Mic preamp comparison

[Tobiah]

I recorded two mono channels, each through a different preamp into the same
audio interface. I normalized those, then arranged the results as A/B/A/B
into the same sound file.

All things were as equal as I could make them, other than the preamps.
Can you detect a difference? Do you like one better?

http://ven.rcsreg.com/r2/2_pres.wav

Later, I'll disclose the premps.


Tobiah

[Chris K-Man]

___________

Where does the second pre-amp recording begin - about 18sec?

[palli...@gmail.com]

Tobiah wrote:
=============

> I recorded two mono channels, each through a different preamp into the same
> audio interface. I normalized those, then arranged the results as A/B/A/B
> into the same sound file.
>

** For his next trick, Tobia will video himself pissing through a keyhole ...


... Phil

[Tobiah]

> ** For his next trick, Tobia will video himself pissing through a keyhole ...

I take it that you found my post uninteresting. I stretch it here
at times since the traffic is so much lower now than it used to be.

[Tobiah]

> Where does the second pre-amp recording begin - about 18sec?
>

About 9 seconds in, then three more times alternating preamps.

[palli...@gmail.com]

Tobiah wrote:

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

> > ** For his next trick, Tobia will video himself pissing through a keyhole ...
>
> I take it that you found my post uninteresting.

** Wrong.

I found it totally pointless and vapid.


...... Phil

[geoff]

And for his next trick Phallison will swallow a white rabbit, and pull a
brown hare out of his arse.

geoff

[geoff]

One seems to give a little more twang off the higher strings than the other.

On my cruddy computer speakers at least ...

geoff

[Chris K-Man]

____

Different EQ on one of the versions perhaps?

[palli...@gmail.com]

geoff wrote:
==============

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

** However, zero chance exists "geoff" would ever extricate his giant swollen head from his constipated rectum any time at all.

Cos a massive, fatal shit storm would ensue.




.... Phil

[Ty Ford]

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 5:18:05 PM UTC-4, Tobiah wrote:

Due to my present situation, I have not listened, but need to mention...............
The mic/preamp match is not a simple thing. Years ago I found that a certain SD mic sounded better through a Mackie preamp than my GML. I was surprised. I don't think it was due to a problem with the GML. I think a better mic would have sounded MUCH better with the GML than the SD mic in question sounded with the Mackie.

[Roy W. Rising]

My preferred way to A/B audio gear is to record the choices simultaneously on separate tracks. This removes the question about when the 'switch' takes place. The evaluating listener decides when to switch. Here, I'd use a "Y" cord to feed the mic to both preamps. Their outputs would go to two tracks. Typical input impedances should prevent cross-loading problems. Scott?

[Tobiah]

It was Two NT1-A's positioned side by side. One went into
a Mackie 1402-VLZ Pro preamp and out the insert into the
line input of a Presonus 1810 inteface.

The second mic went into a preamp of the 1810.

Each was recorded simultaneously onto separate tracks,
then arranged Mackie/Presonus/Mackie/Presonus.

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 20 May 2021 11:30:12 -0700, Tobiah <toby...@tobiah.org>
wrote:

It did sound like you had them quite close to the sound hole, though,
which is not good for balance. I also use NT1-As, and I reckon the
ideal position for recording acoustic guitar is about six feet away.
You need a decent room of course.

d

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[geoff]

"Side by side" could itself cause a subtle difference.

Better option would have been to use one mic and a mic-splitter. But
that would defeat the point of a mic preamp test ;-/

geoff

[geoff]

Doh. I don't think the OP is as dumb.

geoff

[Chris K-Man]

____

Just pointing out that I'd attribute any audible
difference to mastering than to any difference among
preamps, or DACs, etc.

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/20/2021 7:46 PM, Chris K-Man wrote:
> Just pointing out that I'd attribute any audible
> difference to mastering than to any difference among
> preamps, or DACs, etc.

Who said anything about mastering? Tobiah was trying to compare
differences in signal path - preamps and converters. However, I suspect
that the difference between the sound of the two mics, even though
they're the same make and model, are greater, though of a different
nature, than the difference between good preamps and converters.

This is a flawed experiment but is of value in demonstrating that the
difference between the two signal chains is audible. Preference for one
over the other is subjective.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[palli...@gmail.com]

geoff wrote:
==========

>
> "Side by side" could itself cause a subtle difference.
>
> Better option would have been to use one mic and a mic-splitter. But
> that would defeat the point of a mic preamp test ;-/

** A Rode NT-1A ( source Z = 100ohms) could easily drive several pre-amps at once.
The output level is very high ( 35mV at 94dB SPL) so pre-amp self noise is a non issue.

The dopey OP needed to make a Y lead and match gains to a fraction a dB - a basic DMM could do this with a steady sound source.

Famous saying:

" Never let an audiophool devise his own test ".


..... Phil

[geoff]

Only a fuckwit would think of mastering tracks in any way whatsoever for
a mic preamp comparison.

geoff

[Tobiah]

> Who said anything about mastering? Tobiah was trying to compare
> differences in signal path - preamps and converters.

Both signals went into the 1810, so the converters were
the same.

[Tobiah]

> Different EQ on one of the versions perhaps?
>

I took the Mackie signal out of the insert - no signal
went through even zeroed eq.

[Scott Dorsey]

Ty Ford <tyre3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The mic/preamp match is not a simple thing. Years ago I found that a certai=
>n SD mic sounded better through a Mackie preamp than my GML. I was surprise=
>d. I don't think it was due to a problem with the GML. I think a better mic=
> would have sounded MUCH better with the GML than the SD mic in question so=
>unded with the Mackie.=20

It's not so hard in the condenser mike world where you can design an
amplifier to go into a wide range of loads, but with a dynamic or ribbon
mike it's hard to make a mike that is immune to loading and also has a high
output level. Plenty of mikes like the SM-57 are touchy about loading,
while others like the 441 sacrifice efficiency for being able to work into
a wide range of preamps without changing response.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Chris K-Man]

_______
It is to the DEGREE of difference(pre-amp vs pre-amp vs different masterings)
which I am referring. Understand now?

Just 2dB of top added to one of those recordings, or 1dB of mids scooped
out, and that's a bigger difference than the difference between two well made
pre-amps.

[geoff]

Yes, I understand, but you apparently still don't. No mastering should
be done at all.

It is a mic preamp comparison. The only adjustment made should be
level-matching the recorded signal. Nothing will be 'scooped out'
because then it is no longer a preamp comparison.

geoff

[Chris K-Man]

________
That's why I hear no difference!

> It is a mic preamp comparison.
>

> geoff
______
No shit, Sherlock

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/21/2021 10:45 PM, Chris K-Man wrote:
>> It is a mic preamp comparison.
>> geoff

______
> No shit, Sherlock

But didn't Tobiah say that both mics went into the two mic input
channels of the same interface? Or was that someone else in another
discussion?

[Chris K-Man]

______

Yes.

[Don Pearce]

It's easy with a condenser mic because the first stage of the preamp
is built into the mic, so the loading is always going to be right.

[None]

On Thu, 20 May 2021 16:46:02 -0700, theckma @ dumbfuck.shortbus.edu wrote:

>
> Just pointing out that I'd attribute any audible difference to
> mastering than to any difference among preamps, or DACs, etc.

Just desperately trying to change the topic to one of your hobby-horses.
In this case, your bizarre combination of obsession with mastering, and
complete ignorance about it.

Except in the retarded world of Theckmah the Village Dumbfuck, the thread
has nothing to do mastering. Which, as you continue to prove, you don't
know anything about.

[Tobiah]

>
> But didn't Tobiah say that both mics went into the two mic input
> channels of the same interface? Or was that someone else in another
> discussion?

One mic went into a 1402VLZ-Pro preamp, out the insert, and into
a line-in of the 1810. The other went into a mic pre of
the 1810.

[Tobiah]

> It's easy with a condenser mic because the first stage of the preamp
> is built into the mic, so the loading is always going to be right.

This leads me to wonder why it's not more popular to put the
whole preamp in the microphone. At one time the answer was
that the preamp was expensive and many mics could use the same
preamp. Now I wonder (and am asking) whether it would be more
advantageous to engineer the mics to output line level signals
all by themselves. I'm aware of the advent of USB mics and that
they, in a vague sense, address this.


Tobiah

[palli...@gmail.com]

Tobiah = audiophool wrote:

==========================

>>
>
> This leads me to wonder why it's not more popular to put the
> whole preamp in the microphone.

** Keep wondering.....

> At one time the answer was
> that the preamp was expensive and many mics could use the same
> preamp.

** Never the reason.

> Now I wonder (and am asking) whether it would be more
> advantageous to engineer the mics to output line level signals
> all by themselves.

** Only possible if ALL mics were phantom powered, a massive disadvantage and big issue in live music.

Having the mic pre separate ALLOWS the gain to be set by an operator to CREATE a "line level " signal.

The raw signal coming from a mic varies over a huge range so mic pres have *gain controls* with 60 to 70 dB of adjustment to cater for this. No way exists to do this automatically, in the mic.



..... Phil

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/23/2021 8:40 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> It's easy with a condenser mic because the first stage of the preamp
> is built into the mic, so the loading is always going to be right.

That's the easy part. Where condenser mics differ in their sound when
connected to different preamps is whether there's an output transformer
or not, and if there is, it has a sound and that sound can be different
for preamps with different input impedance, and whether the preamp has
an input transformer or is transformerless, and the circuit topology of
a transformerless output (mic) or input (preamp.

There are so many ways to affect the sound between the diaphragm and a
usable output voltage (or digital output if the preamp includes it - a
whole other potential can of worms.

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/24/2021 8:23 PM, Tobiah wrote:
> This leads me to wonder why it's not more popular to put the
> whole preamp in the microphone.  At one time the answer was
> that the preamp was expensive and many mics could use the same
> preamp.  Now I wonder (and am asking) whether it would be more
> advantageous to engineer the mics to output line level signals
> all by themselves.

Well, a dozen or so years ago, we started to see ribbon mics with a
built-in preamp. But this brought the output level of the mic into the
ballpark of a condenser mic. It does provide (we hope) the proper load
on the ribbon assembly, eliminating one variable when the mic is part of
a system, but the output of the built-in "pre-preamp" isn't line level.
One reason for this is that today's generation of "engineers" wouldn't
know what to do with it.

Also many inputs on a preamp or mixer that are labeled "line" are
actually the mic preamp with an attenuator and a couple of capacitors to
block phantom power. Personally I don't think that's as bad as some
people do, but it's a hurdle for some users and manufacturers.

Short story: If you have a low sensitivity microphone, a built-in
amplifier that brings it up to the sensitivity of other mics you may be
using is a smart thing. But a mic with line level output is still an
oddity.

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 24 May 2021 20:48:44 -0400, Mike Rivers <mm1...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Well, anyone who is still messing with transformers gets what he
deserves. Active electronics provide common mode rejection every bit
as good these days, and without the distortion and frequency response
penalties inherent in the non-linear magnetic properties of iron.

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>On 21 May 2021 15:12:52 -0000, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>Ty Ford <tyre3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>The mic/preamp match is not a simple thing. Years ago I found that a certai=
>>>n SD mic sounded better through a Mackie preamp than my GML. I was surprise=
>>>d. I don't think it was due to a problem with the GML. I think a better mic=
>>> would have sounded MUCH better with the GML than the SD mic in question so=
>>>unded with the Mackie.=20
>>
>>It's not so hard in the condenser mike world where you can design an
>>amplifier to go into a wide range of loads, but with a dynamic or ribbon
>>mike it's hard to make a mike that is immune to loading and also has a high
>>output level. Plenty of mikes like the SM-57 are touchy about loading,
>>while others like the 441 sacrifice efficiency for being able to work into
>>a wide range of preamps without changing response.
>

>It's easy with a condenser mic because the first stage of the preamp
>is built into the mic, so the loading is always going to be right.

You'd think so, and that's true with a well-designed condenser mike that has
a nice low output impedance. But I have seen a few condenser mikes with
transformer outputs that were touchy about loading!

[Don Pearce]

Transformer - there's your problem.

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/25/2021 4:30 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> Well, anyone who is still messing with transformers gets what he
> deserves. Active electronics provide common mode rejection every bit
> as good these days, and without the distortion and frequency response
> penalties inherent in the non-linear magnetic properties of iron.

If the only reason to "mess" with transformers was to provide an
accurate balanced connection, then, sure, get rid of them. The THAT
chips make for better common mode rejection than any transformer.

However, today's recordists have either been brainwashed or have decided
on their own that their recordings should include some of the "vintage"
sound of 50 year old equipment, to which transformers are a significant
contributor. And for that, there's nothing like a transformer.

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 25 May 2021 09:19:31 -0400, Mike Rivers <mm1...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Nobody has yet designed a VST transformer effect? About time, I
reckon.

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/25/2021 9:34 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> Nobody has yet designed a VST transformer effect? About time, I
> reckon.

Maybe someone has, though I'm not aware of it. But there are many preamp
models that include a model of the transformer used in the hardware
version.

[geoff]

Well the is/was 'Magneto' for tape emuluation.

geoff

[david gourley]

geoff <ge...@nospamgeoffwood.org> said...news:vuqdnUoS4JDe5jD9nZ2dnUU7-
fOd...@giganews.com:

Kazrog has a "True Iron" plugin -

https://kazrog.com/products/true-iron


david

[geoff]

Great for 'heavy' music ;- )

geoff