| Author |
Message |
Laurence Payne
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:41 pm Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:52:50 -0700, "CWCunningham"
<charlesw-at-blackfoot.net> wrote:
| Quote: | 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?
|
Some claim to be transparent. Some claim to enhance the sound. They
don't do this by being flat.
CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Scott Dorsey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 8:09 pm Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
In article <dl4afh0bso@enews2.newsguy.com>,
CWCunningham <charlesw-at-blackfoot.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "Porky" <noham@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Vp5df.8137$%k.4585@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| If flat response were the objective, everyone would
| use calibrated instrumentation mics with their built-in ruler flat preamps.
Instrumentation mics aren't flat, they're just carefully measured so that you
know exactly how bad they are. Can you name a brand of pre-amp that
intentionally claims *not* to be ruler flat?
|
Sure. Every model that has "warm" in the advertisement.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CWCunningham
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:15 am Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dl4t1t$mml$1@panix2.panix.com...
| In article <dl4afh0bso@enews2.newsguy.com>,
| CWCunningham <charlesw-at-blackfoot.net> wrote:
| >"Porky" <noham@nospam.com> wrote in message
| >news:Vp5df.8137$%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?
|
| Sure. Every model that has "warm" in the advertisement.
|
That's not the same as an intentional claim of non-linear response. There are a
large number of marketing buzz words that manufacturers will use to make their
offering sound desirable (warm, crisp, precise, detailed, enhanced, bright,
transparent ... frankly any word they think you'll think means "superior"), but
if you asked the people who wrote that claim, "So are you saying that the
frequency response isn't flat?", I'll bet they'd hem and haw and claim their
response is the flattest money can buy.
--
CWC
============================
It's not that nice guys finish last,
They have a whole different notion
where the finish line is.
============================ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Carr
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"CWCunningham" <charlesw-at-blackfoot.net> wrote in message
news:dl5t3i010o1@enews3.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | That's not the same as an intentional claim of non-linear response. There
are a
large number of marketing buzz words that manufacturers will use to make
their
offering sound desirable (warm, crisp, precise, detailed, enhanced,
bright,
transparent ... frankly any word they think you'll think means
"superior"), but
if you asked the people who wrote that claim, "So are you saying that the
frequency response isn't flat?", I'll bet they'd hem and haw and claim
their
response is the flattest money can buy.
|
Did you see the post I made with the varying claims? One model let you
switch between warm and transparent. Another very expensive model talked
about a classic musical response, which immediately says to somebody wanting
it for voice work that it's definitely non-linear. They probably want the
model advertising big bottom, which is also non-linear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Dorsey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:42 am Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
CWCunningham <charlesw-at-blackfoot.net> wrote:
| Quote: | That's not the same as an intentional claim of non-linear response. There are a
large number of marketing buzz words that manufacturers will use to make their
offering sound desirable (warm, crisp, precise, detailed, enhanced, bright,
transparent ... frankly any word they think you'll think means "superior"), but
if you asked the people who wrote that claim, "So are you saying that the
frequency response isn't flat?", I'll bet they'd hem and haw and claim their
response is the flattest money can buy.
|
So? All this tells you is that marketing people lie. We already knew that.
Welcome to the consumer electronics world.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CWCunningham
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 12:50 pm Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"Jim Carr" <jim@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:ZCvdf.760$7A.568@fed1read04...
| "CWCunningham" <charlesw-at-blackfoot.net> wrote in message
| news:dl5t3i010o1@enews3.newsguy.com...
|
| > That's not the same as an intentional claim of non-linear response. There
| are a
| > large number of marketing buzz words that manufacturers will use to make
| their
| > offering sound desirable (warm, crisp, precise, detailed, enhanced,
| bright,
| > transparent ... frankly any word they think you'll think means
| "superior"), but
| > if you asked the people who wrote that claim, "So are you saying that the
| > frequency response isn't flat?", I'll bet they'd hem and haw and claim
| their
| > response is the flattest money can buy.
|
| Did you see the post I made with the varying claims? One model let you
| switch between warm and transparent. Another very expensive model talked
| about a classic musical response, which immediately says to somebody wanting
| it for voice work that it's definitely non-linear. They probably want the
| model advertising big bottom, which is also non-linear.
|
But in each case, you are jumping to the conclusions that make sense to you,
which is exactly what they are hoping.
Can you quantify "warmth" into a specific non-linearity?
Have you ever seen a response curve that shows "classic musical response"?
"Big bottom" at least implies excessive gain at certain frequencies, but it's
still intentionally vague. Marketers know that suggestion builds expectation,
and that expectation colors what you hear quite reliably.
--
CWC
============================
It's not that nice guys finish last,
They have a whole different notion
where the finish line is.
============================
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Porky
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 1:04 pm Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"Jim Carr" <jim@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:unjdf.721$7A.374@fed1read04...
| Quote: | "Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message
news:3tllv4Ftf2jmU1@individual.net...
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.
|
The fact is that the majority of people doing recording are not
professionals, just like in any other avocation. Of course, most of the pros
will know what the numbers mean, or can afford pay a real expert to tell
them what the numbers mean, but most of those doing recording are amatuer
musicians or home studioists who have neither the education nor the
background to understand the numbers.It's just like golf, or baseball, or
basketball, or chess, most of those who play are not professionals. I meant
exactly what I said, even if someone did come up with measurements that
could be translated exactly into sound characteristics, most potential
buyers wouldn't understand what they meant. And listening to an "expert"
isn't really an option because many so called "experts" in audio are
charlatans who are just trying to sell you whatever brand of snake oil
they've invested in, or those who try to tell you that their speaker
crossovers eliminate Doppler distortion in speakers, etc. To much of the
public, an expert is anyone who proclaims himself "expert", with a bunch of
fancy sounding, but basically meaningless credentials.
| Quote: | 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.
|
My comments have been primarily addressed to those in
alt.music.home-studio, in fact, I didn't notice the cross-posting until Jim
mentioned it. However, I know and have dealt with personally many amatuer
home studioists who have upwards of ten thousand dollars, and in a couple of
cases, as much as one hundred thousand dollars invested in their home
studios. Some folks around Nashville tend to take their music hobbies rather
seriously :-)
I'd say that most of those I know have five to ten thousand invested if you
include their computers. Mics and preamps in the $500 to $1500 dollar range
aren't all that uncommon, and while that isn't top-of-the-line, it is enough
to get fairly decent euipment.
The problem with sound clips is that you'd need a clip for every mic and
preamp combination to get valid results, so you'd know what to look for.
Personally, I tell people who are looking for a preamp to either take their
mic with them to audition it, or audition it with the same model mic,
otherwise the results may be misleading. Some of the music stores around
here let customers they know take equipment home and try it out for a few
days before buying it, and this is probably the best way to audition studio
equipment.
| 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.
|
Nope, I meant hearing. One can appreciate music one doesn't like if it is
technically good, and well recorded. Try making a weird and unusual noise in
front of ten people who have never heard that particular noise, and get each
one to describe it, chances are you'll get ten different descriptions.
| Quote: | 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.
:-)
Oky Jim, do you know how phase angle at various frequencies affects the |
sound characteristics of a preamp, and would you be albe to read and
understand a graph plotting it? That would be one of the figures you'd need
to determine the sonic characteristerics of that preamp, and there are
others, frequency asnd phase response is just the beginning, and you'd need
curves, just general +- dB freq1 to freq2, and phase +-degrees freq1 to
freq2 wouldn't mean squat. Even if you can read the charts, how many other
amatuer musicians do you know who can? What about input and output impedance
characteristics? I say that the numbers necessary to give a really good
picture of how a preamp will sound are beyond the understanding of anyone
without a solid background in electronics and acoustics. But, that's just my
opinion.... :-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Porky
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 1:08 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?
I have an old instrumentation mic with built-in preamp. It has a line |
level output and its claimed response curve is flat from 80 Hz to 10KHz, +-
0.25dB in an anechoic enviornment. It sounds lousy as a vocal mic. :-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Porky
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 1:19 pm Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"Jim Carr" <jim@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:ZCvdf.760$7A.568@fed1read04...
| Quote: | "CWCunningham" <charlesw-at-blackfoot.net> wrote in message
news:dl5t3i010o1@enews3.newsguy.com...
That's not the same as an intentional claim of non-linear response. There
are a
large number of marketing buzz words that manufacturers will use to make
their
offering sound desirable (warm, crisp, precise, detailed, enhanced,
bright,
transparent ... frankly any word they think you'll think means
"superior"), but
if you asked the people who wrote that claim, "So are you saying that the
frequency response isn't flat?", I'll bet they'd hem and haw and claim
their
response is the flattest money can buy.
Did you see the post I made with the varying claims? One model let you
switch between warm and transparent. Another very expensive model talked
about a classic musical response, which immediately says to somebody
wanting
it for voice work that it's definitely non-linear. They probably want the
model advertising big bottom, which is also non-linear.
"Transparent" in audio electronics means literally, "neither adding to nor |
sutracting from the input signal" However, if you stop and think about it, a
"transparent" mic/preamp combo would result in the singer sounding exactly
like he does when you're in the room listening to him or her sing without a
mic, and how many of us want our voices to sound like that when we record
ourselves? Nope, we want "better than live"! We want that "warmth" and
"character" that a good mic/preamp combo gives us, and that's anything but
flat.That's also why there are so many different mics and preamps available,
each with it's own characteristics. One could easily design a truly
transparent preamp with flat response from 10 Hz to 100KHz and sell it at a
profit for under a hundred bucks, but who would buy it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Carr
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 1:50 pm Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"CWCunningham" <charlesw-at-blackfoot.net> wrote in message
news:dl6nm50l3v@enews2.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | But in each case, you are jumping to the conclusions that make sense to
you,
which is exactly what they are hoping.
Can you quantify "warmth" into a specific non-linearity?
Have you ever seen a response curve that shows "classic musical response"?
"Big bottom" at least implies excessive gain at certain frequencies, but
it's
still intentionally vague. Marketers know that suggestion builds
expectation,
and that expectation colors what you hear quite reliably.
|
I don't think you caught my point. Someone said that companies don't
advertise their preamps as being non-linear - they want you to think their
equipment reproduces the input perfectly. I simply showed numerous examples
where the companies did not claim to have a linear response and chose
adjectives which by definition preclude the device from rendering a perfect
reproduction. Their selling point is that it is *not* faithful but that it
actually imparts characteristics you want.
I also realize most of those words are meaningless. What the hell does warm
mean anyway? That's like saying something looks nice or tastes good - it's
not very specific. How is a preamp musical? What does that mean? Since I
like most warm things (baths, pies, summer days, girlfriends, etc) and my
goal is to create music, then I guess I want a preamp that imparts warm
musical characteristics, huh?
Ironically, I think it's the home studio guys like me who want the most
transparent preamps. I won't spend the money to be able to pick the right
mic and preamp combination to get the sound I want. I have three mics. I'd
like a preamp that colors my stuff the least. I can then attempt to use
whatever tools I have available to me (EQ, compression, effects) to get the
sound where I want it.
Unfortunately, the brochures don't help me nor do I have any sound samples
to listen to. Such is life. I guess I'll stick with a warm musical preamp
with a shiny box and lots of colored lights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Carr
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:01 pm Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"Porky" <noham@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jxBdf.26574$td.9576@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: | Oky Jim, do you know how phase angle at various frequencies affects the
sound characteristics of a preamp, and would you be albe to read and
understand a graph plotting it?
|
Actually, the wife and I were just discussing that over dinner. That kind of
talk makes her hot.
I think you missed the point, Porky. I understood what you *meant* but what
you wrote did not accurately reflect that. The fact that a group of 10
people would not be able to reach a consensus on whether my voice sounds
better through a SM57 or SM58 is true. How we hear it is subjective. That's
what I think you meant.
You made the analogy to our tastes in music. If every person in the world
heard everything exactly the same and the entire planet preferred my voice
through a SM57, we'd still have the issue of whether they would rather hear
me sing a rock song or a show tune. That's what I was mocking. Your correct
belief about subjecting hearing is unrelated to taste in music.
That's all. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. You *really*
should read the *entire* post at least once before starting your reply.
Sometimes it's obvious that you don't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Porky
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:33 pm Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"Jim Carr" <jim@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:7mCdf.781$7A.481@fed1read04...
| Quote: | "Porky" <noham@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jxBdf.26574$td.9576@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Oky Jim, do you know how phase angle at various frequencies affects the
sound characteristics of a preamp, and would you be albe to read and
understand a graph plotting it?
Actually, the wife and I were just discussing that over dinner. That kind
of
talk makes her hot.
|
I thought you weren't married...
My wife hates that sort of talk, she gets hot when I talk about
semiconductors and hole flow theory...
| Quote: | I think you missed the point, Porky. I understood what you *meant* but
what
you wrote did not accurately reflect that. The fact that a group of 10
people would not be able to reach a consensus on whether my voice sounds
better through a SM57 or SM58 is true. How we hear it is subjective.
That's
what I think you meant.
|
In your case, as in mine, I think the consensus would be that we sound
bad no matter what mic we use. If you understood it, why do you think
everyone else didn't? Do I detect a hint of a superiority complex there? :-)
| Quote: | You made the analogy to our tastes in music. If every person in the world
heard everything exactly the same and the entire planet preferred my voice
through a SM57, we'd still have the issue of whether they would rather
hear
me sing a rock song or a show tune. That's what I was mocking. Your
correct
belief about subjecting hearing is unrelated to taste in music.
|
Ok, I made a bad anology, but that doesn't make my statement any less
true.
| Quote: | That's all. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. You *really*
should read the *entire* post at least once before starting your reply.
Sometimes it's obvious that you don't.
You're right, but sometimes it's just that we both get so long winded |
that I forget what I read at the beginning by the time I get to the end...
:-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Carr
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 2:50 pm Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"Porky" <noham@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:0RCdf.443$f_2.279@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: | I thought you weren't married...
|
I never told you guys that I remarried last December? We're expecting our
first kid on Valentines Day, just over two months before I turn 40. I'm sure
my posting frequency will go way down after our boy arrives, so get your
licks in while you can!
| Quote: | In your case, as in mine, I think the consensus would be that we sound
bad no matter what mic we use. If you understood it, why do you think
everyone else didn't? Do I detect a hint of a superiority complex there?
:-) |
What you call a superiority complex is what I refer to as an accurate
implementation of Know Thyself. The guy who responded to you didn't get what
you meant. I did. I just thought it was stated poorly (a clunker). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Dorsey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:27 pm Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
Porky <noham@nospam.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I have an old instrumentation mic with built-in preamp. It has a line
level output and its claimed response curve is flat from 80 Hz to 10KHz, +-
0.25dB in an anechoic enviornment. It sounds lousy as a vocal mic. :-)
|
Let me guess, it's a GenRad ceramic isn't it?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Porky
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:06 am Post subject:
Re: mic preamps |
|
|
"Jim Carr" <jim@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:i4Ddf.11951$0l5.5598@dukeread06...
| Quote: | "Porky" <noham@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:0RCdf.443$f_2.279@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
I thought you weren't married...
I never told you guys that I remarried last December? We're expecting our
first kid on Valentines Day, just over two months before I turn 40. I'm
sure
my posting frequency will go way down after our boy arrives, so get your
licks in while you can!
|
Well then, congratulations! Sounds like you've been getting your licks
in... :-)
| Quote: | In your case, as in mine, I think the consensus would be that we sound
bad no matter what mic we use. If you understood it, why do you think
everyone else didn't? Do I detect a hint of a superiority complex there?
:-)
What you call a superiority complex is what I refer to as an accurate
implementation of Know Thyself. The guy who responded to you didn't get
what
you meant. I did. I just thought it was stated poorly (a clunker)
I stated it fine, I just used a bad analogy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in