Survey: Microphone Preamps

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

EADGBE <hwbosshoss@aol.com> wrote:
>I am going to be upgrading my home studio's mic preamps. I have been
> using the preamps in my MOTU interface and in my SoundCraft Spirit
> mixer, but I have always found them lacking a bit in detail and a bit
> "harsh" sounding with certain mics, especially my AKG C414TLII.
> > My budget is around $3,000.00.
> I would be interested in hearing TWO things:
> 1) What do you consider to be a good "all around" mic pre.
> 2) Some specifics on why you recommend that mic pre.


First have a look in some newsgroups:
http://groups-beta.google.com/grou [...] one+preamp
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=mic+pre
http://groups-beta.google.com/grou [...] pre+survey
http://groups-beta.google.com/grou [...] eamplifier

Jens

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

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news6i94f$n1$1@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <1116504823.116699.15790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> EADGBE <hwbosshoss@aol.com> wrote:
>>I am going to be upgrading my home studio's mic preamps. I have been
>>using the preamps in my MOTU interface and in my SoundCraft Spirit
>>mixer, but I have always found them lacking a bit in detail and a bit
>>"harsh" sounding with certain mics, especially my AKG C414TLII.
>
> Part of this is because the C414 TLII is just a harsh mike.
>
>>My budget is around $3,000.00.
>>
>>I would be interested in hearing TWO things:
>>
>>1) What do you consider to be a good "all around" mic pre.
>>
>>2) Some specifics on why you recommend that mic pre.
>
> Get a preamp intended to be as neutral as possible. Ones I would
> recommend include the original Great River, the Millennia Media HV-3,
> and the John Hardy gadgets. All of these are well in your price
> range, and all of them pretty much pass a straightwire test.
> They are all worth auditioning.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Yes, like Scott said.

Also, you didn't mention how many channels you want to get for your $3000.
You could get around 12 channels, only 8 channels, only 4 channels, only 2
channels or only one channel for that much ( and some are even more
expensive ) depending on sound, features, quality, reputation, etc.

And what type of music/instruments do you normally record? If it's a wide
variety of instruments and styles you might want to get two channels of
relatively clean pres and then one of something more colored. Like maybe
getting 2 channels of John Hardy M-1
http://www.mercenary.com/m1micpreamtw.html ( $1650 ) for the 'clean'
channels and then a single channel ( or possibly two ) of Neve or API clone
pres, like the Great River MP-1NV
http://www.mercenary.com/greatrivmp1.html ( $1075 ), Phoenix Audio's DRS-1
http://www.mercenary.com/phaudr.html ( $1250 ), or Brent Averill's version
of the API http://www.brentaverill.com/312a/ ( $899 for one channel or $1449
for two channels )


And FYI, I have some John Hardy pres and they are seriously well designed,
constructed and sound great. http://www.johnhardyco.com/

--
John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com

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

Take a good listen to an API 3124+. Best thing that ever happened to my
tracks.

http://www.mercenaryaudio.com/api314chanmi.html

JK

"EADGBE" <hwbosshoss@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1116504823.116699.15790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I am going to be upgrading my home studio's mic preamps. I have been
> using the preamps in my MOTU interface and in my SoundCraft Spirit
> mixer, but I have always found them lacking a bit in detail and a bit
> "harsh" sounding with certain mics, especially my AKG C414TLII.
>
> My budget is around $3,000.00.
>
> I would be interested in hearing TWO things:
>
> 1) What do you consider to be a good "all around" mic pre.
>
> 2) Some specifics on why you recommend that mic pre.
>
> Thanks in advance...
>

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

EADGBE wrote:
> I am going to be upgrading my home studio's mic preamps. I have been
> using the preamps in my MOTU interface and in my SoundCraft Spirit
> mixer, but I have always found them lacking a bit in detail and a bit
> "harsh" sounding with certain mics,

Have you tried adjusting the tone controls, like taking some mid out at
600 Hz? Or backing of the front end gain a little and compensating
further up the chain?

Absolutely, its the tone controls that completely dominate the sound of
any mixing desk. You might well be better spending the money on a decent
parametric eq, or a better mixer with more control over the tone control
shelving frequencies. All of these options are a lot cheaper, and more
useful for other tasks.

> especially my AKG C414TLII.
>
> My budget is around $3,000.00.
>
> I would be interested in hearing TWO things:
>
> 1) What do you consider to be a good "all around" mic pre.
>
> 2) Some specifics on why you recommend that mic pre.
>
> Thanks in advance...

My advice. Save your money for the pub, that's at least 600 pints of
Guinness. Other then golden eared soundman, no one will notice. Its the
final listener that matters, and they're usually drunk on the Guinness
they could afford by not buying expensive, valueless, mic preamps. Are
they worth 600 pints of Guinness? Well, I guess not if your a yank that
drinks that piss water, Budweiser.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

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

Kevin Aylward wrote:
> Have you tried adjusting the tone controls, like taking some mid out at
> 600 Hz? Or backing of the front end gain a little and compensating
> further up the chain?

It is my understanding that you should choose the correct room, mic and
mic pre to get closer to the desired characteristic before touching the
eq, and IMHO I believe this is correct. From what I gather, EQ,
especially severe EQ, can do nasty things to the audio signal and should
probably be the last resort. Am I correct guys?

If just going for one mic pre, its probably best to audition a few first
and find the one that is closest to the desired characteristic.

> they worth 600 pints of Guinness? Well, I guess not if your a yank that
> drinks that piss water, Budweiser.

I like Bud.. :-)

Mark.
--

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

John:
I tend to favor 2-channel pre's, because I track some things in
"stereo" and/or close/ambient miking. I just think it helps to have at
least 2 tracks with the same pre available at all times.

I will be recording electric and acoustic guitars, electronic
keyboards, electric bass guitars, drums (both real and electronic), and
various types of hand percussion.


John L Rice wrote:
> Also, you didn't mention how many channels you want to get for your
$3000.
> You could get around 12 channels, only 8 channels, only 4 channels,
only 2
> channels or only one channel for that much ( and some are even more
> expensive ) depending on sound, features, quality, reputation, etc.
>
> And what type of music/instruments do you normally record? If it's a
wide
> variety of instruments and styles you might want to get two channels
of
> relatively clean pres and then one of something more colored.

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

Kevin Aylward wrote:
>
> There are indeed quite a few that do claim that expensive mic preamps
> are required for a good sound. I, as do many others, disagree. Those
> like me take the view that expensive mic preamps are a scam, indeed a
> complete rip-off.

However, unlike the more-money-than-sense audiophile victims of snake
oil salesmen, the majority of people who buy mic preamps are
professionals whose livelihood depends on the quality of their hearing
and who wouldn't waste their studio equipment budget on gear that wasn't
worth it. Don't make the mistake of confusing those two groups of people.

Most recording engineers who purchase high end mic preamps wouldn't be
seen dead with monster cables, audiophile wooden equipment knobs and
"golden ears" mains cables, but they do care about the tools they use to
do their job. Some of the contributors to this group are experts in
their field, *at least* to the extent that you claim to be an expert in
yours, and they do know what they are talking about.

And they'd probably say all electronic circuit simulation packages look
the same to them :-)

--
Anahata
anahata@treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

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

Frank Stearns <franks.pacifier.com@pacifier.net> wrote:

> "Rick Hollett" <r.hollett@nl.rogers.com> writes:
>
> >How do the Grace Design amps rate?
>
> Extraordinary. They have NO sound at all. I call them "air with gain".

When I brierfly compared a Lunatec v. 3 to a Gordon preamp, the sound of
the Grace was obvious, as was the sound of the Great River and the
Millennia. All fine preamps, but not soundless. I don't know what to put
up against a Gordon to figure out _its_ sound.

--
ha

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

The Kevin Aylward $150 special.

On 19 May 2005 05:13:43 -0700, "EADGBE" <hwbosshoss@aol.com> wrote:

>I am going to be upgrading my home studio's mic preamps. I have been
>using the preamps in my MOTU interface and in my SoundCraft Spirit
>mixer, but I have always found them lacking a bit in detail and a bit
>"harsh" sounding with certain mics, especially my AKG C414TLII.
>
>My budget is around $3,000.00.
>
>I would be interested in hearing TWO things:
>
>1) What do you consider to be a good "all around" mic pre.
>
>2) Some specifics on why you recommend that mic pre.
>
>Thanks in advance...

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

"Kevin Aylward" <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> writes:

>The point is that there are many, affordable complete, quality mixers,
>costing less than a typical high end mic preamp, which are
>indistinguishable from each other sound wise.

Chuckle. This from the guy who doesn't care to know what true acoustic
(unamplified) sound is all about, and wishes most PA systems (apparently
his primary reference point) would roll in "more treble".

We've also been waiting for Kev's $15 wonder-pre (the price of which
started to grow as Kev admitted we needed a few more things, such as case,
power supply, et al. (See the many posts on the DELTA: Cap analysis
thread.)

With all respect to Mackie and pres in that class (which indeed do a nice
job in their market), I'd be curious to see what their pres do with 500+
feet on the mic inputs and oh, say, 1000 feet on the outputs.

The pres in my Soundcraft are reasonably good, but it's night and day
between those preamps and the Grace 801/201, so much so that possibly even
Kev could hear the difference.

Or perhaps not.

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio
--
.

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

hank alrich wrote:
> Kevin Aylward wrote:
>
>> There are indeed quite a few that do claim that expensive mic preamps
>> are required for a good sound. I, as do many others, disagree. Those
>> like me take the view that expensive mic preamps are a scam, indeed a
>> complete rip-off.
>
> I think the real ripoff is

{snip nothing but valueless derogatory insults}

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

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

anahata wrote:
> Kevin Aylward wrote:
>>
>> There are indeed quite a few that do claim that expensive mic preamps
>> are required for a good sound. I, as do many others, disagree. Those
>> like me take the view that expensive mic preamps are a scam, indeed a
>> complete rip-off.
>
> However, unlike the more-money-than-sense audiophile victims of snake
> oil salesmen, the majority of people who buy mic preamps are
> professionals whose livelihood depends on the quality of their hearing
> and who wouldn't waste their studio equipment budget on gear that
> wasn't worth it.

Yes they would. http://www.paralumun.com/hansemperor.htm

>Don't make the mistake of confusing those two groups
> of people.

This makes no difference whatsoever. Scientists can be just as easily
fooled by a conjuror as a layman.

http://www.randi.org/jr/

>
> Most recording engineers who purchase high end mic preamps wouldn't be
> seen dead with monster cables, audiophile wooden equipment knobs and
> "golden ears" mains cables, but they do care about the tools they use
> to do their job. Some of the contributors to this group are experts in
> their field, *at least* to the extent that you claim to be an expert
> in yours, and they do know what they are talking about.

And they can just as easily be mistaken. Controlled tests show that they
probably are.

http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/ -
http://www.stereophile.com/images/ [...] Debate.MP3

People believe what the want to believe. Its hard to accept that one has
actually been truly deluded.


>
> And they'd probably say all electronic circuit simulation packages
> look the same to them :-)

The all use the same calculation engine (XSpice), by and large. Its the
GUI that makes them different.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

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

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 17:59:21 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
> <see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Have you tried adjusting the tone controls, like taking some mid out
>> at 600 Hz? Or backing of the front end gain a little and compensating
>> further up the chain?
>
> Proving that you often make really good sense, and sometimes
> make total bollocks. This is the latter, IMO.

And you are entitled to your opinion, incorrect as it is, imo. You
obviously haven't even tried this as a method of cleaning up a sound.
Its as err...as clear as day that it works. In fact, this is partly why
I have little respect for many soundmen. The above technique so
obviously works, that I have been amazed for years why so few don't do
it. Its like, no one actually even twiddles the controls and listens to
see what sounds good. Everyone seems to be programmed by this daft
layman argument of well, intelligibility is in the 300Hz to 3Khz range,
so lets boost that. Arhrrrr, I hate 3k presence peaks. Like, I want my
sound to sound like a telephone? Well, actually, for one of my Blondie
songs introductions, I do, but that's besides the point.

There is a story to this. I discovered this trick at the age of 16. It
was very apparent that my guitar amp/speaker was "midderly", which the
tone controls could not correct for. I discovered that using a
transformer as an inductor and a parallel capacitor in series with the
signal worked wonders. Yes I have been fiddling with electronics sine
the age of 11, especially with regard to sound.

I then became acquainted, at this same age, of the bridge T. This is 2
series resisters, with a cap to ground. The 2 series resisters are
bypassed with another cap. This gives two paths, one for high
frequency, and one for low.

Now for the really interesting bit. I actually remember the values, yet
I have never confirmed the response in spice, well until right now,
today as I am typing. The values were 47k, 47nf, and 1nf. The response
is a 28db notch at, low and behold, 500Hz!

Its posted here http://www.anasoft.co.uk/notchfilter.gif

My value of 600Hz was determined later, simply by the markings on mixer
front panels. With hindsight, it is clear that this technique is partly
compensating for the poor response of the speakers, i.e. lack of top and
bottom. I don't consider such a strong cut as appropriate for a decent
full range system today, but the principle remains the same.

So, despite many claims by posters in this NG, I have been very
seriously and actively investigating what sounds good for way longer
than most in this NG, in *much* detail. Sure, tone is very subjective,
there are no real right and wrong answers, so some may disagree.
However, it can not done based on the view that I am now, allegedly,
deaf. My hearing was certainly up at the 17khz range at that time.

I have spent a *lot* of time playing with tone controls, and their
design. I know what I am doing. Its that simple.

Indeed. Around 1981 I personally designed the output stereo buss tone
controls of the then latest Studiomaster desk to shelf at 20hz and
20Khz, at +/-20db. The magazine that revived it said something on the
order of (I don't remember the exact words), "how unusual to set to the
extremes like this, but they sound surprisingly musical".

The point of the tone controls here is to get the signal and its
harmonics well into the slope region of the frequency response. You dont
typically run at the full gain, but you need that to get the gain
correct at the lower frequencies. Why do you think latest Studiomaster
still uses 60Hz verses the 80hz of the Mackie on the mic channels? If it
were me I would put it lower at 40hz, with more gain. If Graham is
listening, I would also do something about that low 12Khz top end, at
least move it up to 15khz:-)

Most are simply clueless on tone controls, as evidenced my the large
numbers of cheap kit that sets B/T at 100Hz/10khz. Bringing the bass up
with that shelf frequency, always sound dreadful, as does the treble.

Again, most simply don't experiment as to what really sounds good with
tone controls. They rather believe that some sort of nebulous waffle
about "transparent" overpriced mic amps improving their sound. Well,
some of us actually do have the background, experience and training to
get good sounds, way cheaper.

Oh...Graham, I am still impressed that you at least managed to keep the
stereo channels of the C1 at 45hz. Don't tell the competition, they
might start to sound good as well:-)


Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

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

Martin Andér wrote:
> Kevin Aylward wrote:
>> There is a story to this. I discovered this trick at the age of 16.
>> It was very apparent that my guitar amp/speaker was "midderly", which
>> the tone controls could not correct for. I discovered that using a
>> transformer as an inductor and a parallel capacitor in series with
>> the signal worked wonders. Yes I have been fiddling with electronics
>> sine the age of 11, especially with regard to sound.
>>
>> I then became acquainted, at this same age, of the bridge T. This is
>> 2 series resisters, with a cap to ground. The 2 series resisters are
>> bypassed with another cap. This gives two paths, one for high
>> frequency, and one for low.
>>
>> Now for the really interesting bit. I actually remember the values,
>> yet I have never confirmed the response in spice, well until right
>> now, today as I am typing. The values were 47k, 47nf, and 1nf. The
>> response is a 28db notch at, low and behold, 500Hz!
>
> Congratulations! You (along with hordes of 14 year old thrash metal
> bedroom guitarists worldwide) discovered the "scooped" guitar sound.
> It may sound sweet on its own, but after a while, most people realize
> that it's practically useless in any real world situation. Kinda like
> .007-.028 guitar strings.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

>
>> I have spent a *lot* of time playing with tone controls, and their
>> design.
>
> I bet nobody else around here has done that.

That's correct, not many have. Hands up all those analogues designers in
here? Hands up those that have opened up mixers and soldered on
capacitors for tone experiments?

>
> BTW, while I do realize that you probably use the term "tone control"
> simply to piss people off,

I have already explained why. They are controls that effect, now get
this, the tone of the sound. Dah....

Some of us, are actually not really into all that pretensions "sonic
transparency" bullshit.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

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

Agent 86 wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 17:03:37 -0700, playon wrote:
>> The Kevin Aylward $150 special.
> ... which only even actually exists on paper.

It doesn't NEED to be built. We KNOW it will sound absolutely
spectacular.

/martin.

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

In article <0Egje.20912$2k2.1545@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk> see_website@anasoft.co.uk writes:

> What relevance has this to with the fact that extensive controlled
> listening tests have shown that for equipment of certain specs, there is
> no audible difference? Check out the Arny thread.

How extensive? How controlled? What specs?

You keep pointing out what seem to be trivial articles.


--
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

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

On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:50:55 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article <d6i94f$n1$1@panix2.panix.com> ):

> In article <1116504823.116699.15790@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> EADGBE <hwbosshoss@aol.com> wrote:
>> I am going to be upgrading my home studio's mic preamps. I have been
>> using the preamps in my MOTU interface and in my SoundCraft Spirit
>> mixer, but I have always found them lacking a bit in detail and a bit
>> "harsh" sounding with certain mics, especially my AKG C414TLII.
>
> Part of this is because the C414 TLII is just a harsh mike.
>
>> My budget is around $3,000.00.
>>
>> I would be interested in hearing TWO things:
>>
>> 1) What do you consider to be a good "all around" mic pre.
>>
>> 2) Some specifics on why you recommend that mic pre.
>
> Get a preamp intended to be as neutral as possible. Ones I would
> recommend include the original Great River, the Millennia Media HV-3,
> and the John Hardy gadgets. All of these are well in your price
> range, and all of them pretty much pass a straightwire test.
> They are all worth auditioning.
> --scott
>

The three most important things to consider with mics and preamps is;
Matching, matching and matching.

The C414 sounds fine with the right preamp. My GML, Amek NEVE 9098, Millennia
Media STT-1, John Hardy and Jensen are good matches.

Ty Ford



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

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

Hmmm.... So let me get this straight. As in wire with gain;

A Mackie pre with a couple of 2sc2545 hitachi transistors around a
nasty upc4560 opamp is going to measure and sound like the high end
stuff. FFT analysis shows different. So do the ears. But that's not
important. It's all in the AP tests!

Can they do .0002% CCIF IMD? Can they do clean gain up to the phase
shift turnover point at 200k hz? Can they offer -135 db ein? Can they
slew over 20 v/us, or even 200 v/us?

We need evidence so I can stop making this expensive stuff. I need a
Radio Shack schematic that will meet/beat my own design. I want to save
money. I want the same sonics. I want it to cost less than an RNP.

I want transistors that do 1.5 ghz GBW, .3 nv / hz /2 noise, 200 ma
output current and a 100 v operation. I want coupling caps that don't
cost $12 each that have micro ohms esr at 100k hz.

Please show me how.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Please don't tell me to lose my hearing first!

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

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

Kevin Aylward wrote:
> Martin Andér wrote:
>
>> Agent 86 wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 May 2005 17:03:37 -0700, playon wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Kevin Aylward $150 special.
>>>
>>> ... which only even actually exists on paper.
>>
>> It doesn't NEED to be built. We KNOW it will sound absolutely
>> spectacular.
>
>
> If it were built, it wouldn't have any "sound" at all. It would be a
> straight piece of wire with gain.
>
> With all due respect, you don't have the technical background to
> understand this.


With all due respect, you are talking out of your ass.

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1116587430k@trad...
>
> In article
<0Egje.20912$2k2.1545@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
see_website@anasoft.co.uk writes:
>
> > What relevance has this to with the fact that extensive
controlled
> > listening tests have shown that for equipment of certain
specs, there is
> > no audible difference? Check out the Arny thread.

> How extensive?

At least as extensive as the equipment shown in these two
lists:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/soundcard/index.htm


> How controlled?

http://www.pcabx.com/

>What specs?

typically:

http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards [...] /index.htm


http://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/macrot-5000VZ/index.htm

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

jwilliams3@audioupgrades.com wrote:
> 20 hz, 20k hz, what the F**K!
>
> First, how do you determine the numeration of these shelf EQ
> frequencies?
>
> 3db down from max boost/cut?, 3 db up/down from the turnover point?
> The max frequency of boost/cut?

The 3db point from the max boost/cut gain. This is the standard way of
specifying them.

>
> Here's the problem: Bell curves are easy to determine, the 'ol -3 db
> slope.
>
> How do you determine the shelf EQ frequency? There is NO Standard.

There is. Its the 3db point. That's how we analogue engineers specify
frequency responses. Its been that way since the 1920's with Bode.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

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

jwilliams3@audioupgrades.com wrote:
> Hmmm.... So let me get this straight. As in wire with gain;
>
> A Mackie pre with a couple of 2sc2545 hitachi transistors around a
> nasty upc4560 opamp is going to measure and sound like the high end
> stuff.

Probably, if operated within its limits. Although I wouldn't use one of
those as a reference. Just about any other decent semi-pro mixer and its
a definite.

>FFT analysis shows different. So do the ears. But that's not
> important. It's all in the AP tests!

I don't know what AP tests mean. If you mean A/B tests, they invariable
show no difference in well spec equipment.

>
> Can they do .0002% CCIF IMD? Can they do clean gain up to the phase
> shift turnover point at 200k hz? Can they offer -135 db ein? Can they
> slew over 20 v/us, or even 200 v/us?

Why would they want to do that?

20V at 20Khz is only 2.5v/us

0.01% imd is quite sufficient, 0.05% is fine according to standard A/B
tests.

Static phase shift in this context is simply undetectable, therefore
irrelevant.

-135db ein is theoretically impossible from a 150 ohm nominal source.
Its -133db max. Well, not unless we all sitting here freezing our balls
off.

>
> We need evidence so I can stop making this expensive stuff.

You can, the evidence is all over the place. The final consumer just
don't notice.

> I need a
> Radio Shack schematic that will meet/beat my own design. I want to
> save money. I want the same sonics. I want it to cost less than an
> RNP.
>
> I want transistors that do 1.5 ghz GBW, .3 nv / hz /2 noise, 200 ma
> output current and a 100 v operation. I want coupling caps that don't
> cost $12 each that have micro ohms esr at 100k hz.

None of that is required.

>
> Please show me how.

Show me why the above is required.

>
> Inquiring minds want to know.
>

Those of us that have actually inquired, have determined the inquiry was
pointless.

Kevin Aylward
informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

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

Kevin Aylward wrote:
> huwgareth@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Kevin Aylward wrote:
> >> huwgareth@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I wholehearted agree with the idea of DBT tests for hifi
amplifiers,
> > but I think that they tell only a small part of the picture for
> > preamps.
>
> I don't, so we will leave it there.

No I won't. I've just explained to you why "sounding good" is only one
of many requirements we have for a mic preamp. You can't judge anything
other than sounding good with a DBT.

>
> Kevin Aylward
> informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
> http://www.anasoft.co.uk
> SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
> Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
> Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

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

On Thu, 19 May 2005 21:35:25 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:


> The point is that there are many, affordable complete, quality mixers,
> costing less than a typical high end mic preamp, which are
> indistinguishable from each other sound wise.

This seems an odd thing to say.

If you compare a mackie or behringer and a decent high end pre like a
good focusrite or Amek, they sound different. It takes a while to 'get
it', but once you know what to listen for, it's not too hard to tell them
apart.

If comparing the same mic with the same voice/instrument in each pre, I
can do it quite reliably, and have a friend with better ears who can tell
every time.

If comparing different mics on different instruments I think I would
struggle to tell which pre was which. It's very hard to judge as I
cannot recreate recording a whole band with different sets of pre's, but I
find that using pres I like cuts down on the 'greyness' that tracking
everything though a low end desk can give.

It may be an illusion caused by different load impedances,
transformer vs solid state front end or whatever, that is largely
irrelevant: it's not really my concern as to how some mic pres sound good,
but it is very much my concern to get a decent sound.

I'd suggest giving it a go yourself, like so many things to do with
recording tech you have to learn to ignore the specs and have a listen.
You may find no audible difference at all between a $40 behringer
and an Millennia, which in a way is the best result as you can save a
load of money.

>
>
> Kevin Aylward
> informationEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
> http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/index.html
> http://www.anasoft.co.uk
> SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
> Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
> Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

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

In article <9nmje.25793$2k2.8329@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk> see_website@anasoft.co.uk writes:

> If it were built, it wouldn't have any "sound" at all. It would be a
> straight piece of wire with gain.
>
> With all due respect, you don't have the technical background to
> understand this. The background you do have is apparently based on a
> background equivalent to esp, and astrology.

Kevin must be out of work. If his boss knew he was posting this sort
of nonsense, he'd be on the carpet.


--
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