Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

tube mic pres vs solid state

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 9:19:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi,

I've read a bunch of posts regarding the differences between tube and
transistor mic preamps. Apparently, circuit design and component
quality has more to do with the sound than the tube vs. solid state
issue. I've even read many posts saying that there is no "tube sound".

But I would guess that there are many well respected people out there
who would beg to differ, (*don't* quote me on this), possibly Doug
Fearn, Aspen Pittman, Oliver Archut, etc., who might even say that
tubes make better preamps.

On the other hand, there might be people out there which we all
respect and they believe the best products are solid state preamps.

Is there a global difference between top-of-the-line tube preamps and
top-of-the-line solid state preamps that can be put into words? I know
that all preamps are different, but if a recording (in my case, live
in-the-studio local pop/rock bands) was done through a variety of
great tube pres, ie. Vipre, Fearn, Pendulum, Tab-Funkenwerk, etc.,
what kind of difference could I expect in my recording processes and
finished products vs. doing the same recordings with a variety of
great solid state preamps, ie. Neve, API, GML, Great River, etc.?

I'm sure they'd be quite different, but how?

Thanks,
Gord
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 12:14:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 6 Dec 2004 18:19:12 -0800, gabasa@rogers.com (Gord) wrote:

>But I would guess that there are many well respected people out there
>who would beg to differ, (*don't* quote me on this), possibly Doug
>Fearn, Aspen Pittman <snip>

Aspen...<snicker!> Ho boy, now THERE'S some snake oil for ya! HAR!

dB
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:00:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Gord <gabasa@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>I've read a bunch of posts regarding the differences between tube and
>transistor mic preamps. Apparently, circuit design and component
>quality has more to do with the sound than the tube vs. solid state
>issue. I've even read many posts saying that there is no "tube sound".

Right.

>But I would guess that there are many well respected people out there
>who would beg to differ, (*don't* quote me on this), possibly Doug
>Fearn, Aspen Pittman, Oliver Archut, etc., who might even say that
>tubes make better preamps.

They make different preamps. And of the three folks you list, they
all make preamps that sound radically different than one another.

>On the other hand, there might be people out there which we all
>respect and they believe the best products are solid state preamps.

No, the best product is the one that fits your particular application
on a particular track on a particular song. If everybody wanted the
same thing, they wouldn't have to make so many kinds.

Right now, the most neutral-sounding preamps happen to be solid state
ones, although Fred Forssell is definitely in the running with a very
neutral tube preamp. I tend to be a fan of neutrality in preamps myself.
Others aren't.

>Is there a global difference between top-of-the-line tube preamps and
>top-of-the-line solid state preamps that can be put into words? I know
>that all preamps are different, but if a recording (in my case, live
>in-the-studio local pop/rock bands) was done through a variety of
>great tube pres, ie. Vipre, Fearn, Pendulum, Tab-Funkenwerk, etc.,
>what kind of difference could I expect in my recording processes and
>finished products vs. doing the same recordings with a variety of
>great solid state preamps, ie. Neve, API, GML, Great River, etc.?

Most of the preamps you describe are colored preamps, and most of them
are designed for particular coloration. And yes, they all sound
different. Not different enough to be religious about it, but different
enough that if you had a varied selection, you'd want to use different
preamps on different tracks.

>I'm sure they'd be quite different, but how?

You need to listen to the Boston Pre Party CD, or to Lynn Fuston's preamp
shootout CD.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Related resources
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:00:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 6 Dec 2004 22:00:52 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Right now, the most neutral-sounding preamps happen to be solid state
>ones, although Fred Forssell is definitely in the running with a very
>neutral tube preamp.

I had a Forsell pre for awhile, and it may have been neutral but it
definitely had a different quality than a solid state pre, "sweeter"
somehow, especially on the high end. It was a pretty sound but I
actually preferred the accuracy of solid state when comparing it to my
Great River MP2H, & I eventually sold the Forsell.

Al
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 3:41:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:24:32 -0500, play-on wrote
(in article <bf8ar01hmb5f77f4625dlmg5q2s9kbb3mt@4ax.com>):

> On 6 Dec 2004 22:00:52 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> Right now, the most neutral-sounding preamps happen to be solid state
>> ones, although Fred Forssell is definitely in the running with a very
>> neutral tube preamp.
>
> I had a Forsell pre for awhile, and it may have been neutral but it
> definitely had a different quality than a solid state pre, "sweeter"
> somehow, especially on the high end. It was a pretty sound but I
> actually preferred the accuracy of solid state when comparing it to my
> Great River MP2H, & I eventually sold the Forsell.
>
> Al

Define sweeter. Is it relative to salt, sour or sugar? I see sweeter too
frequently and most of the time it seems to mean "I like it."

I think we could all do with a little less "sweeter."

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 7:43:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< Is there a global difference between top-of-the-line tube preamps and
top-of-the-line solid state preamps that can be put into words? >>



No. The differences between the top-of-the-line tube preamps (& between the top
solid state pres) will be as great as the differences between top tube & solid
state gear.
Scott Fraser
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 7:43:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 23:43:14 -0500, ScotFraser wrote
(in article <20041206234314.06368.00001355@mb-m18.aol.com>):

> << Is there a global difference between top-of-the-line tube preamps and
> top-of-the-line solid state preamps that can be put into words? >>


>
> No. The differences between the top-of-the-line tube preamps (& between the
> top
> solid state pres) will be as great as the differences between top tube &
solid
> state gear.
> Scott Fraser

As I mentioned before; good tubes are better than bad solid state. Good solid
state is better than bad tubes.

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 11:09:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Gord wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've read a bunch of posts regarding the differences between tube and
> transistor mic preamps. Apparently, circuit design and component
> quality has more to do with the sound than the tube vs. solid state
> issue. I've even read many posts saying that there is no "tube sound".

If you want to be pedantic, there *is* a tube sound, a bipolar transistor
sound and a *fet* sound.

This arises from their different 'transfer characteristics'. No gain
device is linear. The non-linearities produce audible effects such as
distortion. Tubes and fets produce mainly even order distortion products
whereas bipolar transistors produce mainly odd-order distortion.

There is one *big* caveat. A single bipolar transistor stage can provide
much more gain than a tube ( or fet ) stage. This allows use of local
negative feedback to reduce it's THD.

Transistors are so much cheaper ( especially when within an IC ) that it's
no problem to use lots of highly linearised transistor stages to produce
vanishingly small amounts of distortion. This can be achieved through
local and / or global feedback. In comparison, it isn't really practical
to do this with tubes.

Note that feedback isn't a bad thing like some audiophools ( who wouldn't
understand technology if you whacked them round the head with it )
suggest. Even valve ( oops tube ) circuits use feedback.


> But I would guess that there are many well respected people out there
> who would beg to differ, (*don't* quote me on this), possibly Doug
> Fearn, Aspen Pittman, Oliver Archut, etc., who might even say that
> tubes make better preamps.
>
> On the other hand, there might be people out there which we all
> respect and they believe the best products are solid state preamps.

For a mic pre-amp, a critical factor is the noise figure. Suitable bipolar
transistors ( and some fets ) have such low noise figures that it's
possible to directly ( a.c. ) couple the mic to the active devices and get
super noise figures.

By their nature, tubes do not perform so well with regard to voltage
noise. To get a really quiet tube pre-amp you *have* to use an input
transformer.

Transformers have a whole stack of deficiencies of their own. This has to
be considered in the context of a tube pre.


> Is there a global difference between top-of-the-line tube preamps and
> top-of-the-line solid state preamps that can be put into words? I know
> that all preamps are different, but if a recording (in my case, live
> in-the-studio local pop/rock bands) was done through a variety of
> great tube pres, ie. Vipre, Fearn, Pendulum, Tab-Funkenwerk, etc.,
> what kind of difference could I expect in my recording processes and
> finished products vs. doing the same recordings with a variety of
> great solid state preamps, ie. Neve, API, GML, Great River, etc.?
>
> I'm sure they'd be quite different, but how?

Transistor mic pres don't need input transformers. Tube ones do. That
alone is likely to colour any comparison.

Choose one you like.


Graham
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 12:01:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 00:14:59 -0500, DeserTBoB wrote
(in article <uvear0lq03uequq7janmmcpf98ihfk40e6@4ax.com>):

> On 6 Dec 2004 18:19:12 -0800, gabasa@rogers.com (Gord) wrote:
>
>> But I would guess that there are many well respected people out there
>> who would beg to differ, (*don't* quote me on this), possibly Doug
>> Fearn, Aspen Pittman <snip>
>
> Aspen...<snicker!> Ho boy, now THERE'S some snake oil for ya! HAR!
>
> dB

The GT tubes in my recently restored Fender amps tell a different story.

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:15:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <b5c01b28.0412061819.202c7869@posting.google.com> gabasa@rogers.com writes:

> I've even read many posts saying that there is no "tube sound".
>
> But I would guess that there are many well respected people out there
> who would beg to differ, (*don't* quote me on this), possibly Doug
> Fearn, Aspen Pittman, Oliver Archut, etc., who might even say that
> tubes make better preamps.

You've just been quoted (so people know what you said). There are
people who say that they like the preamps that they make using tubes.
There are people who say they like the preamps they make using solid
state components. With only a few exceptions, there is someone who
loves every preamp ever made. There are no generalizations other than
"sounds good most of the time" or "sounds bad most of the time",
neither of which apply to tube or solid state design.

> Is there a global difference between top-of-the-line tube preamps and
> top-of-the-line solid state preamps that can be put into words?

No. A well designed preamp is a well designed preamp. There are many
preamps, both solid state and tube, that have basically good designs
but certain compromises have been made to save money, to meet
production schedules, or simply out of ignorance (for instance the
importance of a well designed grounding system) and those are not as
well designed as preamps where everything that can possibly be looked
at AND LISTENED TO has been investigated and evaluated.

The Gordon preamp made by Grant Carpenter is a good example. If you're
ever at an AES show, stop by his booth, look at his preamp (he always
has one with the cover off) and talk with him for a while. This is
probably the most completely designed preamp I have ever seen (and
it's solid state). Is it the best sounding preamp ever? I don't know.
He thinks so, so do his customers. Will it replace all the API, Great
River, Millenia Media, Manley, Neve . . . preamps out there? I doubt
it - because they all sound different.

> I know
> that all preamps are different, but if a recording (in my case, live
> in-the-studio local pop/rock bands) was done through a variety of
> great tube pres, ie. Vipre, Fearn, Pendulum, Tab-Funkenwerk, etc.,
> what kind of difference could I expect in my recording processes and
> finished products vs. doing the same recordings with a variety of
> great solid state preamps, ie. Neve, API, GML, Great River, etc.?

Probably very little. It depends more on the mics you have and the
techniques you use.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:43:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>If you want to be pedantic, there *is* a tube sound, a bipolar transistor
>sound and a *fet* sound.
>
>This arises from their different 'transfer characteristics'. No gain
>device is linear. The non-linearities produce audible effects such as
>distortion. Tubes and fets produce mainly even order distortion products
>whereas bipolar transistors produce mainly odd-order distortion.

This is a horrible oversimplification, though. A pentode has a totally
different transfer characteristic than a triode. A triode set up as a cathode
follower has a totally different transfer characteristic than one set up
for voltage gain. All of these tube circuits sound totally different... so
how can we say there is a "tube sound."
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 3:48:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 08:09:47 +0000, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


>
>Transistor mic pres don't need input transformers. Tube ones do.

Naw.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 3:48:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 07:48:52 -0500, John La Grou wrote
(in article <oj9br0hlqkibog393b9jq2pvtb3vjcf40b@4ax.com>):

> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 08:09:47 +0000, Pooh Bear
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Transistor mic pres don't need input transformers. Tube ones do.
>
> Naw.

and will someone please hand me a KleenWipe to remove the coffee from my
screen.

Ty


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 5:22:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 00:41:55 -0500, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:24:32 -0500, play-on wrote
>(in article <bf8ar01hmb5f77f4625dlmg5q2s9kbb3mt@4ax.com>):
>
>> On 6 Dec 2004 22:00:52 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>> Right now, the most neutral-sounding preamps happen to be solid state
>>> ones, although Fred Forssell is definitely in the running with a very
>>> neutral tube preamp.
>>
>> I had a Forsell pre for awhile, and it may have been neutral but it
>> definitely had a different quality than a solid state pre, "sweeter"
>> somehow, especially on the high end. It was a pretty sound but I
>> actually preferred the accuracy of solid state when comparing it to my
>> Great River MP2H, & I eventually sold the Forsell.
>>
>> Al
>
>Define sweeter. Is it relative to salt, sour or sugar? I see sweeter too
>frequently and most of the time it seems to mean "I like it."
>
>I think we could all do with a little less "sweeter."

sweet ( P ) Pronunciation Key (swt)

Pleasing to the senses; agreeable: the sweet song of the lark; a sweet
face.

Pleasing to the mind or feelings; gratifying: sweet revenge.
Having a pleasing disposition; lovable: a sweet child.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

What adjectives to you prefer, since I have no lab to test these
things in. The top end on the Forsell sounded more liquid somehow, a
bit softer, the detail ever so slightly more blurred sounding. To me.

Al
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 11:07:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> news:znr1102420267k@trad...
> >With only a few exceptions, there is someone who
> > loves every preamp ever made.
>

Yes, ... but not at the same time.

RD
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 11:20:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <m4bcr0h6k0ncqtm63cqh7oump94gsubkgn@4ax.com> playonATcomcast.net writes:

> sweet ( P ) Pronunciation Key (swt)
>
> Pleasing to the senses; agreeable: the sweet song of the lark; a sweet
> face.
>
> Pleasing to the mind or feelings; gratifying: sweet revenge.
> Having a pleasing disposition; lovable: a sweet child.

Yeah, I know a mic preamp just like that. C'mon, that doesn't say
anything about frequency response, distortion products, or stray
noises.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 2:19:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I've got 7 Forssell channels here (a CS-1 and a JMP-6 prototype-I've also
demo'ed the FEtcode and it's a wonderful sounding circuit too) I've also got
a GR MP2-MH. I hate trying describe the sonic qualities of preamps, so
please excuse the audio porn analogies I'll be making, but I did a shootout
between the JMP and the GR a while back reamping a recorded source through a
pair of ADS 1520's into a Stephen Paul U87 (3 micron) which was palced about
7 feet in front of the ADS' speakers about 4' off the floor. The recorded
source was *Forget About It* by Allison Krause. Lots of ear candy as far as
well recorded and mixed acoustic instruments. I'd also describe the Forssell
as *sweet/warm with a softer top end, (the JFet circuit I figure)* and the
GR as *sweet/accurate with a bit more open top*, but both are in that same
sonic big league. I've got a CD of that test around here somewhere.

Doug Joyce
http://www.graphicresultsofdurango.com/musicstudio.html


"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2eidnSbzldQ_3yjcRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:24:32 -0500, play-on wrote
> (in article <bf8ar01hmb5f77f4625dlmg5q2s9kbb3mt@4ax.com>):
>
> > On 6 Dec 2004 22:00:52 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >
> >> Right now, the most neutral-sounding preamps happen to be solid state
> >> ones, although Fred Forssell is definitely in the running with a very
> >> neutral tube preamp.
> >
> > I had a Forsell pre for awhile, and it may have been neutral but it
> > definitely had a different quality than a solid state pre, "sweeter"
> > somehow, especially on the high end. It was a pretty sound but I
> > actually preferred the accuracy of solid state when comparing it to my
> > Great River MP2H, & I eventually sold the Forsell.
> >
> > Al
>
> Define sweeter. Is it relative to salt, sour or sugar? I see sweeter too
> frequently and most of the time it seems to mean "I like it."
>
> I think we could all do with a little less "sweeter."
>
> Ty Ford
>
>
>
> -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other
audiocentric
> stuff are at www.tyford.com
>
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 2:31:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 7 Dec 2004 20:20:31 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

>
>In article <m4bcr0h6k0ncqtm63cqh7oump94gsubkgn@4ax.com> playonATcomcast.net writes:
>
>> sweet ( P ) Pronunciation Key (swt)
>>
>> Pleasing to the senses; agreeable: the sweet song of the lark; a sweet
>> face.
>>
>> Pleasing to the mind or feelings; gratifying: sweet revenge.
>> Having a pleasing disposition; lovable: a sweet child.
>
>Yeah, I know a mic preamp just like that. C'mon, that doesn't say
>anything about frequency response, distortion products, or stray
>noises.

My ears & brain are subjective, not lab measurement devices. Didn't
hear any stray noises or distortion. So how else does one describe
the differences one hears?

Al
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 2:33:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 23:19:16 -0700, "Animix"
<animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:

>I've got 7 Forssell channels here (a CS-1 and a JMP-6 prototype-I've also
>demo'ed the FEtcode and it's a wonderful sounding circuit too) I've also got
>a GR MP2-MH. I hate trying describe the sonic qualities of preamps, so
>please excuse the audio porn analogies I'll be making, but I did a shootout
>between the JMP and the GR a while back reamping a recorded source through a
>pair of ADS 1520's into a Stephen Paul U87 (3 micron) which was palced about
>7 feet in front of the ADS' speakers about 4' off the floor. The recorded
>source was *Forget About It* by Allison Krause. Lots of ear candy as far as
>well recorded and mixed acoustic instruments. I'd also describe the Forssell
>as *sweet/warm with a softer top end, (the JFet circuit I figure)* and the
>GR as *sweet/accurate with a bit more open top*, but both are in that same
>sonic big league. I've got a CD of that test around here somewhere.

Uh huh uh huh... you said the "s" word... sweet.

Al

>
>Doug Joyce
>http://www.graphicresultsofdurango.com/musicstudio.html
>
>
>"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:2eidnSbzldQ_3yjcRVn-uA@comcast.com...
>> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:24:32 -0500, play-on wrote
>> (in article <bf8ar01hmb5f77f4625dlmg5q2s9kbb3mt@4ax.com>):
>>
>> > On 6 Dec 2004 22:00:52 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Right now, the most neutral-sounding preamps happen to be solid state
>> >> ones, although Fred Forssell is definitely in the running with a very
>> >> neutral tube preamp.
>> >
>> > I had a Forsell pre for awhile, and it may have been neutral but it
>> > definitely had a different quality than a solid state pre, "sweeter"
>> > somehow, especially on the high end. It was a pretty sound but I
>> > actually preferred the accuracy of solid state when comparing it to my
>> > Great River MP2H, & I eventually sold the Forsell.
>> >
>> > Al
>>
>> Define sweeter. Is it relative to salt, sour or sugar? I see sweeter too
>> frequently and most of the time it seems to mean "I like it."
>>
>> I think we could all do with a little less "sweeter."
>>
>> Ty Ford
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other
>audiocentric
>> stuff are at www.tyford.com
>>
>
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 6:26:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1102420267k@trad...
>With only a few exceptions, there is someone who
> loves every preamp ever made.

Well, then, it seems pretty clear that - just to be contrary - someone here
should go on record as *hating* every preamp ever made... who's it gonna be?
Huh? C'mon, somebody step up to it!

:D 

Neil Henderson
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 8:41:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >If you want to be pedantic, there *is* a tube sound, a bipolar transistor
> >sound and a *fet* sound.
> >
> >This arises from their different 'transfer characteristics'. No gain
> >device is linear. The non-linearities produce audible effects such as
> >distortion. Tubes and fets produce mainly even order distortion products
> >whereas bipolar transistors produce mainly odd-order distortion.
>
> This is a horrible oversimplification, though.

Is it horrible ?

It's a simplification for sure but at least it gives the OP some ides of the
factors involved which is what I thought he was enquiring about. I also avoided
mentioning ICs much.

> A pentode has a totally
> different transfer characteristic than a triode.

Perfectly true. And of course all the tube nuts now seem to like to triode connect
their pentodes it seems. Maybe it's flavour of the month ?

> A triode set up as a cathode follower has a totally different transfer
> characteristic than one set up
> for voltage gain.

For a mic amp most of the work is the voltage gain. I'm sure a cathode follower
would be nice on the output but don't even get me started on the limitations of
'single ended' followers. A sad limitation of tubes is the absence of the
complementary pair.

> All of these tube circuits sound totally different... so how can we say there is
> a "tube sound."

'Cos the market says so ? I have played iwth the idea of simulating a 'tube sound'
just using a fet but I'm sure the tube fans want a real fire bottle.


Graham
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 9:18:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:41:34 +0000, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I have played with the idea of simulating a 'tube sound'
>just using a fet but I'm sure the tube fans want a real fire bottle.

Not yet mentioned is a qualitative fundamental difference between
junction transistors and field effect devices (both semiconductor
and non-conductor-hot-cathode): BJT's have an intrinsic granularity
caused by their integer number of injected electrons or holes.

For some microphone level signals and typical beta's, this might
become an audible issue. Field effect devices' granularity goes
way down into the spooky-physics level.

Not all that many years ago, some tree-hugging types were making
a related argument for tape head amplifiers and phono cartridge
amplifiers. Of course, nobody cares about those things anymore.

Chris Hornbeck
"Shi mian mai fu"
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 9:24:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>Transformers have a whole stack of deficiencies of their own. This has to
>be considered in the context of a tube pre.

This is truth but you negleted to mention that in many cases, transformers, or
at least GOOD trannies, sound great! In fact it can be argued that the
transformer(s) are as much of the sound as the tubes are.

-jeff
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 9:24:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 08 Dec 2004 06:24:50 GMT, handywired@aol.com (Handywired) wrote:

>>Transformers have a whole stack of deficiencies of their own. This has to
>>be considered in the context of a tube pre.
>
>This is truth but you negleted to mention that in many cases, transformers, or
>at least GOOD trannies, sound great! In fact it can be argued that the
>transformer(s) are as much of the sound as the tubes are. <snip>

FINALLY...someone got it RIGHT. "Tube sound," in most cases, is
really "transformer sound." Get rid of the transformer coupling in a
tube circuit and you have "FET sound."

dB
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 11:21:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:41:34 +0000, Pooh Bear
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have played with the idea of simulating a 'tube sound'
> >just using a fet but I'm sure the tube fans want a real fire bottle.
>
> Not yet mentioned is a qualitative fundamental difference between
> junction transistors and field effect devices (both semiconductor
> and non-conductor-hot-cathode): BJT's have an intrinsic granularity
> caused by their integer number of injected electrons or holes.

At the atomic level for sure !

Have you recently checked the charge on an electron ?

Quantum effects are present in all devices if you want to labour the
point. Your point is largely spurious. The method of control of current
is interestingly different but please don't labour the point.

I suppose you'll be counting the *exact* number of electrons passing from
cathode to plate next ? Ooops - that implies quantisation - i.e
'granularity' too !

LMAO !


> For some microphone level signals and typical beta's, this might
> become an audible issue. Field effect devices' granularity goes
> way down into the spooky-physics level.
>
> Not all that many years ago, some tree-hugging types were making
> a related argument for tape head amplifiers and phono cartridge
> amplifiers. Of course, nobody cares about those things anymore.

They were nuts.


Graham
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 11:28:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Handywired wrote:

> >Transformers have a whole stack of deficiencies of their own. This has to
> >be considered in the context of a tube pre.
>
> This is truth but you negleted to mention that in many cases, transformers, or
> at least GOOD trannies, sound great! In fact it can be argued that the
> transformer(s) are as much of the sound as the tubes are.

It is indeed possible to make a *good* transformer. As opposed to a *bad*
transformer.

I have indeed used several from OEP ( Oxford Electronic Products ) and Sowter (
E.A Sowter Ltd ) in some of my products.

They are far from being linear devices though. They are bedevilled with classic
transformerish problems like handling low frequencies at high level ( for starters
).

Do they contribute to the sound ? I bet they do !

I prefer direct coupling myself.


Graham
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 11:57:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Neil Henderson <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
>news:znr1102420267k@trad...
>>With only a few exceptions, there is someone who
>> loves every preamp ever made.
>
>Well, then, it seems pretty clear that - just to be contrary - someone here
>should go on record as *hating* every preamp ever made... who's it gonna be?
>Huh? C'mon, somebody step up to it!

That's probably me, but I hate speakers and microphones much more.
Only live music is any good at all.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 12:37:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <41B6940E.923781E7@hotmail.com> rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com writes:

> I have played iwth the idea of simulating a 'tube
> sound' just using a fet but I'm sure the tube fans want a real fire bottle.

MXL displayed a new line of solid state mics at the AES that they say
accurately emulate the sound of tube mics - whatever that is.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 12:49:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <znr1102506973k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>In article <41B6940E.923781E7@hotmail.com> rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com writes:
>
>> I have played iwth the idea of simulating a 'tube
>> sound' just using a fet but I'm sure the tube fans want a real fire bottle.
>
>MXL displayed a new line of solid state mics at the AES that they say
>accurately emulate the sound of tube mics - whatever that is.

I think the big deal as far as a microphone goes is that the input capacitance
of a FET changes with modulation. You can think of the FET junction as being
like a varactor diode. This is less of a problem than it used to be with
the 2SK170 available now, and it's much less of a problem with a cathode
follower, but it's still a measurable and probably audible effect that does
not happen with a tube impedance converter stage.

So, this is a coloration that solid-state systems have which tubes do not,
and so emulating the "tube sound" in this regard involves eliminating a
coloration effect, which is a hard thing to do.

There are some tube mikes, like the U47, which have considerable nonlinearity
in the gain stage itself, due to the way the tube stage is built. But this
is not typical of tube designs and I'd consider it a disadvantage, personally.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 1:00:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> That's probably me, but I hate speakers and microphones much more.
> Only live music is any good at all.

Even if you can't hear the vocals, or the flute player, etc.?

I.m.o. there are things done in the studio that make the music sound
better. And better is good.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 3:57:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:22:14 -0500, play-on wrote
(in article <m4bcr0h6k0ncqtm63cqh7oump94gsubkgn@4ax.com>):
> sweet ( P ) Pronunciation Key (swt)
>
> Pleasing to the senses; agreeable: the sweet song of the lark; a sweet
> face.
>
> Pleasing to the mind or feelings; gratifying: sweet revenge.
> Having a pleasing disposition; lovable: a sweet child.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> What adjectives to you prefer, since I have no lab to test these
> things in. The top end on the Forsell sounded more liquid somehow, a
> bit softer, the detail ever so slightly more blurred sounding. To me.
>
> Al

Al,

Sweeter tells me you like it (presuming you like sweets).

You're on the right track with the above. This is something I have worked on
for years; how to describe sound with any sense of accuracy.

My lab is my ears. Soft, hard, brighter, cleaner, quieter, more aggressive,
focused. These are some of the term in my very unofficial glossary.

Lot of times I'll compare two or more mics to help with pinning down what the
one I'm reviewing sounds like. If the reader knows what Mic A sounds like,
maybe that'll help with explaining Mic B.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 3:57:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ty,

I understand what you're saying here, but for some reason, *sweet* also was
the first thought I had when I ran a signal through my CS-1. This jfet
reacts in such a way that just imparts something unique to a signal. Hard to
describe.

Regards,

DJ
http://www.graphicresultsofdurango.com/musicstudio.html
"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cOmdnWfln_sG3SrcRVn-qg@comcast.com...
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:22:14 -0500, play-on wrote
> (in article <m4bcr0h6k0ncqtm63cqh7oump94gsubkgn@4ax.com>):
> > sweet ( P ) Pronunciation Key (swt)
> >
> > Pleasing to the senses; agreeable: the sweet song of the lark; a sweet
> > face.
> >
> > Pleasing to the mind or feelings; gratifying: sweet revenge.
> > Having a pleasing disposition; lovable: a sweet child.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > What adjectives to you prefer, since I have no lab to test these
> > things in. The top end on the Forsell sounded more liquid somehow, a
> > bit softer, the detail ever so slightly more blurred sounding. To me.
> >
> > Al
>
> Al,
>
> Sweeter tells me you like it (presuming you like sweets).
>
> You're on the right track with the above. This is something I have worked
on
> for years; how to describe sound with any sense of accuracy.
>
> My lab is my ears. Soft, hard, brighter, cleaner, quieter, more
aggressive,
> focused. These are some of the term in my very unofficial glossary.
>
> Lot of times I'll compare two or more mics to help with pinning down what
the
> one I'm reviewing sounds like. If the reader knows what Mic A sounds like,
> maybe that'll help with explaining Mic B.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
>
>
> -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other
audiocentric
> stuff are at www.tyford.com
>
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 3:59:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 02:31:56 -0500, play-on wrote
(in article <4dbdr0hk0am1etov51q87nsi95fu64634k@4ax.com>):

> On 7 Dec 2004 20:20:31 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
>
>>
>> In article <m4bcr0h6k0ncqtm63cqh7oump94gsubkgn@4ax.com> playonATcomcast.net
>> writes:
>>
>>> sweet ( P ) Pronunciation Key (swt)
>>>
>>> Pleasing to the senses; agreeable: the sweet song of the lark; a sweet
>>> face.
>>>
>>> Pleasing to the mind or feelings; gratifying: sweet revenge.
>>> Having a pleasing disposition; lovable: a sweet child.
>>
>> Yeah, I know a mic preamp just like that. C'mon, that doesn't say
>> anything about frequency response, distortion products, or stray
>> noises.
>
> My ears & brain are subjective, not lab measurement devices. Didn't
> hear any stray noises or distortion. So how else does one describe
> the differences one hears?
>
> Al

At the risk of sounding too pushy, jump over to my archives and read a review
or two.

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 4:39:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:59:22 -0500, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 02:31:56 -0500, play-on wrote
>(in article <4dbdr0hk0am1etov51q87nsi95fu64634k@4ax.com>):
>
>> On 7 Dec 2004 20:20:31 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In article <m4bcr0h6k0ncqtm63cqh7oump94gsubkgn@4ax.com> playonATcomcast.net
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> sweet ( P ) Pronunciation Key (swt)
>>>>
>>>> Pleasing to the senses; agreeable: the sweet song of the lark; a sweet
>>>> face.
>>>>
>>>> Pleasing to the mind or feelings; gratifying: sweet revenge.
>>>> Having a pleasing disposition; lovable: a sweet child.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I know a mic preamp just like that. C'mon, that doesn't say
>>> anything about frequency response, distortion products, or stray
>>> noises.
>>
>> My ears & brain are subjective, not lab measurement devices. Didn't
>> hear any stray noises or distortion. So how else does one describe
>> the differences one hears?
>>
>> Al
>
>At the risk of sounding too pushy, jump over to my archives and read a review
>or two.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ty Ford

Hi Ty, I've visited your excellent site many times. You have an
advantage in that you are able to audition and compare so many
different pieces of gear. At the time I owned the Forsell all I could
compare it to was the Great River or a Mackie board.

Al
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 4:39:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:57:48 -0500, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:22:14 -0500, play-on wrote
>(in article <m4bcr0h6k0ncqtm63cqh7oump94gsubkgn@4ax.com>):
>> sweet ( P ) Pronunciation Key (swt)
>>
>> Pleasing to the senses; agreeable: the sweet song of the lark; a sweet
>> face.
>>
>> Pleasing to the mind or feelings; gratifying: sweet revenge.
>> Having a pleasing disposition; lovable: a sweet child.
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> What adjectives to you prefer, since I have no lab to test these
>> things in. The top end on the Forsell sounded more liquid somehow, a
>> bit softer, the detail ever so slightly more blurred sounding. To me.
>>
>> Al
>
>Al,
>
>Sweeter tells me you like it (presuming you like sweets).

No, I sold it.

>You're on the right track with the above. This is something I have worked on
>for years; how to describe sound with any sense of accuracy.
>
>My lab is my ears. Soft, hard, brighter, cleaner, quieter, more aggressive,
>focused. These are some of the term in my very unofficial glossary.

I don't see a term like "bright" being any more or less informative
than "sweet" though.

Al
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 4:39:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 10:00:16 -0600, Jazz Meister <jazzman@jazz.net>
wrote:

>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> That's probably me, but I hate speakers and microphones much more.
>> Only live music is any good at all.
>
>Even if you can't hear the vocals, or the flute player, etc.?
>
>I.m.o. there are things done in the studio that make the music sound
>better. And better is good.

"Better" is subjective.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 5:31:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 08 Dec 2004 21:47:40 GMT, mothra666@aol.com (Fill X) wrote:

>one side note is that, it is my feeling, that I dont think a lot of people
>share, that you really need more mics than mic pre's. Part of this feeling
>comes from the fact that most of the recorded work I like was made through the
>same mic pre's from the smae console. So i just look for something i like in
>general and maybe one other thing that works better with certain kinds of mics.
>I more concerned about the output and loading issues for the micrphones than
>whether it's tube or solid state.
>
>There's a lot of great gear out there, but if it's so wonderful I wonder where
>all the good sounding records are. It just shows it's not the gear, and I'm not
>taking a swipe at anyone in particular, but rather noting that it seems this
>industry is way too wrapped up in what they think they need to own to make a
>good recording.
>

It's the same thing with musical instruments. There are a ton of
great guitars being manufactured nowadays but I'm not hearing a lot
more great guitar music. There are a lot of well-heeled hobbyists out
there who like to own nice gear but that doesn't mean they know how to
produce good music with it.

Al
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 7:06:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I've got a very old JoeMeek VC-1 here that I would characterize as slutty,
with a bit too much color and a faint whiff of stale barroom but satisfying
in a organic sort of way.

;O)

DJ


"play-on" <playon@ATcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:04ter05oshqqupf0jjp3ahku3t63004rgr@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:57:48 -0500, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:22:14 -0500, play-on wrote
> >(in article <m4bcr0h6k0ncqtm63cqh7oump94gsubkgn@4ax.com>):
> >> sweet ( P ) Pronunciation Key (swt)
> >>
> >> Pleasing to the senses; agreeable: the sweet song of the lark; a sweet
> >> face.
> >>
> >> Pleasing to the mind or feelings; gratifying: sweet revenge.
> >> Having a pleasing disposition; lovable: a sweet child.
> >>
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> What adjectives to you prefer, since I have no lab to test these
> >> things in. The top end on the Forsell sounded more liquid somehow, a
> >> bit softer, the detail ever so slightly more blurred sounding. To me.
> >>
> >> Al
> >
> >Al,
> >
> >Sweeter tells me you like it (presuming you like sweets).
>
> No, I sold it.
>
> >You're on the right track with the above. This is something I have worked
on
> >for years; how to describe sound with any sense of accuracy.
> >
> >My lab is my ears. Soft, hard, brighter, cleaner, quieter, more
aggressive,
> >focused. These are some of the term in my very unofficial glossary.
>
> I don't see a term like "bright" being any more or less informative
> than "sweet" though.
>
> Al
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 7:18:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 08:21:33 +0000, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

>LMAO !

>They were nuts.

The numbers aren't that difficult to do and may surprise ya'.

Chris Hornbeck
"Shi mian mai fu"
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 9:03:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:57:48 -0500, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>Sweeter tells me you like it (presuming you like sweets).
>
>You're on the right track with the above. This is something I have worked on
>for years; how to describe sound with any sense of accuracy.
>
>My lab is my ears. Soft, hard, brighter, cleaner, quieter, more aggressive,
>focused. These are some of the term in my very unofficial glossary.
>
>Lot of times I'll compare two or more mics to help with pinning down what the
>one I'm reviewing sounds like. If the reader knows what Mic A sounds like,
>maybe that'll help with explaining Mic B.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ty Ford

The problem with having your own vocabulary is that it is useless for
describing stuff to other people. Likewise, describing a mic in terms
of the sound of another mic is only helpful if your audience is well
acquainted with that second mic.

It is strange that it only seems to be the visual sense that has a
fully formed vocabulary of its own. All the others seem to borrow
heavily - and ambiguously.

And I hate sweet, so for me that would be a bad thing.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 9:26:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <31omkoF3buejvU1@individual.net> jazzman@jazz.net writes:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > That's probably me, but I hate speakers and microphones much more.
> > Only live music is any good at all.
>
> Even if you can't hear the vocals, or the flute player, etc.?

With real live music, you can hear the vocals or the flute player.
If you can't, either it means the group of musicians isn't very well
balanced (something they can fix) or you're listening to a version of
"live" that's been modified by a sound engineer with bad taste or
technical (or testicle) problems.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 12:05:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:57:48 -0500, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:22:14 -0500, play-on wrote
>(in article <m4bcr0h6k0ncqtm63cqh7oump94gsubkgn@4ax.com>):
>> sweet ( P ) Pronunciation Key (swt)
>>
>> Pleasing to the senses; agreeable: the sweet song of the lark; a sweet
>> face.
>>
>> Pleasing to the mind or feelings; gratifying: sweet revenge.
>> Having a pleasing disposition; lovable: a sweet child.
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> What adjectives to you prefer, since I have no lab to test these
>> things in. The top end on the Forsell sounded more liquid somehow, a
>> bit softer, the detail ever so slightly more blurred sounding. To me.
>>
>> Al
>
>Al,
>
>Sweeter tells me you like it (presuming you like sweets).
>
>You're on the right track with the above. This is something I have worked on
>for years; how to describe sound with any sense of accuracy.
>
>My lab is my ears. Soft, hard, brighter, cleaner, quieter, more aggressive,
>focused. These are some of the term in my very unofficial glossary.


Ann Noble at U.C. Davis has developed an industry standard "sensory
wheel" that most reviewers follow when describing subtle (or not so
subtle) qualities of wine.

http://www.winepros.org/wine101/sensory_guide.htm

Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, and others have offered similar directions in
developing a common language for describing audio qualities. It's
easier with wine in that you're comparing to known physical
properties. Describing audio adds another layer of subjectivity.

JL
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 12:05:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:05:55 GMT, John La Grou <jl@jps.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:57:48 -0500, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:22:14 -0500, play-on wrote
>>(in article <m4bcr0h6k0ncqtm63cqh7oump94gsubkgn@4ax.com>):
>>> sweet ( P ) Pronunciation Key (swt)
>>>
>>> Pleasing to the senses; agreeable: the sweet song of the lark; a sweet
>>> face.
>>>
>>> Pleasing to the mind or feelings; gratifying: sweet revenge.
>>> Having a pleasing disposition; lovable: a sweet child.
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> What adjectives to you prefer, since I have no lab to test these
>>> things in. The top end on the Forsell sounded more liquid somehow, a
>>> bit softer, the detail ever so slightly more blurred sounding. To me.
>>>
>>> Al
>>
>>Al,
>>
>>Sweeter tells me you like it (presuming you like sweets).
>>
>>You're on the right track with the above. This is something I have worked on
>>for years; how to describe sound with any sense of accuracy.
>>
>>My lab is my ears. Soft, hard, brighter, cleaner, quieter, more aggressive,
>>focused. These are some of the term in my very unofficial glossary.
>
>
>Ann Noble at U.C. Davis has developed an industry standard "sensory
>wheel" that most reviewers follow when describing subtle (or not so
>subtle) qualities of wine.
>
>http://www.winepros.org/wine101/sensory_guide.htm
>
>Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, and others have offered similar directions in
>developing a common language for describing audio qualities. It's
>easier with wine in that you're comparing to known physical
>properties. Describing audio adds another layer of subjectivity.
>
>JL
>

My mic pre has a pleasingly impish quality with hints of pumpkin and
tobacco.

Al
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 12:33:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <41ce414b.208743609@212.159.2.87> donald@pearce.uk.com writes:

> The problem with having your own vocabulary is that it is useless for
> describing stuff to other people.

This is why you find so many producer/engineer, product/artist, or
artist/engineer teams that stick together for a long time. After a few
projects, when the artist says "can we make the tambourine sound like
warm milk and cookies here?" and the engineer knows what to do, that's
teamwork.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 12:36:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 08:21:33 +0000, Pooh Bear
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >LMAO !
>
> >They were nuts.
>
> The numbers aren't that difficult to do and may surprise ya'.

Still doesn't explain your assertion about bjts having a problem with
integer numbers of carriers and suggesting that fets don't have.

Bjts do however suffer from flicker noise caused by carrier
recombination in the base region. Older devices were worse IIRC.

Graham
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 12:45:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 08:21:33 +0000, Pooh Bear
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >LMAO !
>
> >They were nuts.
>
> The numbers aren't that difficult to do and may surprise ya'.
>
> Chris Hornbeck
> "Shi mian mai fu"

The value as of 1991 (for the charge on the electron) is 1.60217733 (49)
x 10¯19 coulombs.

http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/AtomicStructure/Det...

So a gain stage operating at 1mA would have 6.25 x 10^15 electrons
passing through it per second.

That's 1940 times more 'equivalent resolution' than perfect 24 bit
192kHz sampling. Not much granularity there !


Graham
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 3:01:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:45:19 +0000, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The value as of 1991 (for the charge on the electron) is 1.60217733 (49)
>x 10¯19 coulombs.
>
>http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/AtomicStructure/Det...
>
>So a gain stage operating at 1mA would have 6.25 x 10^15 electrons
>passing through it per second.
>
>That's 1940 times more 'equivalent resolution' than perfect 24 bit
>192kHz sampling. Not much granularity there !

The potential issue, as I (poorly, no doubt) understand it, is not
in granularity of collector current, but rather in granularity of
base signal current. And DC values aren't really relevant anyway.
Also, I think the results should be independent of frequency.

What's interesting should be the number of injected electrons or
holes for a typical modern device at typical modern currents at
signal levels near the noise floor. You're probably a better
authority than I about what some good talking values might be
for those three numbers.

For convenience, maybe we could start with defining signal level
as -134dBu minus 6 dB for balanced input, for a working level
of -140dBu. Nice round number.

Next, how much base signal current does this cause in a typical
modern device at typical modern operating points?

Thanks for your thoughts,

Chris Hornbeck
"Shi mian mai fu"
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 3:05:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:39:16 -0800, play-on <playon@ATcomcast.net>
wrote:

>> And better is good.
>
>"Better" is subjective.

Subjective is good.

Ah, the circle of life,

Chris Hornbeck
"Shi mian mai fu"
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 5:08:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> > That's probably me, but I hate speakers and microphones much more.
>> > Only live music is any good at all.
>>
>> Even if you can't hear the vocals, or the flute player, etc.?
>
>With real live music, you can hear the vocals or the flute player.
>If you can't, either it means the group of musicians isn't very well
>balanced (something they can fix) or you're listening to a version of
>"live" that's been modified by a sound engineer with bad taste or
>technical (or testicle) problems.
>
>
>
>--
>I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
>
>
YEA,
I'm for a mic on the singer only, an old Bogen 35 watt amp and two 12"
speakers. All for the purpose of hearing the singer at a volume that mixes
well with the surrounding instruments. Probably no more than 70db, 80db tops.

See, that way the musicians will have to mix on stage and that's good. If the
crowd fills up or gets louder, someone in the band turns the amp up a notch.
If the band gets to loud for the room, you tell 'em to turn down. It's feeling
the emotion of the music and not the sheer volume beating your eardrums to
death.



--Wayne

-"sounded good to me"-
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 8:17:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>I prefer direct coupling myself.
>
>
>Graham

I like both, though the only time I tried to couple the outputs through caps,
by the time i got really good polypro caps big enough, I almost might as well
bought a transformer <g>!

But seriously, I would not want to live without either option in the racks...
!