4. Pros and cons of the above three approaches

Well, what sort of voice is it, and what do you want it to sound like?
The microphone I'd recommend for a somewhat nasal baritone is totally
different than what I'd recommend for a soprano who is a little harsh,
and that's totally different than what I'd recommend for a tenor who
wants an exaggeratedly airy top end. What I'd recommend for a
traditional
singer is very different than what I'd recommend for a crooner.

The above is a good argument for decoupling the tube and the mic.


Get a mike that sounds good on the vocalist, THEN worry about the rest
of the chain.
--scott

The way I'm inclined to use your advice is to use a tube preamp, so that I
can apply it's "effect" to more than one mic.

Maybe you should change your email handle to "tube has priority". The
"vintage" sound has many facets and components, mic and preamp are just 2 of
them. Talent, performance, mic placement, arrangement and room are among
other components.

Don't make the mistake of thinking a 'toob' is automatically going to give
you the sound you want.

Mikey
Nova Music Productions

"Michael Wozniak" wrote in message
k.net...

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
soundhaspriority wrote:
I am interested in flattering the human voice with some recording
equipment.
Possibilities include a "tube mic" with a "vintage romantic sound", a
tube
preamp, or a Behringer Ultravoice Digital VX2496,
http://www.behringer.com/VX2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG, which is alleged to
do
what the first two alternatives do, and would give me two extra
channels. It
also does a lot of worrisome things. A simple tube in the recording
chain
limits the damage.

"Damage?"

Why not stop worrying about whether it has a tube in it, but instead
pick something that sounds good?

I'm not worried . I do not believe in the magic power of tubes. A tube
is simply an analog effects processor.

I'm soliciting recommendations, for vocal use, in the area of
inexpensive
1. tube mics
2. tube preamps
3. processor?
4. Pros and cons of the above three approaches

Well, what sort of voice is it, and what do you want it to sound like?
The microphone I'd recommend for a somewhat nasal baritone is totally
different than what I'd recommend for a soprano who is a little harsh,
and that's totally different than what I'd recommend for a tenor who
wants an exaggeratedly airy top end. What I'd recommend for a
traditional
singer is very different than what I'd recommend for a crooner.

The above is a good argument for decoupling the tube and the mic.


Get a mike that sounds good on the vocalist, THEN worry about the rest
of the chain.
--scott

The way I'm inclined to use your advice is to use a tube preamp, so that
I can apply it's "effect" to more than one mic.

Maybe you should change your email handle to "tube has priority". The
"vintage" sound has many facets and components, mic and preamp are just 2
of them. Talent, performance, mic placement, arrangement and room are
among other components.

Don't make the mistake of thinking a 'toob' is automatically going to give
you the sound you want.

Mikey, you are of course, right. But there seems to be a reluctance to
address the simple fact that there is equipment which is said by many to
have a vintage sound. It may be due to transformers; it may be mistakenly
associated with tubes, it may be due to other aspects of circuit design, but
it does exist. My question is about mics and preamps, not about all the
other elements that go into making a good recording.

soundhaspriority wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Right, but WHICH desireable characteristic sound do you WANT? There is
not just one "tube sound" but there are many different sounds all possible
to obtain, both with tubes and transistors.

Alright. I want Ampex 350. I used to service one of those.

So, call Harris/Allied and order one.

The mike preamp on the 350 is just godawful, though. When I was using
one for orchestral work, I wound up having to use an outboard preamp
most of the time. Given that the 350 already weighed a ton, that's a big
deal.

I'll add that the sound that you get from a tape machine is mostly coming
from the tape itself, and the magnetic stuff going on at the head. The
wonderful thing about analogue tape is that you can alter this easily by
changing your bias slightly, your operating level, and the tape you use.
This means you can get a huge number of different sounds out of a tape
machine. It's why so many folks still use tape today.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Right, but WHICH desireable characteristic sound do you WANT? There is
not just one "tube sound" but there are many different sounds all
possible
to obtain, both with tubes and transistors.

Alright. I want Ampex 350. I used to service one of those.

You want analog tape saturation? Why didn't ya say so? :-) Tubes aren't
gonna get you there, my friend. Are you using a computer to record? Have you
tried a tape saturation plugin?

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
Right, but WHICH desireable characteristic sound do you WANT? There is
not just one "tube sound" but there are many different sounds all
possible
to obtain, both with tubes and transistors.

Alright. I want Ampex 350. I used to service one of those.

You want analog tape saturation? Why didn't ya say so? :-) Tubes aren't
gonna get you there, my friend. Are you using a computer to record? Have you
tried a tape saturation plugin?

Hey, I love the way tape sounds, and I hate analogue tape saturation.
Your plugin isn't going to do what the 350 does at 185 nW/m.

Admittedly, you won't have to ADJUST THE FREAKING AZIMUTH EVERY FIVE
MINUTES like you do with the 350.
--scott


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

(Scott Dorsey) said:


Admittedly, you won't have to ADJUST THE FREAKING AZIMUTH EVERY FIVE
MINUTES like you do with the 350.


Wimp.

Real men glue knobs onto the azimuth screws of both rec and pb heads,
and keep both hands available for continuous adjustment.

--

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

You want analog tape saturation? Why didn't ya say so? :-) Tubes aren't
gonna get you there, my friend. Are you using a computer to record? Have
you
tried a tape saturation plugin?

Hey, I love the way tape sounds, and I hate analogue tape saturation.
Your plugin isn't going to do what the 350 does at 185 nW/m.

Admittedly, you won't have to ADJUST THE FREAKING AZIMUTH EVERY FIVE
MINUTES like you do with the 350.
--scott

Well, neither is a tube :-) I'm guessing that's what he's looking for
because he's not really giving us much information. I don't use them myself,
but a plugin may get him closer to what he's looking for. Are you suggesting
that he go with a 350?

Don't make the mistake of thinking a 'toob' is automatically going to
give you the sound you want.

Mikey, you are of course, right. But there seems to be a reluctance to
address the simple fact that there is equipment which is said by many to
have a vintage sound. It may be due to transformers; it may be mistakenly
associated with tubes, it may be due to other aspects of circuit design,
but it does exist. My question is about mics and preamps, not about all
the other elements that go into making a good recording.

Keep in mind that there are many types of "vintage" sound. Some "vintage"
sounds like ass. I'm guess that you may be mistaking a vintage sound for
really great mikes and really great preamps in a nice room with a great
engineer recording great talent with great instruments. It's a combination,
I don't see how you can seperate it. You will get many different answers to
your question, because it's a matter of personal taste. So here's mine:

U-47---GML Mic Pre---TubeTech Opto Cell Compressor

Lemmee see, yep... there's a tube in there :-)

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

Well, neither is a tube :-) I'm guessing that's what he's looking for
because he's not really giving us much information. I don't use them myself,
but a plugin may get him closer to what he's looking for. Are you suggesting
that he go with a 350?

Well, if you want something that sounds like a 350, buy a 350.

Personally, I'll take a 440B over a 350 any day. But that's just me.
Although the mike preamps on the 440B are even more godawful (and in fact
they are in optional plug-in modules that nobody ever bought, so you
hardly ever see them anyway). So you still need a preamp.

I don't think any of the digital simulation devices even come close to
the real thing. But the real issue is find out which 'real thing' you
want in the first place.
--scott

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

But if
I can afford one device to get me that flattering, vintage sound, what
should it be?

I think I'd get a used U87. It's not perfec t for everything but it
never sucks on anything.

How about one of these?
http://www.mxlmics.com/siliconValve/silicon_index.html

I don't know anything about the Chinese mic infestation. I've never
heard any of them, but my jaded vintage hunch is they probably fall
well short of the target.

Or can you recommend an affordable preamp?

How about a Vintech 73? A modern recreation of a Neve 1073 that sounds
like the old ones.

Scott Fraser

soundhaspriority wrote:

Let's not go there.

What's this "let's?" You went there.

Perhaps if I backpeddle a little:
Tubes are frequently incorporated into equipment said to have a
characteristic sound that is felt by many people to be desirable.

No, equipment said to have a characteristic sound that is felt by many
people to be desireable may have tubes or not. One could make the same
statement about transistors, or transformers, or gold plated switch
contacts.

I agree
that equipment has been constructed that has all of the "preferences"
associated with tubes, without the principle drawback, which is greater
noise.

What preferences are associated with tubes? If you were talking about
guitar amplifiers, I could see that certain high levels of distortion
of the type that's easy to get with an overloaded tube might be
considered an important part of the sound, but you're talking about
microphones and preamps. You don't want distortion there, particularly
10% or more 2nd harmonic distortion.

With that out of the way, would you be so kind as to address my question?

I think I already have. Find something that has the sound you like and
don't be biased (pun intended) if you discover that it doesn't have a
tube in it.

soundhaspriority wrote:

Alright. I want Ampex 350. I used to service one of those.

There's someone who is building an accurate replica of the Ampex 350
mic preamp and output stage, complete with the big VU meter and
chassis. I can't remember who it is, but there was some recent
discussion of it on the Ampex list recently. Maybe Scott or Paul still
has that on file. It costs an unreasonable amount of money, but at
least it doesn't take a good recorder out of circulation.

Or do you mean that you want an Ampex 350 to record with? If so, bless
your heart. Unfortunately, you'll have to pay a lot of money for it
because people are raping them for the "phat toob preamps" that they
can get a lot of money for.

No, equipment said to have a characteristic sound that is felt by many
people to be desireable may have tubes or not. One could make the same
statement about transistors, or transformers, or gold plated switch
contacts.

Dammit Mike! You were supposed to keep the "gold plated switch contacts"
thing a secret :-)

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

soundhaspriority wrote:

Let's not go there.

What's this "let's?" You went there.

Perhaps if I backpeddle a little:
Tubes are frequently incorporated into equipment said to have a
characteristic sound that is felt by many people to be desirable.

No, equipment said to have a characteristic sound that is felt by many
people to be desireable may have tubes or not. One could make the same
statement about transistors, or transformers, or gold plated switch
contacts.

Let's not argue. Now, what have you got for me, in the way of equipment that
has an attractive sound, not by accuracy, but some subtle manipulation of
the signal, ie., transformer coupled stages, or which strives for "tube-like
sound" ?

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message
. com...
Don't make the mistake of thinking a 'toob' is automatically going to
give you the sound you want.

Mikey, you are of course, right. But there seems to be a reluctance to
address the simple fact that there is equipment which is said by many to
have a vintage sound. It may be due to transformers; it may be mistakenly
associated with tubes, it may be due to other aspects of circuit design,
but it does exist. My question is about mics and preamps, not about all
the other elements that go into making a good recording.

Keep in mind that there are many types of "vintage" sound. Some "vintage"
sounds like ass. I'm guess that you may be mistaking a vintage sound for
really great mikes and really great preamps in a nice room with a great
engineer recording great talent with great instruments. It's a
combination, I don't see how you can seperate it. You will get many
different answers to your question, because it's a matter of personal
taste. So here's mine:

U-47---GML Mic Pre---TubeTech Opto Cell Compressor

Lemmee see, yep... there's a tube in there :-)
Thanks!

Mike Rivers wrote:
soundhaspriority wrote:

Alright. I want Ampex 350. I used to service one of those.

There's someone who is building an accurate replica of the Ampex 350
mic preamp and output stage, complete with the big VU meter and
chassis. I can't remember who it is, but there was some recent
discussion of it on the Ampex list recently. Maybe Scott or Paul still
has that on file. It costs an unreasonable amount of money, but at
least it doesn't take a good recorder out of circulation.

I think it was either Steve Albini or some guys working with him. I
would bet a call to his studio would get you info.

I think they are using a Sowter copy of the original transformer. I
know it's hard to imagine anyone would duplicate such a lousy transformer,
but hey at least it's not the Beyers like some other Ampex products used.

Or do you mean that you want an Ampex 350 to record with? If so, bless
your heart. Unfortunately, you'll have to pay a lot of money for it
because people are raping them for the "phat toob preamps" that they
can get a lot of money for.

Actually, the 354 is still selling at reasonable rates, because it doesn't
have mike preamps in it. Maximum record current is a little lower, but
it's not bad.
--scott

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

soundhaspriority wrote:

Let's not argue. Now, what have you got for me, in the way of equipment that
has an attractive sound, not by accuracy, but some subtle manipulation of
the signal, ie., transformer coupled stages, or which strives for "tube-like
sound" ?

Lots of stuff. Hundreds of different preamps and microphones. All kinds
of great stuff. Everything from old Neve copies on up to more transparent
preamps like the Great River and John Hardy transformer-input types. Then
stuff like the Mercury and Manley preamps that have sounds of their own,
mostly due to the input transformers they choose. Also boxes like the UA
reissues which model the sounds of classic devices.

In the case of microphones, there is everything from old U47s, all of which
sound totally different because of the way they ages, new U87s, which are
consistent but very peaky, RCA 77s, RCA 44s, Beyer M-500s and other ribbons,
down to the lowly RE-20 which is probably the most useful vocal mike made.
Then there are detours on things like the Audio-Technica AT4047 which clearly
is an attempt to model a particular (very peaky) sound but which is actually
more versatile than it appears because the response changes off-axis enough
that you can get all sorts of different sounds from different positioning.

I probably have about 200 "colored" microphones in the closet here in the
studio. Most of them sound different. You use the one whose coloration
suits the job.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

soundhaspriority,
I feel your pain getting a straight answer here. Yes, of course,
tubes are just little glass bottles and some people want to get away
with "just use your ears and go try every audio device on the planet
and decide for yourself." And of course sound is subjective, but then
we don't all have time or interest to go out and "try everything" which
is why we turn to forums to try to solicite opinions about what has and
hasn't worked for others.
So what I can say to you is that I own a Marshall/MXL69V tube mic -
which may or may not bear any resemblence to the ones you're looking
at. But mine sounds harsh all around with a very brittle top end. It
was $299. I was seduced by the idea of a tube mic and had just been in
a reputable studio in Sausalito, CA where they had just taken delivery
of 5 of them, so I figured it was worth a try. It wasn't. At roughly
the same time I bought an Audio Technica AT4033, which has no tubes.
But it has a much warmer, smoother sound. To my ears it has a rich,
full low end, a warm smooth mid, and a smooth, if somewhat unfocused
and dull top. But for $299 it is the best mic I've found for achiving
what it sounds like you might be after.
As for a pre, I really like the UA 6176 as an all around box to
possibly get the sound you're after, though they're not cheap.
Also, I own a GT Brick Tube DI/Mic Pre that I like very much for the
"shimmer" and depth that it adds to instruments recorded directly - I
use it on electric guitars, bass, and Rhodes, but as a mic pre, I'm not
sure that it delivers much coloration, which it sounds like you're
after.
Finally - and I'm sure this will cause some on this board to wince,
roll their eyes, and/or puke, but I know several musicians who swear by
ART's Tube MP. I've never used one, but I think they're around
$100-200 new so you can probably pick one up for $50 on ebay.
Best of luck,
Steve

wrote in message
oups.com...
soundhaspriority,
I feel your pain getting a straight answer here. Yes, of course,
tubes are just little glass bottles and some people want to get away
with "just use your ears and go try every audio device on the planet
and decide for yourself." And of course sound is subjective, but then
we don't all have time or interest to go out and "try everything" which
is why we turn to forums to try to solicite opinions about what has and
hasn't worked for others.
So what I can say to you is that I own a Marshall/MXL69V tube mic -
which may or may not bear any resemblence to the ones you're looking
at. But mine sounds harsh all around with a very brittle top end. It
was $299. I was seduced by the idea of a tube mic and had just been in
a reputable studio in Sausalito, CA where they had just taken delivery
of 5 of them, so I figured it was worth a try. It wasn't. At roughly
the same time I bought an Audio Technica AT4033, which has no tubes.
But it has a much warmer, smoother sound. To my ears it has a rich,
full low end, a warm smooth mid, and a smooth, if somewhat unfocused
and dull top. But for $299 it is the best mic I've found for achiving
what it sounds like you might be after.
As for a pre, I really like the UA 6176 as an all around box to
possibly get the sound you're after, though they're not cheap.
Also, I own a GT Brick Tube DI/Mic Pre that I like very much for the
"shimmer" and depth that it adds to instruments recorded directly - I
use it on electric guitars, bass, and Rhodes, but as a mic pre, I'm not
sure that it delivers much coloration, which it sounds like you're
after.
Finally - and I'm sure this will cause some on this board to wince,
roll their eyes, and/or puke, but I know several musicians who swear by
ART's Tube MP. I've never used one, but I think they're around
$100-200 new so you can probably pick one up for $50 on ebay.
Best of luck,
Steve

Thanks Steve, thanks Scott, thanks to all, and keep the info coming

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Michael Wozniak" wrote in message
k.net...

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
soundhaspriority wrote:
I am interested in flattering the human voice with some recording
equipment.
Possibilities include a "tube mic" with a "vintage romantic sound", a
tube
preamp, or a Behringer Ultravoice Digital VX2496,
http://www.behringer.com/VX2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG, which is alleged to
do
what the first two alternatives do, and would give me two extra
channels. It
also does a lot of worrisome things. A simple tube in the recording
chain
limits the damage.

"Damage?"

Why not stop worrying about whether it has a tube in it, but instead
pick something that sounds good?

I'm not worried . I do not believe in the magic power of tubes. A
tube is simply an analog effects processor.

I'm soliciting recommendations, for vocal use, in the area of
inexpensive
1. tube mics
2. tube preamps
3. processor?
4. Pros and cons of the above three approaches

Well, what sort of voice is it, and what do you want it to sound like?
The microphone I'd recommend for a somewhat nasal baritone is totally
different than what I'd recommend for a soprano who is a little harsh,
and that's totally different than what I'd recommend for a tenor who
wants an exaggeratedly airy top end. What I'd recommend for a
traditional
singer is very different than what I'd recommend for a crooner.

The above is a good argument for decoupling the tube and the mic.


Get a mike that sounds good on the vocalist, THEN worry about the rest
of the chain.
--scott

The way I'm inclined to use your advice is to use a tube preamp, so that
I can apply it's "effect" to more than one mic.

Maybe you should change your email handle to "tube has priority". The
"vintage" sound has many facets and components, mic and preamp are just 2
of them. Talent, performance, mic placement, arrangement and room are
among other components.

Don't make the mistake of thinking a 'toob' is automatically going to
give you the sound you want.

Mikey, you are of course, right. But there seems to be a reluctance to
address the simple fact that there is equipment which is said by many to
have a vintage sound. It may be due to transformers; it may be mistakenly
associated with tubes, it may be due to other aspects of circuit design,
but it does exist. My question is about mics and preamps, not about all
the other elements that go into making a good recording.

If I had to pick one mic I've used that sounded 'vintage' to me, it would be
the Neuman M147. I had 2 & sold them both - they didn't have the top-end
clarity I wanted. I sold my Rode NTK, too. Just plain bad (the AKG C1000 of
tube mics, IMO). My peavey/AMR VMP-2 preamp sounds very 'tubey' when pushed
hard, but not necessarily vintage.

Best wishes,
Mikey
Nova Music Productions

I was hoping the thread was about recording vocals through industrial
tubing.


Highly recommended!!!

wrote in message
oups.com...
I was hoping the thread was about recording vocals through industrial
tubing.


Highly recommended!!!

Now that electrical conduit has gone to plastic, the metal is collectible.

soundhaspriority wrote:

Let's not argue. Now, what have you got for me, in the way of equipment that
has an attractive sound, not by accuracy, but some subtle manipulation of
the signal, ie., transformer coupled stages, or which strives for "tube-like
sound" ?

http://www.mercenary.com/greatrivmp1.html

Buy a Great River ME-1NV. Mercenary will let you return it if you don't
like it. But I'll warn you - no tubes.

I could recommend dozens more that are all a little different, but this
is a good unit, designed and built by a really careful engineer who
listens to what he's doing, and sold by a reliable and caring dealer
who wants you to be happy with your purchase.

Get a mike that sounds good on the vocalist, THEN worry about the rest
of the chain.
--scott

So simple, so perfect.
Please audition thru the same pre. ;-)

Tom

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

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

Tom

Michael Wozniak wrote:
If I had to pick one mic I've used that sounded 'vintage' to me, it would be
the Neuman M147. I had 2 & sold them both - they didn't have the top-end
clarity I wanted. I sold my Rode NTK, too. Just plain bad (the AKG C1000 of
tube mics, IMO). My peavey/AMR VMP-2 preamp sounds very 'tubey' when pushed
hard, but not necessarily vintage.

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

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

wrote:
I was hoping the thread was about recording vocals through industrial
tubing.

Highly recommended!!!

Does it work as well as the coffee can? I always liked the coffee can.

Of course, there's always the Cooper Timecube....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

The sound may not be one article, but it is commonly associated with
vintage
equipment, and has been sought after in guitar amps, Ampex recording
electronics, "tube" mics, etc.

There's a reason all those "vintage" recordings used tube microphones;
transistors hadn't been invented yet. The engineers didn't sit around &
say "You know, we've got Charlie Parker coming in tomorrow. Wanna use
the tube stuff on him?" They used what was available, & that happened
to be tube gear. It also happened to be top drawer pro recording gear
because there wasn't any semi-pro stuff, there were no home studios
using mediocre equipment made in China, & the rooms tended to be large
spaces built by record labels with a lot of financial backing. Yeah, a
lot of older recordings sounded really good.

Scott Fraser

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:13:04 -0400, soundhaspriority wrote
(in article ):

I am interested in flattering the human voice with some recording equipment.
Possibilities include a "tube mic" with a "vintage romantic sound", a tube
preamp, or a Behringer Ultravoice Digital VX2496,
http://www.behringer.com/VX2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG, which is alleged to do
what the first two alternatives do, and would give me two extra channels. It
also does a lot of worrisome things. A simple tube in the recording chain
limits the damage.

I'm soliciting recommendations, for vocal use, in the area of inexpensive
1. tube mics
2. tube preamps
3. processor?
4. Pros and cons of the above three approaches



Good solid state is better than bad tubes. Good tubes are better than bad
solid state.

Period.

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:13:04 -0400, soundhaspriority wrote
(in article ):

I am interested in flattering the human voice with some recording
equipment.
Possibilities include a "tube mic" with a "vintage romantic sound", a
tube
preamp, or a Behringer Ultravoice Digital VX2496,
http://www.behringer.com/VX2496/index.cfm?lang=ENG, which is alleged to
do
what the first two alternatives do, and would give me two extra channels.
It
also does a lot of worrisome things. A simple tube in the recording chain
limits the damage.

I'm soliciting recommendations, for vocal use, in the area of inexpensive
1. tube mics
2. tube preamps
3. processor?
4. Pros and cons of the above three approaches



Good solid state is better than bad tubes. Good tubes are better than bad
solid state.

Period.

That is true only if accuracy is the criteria. Personally, I have always
sensed that tube equipment adds something to the signal that may or may not
be desirable. When equipment adds, there can be no universal agreement on
what's good or bad.

Here are two problems:
1. I have a female vocalist, who has a rather smooth voice, and I want to
add some top end sheen, so she sounds more like the exhibits at the NY Hifi
Show of SET amplifiers playing through exotic speakers.
2. I have a male vocalist who needs some additional midrange body.

Suggestions for either/both of these are requested. Something simple,
something cheap, that will give 55% of the benefit of a $10K tube preamp
that can't be all that accurate.