| Author |
Message |
Paul Stamler
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:UdOdnW9OfsBH7e7enZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
| Quote: | With condenser mics, which have built-in pre's, the
output impedance should be almost totally resistive.
"Should be" is not precise enough for this discussion, even
though it may usually be true.
|
Only, I suspect, for transformerless mics. Transformer-couple mics add
complications.
| Quote: | Dynamic mics, on the other hand would be more complex.
So one might think.
Preamps with direct coupled inputs would also be almost
purely resistive, while those with capacitor coupled
inputs would have a reactive component.
Courtesy of phantom power, just about every mic preamp that
a professional might use has input capacitors.
Not to mention preamps with input transformers, which should
be mentioned.
|
I assume you're kidding; transformer-coupled preamps are the ones most
likely to be interesting objects of study. (And, I suspect, they're still
the ones used by the majority of pros, unless they're recording classical
music with Millennia preamps.)
Peace,
Paul
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: mic preamps - Response to Bob Cain |
|
|
Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
news:dkuiur0188n@enews3.newsguy.com:
| Quote: |
the_professor@hotmail.com wrote:
[his usual]
the_professor is Gary Sokolich. Gary follows me around to all the
groups where I post to stalk and sniff my ass. He can't seem to get
enough of it. The answer is still _no_, Gary. I'm not into that.
Bob
|
You obviously have Gary Sokolich confused with Jim Carr, who, earlier this
year, and in this very group, wrote:
"Hey. I *like* Bob's butt crack. And I don't just say that about anybody's
butt crack."
To which you, Bob Cain, replied:
"Jeez, Jim, I didn't know you cared."
Deny whatever, but the fact that you are into ass sniffing is, by your own
admission, a matter of public record. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"Porky" <noham@nospam.com> wrote in
news:wczcf.12062$Dk.2593@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
| Quote: | Bang! I just killfiled another ghost!
|
Perhaps you should killfile yourself and spare the naive readers of this
and other newsgroups from being victimized by your obvious stupidity and
ignorance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Porky
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
<.@pigsRus> wrote in message
news:rSTcf.1351$KG1.608@fe07.news.easynews.com...
| Quote: | "Porky" <noham@nospam.com> wrote in
news:wczcf.12062$Dk.2593@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
Bang! I just killfiled another ghost!
Perhaps you should killfile yourself and spare the naive readers of this
and other newsgroups from being victimized by your obvious stupidity and
ignorance.
Bang! again! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Carr
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: mic preamps - Response to Bob Cain |
|
|
<the_professor@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B_Scf.506$KG1.33@fe07.news.easynews.com...
| Quote: | You obviously have Gary Sokolich confused with Jim Carr, who, earlier this
year, and in this very group, wrote:
"Hey. I *like* Bob's butt crack. And I don't just say that about anybody's
butt crack."
To which you, Bob Cain, replied:
"Jeez, Jim, I didn't know you cared."
Deny whatever, but the fact that you are into ass sniffing is, by your own
admission, a matter of public record.
|
That still doesn't mean that he is into it. Sure, I like sniffing his butt
crack. Obviously you do, too, so you know what I mean <wink>. And Bob knows
it's more than just a gesture of friendship, but that doesn't mean he
actually *likes* it.
We're friends, so he tolerates my proclivities. You, however, take a good
thing too far. I mean, spreading the cheeks and using the tongue for just a
sniff is simply not acceptable, especially from someone who is not well
liked. It's not unexpected from you, considering your inclination towards
most things anal, but it's not appreciated. Surely you understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Carr
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Bd-dnUmjvvEt6O7eRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
| Quote: | And I still sit here and wonder why nobody has an audio
clip that says, "Here, listen. See much better this one
sounds than that one?"
For one thing, just one clip proves nothing. Generally
auditioning is or at least should be more complex than that.
|
Obviously, you pick something that makes yours sound great and the other
guy's sound bad. :-) My point is still that the audio world tends to sell on
numbers of questionable value rather than the sound. By contrast photo
equipment includes some numbers, but you see a *lot* of pictures
demonstrating the differences.
As far as this discussion goes, I'm still sitting here wondering if given 10
different A/B audio samples of a $500 and a $5,000 mic preamp, could I
reliably detect a difference between the two. I think everything else is
immaterial until the audible difference is demonstrated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Carr
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dksabb0i00@enews2.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | I'm not sure what you are trying to say, Jim. The discussions of
calculation relate only to methods of disclosing the physics. If you
don't believe there is a relationship between physics and subjective
impression or that there is measurable physics behind any perceptual
difference then there isn't a common ground for discussion.
|
At the risk of pissing off a lot of R.A.P. folks, I think much of the
discussion is mental masturbation. The marketing types have it right - throw
a bunch of numbers at them and forget how it really sounds.
What I'm driving at is that I would rather see the approach come from the
ears first and have the science explain what was heard, if anything.
Admittedly much of the discussion is out of my realm of expertise, but I
still wonder how hard it would be to just some simple tests to see if the
differences are audible. From a scientific/mathematical objective
measurement standpoint I have no doubt that there will be differences.
Even if you do hear a difference, what good does it do to know that it was
caused by <insert some technical talk here>? It's not like you can do much
about it, right?
This is more of a rhetorical post. I dabble in photography as well, which
can get technical at times, especially with digital. The discussions rarely
ever get this complex. Wanna compare lenses? Look at the pictures they take.
Wanna compare cameras? Look at the pictures they take.
I probably shouldn't be commenting at all since I have little to offer, but
sometimes I just can't resist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Porky
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:18 am Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dl1gb608q8@enews3.newsguy.com...
| Quote: |
Jim Carr wrote:
Even if you do hear a difference, what good does it do to know that it
was
caused by <insert some technical talk here>? It's not like you can do
much
about it, right?
First I'd like to know from measurement whether there is a difference to
hear and how significant it really is. As I've said before, my car always
runs _so_ much better after I detail it. Expectation is the bane of
subjective evaluation and rarely are subjective reports and reviews
anything like free of expectation. (A very BAD recent book of Michael
Crighton's details some startling examples of how expectation affects
results and whatever you think of his writing he tends to research his
facts.)
I don't know for sure whether there is anything much that can be done
based on technical measurement but from some work I've done in the area I
tend to think there is. OTOH, I think that speakers and rooms (and minor
motion wrt them) so overwhelm the gear differences we've discussed in this
thread that they are for all intents and purposes irrelevant. Some real
data would be useful in seeing how valid that opinion is.
|
Since speaker and room response affects everything else equally, I think
that the well trained critical listener who is familiar with that
enviornment subconsciously takes that into account when evaluating other
equipment, and thus can hear very subtle differences. I agree that one's
expectations will often influence one's opinion when auditioning audio
equipment, but those who are aware of this will try to take it into account.
I always try to be more critical of high end equipment that carries a lot of
hype, and I'll nitpick on it more than I will cheaper equipment.
| Quote: | This is more of a rhetorical post. I dabble in photography as well, which
can get technical at times, especially with digital. The discussions
rarely
ever get this complex. Wanna compare lenses? Look at the pictures they
take.
Wanna compare cameras? Look at the pictures they take.
That's a good analogy. I think the content overwhelms the technical in
both media, but so long as there is debate about how many angels dance on
the head of the pin and there is money at stake (both manufacturing and
reviewing) it's worth seeing if they are really countable.
|
Hearing is much more subjective than seeing, so I think Jim's point
applies even more to audio than photography.
| Quote: | I probably shouldn't be commenting at all since I have little to offer,
but
sometimes I just can't resist.
I dunno, IMO it's a point of view that deserves a response.
A lot of what Jim says deserves a response, but in this case, it's a |
positive one. :-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Porky
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:31 am Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"Jim Carr" <jim@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:YRVcf.622$7A.332@fed1read04...
| Quote: | "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:Bd-dnUmjvvEt6O7eRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
And I still sit here and wonder why nobody has an audio
clip that says, "Here, listen. See much better this one
sounds than that one?"
For one thing, just one clip proves nothing. Generally
auditioning is or at least should be more complex than that.
Obviously, you pick something that makes yours sound great and the other
guy's sound bad. :-) My point is still that the audio world tends to sell
on
numbers of questionable value rather than the sound. By contrast photo
equipment includes some numbers, but you see a *lot* of pictures
demonstrating the differences.
As far as this discussion goes, I'm still sitting here wondering if given
10
different A/B audio samples of a $500 and a $5,000 mic preamp, could I
reliably detect a difference between the two. I think everything else is
immaterial until the audible difference is demonstrated.
The difference in mic preamps is probably much more noticable than in |
other audio electronics, because mic preamps color the sound much more than
most other audio gear, with the exception of mics and speakers.. Even
ignoring the effects of the interface between the mic output and preamp
input, the combined responses of the two will make a considerable difference
in the sound of the combination. I've heard some very expensive mic and
preamp combos that didn't sound well together at all, and some cheaper mic/
preamp combos that sounded great. With mic/preamp combinations, the
objective usually isn't flat response, its to make the singer's voice sound
as good as possible, that's why there is no single best mic, preamp, or
mic/preamp combination. If flat response were the objective, everyone would
use calibrated instrumentation mics with their built-in ruler flat preamps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Stamler
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:46 am Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl28hk$89g$1@panix2.panix.com...
| Quote: | Oh, please don't -- one of my favorite recordings is an LP of a steel
band
recorded in Trinidad, with a cricket under the front steps chirping its
way
all through side one. I think it was on the Audio Fidelity label.
That sounds like one of the Emory Cook recordings. I found the poetry
on the liner notes more interesting than the recordings most of the time,
though.
|
You may be right -- "Brute Force Steel Band" from Antigua? Anyway, it was
more fun than most Cook albums.
Peace,
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Larsen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:52 am Post subject:
Re: Best mixer for digital recording under $100? |
|
|
robin wrote:
| Quote: | I know I've used the effects in my UB1002 for live work.
There's a cheaper version of the Behringer without them,
but for a few extra bucks, why not have a free
reverb/chorus/whatever?
|
Because it is slightly possible that the analog circuitry will perform
less well due to the rfi noise from the digital circuitry, for a
recording mixer skip them, for a do-all, get them, having one version
with and one without on their menu is a wise choice.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
******************************************* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Geoff@home
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:gG5df.81426$zb5.20714@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| Quote: | "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl28hk$89g$1@panix2.panix.com...
Oh, please don't -- one of my favorite recordings is an LP of a steel
band
recorded in Trinidad, with a cricket under the front steps chirping its
way
all through side one. I think it was on the Audio Fidelity label.
That sounds like one of the Emory Cook recordings. I found the poetry
on the liner notes more interesting than the recordings most of the time,
though.
You may be right -- "Brute Force Steel Band" from Antigua? Anyway, it was
more fun than most Cook albums.
|
I think that is one I transcribed a while ago. I was trying to track down
which bit of my machine was squeaking !
geoff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Carr
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dl1gb608q8@enews3.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | That's a good analogy. I think the content overwhelms the technical in
both media, but so long as there is debate about how many angels dance
on the head of the pin and there is money at stake (both manufacturing
and reviewing) it's worth seeing if they are really countable.
|
Don't get me wrong, if you can give me meaningful numbers to compare, I'm
all for it. But in many cases I can't seem to quantify the numbers I do see.
For example, you have some reverb unit that has 24 bit processing and the
other brand had 32 bit processing. I can completely understand all of the
advantages of having more bits. However, I don't think it will be something
anyone could ever hear in isolation. In real life most of the time reverb is
quite a few db lower than the dry signal, so even you could hear the
difference in isolation, you'd be hard pressed to pick it out in a mix.
And the sad part is while shopping on Musicians Friend or some such site, I
rarely ever have access to an audio sample, so I'm forced to buy it based on
some numerical specifications that may not have any real life value.
Anyway, I'm beating this into the ground. I'll shut up now.
| Quote: | I probably shouldn't be commenting at all since I have little to offer,
but
sometimes I just can't resist.
I dunno, IMO it's a point of view that deserves a response.
|
You are the ever the gentleman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Carr
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:25 pm Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message
news:3tllv4Ftf2jmU1@individual.net...
| Quote: | Porky wrote:
I think that the problem with making the necessary measurements and
publishing the results would just result in more confusion among the
general public, which has neither the beckground, nor the inclination
to be educated, to understand what all those numbers would mean or
how they would translate into what one actually hears.
The overwhelming majority of the 'general public' doesn't even
understand what a microphone preamp is used for, much less comprehend
that changing it might affect the sound quality of a recording.
|
Your point is well taken. However, having spent countless hours arguing with
Porky, I have to tell you that sometimes you have to figure out what he
means versus what he writes. If he's not misstating something technical that
he seemingly understands but can't properly explain, it's usually not worth
worrying about.
This thread is cross-posted to alt.music.home-studio. Over there we get
people asking questions like, "I want to record my acoustic guitar and
vocals with my SoundBlaster. How do I do that?" So by general public he
means people who want to get into recording for fun but have no clue where
to start. So while the measurements would certainly help professionals and
possibly help advanced novices such as myself, the general public to which
he refers would still rather see Behringer, Yamaha and Alesis give us some
sound clips of their cheap mixers with an SM58 or SM57 running through them.
That way they can try to hear a difference. His general public probably
won't spend more than $500 total on all their mics, preamps and soundcards
put together.
| Quote: | Hearing is a very subjective experience, if it weren't, we would all
like the same kinds of music.
I think you may be confusing listening with appreciating.
|
Oh, and Porky sometimes puts out clunkers like that as well. It's just
better to ignore them or post something condescending like I usually do. :-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Carr
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:51 pm Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"CWCunningham" <charlesw-at-blackfoot.net> wrote in message
news:dl4afh0bso@enews2.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | "Porky" <noham@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Vp5df.8137$%k.4585@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| If flat response were the objective, everyone would
| use calibrated instrumentation mics with their built-in ruler flat
preamps.
|
Instrumentation mics aren't flat, they're just carefully measured so that
you
know exactly how bad they are. Can you name a brand of pre-amp that
intentionally claims *not* to be ruler flat?
|
If you consider any description that implies coloration to by definition not
mean ruler flat, then yes. In my simple mind ruler flat means the preamp
boosts the gain on whatever the mic gives it without adding anything of its
own.
I pulled the following from Musician's Friend. Prices range from under $100
to nearly $3,000. And I should note that not a single one had an audio
sample available.
Presonus advertises their tube preamp to be warm while the solid state
version is transparent.
Universal audio claims to be warm with musical character. Another model has
classic musicality and warm euphonics (that's not even a word).
Focusrite calls theirs "warm yet transparent" which is kind of funny.
Blue Robbie calls theirs warm and robust.
Nady calls theirs warm.
Aphex says theirs has big bottom.
ART delivers a "wide variety of tones" based on adjusting the Tube Plate
Voltage.
M-Audio's Temporal Harmonic Alignment technology, a revolutionary process
that corrects the phase alignment of overtones to achieve the perceived
warmth of tubes at a solid-state price.
Avalon offers deep, musical sound stage and transparent amplification.
Another model has smooth musical detail.
And my favorite: Symetrix offers "almost undetectable distortion." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in