Best mixer for digital recording under $100?
jaynews
terms of background noise (and RF noise), as well as the most transparent in
terms of frequency response?
1) Yamaha MG 10./2
2) Behringer UB 1202FX (comes with 100 digital effects!)
3) Other under $100 behringer UB mixers without effects
4) Alesis Multimix MX6 (comes with 101 digital effects!)
5) Peavey PV6
Thanks,
J
Mike Rivers
jaynews wrote:
> For digital recording with an XLR mic, which of these is the quietest in
> terms of background noise (and RF noise), as well as the most transparent in
> terms of frequency response?
>
> 1) Yamaha MG 10./2
That one.
If you want a better answer, it'll cost you more than the mixer.
My advice: Look at the features, number of inputs and outputs, bands of
EQ, phantom powering, feel of the controls - stuff like that. For the
price, it's a miracle that these mixers work as well as they do, and
they really are pretty much the same. Don't be swayed by 100 built-in
effects. You won't use them all.
Scott Dorsey
Really, none of these are going to be particularly good... I mean, you
are talking about a consumer electronics product with around $10 worth
of total parts, whose mike preamp stage probably costs well under a
dollar. What do you expect? Just buy whichever is most convenient
and expect to throw it out in a year or two. This stuff is disposable.
It's consumer gear for God's sake, like a cheap VCR.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Jim Carr
news:THdaf.3313$5F3.1561@trndny03...
I've been very happy with the Alesis model. The effects are top quality,
though I rarely ever use them for recording. For live projects it works
rather well.
Arny Krueger
news:THdaf.3313$5F3.1561@trndny03
> For digital recording with an XLR mic, which of these is
When I *had* to get a sub-$100 digital mixer with recording
in mind, I picked the Behringer MXB 1002. In retrospect, it
might not have been the best choice but it has been a good
choice.
First off, I find that the EFX in a cheap digital mixer is a
negative - given the tight budget that we're on, I want it
to go into into meat, not sizzle. Most recording and editing
software has EFX and/or the abilty to be a platform for
accessing external EFX - called plug-ins. It's best to add
EFX in a context where you can do it and then adjust to suit
with the actual music you recorded.
Secondly, if you get into recording its not like you can
have too many mic inputs. However, if you are recording with
a computer, accessing those mic inputs independent of the
mixer is important, and the ability to do that generally
comes in low end mixers with inserts. That's where my second
thoughts come from: while the MXB1002 has 5 mic inputs, only
two have inserts, while the Yamaha MG 10/.2 seems to have 4
mic inputs and 4 inserts.
As far as noise in the mixer goes, my experience has been
that the importance of mixer noise has a lot to do with the
how you are going to make your recordings. The toughest
situation for noise is something like a dynamic mic
positioned some distance from the acoustical source, such as
recording a chamber group or choir with 2 mics. Thing is,
most everybody who does this kind of recording uses
condensor mics, which typically have much larger signal
output, and this makes you far less critical of noise in the
mixer.
One other issue might be how amenable the mixer is to being
used casually. A mixer that runs off batteries matches up
nicely with many portable digital reocorders that also run
on batteries. That's one place where the MXB 1002 shines.
Dave Morrison
pre's got too noisy when I got near max gain. If you have people who project
well or stay on mic, this mixer would have been perfect. However, I had to
go with a Mackie.
dave
"Jim Carr" <j...@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:Hbeaf.354$zu6.306@fed1read04...
Sylvain Robitaille
> Don't be swayed by 100 built-in effects. You won't use them all.
In fact, given your specificiation, "quietest in terms of background
noise ... the most transparent in terms of frequency response" you
probably won't (or at least shouldn't) use any of the built-in effects.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille s...@alcor.concordia.ca
Major in Electroacoustic Studies Concordia University
Faculty of Fine Arts / Music Department Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
robin
>My advice: Look at the features, number of inputs and outputs, bands of
>EQ, phantom powering, feel of the controls - stuff like that. For the
>price, it's a miracle that these mixers work as well as they do, and
>they really are pretty much the same. Don't be swayed by 100 built-in
>effects. You won't use them all.
The first part of this is correct of course. You don't buy a mixer for
FX.
But in practice, at this price point, for something that is basically
cheap-ass and very tiny, the inclusion of a fixed range of
high-quality effects (all these are high quality compared to even a
short time ago) is in fact very useful.
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?
-----
robin
noisetheatre.blogspot.com
Jonny Durango
I'd go with the Yamaha personally.....they make great mixers for the $
Jonny Durango
Big Bill
Anahata
>
> What's the pro equivalent?
For under $100? Does not compute!
Without the price restriction, probably a Mackie 1202 VLZ
Scott Dorsey
There are a lot of different ones. It could vary anything from a
Shure M67 (which isn't so wonderful sounding, but is impossible to
kill) or some of the better Shure pocket mixers, on up through
the little Rane rackmount mixers, the (very expensive) Cooper and
Sonosax field mixers intended for film sound work, the (also expensive)
Audio Devices field mixers. The "pro" range encompasses everything
from stuff intended for speech use on up to a Cadac C-class shortloaded
with four channels.
And don't forget passive attenuator panels either, which still get used
now and then for minimalist recording work where you have only a few
channels to mix.
Scott Dorsey
When the 1202 is pro... oh, how this industry has fallen...
Anahata
> Anahata <ana...@treewind.co.uk> wrote:
>>Without the price restriction, probably a Mackie 1202 VLZ
>
> When the 1202 is pro... oh, how this industry has fallen...
By "without the price restriction" I didn't mean at any price, but at
the lowest price level for a product that might actually still be
working and useful a year later.
And AIUI he wants it for recording - I didn't mean for mixing.
A.
jaynews
of signal to noise ratio and transparant frequency response?
1) SoundCraft Compact 4
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/g=rec/search/detail/base_pid/630925/
2) Nady SRM-10x
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/g=rec/search/detail/base_pid/630425/
Thanks,
J
Mike Rivers
jaynews wrote:
> Are either of these as good as (or better than) the Yamaha MG-10/2 in terms
> of signal to noise ratio and transparant frequency response?
Give it up and just go buy something. Or else look at the spec sheets
yourself. You're trying to decide which turd to pull out of the
punchbowl.
I don't mean to insult your choice of mixers or your limited budget,
but when you're scraping around at the bottom, there really isn't any
significant difference.
Oh, and "transparent" and "frequency response" don't usually go
together. You will probably find a specification for frequency
response, but not for transparency.
jaynews
yourself. You're trying to decide which turd to pull out of the
punchbowl.
I don't mean to insult your choice of mixers or your limited budget,
but when you're scraping around at the bottom, there really isn't any
significant difference. >>
Ok, well I just bought the Yamaha and, to me, it's not sounding like a turd
yet!
Call me crazy but...I wonder if, in double blind tests, there would really
be many people who could actually tell the difference in the sound quality
between digital audio that was recorded with this mixer versus others
costing 5 to 10 times the price. Interesting fact: In double-blind tests,
most people can't even tell the difference between 128k MP3 files and 44.1
digital audio (especially those over 30 years old).
<<Oh, and "transparent" and "frequency response" don't usually go
together. You will probably find a specification for frequency
response, but not for transparency.>>
Ok, I meant to say "flat" frequency response over a wide range.
J.
Pooh Bear
jaynews wrote:
> Ok, I meant to say "flat" frequency response over a wide range.
It's hard *not* to get a flat frequency response over a wide range these days
unless the product is highly defective.
Graham
Chris Hornbeck
wrote:
>Ok, well I just bought the Yamaha and, to me, it's not sounding
> like a turd yet!
I use one in the Cabaret room at "my" theater, and have taken
it on the road (in our local, broadest possible sense of the
term), with no backup!, and been completely happy with it.
Doesn't quite feel like a Mackie, but it's not something to
worry about. There are *plenty* of things to worry about in
this world. Choose yer enemies well and make good wires.
Good fortune,
Chris Hornbeck
WillStG
>
> Call me crazy but...I wonder if, in double blind tests, there would really
> be many people who could actually tell the difference in the sound quality
> between digital audio that was recorded with this mixer versus others
> costing 5 to 10 times the price.
If you are recording the spoken word through a Rat Shack crap mic
and listening through your laptops's speakers in a Student Union
lounge, maybe few could. But if you are recording guitar and vocals and
overdubbing banjo and dobro, with say Beyer M260 and Neumann U87 mics
at 24/44.1 and listening back through decent speakers, you really think
few here could tell the difference between your Yamaha mixer's preamps
and a Micheal Grace or John Hardy micpre ( a single channel costing 6
-10 times your $100?) People do not spend 10-20x more one micpres than
your mixer just to impress clients with brand names - really!
And then "digital audio" can mean just about anything. After all,
marketing people call all sorts of crappy gear they sell "digital
ready". But you should be aware that merely being "digital" does not
mean quality sound - or conversely even the lack thereof.
>Interesting fact: In double-blind tests,
> most people can't even tell the difference between 128k MP3 files and 44.1
> digital audio (especially those over 30 years old).
>
Jay, there are lots of guys here on RAP with over 30 year old
ears who could tell, given a back to back listening of a well recorded
and mastered CD with a 128k MP3 rip. If most people can't tell it's
because they just haven't done much critical comparitive listening -
and it's not about whether one can hear 18.5k as well as one did at 15
years old either. I can ALWAYS tell Mp3's from CD's, even doing live
sound, they typically sound very harsh and brittle between around 1-4k.
I just did audio for a Clive Davis/Santana afterparty, and I had
ripped 128k MP3's, DVD Concert sound and CD's as music sources.
Rhapsody was a sponsor. But CD's easily sounded the best, even
through the somewhat beat Apogee Center Cluster, followed by DVD which
was live Concert mixes and I think the player could have been better.
Sarah McLaughlin's duet with Santana on the DVD sounded pretty damn
good though.
Anyway, maybe you need better speakers or something.
Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music & Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Pooh Bear
WillStG wrote:
> jaynews wrote:
> >
> > Call me crazy but...I wonder if, in double blind tests, there would really
> > be many people who could actually tell the difference in the sound quality
> > between digital audio that was recorded with this mixer versus others
> > costing 5 to 10 times the price.
>
> If you are recording the spoken word through a Rat Shack crap mic
> and listening through your laptops's speakers in a Student Union
> lounge, maybe few could. But if you are recording guitar and vocals and
> overdubbing banjo and dobro, with say Beyer M260 and Neumann U87 mics
> at 24/44.1 and listening back through decent speakers, you really think
> few here could tell the difference between your Yamaha mixer's preamps
> and a Micheal Grace or John Hardy micpre ( a single channel costing 6
> -10 times your $100?) People do not spend 10-20x more one micpres than
> your mixer just to impress clients with brand names - really!#
Actually you're very wong !
A Mackie XDR mic pre for example is technically about as pure is it gets.
Thermal noise is within a dB or so of theoretical and it's very linear.
The 'boutique' mic pres have little to offer aside from colouration ( and clever
marketing ).
As for a 10:1 comparison - just consider that a U87 is more like *1000* times
what a 'Rat Shack' mic costs.
He wasn't talking about going that low btw.
Graham
Laurence Payne
> If you are recording the spoken word through a Rat Shack crap mic
>and listening through your laptops's speakers in a Student Union
>lounge, maybe few could. But if you are recording guitar and vocals and
>overdubbing banjo and dobro, with say Beyer M260 and Neumann U87 mics
>at 24/44.1 and listening back through decent speakers, you really think
>few here could tell the difference between your Yamaha mixer's preamps
>and a Micheal Grace or John Hardy micpre ( a single channel costing 6
>-10 times your $100?)
So you've made your point about absolute crap and absolute top-end.
What about the mid-range, where most of us are working? This is
alt.music.home-studio, after all, as well as rap.
>People do not spend 10-20x more one micpres than
>your mixer just to impress clients with brand names - really!
Actually, they do. The quality may be better as well. But we're
working in a fashion-led business.
CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Scott Dorsey
>
>Call me crazy but...I wonder if, in double blind tests, there would really
>be many people who could actually tell the difference in the sound quality
>between digital audio that was recorded with this mixer versus others
>costing 5 to 10 times the price. Interesting fact: In double-blind tests,
>most people can't even tell the difference between 128k MP3 files and 44.1
>digital audio (especially those over 30 years old).
Depends. The thing is, if you have one thing in your chain that isn't
very clean, that's one issue. But if you have fifty, that's a much more
serious issue.
Also, you will find that on a lot of cheap mixers, and on some expensive
ones, you have to do tricks to clean the sound up. Things like using the
inserts as inputs to bypass the mike preamps, muting channels that aren't
in use, and making sure to keep levels within a fairly narrow range. This
just makes them a lot more difficult to work on.
><<Oh, and "transparent" and "frequency response" don't usually go
>together. You will probably find a specification for frequency
>response, but not for transparency.>>
>
>Ok, I meant to say "flat" frequency response over a wide range.
The thing is that it's easy to get flat response over a wide range
with electronics. Not with mikes or speakers, but with electronics
it's easy. Even so, there are considerable differences in sound which
can't be explained by frequency response (but most of which can be
explained by distortion spectra and impulse response).
CWCunningham
news:1131090904.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| .... People do not spend 10-20x more one micpres than
| your mixer just to impress clients with brand names - really!
|
first to tell you that they can tell the difference, and the last to believe it
when they can't.
I'm not suggesting that the cheapest of all mic pre's sounds like the most
expensive, but I'd be willing to wager that in a double blind test, you couldn't
tell the difference between a $1000 pre and a $500 pre ... or a $500 dollar pre
and a $250 pre ... or a $250 pre and a $125 pre ... so in the end the question
becomes at what dollar point does the quality become a non issue and the rest is
just "impression" masturbation.
--
CWC
============================
It's not that nice guys finish last,
They have a whole different notion
where the finish line is.
============================
Kurt Albershardt
> "WillStG" <wil...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1131090904.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> People do not spend 10-20x more one micpres than
>> your mixer just to impress clients with brand names - really!
>
>
> No, it's more likely that *they* are impressed with brand names. Purists are the
> first to tell you that they can tell the difference, and the last to believe it
> when they can't.
>
> I'm not suggesting that the cheapest of all mic pre's sounds like the most
> expensive, but I'd be willing to wager that in a double blind test, you couldn't
> tell the difference between a $1000 pre and a $500 pre ... or a $500 dollar pre
> and a $250 pre ... or a $250 pre and a $125 pre ... so in the end the question
> becomes at what dollar point does the quality become a non issue and the rest is
> just "impression" masturbation.
Ever tried to setup a proper double blind test of mic preamps? It's not
actually do-able. I've put a fair bit of effort into this, and have
concluded that *some* expensive preamps are worth their money.
Mike Rivers
CWCunningham wrote:
> I'm not suggesting that the cheapest of all mic pre's sounds like the most
> expensive, but I'd be willing to wager that in a double blind test, you couldn't
> tell the difference between a $1000 pre and a $500 pre ... or a $500 dollar pre
> and a $250 pre ... or a $250 pre and a $125 pre ...
Money doesn't have a direct relationship to what a preamp sounds like,
but in the grand scheme of things, if you listen objectively, you're
less likely to dislike a $2,000 preamp than a $100 preamp. But if
you're looking for the preamp that makes you go "Ah! This is the
perfect sound for this singer." it could be a $100 preamp.
In general, though, it's reasonable, when comparing items that are in
the same bottom end of the price scale, not to expect that one will be
head and shoulders above the rest. The issue here is not that he needs
a $2,000 mic preamp, but that he just shouldn't expect there to be much
difference between one cheap mixer and another cheap mixer.
CWCunningham
news:3t1r7dF...@individual.net...
| Ever tried to setup a proper double blind test of mic preamps? It's not
| actually do-able. I've put a fair bit of effort into this, and have
| concluded that *some* expensive preamps are worth their money.
|
subjective results?
I expect a proper double blind test is easily done, but extremely expensive.
Leaving expensive tests aside, there are many other products which are flocked
to by so-called experts, and setting up a double blind test (or even single
blind) is quick and simple ... experiment and you will learn that quality is
often assumed in the case of impressive names and astronomical costs, but the
very people touting them can't spot them with a blindfold on.
Try it, it's fun.
Scott Dorsey
>
>I expect a proper double blind test is easily done, but extremely expensive.
>Leaving expensive tests aside, there are many other products which are flocked
>to by so-called experts, and setting up a double blind test (or even single
>blind) is quick and simple ... experiment and you will learn that quality is
>often assumed in the case of impressive names and astronomical costs, but the
>very people touting them can't spot them with a blindfold on.
>
>Try it, it's fun.
We did, and it was. Get a copy of the "Boston Pre Party" CD.
Kurt Albershardt
> "Kurt Albershardt" <ku...@nv.net> wrote in message
> news:3t1r7dF...@individual.net...
>
>> Ever tried to setup a proper double blind test of mic preamps? It's not
>> actually do-able. I've put a fair bit of effort into this, and have
>> concluded that *some* expensive preamps are worth their money.
>
>
> If it's truly impossible to have an objective test, how do you justify your
> subjective results?
We setup the best test we could with simultaneous recording on four
preamps, then normalized to 0.1 dB and ran them through an ABX comparator.
> I expect a proper double blind test is easily done, but extremely expensive.
Tell me how you are going to get the exact same live performance
repeated twice and we'll get started. Other than perhaps a Disklavier
(with its own limitations) I can't think of any way to do this.
> Leaving expensive tests aside, there are many other products which are flocked
> to by so-called experts, and setting up a double blind test (or even single
> blind) is quick and simple ... experiment and you will learn that quality is
> often assumed in the case of impressive names and astronomical costs, but the
> very people touting them can't spot them with a blindfold on.
>
> Try it, it's fun.
I have, it is fun, and I mostly agree.
Porky
"CWCunningham" <charlesw-at-blackfoot.net> wrote in message
news:dkg9o...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> "WillStG" <wil...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1131090904.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> | .... People do not spend 10-20x more one micpres than
> | your mixer just to impress clients with brand names - really!
> |
> No, it's more likely that *they* are impressed with brand names. Purists
> are the
> first to tell you that they can tell the difference, and the last to
> believe it
> when they can't.
>
> I'm not suggesting that the cheapest of all mic pre's sounds like the most
> expensive, but I'd be willing to wager that in a double blind test, you
> couldn't
> tell the difference between a $1000 pre and a $500 pre ... or a $500
> dollar pre
> and a $250 pre ... or a $250 pre and a $125 pre ... so in the end the
> question
> becomes at what dollar point does the quality become a non issue and the
> rest is
> just "impression" masturbation.
Wait, if one can't tell the difference between a $1000 pre and a $500 pre,
or a $500 pre and a $250 pre, or a $250 pre and a $125 pre, that means by
extension that one can't tell the difference between a $1000 pre and a $125
pre, and I disagree with that.
In the first place, most mic preamps add some coloration (it's up to the
auditioner to decide it the coloration is good or bad), so most preamps,
even among the same price level have audible differences, and that's even
more true among preamps of different price ranges. However, depending on
what mic you're using and your personal taste, it's entirely possible that
you might like an inexpensive preamp better than a much more expensive one.
I would agree that most folks won't be able to determine the price range
from just an audition, it the preamp were hidden from view and the user had
to depend entirely on the sound.
Mike Rivers
CWCunningham wrote:
> I expect a proper double blind test is easily done, but extremely expensive.
Not expensive, assuming you have what you want to test, and appropriate
test subjects. The technically difficult part is that you have to
switch both inputs and outputs. A listening test of a preamp without a
microphone is of no value. You have to be able to not only switch the
output of the preamp to whatever you're listening to, but you have to
switch the microphone to the preamp you're testing. And then you have
to have the identical source in front of the mic. You could play a
recording into a loudspeaker and put the mic in front of it, but that
isn't very realistic. And if it's a phantom powered mic, you'll get a
click when you switch it to a different preamp input. The click is
distracting to the listener, and might even damage the speaker. You
could power the mic with an external supply so you don't have to switch
power, but phantom power can affect how the mic works, which will
affect how it sounds with the preamp. And then a preamp that sounds the
best with one mic won't necessarily sound the best with another mic.
Easy? I don't think so.
> Try it, it's fun.
You might be surprised at the differences you can hear. Spend $30 on
the 3D Audio Mic Preamp Comparison CD. You may find that your
preference doesn't go in order of most expensive on down, and you'd
have plenty of company. But that only means that if you don't have a
lot of money, you needn't blow it all on an expensive preamp.
rod...@mont-alto.com
Kurt Albershardt wrote:
> CWCunningham wrote:
> Tell me how you are going to get the exact same live performance
> repeated twice and we'll get started.
How about recording the same live performance on two side-by-side
microphones?
Kurt Albershardt
> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>
>> Tell me how you are going to get the exact same live performance
>> repeated twice and we'll get started.
>
>
> How about recording the same live performance on two side-by-side
> microphones?
That's basically what we did when we did our little preamp shootout:
Getting two or more microphones that are exactly the same is rather
difficult. Getting them to sound the same when they are in different
physical locations is a another problem. Moving them back from the
source reduces this, but the proximity of the microphones to each other
will cause measurable differences in off-axis response. We tried to at
least partially correct for this by rotating the set of four microphones
amongst different preamps on different takes.
Doing this with a close-miked vocal would be impossible.
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>Doing this with a close-miked vocal would be impossible.
Which is a great pity, as this is where many people mainly use their
"special" channel.
Kurt Albershardt
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:50:48 -0800, Kurt Albershardt <ku...@nv.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Doing this with a close-miked vocal would be impossible.
>
>
> Which is a great pity, as this is where many people mainly use their
> "special" channel.
Right, plenty of expensive LD condenser mics that really don't separate
themselves as much when used at a distance.
WillStG
> WillStG wrote:
>> But if you are recording guitar and vocals and
> > overdubbing banjo and dobro, with say Beyer M260 and Neumann U87 mics
> > at 24/44.1 and listening back through decent speakers, you really think
> > few here could tell the difference between your Yamaha mixer's preamps
> > and a Micheal Grace or John Hardy micpre ( a single channel costing 6
> > -10 times your $100?) People do not spend 10-20x more one micpres than
> > your mixer just to impress clients with brand names - really!#
>
> Actually you're very wong !
>
> A Mackie XDR mic pre for example is technically about as pure is it gets.
> Thermal noise is within a dB or so of theoretical and it's very linear.
First off I apologize, I did not notice this thread was not
limited to Rec.audio.pro, I generally do not like to crosspost.
In any event I have used the VLZ and earlier Mackie pres. I think
you have totally overlooked the fact that the *combination* of elements
in your signal path is what is important, the XDR micpre's spec's don;t
mean doohickey if they cause the mic plugged into it to load badly
compromising it's performance. The Mackie pres load down a U87, which
is a microphone that does not respond well to transformer balanced
inputs. I also used the example of the Beyer 260 because it is a
ribbon mic - and the clean gain availble on your micpre matters, and
the difference between gear is much more discernable the more source
you are recording challenges your gear. Banjo, a mezzo soprano or
keys jangling can be particularly stressing on a mic or preamp.
>
> The 'boutique' mic pres have little to offer aside from colouration ( and clever
> marketing ).
>
> As for a 10:1 comparison - just consider that a U87 is more like *1000* times
> what a 'Rat Shack' mic costs.
>
> He wasn't talking about going that low btw.
So then, would you dismiss my being able to tell the difference by
calling it "coloration? Look, if you want to claim a Millenia HV3
(used pairs I have seen for as little as $1200) is no more transparent
than your Yamaha micpres, go ahead and stick you neck neck out.
But he said as much as a 10x times difference in micpres - so that
means $1000 to his $100. A single channel of Grace micpre can be had
for as little as $600, Neve 1272 clones are around $1200, and my
brother and I have racked and sold vintage Telefunken V672 micpres for
as little as $1000 for a pair. The transformers are huge in the
V672's, and they absolutely kill anything Digidesign uses as a micpre.
An old Soundtracs MRX or SOLO console, you could get 24 big fat
micpres pretty cheap. Soundtracs consoles in my basement was where I
started doing A/B comparison of U87's and SM57's with Mackie preamps.
The difference is very very obvious - and I have no need to make those
claims to make a living as an audio guy either.
If you want to say that since most people can't tell the difference
why worry about it; that music is more important, that people listen on
crappy playback systems anyway, you may have a valid point. But there
is a bit of an insulting and condescending atitude that really isn't
called for in some of the comments here, probably unintentional but
plenty of working pro audio guys are better than some would give them
credit for. In fact I have a friend who is a Production Manager now
because he has that rare ear disease that Woody Allen also has, and he
can't discern sound direction at all. But he can nail a speaker being
out of phase in an array, and he expects a guy with 2 good ears to be
able to at least match his own diminished facilities.
Will Miho
NY TV/Audo Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
hank alrich
> Actually you're very wong !
> A Mackie XDR mic pre for example is technically about as pure is it gets.
> Thermal noise is within a dB or so of theoretical and it's very linear.
> The 'boutique' mic pres have little to offer aside from colouration ( and
> clever marketing ).
Have _you_ ever put a Great River MP2-MH beside that Mackie preamp and
compared what happens to the source when it is passed through those?
I have done this, with original Mackie pres (as good as it gets
according to the ads...), the VLZ pres (slightly better than as good as
it gets, according to the ads...), the VLZ-Pro pres (slightly better
than slightly better than as good as it gets, according to the ads...)
and most recently the Onyx preamps, which are even better yet (and they
are, but even an RNP still kicks their ass back into the bleachers).
Or are you listening to spec sheets again? ("What's that crinkling
sound??"
Play with some GR's, the Millennia, a Gordon, and get back to me on
this, Graham. How much "clever marketing" did Dan kennedy do to get the
MP2 going well? I saw _none_ before I bought mine. Ever seen an ad for
the Gordon preamp?
Clever marketing? Naaah, traction where the sonic rubber meets the real
road.
Do you listen to Massenburg's work and think "He should have used a
Mackie"?
--
ha
hank alrich
> You're trying to decide which turd to pull out of the punchbowl.
The pink one!
--
ha
hank alrich
> People do not spend 10-20x more one micpres than
> your mixer just to impress clients with brand names - really!
Especially since nowadaze Mackie and Behringer are top "brand names".
<g>
"Great River?? Never heard of 'em..."
> And then "digital audio" can mean just about anything. After all,
> marketing people call all sorts of crappy gear they sell "digital
> ready". But you should be aware that merely being "digital" does not
> mean quality sound - or conversely even the lack thereof.
Yes! I know where there are two pairs of white van "studio monitors"
that say right on the badge, "Digital Ready". Now, isn't _that_
something? A digital ready speaker with no DA... I'm thinking they
weren't built by Klein & Hummel.
Fun post, Will.
--
ha
hank alrich
> I expect a proper double blind test is easily done, but extremely expensive.
Then perhaps hitting Lynn Fuston's site and seeing what it took to try
to do that with preamps would prove educational. It is not "easily done"
for reasons that have a lot to do with why various preamps sound
variously with various mics.
I buy preamps to satisfy only myself. If they do that, customers do not
complain. As for justifying subjectivity, there is not time in a pro
recording session to do double blind testing every time one might choose
this or that mic or signal for a source. Music is a subjective
experience. That's where I work.
There is another side to this coin: that those who have mundane kit want
to think it runs with the serious tools. I have worked over the decades
with all kinds of kit, and what I started with wasn't glorious (think
battery powered Sony mixer in the late '60's). Good tools help one do
good work; good work can be done with mediocre tools, but it is much
harder work, and much harder to charge for, becuase it takes so long.
Some tools are so poor one might as well do other work.
--
ha
hank alrich
Those mics would still not be co-located in our time-space continuum,
nor are they the exact same mic, but yes, that's one way to approach the
problem.
This party has been discussed; seek "Preamps & Fun: Gordon, Grace, Great
River and Millennia" in the subject line via Google's advanced group
search.
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en
--
ha
WillStG
> "WillStG" <wil...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1131090904.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> | .... People do not spend 10-20x more one micpres than
> | your mixer just to impress clients with brand names - really!
> |
> No, it's more likely that *they* are impressed with brand names. Purists are the
> first to tell you that they can tell the difference, and the last to believe it
> when they can't.
>
> I'm not suggesting that the cheapest of all mic pre's sounds like the most
> expensive, but I'd be willing to wager that in a double blind test, you couldn't
> tell the difference between a $1000 pre and a $500 pre ... or a $500 dollar pre
> and a $250 pre ... or a $250 pre and a $125 pre ... so in the end the question
> becomes at what dollar point does the quality become a non issue and the rest is
> just "impression" masturbation.
Dude. The better the quality the gear is, the easier and faster
you can work. And cost is not the only factor, but I can certainly
tell the difference between a Millennia and Telefunken V72 and Mackie
VLZ micpres with a Neumann U87. A 10x difference in price (to $100)
the original poster named is easily enough that something noticably
better is available
Look, I have had to use all kinds of audio gear. When I do any
kind of sound, it is either working or it is not. You try to do the
best you can with the gear available, and maximize it's potential,
working around the gear's limitations as it comes up. However you do
need to be able to listen well enough to know when you have to make
adjustments, and if you lack those listening skills better gear *might*
bail you out a good part of the time, times when you can't even tell
something needs improvement.
And really, in my experience it's the guys with the Project
studios who are more likely trying to use names to impress. The big
studios (which are dying off) had name gear because it is what Pro's
were used to using, for familiarity, knowing what to expect and no
learning curve more than anything else.
Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
Jim Carr
news:3t1r7dF...@individual.net...
> Ever tried to setup a proper double blind test of mic preamps? It's not
> actually do-able. I've put a fair bit of effort into this, and have
> concluded that *some* expensive preamps are worth their money.
Can you describe your efforts? It would seem that it would not be all that
difficult to do a simple "can you tell the difference" test by recording
something from a mic placed in front of a speaker playing a MIDI track or
some other recording. If you dial in the levels such that each recorded
peaks at the same levels, it would seem you would have a pretty good pair of
tracks to use for a base comparison.
If they were indistinguishable, there wouldn't be much sense in moving on.
If there was a difference in how they sounded, then I would want to explore
that further. If the goal is for recording vocals, I could see the testing
getting a lot more difficult.
So my naive question, being a A.M.H-S guy is if you or anybody has done any
testing to answer the simple question of are they different? If so, are the
results anywhere to be found?
Arny Krueger
> Ever tried to setup a proper double blind test of mic
> preamps? It's not actually do-able.
I think its eminiently doable, but some people might not
like a practical experimental procedure for doing it.
The two possible sticking points would be:
(1) An electronic or mechanically-operated sound source
would be used.
(2) The final comparison would be of two recordings.
Arny Krueger
news:dkgihs$9m5$1...@panix2.panix.com
> CWCunningham <charlesw-at-blackfoot.net> wrote:
>>
>> I expect a proper double blind test is easily done, but
>> extremely expensive. Leaving expensive tests aside,
>> there are many other products which are flocked to by
>> so-called experts, and setting up a double blind test
>> (or even single blind) is quick and simple ...
>> experiment and you will learn that quality is often
>> assumed in the case of impressive names and astronomical
>> costs, but the very people touting them can't spot them
>> with a blindfold on.
>>
>> Try it, it's fun.
>
> We did, and it was. Get a copy of the "Boston Pre Party"
Wasn't this the CD that was made with a live vocalist who
being human, sang audibly inconsistently?
Arny Krueger
news:1131149257.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
The mics are measurably significantly different and they are
in acoustically different places.
Scott Dorsey
No good, since the microphones need to be in the same place to get the
same sound. This is less of an issue if you pull back, of course, but
it always remains at least a minor one.
Scott Dorsey
>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:50:48 -0800, Kurt Albershardt <ku...@nv.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Doing this with a close-miked vocal would be impossible.
>
>Which is a great pity, as this is where many people mainly use their
>"special" channel.
And it would also be one of the best tests. Since everybody has spent
their whole life listening to the human voice, I think that vocals are
one of the places that really help show up problems easily, just because
everyone has such familiarity with how they are supposed to sound.
Scott Dorsey
Yes, but there were other instruments as well. Also played by
human beings and therefore not completely consistent, but not
too far off.
Next time, we'll get a reproducing piano.
CWCunningham
news:TtmdnSPgNr8ktPHe...@comcast.com...
Arny Krueger
I worked with this one and could easily ABX them based on
the inconsistencies in the music.
> Next time, we'll get a reproducing piano.
A player piano could work if it had the right percussion
features.
Piano sounds are usually kinda limited in terms of the
frequency range of the audio that they generate.
I suspect that a good pair of studio monitor speakers
playing the right recordings would be simpler and better.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:TtmdnSPgNr8ktPHe...@comcast.com...
>> <rod...@mont-alto.com> wrote in message
>> news:1131149257.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>>> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>>>> CWCunningham wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tell me how you are going to get the exact same live
>>>> performance repeated twice and we'll get started.
>>>
>>> How about recording the same live performance on two
>>> side-by-side microphones?
>>
>> The mics are measurably significantly different and they
>> are in acoustically different places.
>>
> To be clear, I didn't write any of that.
Sloppy editing on my part. :-(
hank alrich
> Next time, we'll get a reproducing piano.
Hmmm.. happen to have one right here. 1921 Chickering with Ampico A
mech.
--
ha
hank alrich
> A player piano could work if it had the right percussion
> features.
No, those don't have any dynamics. A reproducing piano is a ticket.
--
ha
CWCunningham
| Tell me how you are going to get the exact same live performance
| repeated twice and we'll get started. Other than perhaps a Disklavier
| (with its own limitations) I can't think of any way to do this.
|
This is the $64(,000) question, and where an accurate test starts to become
expensive.
Given a single live performance through a particular microphone, there's a
single result. There's no question whether it's an exact copy because it's not a
copy ... it's the original. This original has a particular source impedance at
each frequency, a particular response at each frequency, a particular phantom
load at each frequency. Replace this signal, and you've solved the problem of
exact performance.
CWCunningham
news:1131147331.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| CWCunningham wrote:
|
| > I expect a proper double blind test is easily done, but extremely expensive.
|
| Not expensive, assuming you have what you want to test, and appropriate
| test subjects. The technically difficult part is that you have to
| switch both inputs and outputs. A listening test of a preamp without a
| microphone is of no value. You have to be able to not only switch the
| output of the preamp to whatever you're listening to, but you have to
| switch the microphone to the preamp you're testing. And then you have
| to have the identical source in front of the mic.
|
a double blind test?
If you were testing mics, would you swap listening rooms?
So if you're testing preamps, woulkd you swap performances?
What does a preamp see in a mic?
- A signal with a certain frequency range.
- A signal with a certain amplitude/frequency.
- A signal with a certain source impedance/frequency.
- A certain load on the phantom power.
Can't we easily model a load on the phantom power.
In fact ...
Can't we easily model a 10 second sweep from DC to 35khz
- with a certain frequency response,
- with a certian source impedance.
Can't we exactly model, and reproduce at will, the characteristics of a known
signal through a known circuit?
If we can do this, we can construct a listening test where the only difference
between A and B is the preamp. To suggest that an accurate test of a preamp
requires a microphone is to suggest that an accurate test of a preamp has no
meaning.
| > Try it, it's fun.
|
| You might be surprised at the differences you can hear. Spend $30 on
| the 3D Audio Mic Preamp Comparison CD. You may find that your
| preference doesn't go in order of most expensive on down, and you'd
| have plenty of company. But that only means that if you don't have a
| lot of money, you needn't blow it all on an expensive preamp.
|--
Maybe someday, I'll miss advertising, and I'll be ready to pay stiff premiums to
listen some high quality advertising for high quality people;-)
CWCunningham
news:1h5imc6.1617mj11kgpgrbN%walk...@thegrid.net...
| CWCunningham wrote:
|
| > I expect a proper double blind test is easily done, but extremely expensive.
|
| Then perhaps hitting Lynn Fuston's site and seeing what it took to try
| to do that with preamps would prove educational. It is not "easily done"
| for reasons that have a lot to do with why various preamps sound
| variously with various mics.
|
supply the money and I'll supply the time/space/credentialed human beings, and
quantifiable reults.
| I buy preamps to satisfy only myself. If they do that, customers do not
| complain. As for justifying subjectivity, there is not time in a pro
| recording session to do double blind testing every time one might choose
| this or that mic or signal for a source. Music is a subjective
| experience. That's where I work.
|
Well said. The ultimate test is to see whether you can work with equipment in
question, if you like it, use it, otherwise, replace it.
| There is another side to this coin: that those who have mundane kit want
| to think it runs with the serious tools. I have worked over the decades
| with all kinds of kit, and what I started with wasn't glorious (think
| battery powered Sony mixer in the late '60's). Good tools help one do
| good work; good work can be done with mediocre tools, but it is much
| harder work, and much harder to charge for, becuase it takes so long.
| Some tools are so poor one might as well do other work.
|
If you have the right talent, the tools will come to you.
--
Jim Carr
> If you have the right talent, the tools will come to you.
And for the rest of us there's what?
:-)
Kurt Albershardt
> "Kurt Albershardt" <ku...@nv.net> wrote in message
> news:3t21ugF...@individual.net...
>
> Tell me how you are going to get the exact same live performance
> repeated twice and we'll get started. Other than perhaps a Disklavier
> (with its own limitations) I can't think of any way to do this.
>
> This is the $64(,000) question, and where an accurate test starts to become
> expensive.
> Given a single live performance through a particular microphone, there's a
> single result. There's no question whether it's an exact copy because it's not a
> copy ... it's the original. This original has a particular source impedance at
> each frequency, a particular response at each frequency, a particular phantom
> load at each frequency. Replace this signal, and you've solved the problem of
> exact performance.
Figure out how to do that, and you've got a future in the high dollar
mastering monitor business.
Kurt Albershardt
> "Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> news:1131147331.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> CWCunningham wrote:
>
>>> I expect a proper double blind test is easily done, but extremely expensive.
>>
>> Not expensive, assuming you have what you want to test, and appropriate
>> test subjects. The technically difficult part is that you have to
>> switch both inputs and outputs. A listening test of a preamp without a
>> microphone is of no value. You have to be able to not only switch the
>> output of the preamp to whatever you're listening to, but you have to
>> switch the microphone to the preamp you're testing. And then you have
>> to have the identical source in front of the mic.
>
> I disagree. If you were testing cables, would you swap out amplifiers as part of
> a double blind test?
> If you were testing mics, would you swap listening rooms?
Of course not.
> What does a preamp see in a mic?
> - A signal with a certain frequency range.
> - A signal with a certain amplitude/frequency.
> - A signal with a certain source impedance/frequency.
> - A certain load on the phantom power.
Basically, yes.
> Can't we easily model a load on the phantom power.
Sure, assuming a reasonably well regulated source and a somewhat stable
load curve.
> In fact ...
> Can't we easily model a 10 second sweep from DC to 35khz
> - with a certain frequency response,
> - with a certian source impedance.
Sure.
> Can't we exactly model, and reproduce at will, the characteristics of a known
> signal through a known circuit?
Assuming we really do know the signal, yes.
> To suggest that an accurate test of a preamp requires a microphone
> is to suggest that an accurate test of a preamp has no meaning.
To suggest that a meaningful test of a preamp can be conducted by
measuring its output when fed by a static source and declaring that
accurate demonstrates a lack of realworld experience with the
interactions of preamps, microphones, and live music.
Kurt Albershardt
> "Kurt Albershardt" <ku...@nv.net> wrote in message
> news:3t1r7dF...@individual.net...
>
>> Ever tried to setup a proper double blind test of mic preamps? It's not
>> actually do-able. I've put a fair bit of effort into this, and have
>> concluded that *some* expensive preamps are worth their money.
>
>
> Can you describe your efforts?
See my post a few hours ago, and Hank's reference to the experiment.
> It would seem that it would not be all that difficult to do a simple
> "can you tell the difference" test by recording something from a mic
> placed in front of a speaker playing a MIDI track or some other
> recording. If you dial in the levels such that each recorded peaks at
> the same levels, it would seem you would have a pretty good pair of
> tracks to use for a base comparison.
Sure, you can get two loudspeaker rendititions of MIDI tracks pretty
close that way -- but a live performance in a real acoustic space has a
whole different level of subtlety associated with it. Recordings,
synths, and samplers (as they currently exist) just don't convey that
amount of perceptually interesting detail.
Spend a little time doing straight wire bypass tests on a live mic feed
and report back to us on how transparent your equipment is.
Jim Carr
> Sure, you can get two loudspeaker rendititions of MIDI tracks pretty
> close that way -- but a live performance in a real acoustic space has a
> whole different level of subtlety associated with it. Recordings,
> synths, and samplers (as they currently exist) just don't convey that
> amount of perceptually interesting detail.
>
> Spend a little time doing straight wire bypass tests on a live mic feed
> and report back to us on how transparent your equipment is.
I just love when a.m.h-s gets stuff gets cross-posted in to r.a.p. There's
such a warm fuzzy feeling there.
I've been a musician for most my 39 years. Over the last few years I've been
dabbling in my home studio for fun. When looking around for gear, what
really perplexes me is the lack of audio samples out there. Before the web,
your only choice was to test the gear yourself or read somebody's review.
But now it would be dirt simple to get some audio clips, but you don't find
them. You'd think companies would take the time to make some, but they
don't. You'd think if you're trying to sell some multi-effects pedal, you'd
take the time to make a sample of each preset.
Another hobby of mine is photography. You always find sample pictures. When
they review lenses, they take shots with the same camera, lighting and
settings so you can see the difference yourself. When they try to explain
depth of field, f-stops, filters or whatever, they use actual photos. I'd
like to see the audio world take the same approach.
Even when folks write articles on the web talking about EQ or compression or
whatever, they do it all in words and rarely ever have samples. I've started
a website for bass players at http://www.azwebpages.com/bass. One of the
articles is about compression. Not only do I try to explain it well enough
for the layman, I have multiple audio samples of the same riff so you can
hear what's happening.
Wanna sell me a $100 Monster cable? Fine. Give me some audio samples of your
cable versus others on the market and let me hear the difference. Wanna
prove to me a $5,000 preamp is better than a $500 version? Give me some
audio samples in addition to all the specs.
CWCunningham
| CWCunningham wrote:
| > What does a preamp see in a mic?
| > - A signal with a certain frequency range.
| > - A signal with a certain amplitude/frequency.
| > - A signal with a certain source impedance/frequency.
| > - A certain load on the phantom power.
|
| Basically, yes.
|
| > Can't we easily model a load on the phantom power.
|
| Sure, assuming a reasonably well regulated source and a somewhat stable
| load curve.
|
The preamp has to supply the well regulated source (we're testing it), the load
curve just has to be something reasonable ... though it would be an option to
take measurements with loads at the extremes
| > In fact ...
| > Can't we easily model a 10 second sweep from DC to 35khz
| > - with a certain frequency response,
| > - with a certian source impedance.
|
| Sure.
|
| > Can't we exactly model, and reproduce at will, the characteristics of a
known
| > signal through a known circuit?
|
| Assuming we really do know the signal, yes.
|
10 second sweep, DC to 35khz, frequency response of our choosing, source
impedence of our choosing ... yes, we really do know the signal.
| > To suggest that an accurate test of a preamp requires a microphone
| > is to suggest that an accurate test of a preamp has no meaning.
|
| To suggest that a meaningful test of a preamp can be conducted by
| measuring its output when fed by a static source and declaring that
| accurate demonstrates a lack of realworld experience with the
| interactions of preamps, microphones, and live music.
|
We're only testing the preamps. We'll test the mics and the music later.
--
Laurence Payne
> Since everybody has spent
>their whole life listening to the human voice, I think that vocals are
>one of the places that really help show up problems easily, just because
>everyone has such familiarity with how they are supposed to sound.
Even quite modest recording gear and techniques can (and do) enhance a
voice way beyond reality. Leaving recording aside for a moment,
consider theatre sound reinforcement. In London's West End at the
moment you can hear mediocre sound, adequate sound and very good
sound. (Unfortunately, the best sound is currently on the most boring
show. But that's another matter :-)
The "best" sound presents the voices with a crystalline clarity, in a
silky ambiance that is very impressive. But it's quite unlike
anything I've ever heard in an unamplified performance.
Nothing wrong in that of course. But it's not how voices "are
supposed to sound".
CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
Bob Cain
Kurt Albershardt wrote:
> To suggest that a meaningful test of a preamp can be conducted by
> measuring its output when fed by a static source and declaring that
> accurate demonstrates a lack of realworld experience with the
> interactions of preamps, microphones, and live music.
If we are simply looking for differences, however, it is a very telling
means of finding how significant a difference there is in purely
technical terms. This is a very good start. If differences can be
measured then there's a reason to look for what they sound like and how
they are affected by a complex mic impedence (in the case of a dynamic
mic.)
Mapping the technical difference to a perceptual one is not yet possible
but if the technical difference is sufficiently small a strong case can
be made for equivalence. Of course some believe that even unmeasurable
differences are audible but that's not even worth arguing about. That's
how the efficacy of Shakti stones is justified.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>Wanna sell me a $100 Monster cable? Fine. Give me some audio samples of your
>cable versus others on the market and let me hear the difference. Wanna
>prove to me a $5,000 preamp is better than a $500 version? Give me some
>audio samples in addition to all the specs.
Excellent idea. And if the differences are so subtle that they
couldn't POSSIBLY survive a 44.1KHz wav played on average equipment,
that tells us something else again :-)
Those who KNOW their equipment is superior will just do it. Or,
maybe, a lot of people will start wriggling.
hank alrich
> To suggest that an accurate test of a preamp
> requires a microphone is to suggest that an accurate test of a preamp has no
> meaning.
The interaction between mics and their preamps is where the action is
and that's why it isn't easy to do this sort of test. Again, with Dan
Kennedy's help Lynn Fuston gave it quite a shot, following up on
Fletcher's Boston Pre Party.
To suggest that one might make a relevant test of a mic preamp without a
mic is perhaps less interesting than just listening to some preamps and
deciding what one likes.
--
ha
hank alrich
> "Kurt Albershardt" wrote...
> | Basically, yes.
> | Sure.
The "load curve" must be sourced directly from a mcirophone or we are
testing a line input device, not a microphone preamplifier. Leaving out
the microphone is what allows people to look at the specs for a Mackie
preamp and figure it's as good as a Millennia.
We cannot taste test lemon pie without a lemon pie, all simulated lemon
pie computer-whizzery aside.
--
ha
hank alrich
> Mapping the technical difference to a perceptual one is not yet possible
> but if the technical difference is sufficiently small a strong case can
> be made for equivalence. Of course some believe that even unmeasurable
> differences are audible but that's not even worth arguing about. That's
> how the efficacy of Shakti stones is justified.
I'd be careful wanting to lump together charlatons and those who think
maybe we still have something to learn about how technical measurements
of audio gear related directly tour own perception.
For instance, do you think Scott Dorsy has Shakti stones around his
system? I don't but I have heard him suggest we may have stuff to learn
about this, and that we could perhaps make some progress by acquiring a
better understanding of how those kitspecs relate to our aural
preception.
Another example in my own experience is the Gordon mic pre. In some
people's theory there wasn't much more potential over and beyond that
which is already available. I'm really glad Grant didn't think like
that, because I am astonished at the difference between some very fine
preamps, tools I use regularly, and Grant's preamp. Just listening to
sources through it was a lesson all in itself.
--
ha
CWCunningham
| The "load curve" must be sourced directly from a mcirophone or we are
| testing a line input device, not a microphone preamplifier.
|
control of the input to the device under test.
Do all microphones present the same load curve Leaving out
| the microphone is what allows people to look at the specs for a Mackie
| preamp and figure it's as good as a Millennia.
|
| We cannot taste test lemon pie without a lemon pie, all simulated lemon
| pie computer-whizzery aside.
|
That makes perfect sense, when testing lemon pie, you don't test the taste of
the pan or the oven ... those are the interchangeable parts, it's only the pie
we're interested in.
As soon as you assume that testing a preamp requires a microphone, you make the
test extremely difficult to perform and the results questionable.
Dave Martin
"Jim Carr" <j...@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:rEXaf.691$zu6.687@fed1read04...
--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com
hank alrich
> As soon as you assume that testing a preamp requires a microphone, you
> make the test extremely difficult to perform and the results questionable.
Some things are difficult, and some things might be impossible. Leaving
out the microphone leaves one without a microphone preamp.
Mic preamps are only relevant when being fed with microphones. That is
the way these are used, and that's how we must choose between them. Only
in that situation does the interaction between a real source, into a
real mic, reveal what the mic pre acutally does with its food.
--
ha
Evangelos Himonides
Wouldn't a microphone splitter help capturing the same performance with
the same microphone and all PREs?
Evangelos
%
Evangelos Himonides
IoE, University of London
tel: +44 2076126599
fax: +44 2076126741
"Allas to those who never sing but die with all their music in them..."
Oliver Wendell Holmes
%
Paul Stamler
> news:3t21ugF...@individual.net...
>
> | Tell me how you are going to get the exact same live performance
> | repeated twice and we'll get started. Other than perhaps a Disklavier
> | (with its own limitations) I can't think of any way to do this.
I have occasionally suggested a music box, preferably one with several types
of sounds. The transient response is more challenging than a Disklavier's.
Peace,
Paul
Paul Stamler
series, have removable capsules. What if you took the head off a U-87 or
KM-84 and injected recorded signal into the head amplifier? You would at
least be presenting the various mic preamps with a source that looked a lot
like a real microphone. (Of course, the more dramatic differences between
preamps manifest themselves when using dynamic mics. But this is at least a
start.)
Peace,
Paul
Paul Stamler
> | To suggest that a meaningful test of a preamp can be conducted by
> | measuring its output when fed by a static source and declaring that
> | accurate demonstrates a lack of realworld experience with the
> | interactions of preamps, microphones, and live music.
> |
> We're only testing the preamps. We'll test the mics and the music later.
The problem with this is that part of the difference preamps make is that
they make microphones behave differently, depending on what sort of load
they present to the microphone. That's why it's necessary to test mic-preamp
systems, rather than preamps alone.
Peace,
Paul
Paul Stamler
> In general, though, it's reasonable, when comparing items that are in
> the same bottom end of the price scale, not to expect that one will be
> head and shoulders above the rest. The issue here is not that he needs
> a $2,000 mic preamp, but that he just shouldn't expect there to be much
> difference between one cheap mixer and another cheap mixer.
Somewhat surprisingly, though, I have heard major differences between cheap
gear. Cheap stuff seems to divide into two categories: bright and
gritty-sounding, and dull and murky-sounding. If you're stuck with one, the
latter wears better over the long-term.
Peace,
Paul
Mike Rivers
Paul Stamler wrote:
> Somewhat surprisingly, though, I have heard major differences between cheap
> gear. Cheap stuff seems to divide into two categories: bright and
> gritty-sounding, and dull and murky-sounding.
You give it too much credit by trying to classify poor sounding gear.
However, I suspect that bright-and-gritty impresses the bottom feeding
customers more.
Bob Cain
Evangelos Himonides wrote:
> Scott,
>
> Wouldn't a microphone splitter help capturing the same performance with
> the same microphone and all PREs?
My thought too. It would require careful splitter design and
calibration but why not?
Bob Cain
hank alrich wrote:
> Bob Cain wrote:
>
>> Mapping the technical difference to a perceptual one is not yet possible
>> but if the technical difference is sufficiently small a strong case can
>> be made for equivalence. Of course some believe that even unmeasurable
>> differences are audible but that's not even worth arguing about. That's
>> how the efficacy of Shakti stones is justified.
>
> I'd be careful wanting to lump together charlatons and those who think
> maybe we still have something to learn about how technical measurements
> of audio gear related directly tour own perception.
I maintain that any effect that has an audible consequence will have one
measurable by instrumentation and not ultra high state of the art
instrumentation either. Barring divine intervention there are only so
many physical properties involved and measuring those to a very high
precision is normal operating lab procedure. I simply can't believe
that the ear/brain is a more sensitive detector than (or even close to)
modern, off the shelf, instrumentation.
> For instance, do you think Scott Dorsy has Shakti stones around his
> system? I don't but I have heard him suggest we may have stuff to learn
> about this, and that we could perhaps make some progress by acquiring a
> better understanding of how those kitspecs relate to our aural
> preception.
No argument here. I'm only arguing for measuring differences between
devices to see how significant they are. Below some level I think we
must grant equivalence. I'd like to know what the real, measurable
differences are. Arguing that a mic is required is incorrect. Any
voltage source with a known output impedance will serve to show the
differences and allow measurement of the input impedance of the pre.
I'm also at a loss to understand how emitter or source follower buffer
amplifiers used in condenser mics can present significant complex output
impedence differences (as some seem to think they do.)
norman...@comcast.net
"WillStG" <wil...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1131090904.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> jaynews wrote:
>>
>> Call me crazy but...I wonder if, in double blind tests, there would
>> really
>> be many people who could actually tell the difference in the sound
>> quality
>> between digital audio that was recorded with this mixer versus others
>> costing 5 to 10 times the price.
>
> If you are recording the spoken word through a Rat Shack crap mic
> and listening through your laptops's speakers in a Student Union
> lounge, maybe few could. But if you are recording guitar and vocals and
> overdubbing banjo and dobro, with say Beyer M260 and Neumann U87 mics
> at 24/44.1 and listening back through decent speakers, you really think
> few here could tell the difference between your Yamaha mixer's preamps
> and a Micheal Grace or John Hardy micpre ( a single channel costing 6
> -10 times your $100?) People do not spend 10-20x more one micpres than
> your mixer just to impress clients with brand names - really!
My name is not Jay, and you didn't ask the question of me, but I'm going to
take the liberty of responding anyway:
Yes, I really think that none of people "here" could tell the difference
between the expensive setup you mentioned above v. the same setup with the
cheap Yamaha mixer substituted for the expensive Grace or Hardy mike
preamps.
And yes, I really do believe that people spend 10-20x more on preamps just
to impress clients.
Norm Strong
Pooh Bear
WillStG wrote:
> Pooh Bear wrote:
> > WillStG wrote:
> >> But if you are recording guitar and vocals and
> > > overdubbing banjo and dobro, with say Beyer M260 and Neumann U87 mics
> > > at 24/44.1 and listening back through decent speakers, you really think
> > > few here could tell the difference between your Yamaha mixer's preamps
> > > and a Micheal Grace or John Hardy micpre ( a single channel costing 6
> > > -10 times your $100?) People do not spend 10-20x more one micpres than
> > > your mixer just to impress clients with brand names - really!#
> >
> > PoohBear replied
> > Actually you're very wong !
> >
> > A Mackie XDR mic pre for example is technically about as pure is it gets.
> > Thermal noise is within a dB or so of theoretical and it's very linear.
>
> First off I apologize, I did not notice this thread was not
> limited to Rec.audio.pro, I generally do not like to crosspost.
>
> In any event I have used the VLZ and earlier Mackie pres. I think
> you have totally overlooked the fact that the *combination* of elements
> in your signal path is what is important,
Oh for sure. However it's even more difficult to make bad eq and mix busses these
days.
> the XDR micpre's spec's don;t
> mean doohickey if they cause the mic plugged into it to load badly
> compromising it's performance. The Mackie pres load down a U87,
Surprising. The Mackie input Z is around 2 k ohms or greater. This is normally
considered ideal.
Please describe the audible effect of the 'loding down' you refer to.
> which
> is a microphone that does not respond well to transformer balanced
> inputs.
The Mackie doesn't have transfomer balanced inputs.
I'd like to hear your explanation why that would make any difference though This just
sounds like typical audio voodoo.
> I also used the example of the Beyer 260 because it is a
> ribbon mic - and the clean gain availble on your micpre matters, and
> the difference between gear is much more discernable the more source
> you are recording challenges your gear. Banjo, a mezzo soprano or
> keys jangling can be particularly stressing on a mic or preamp.
>
> >
> > The 'boutique' mic pres have little to offer aside from colouration ( and clever
> > marketing ).
> >
> > As for a 10:1 comparison - just consider that a U87 is more like *1000* times
> > what a 'Rat Shack' mic costs.
> >
> > He wasn't talking about going that low btw.
>
> So then, would you dismiss my being able to tell the difference by
> calling it "coloration? Look, if you want to claim a Millenia HV3
> (used pairs I have seen for as little as $1200) is no more transparent
> than your Yamaha micpres, go ahead and stick you neck neck out.
Consider the technical spec of a good modern transformerless low noise mic pre whether
it be discrete transistor ( with or without op-amp stages ) or fully integrated.
The specs are so 'clean' it's almost painful and all the competent ones have virtually
lookalike performance. I can't say about any Yamaha pres specifically, since I'm not
familiar with their configuration though.
I can only imagine the boutique pres are indeed addding intentional colouration.
Certainly any tube unit will have thd from the tube itself and coluration ( frequency
response errors and appreciable LF distortion at larger signal levels ) from the
transfomer.
> But he said as much as a 10x times difference in micpres - so that
> means $1000 to his $100. A single channel of Grace micpre can be had
> for as little as $600, Neve 1272 clones are around $1200, and my
> brother and I have racked and sold vintage Telefunken V672 micpres for
> as little as $1000 for a pair. The transformers are huge in the
> V672's, and they absolutely kill anything Digidesign uses as a micpre.
So what do you think the transfomers are doing ? The can't make the signal any
*clearer* !
> An old Soundtracs MRX or SOLO console, you could get 24 big fat
> micpres pretty cheap. Soundtracs consoles in my basement was where I
> started doing A/B comparison of U87's and SM57's with Mackie preamps.
> The difference is very very obvious - and I have no need to make those
> claims to make a living as an audio guy either.
I haven't specifically seen the Soundtracs mic pre either but I'd be quite surprised
if it was much different from the majority of the British consoles of that category.
I'll see if I can find anything out about it.
> If you want to say that since most people can't tell the difference
> why worry about it; that music is more important, that people listen on
> crappy playback systems anyway, you may have a valid point.
That wasn't what I meant at all.
> But there
> is a bit of an insulting and condescending atitude that really isn't
> called for in some of the comments here, probably unintentional but
> plenty of working pro audio guys are better than some would give them
> credit for.
Perhaps you'd give some credit to a pro-audio designer with decades of experience in
the field too ?
I happen to believe that if there's an audible difference that it should be
measurable.
> In fact I have a friend who is a Production Manager now
> because he has that rare ear disease that Woody Allen also has, and he
> can't discern sound direction at all. But he can nail a speaker being
> out of phase in an array, and he expects a guy with 2 good ears to be
> able to at least match his own diminished facilities.
I'd expect an out of phase speaker to be fairly obvious to be honest.
Graham
Pooh Bear
Bob Cain wrote:
< snip >
> I'm also at a loss to understand how emitter or source follower buffer
> amplifiers used in condenser mics can present significant complex output
> impedence differences (as some seem to think they do.)
An emitter follower will present an output Z roughly equal to the source Z
divided by the transistor's current gain ( simplified analysis ). If the source
Z is complex then the output Z wil be complex too. Just a question of how much.
A source follower doesn't suffer in the same way though. And that's what's
going to be in a condenser mic.
An output transfomer will add some complexity to the output Z as well.
Graham
Flying Tadpole
Laurence Payne wrote:
<snip>
>In London's West End at the
> moment you can hear mediocre sound, adequate sound and very good
> sound. (Unfortunately, the best sound is currently on the most boring
> show. But that's another matter :-)
Perhaps they felt it needed to be :^|
--
Flying Tadpole
-------------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/flyingtadpole
Kurt Albershardt
> "Kurt Albershardt" <ku...@nv.net> wrote in message
> news:3t33hkF...@individual.net...
>>
>>> known signal through a known circuit?
>>
>> Assuming we really do know the signal, yes.
>
> 10 second sweep, DC to 35khz, frequency response of our choosing, source
> impedence of our choosing ... yes, we really do know the signal.
OK, so you've found a preamp that reproduces sweeps nicely.
>>> To suggest that an accurate test of a preamp requires a microphone
>>> is to suggest that an accurate test of a preamp has no meaning.
>>
>> To suggest that a meaningful test of a preamp can be conducted by
>> measuring its output when fed by a static source and declaring that
>> accurate demonstrates a lack of realworld experience with the
>> interactions of preamps, microphones, and live music.
>
> We're only testing the preamps. We'll test the mics and the music later.
That's where it sill get interesting.
And can you fix your munged up quoting? Makes it damn difficult to read
who wrote what.
Kurt Albershardt
>
> As soon as you assume that testing a preamp requires a microphone, you make
> the test extremely difficult to perform and the results questionable.
Welcome to the real world. It *is* extremely difficult to perform.
Kurt Albershardt
>
> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>
>> To suggest that a meaningful test of a preamp can be conducted by
>> measuring its output when fed by a static source and declaring that
>> accurate demonstrates a lack of realworld experience with the
>> interactions of preamps, microphones, and live music.
>
>
> If we are simply looking for differences, however, it is a very telling
> means of finding how significant a difference there is in purely
> technical terms. This is a very good start. If differences can be
> measured then there's a reason to look for what they sound like and how
> they are affected by a complex mic impedence (in the case of a dynamic
> mic.)
Agreed - and we are starting to get some useful measurements but there
is some disagreement on which ones are really important. Mark McQuilken
will quote some interesting distortion numbers vis a vis those of other
designs if you get him in conversation about it. A lot of this has to
do with the gain setting of the preamp. Both distortion spectra and
overload characteristics change quite a bit as you vary the gain.
Minimizing these is difficult. Grant Carpenter took this pretty much to
the limit in his designs.
> Mapping the technical difference to a perceptual one is not yet possible
> but if the technical difference is sufficiently small a strong case can
> be made for equivalence. Of course some believe that even unmeasurable
> differences are audible but that's not even worth arguing about.
I'm *very* interested in learning which measurements correspond to
things that I hear. I wish I had more time to investigate this stuff.
For now I ask designers about the choices they made and try to correlate
their responses with my listening experience.
Porky
"Bob Cain" <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:dkj2k...@enews2.newsguy.com...
One would think that instrumentation could differentiate between component
responses, but I've seen various equipment with virtually identical specs
but totally different audible sonic characteristics, as I'm sure most of us
have. It may just be that we still don't know edxactly what it is we need to
measure. In any event, almost every preamp's sound will vary depending on
the characteristics of the mic feeding it, and that's why one needs to try
out preamps with the mic one is going to be using. The interaction between
mic and preamp is quite complex, so one should choose based on the
combination. Since every voice is unique, the vocalist is as important as
either the mic or the preamp, and that must also be considered.
As for double blind testing, since each of us has different sonic criteria
and different tastes, I would think number of different opinions you'd get
would almost equal the number of people taking the test. Since virtually all
mic preamps do color the sound in one way or another, I think most trained
listeners would be able to hear differences between them, but I think there
would be much disagreement as to which sounded "best".
It's the old problem of trying to obtain objectice results on what is
basically a subjective experience.
CWCunningham
CWCunningham
news:cy7bf.43468$zb5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| The problem with this is that part of the difference preamps make is that
| they make microphones behave differently, depending on what sort of load
| they present to the microphone. That's why it's necessary to test mic-preamp
| systems, rather than preamps alone.
|
You either want to test a preamp, - or -
You want to test the combination of a mic and a preamp.
If you choose the former, then a quality circuit could be built to put the
preamp through it's paces, reliably and repeatably.
If you choose the latter,
How many different microphones will it take to create a valid test.
What about the room? That's part of a "real world test" as well.
If so, how many permutations of mics and rooms will suffice?
It depends on what you want I suppose, if you want an objective test of a mic
pre, you can do it, but if you imagine it requires a microphone, then you can't
do it. You just have to make a choice.
Chris Hornbeck
<arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>hank alrich wrote:
>> I'd be careful wanting to lump together charlatons and those who think
>> maybe we still have something to learn about how technical measurements
>> of audio gear related directly tour own perception.
>
>I maintain that any effect that has an audible consequence will have one
>measurable by instrumentation and not ultra high state of the art
>instrumentation either. Barring divine intervention there are only so
>many physical properties involved and measuring those to a very high
>precision is normal operating lab procedure.
I'd guess that most might agree, some with reservations,
but basicly, hard to argue against.
> I simply can't believe
>that the ear/brain is a more sensitive detector than (or even close to)
>modern, off the shelf, instrumentation.
This part is, of course, still waving in the wind. How
can we ever, let alone in this early stage of exploration,
be so confident? Just seems too sweeping, JIMOHO, at our
current, early, level of understanding.
To put it another way: if "people" report different data
than my Sound Tech 1701, which am I to consider important?
Valid?
Real?
>No argument here. I'm only arguing for measuring differences between
>devices to see how significant they are. Below some level I think we
>must grant equivalence. I'd like to know what the real, measurable
>differences are. Arguing that a mic is required is incorrect. Any
>voltage source with a known output impedance will serve to show the
>differences and allow measurement of the input impedance of the pre.
Mic's without electronic buffering are complex sources,
natch, but for condensers, a pretty simple model should
be possible. The ability to deal with very large
out-of-band signals then becomes interesting from the
preamp's POV. But *completely* knowable and model-able
in both cases.
Thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck
WillStG
>> WillStG wrote:
> > the XDR micpre's spec's don;t
> > mean doohickey if they cause the mic plugged into it to load badly
> > compromising it's performance. The Mackie pres load down a U87,
>
> Surprising. The Mackie input Z is around 2 k ohms or greater. This is normally
> considered ideal.
>
> Please describe the audible effect of the 'loding down' you refer to.
>
>
> > which
> > is a microphone that does not respond well to transformer balanced
> > inputs.
>
> The Mackie doesn't have transfomer balanced inputs.
Ack. I meant electronically balanced inputs of course, not
transformer balanced.
I like the sound of transformer balanced inputs, particularly on
mics that were designed at a time when most micpres were also. If I
patch my U87 into my 1402 VLZ it sounds pretty thin, maybe
"clear"somewhat, but not like I expect a U87 to typically sound.
Through my old Soundtracs MRX console I heard more what I have come to
expect from a U87 working on SSL's and Neve VR's, with a bit more
coloration though, bigger and fatter. With a transformered micpre I
generally hear a lot more in the 140Hz-500Hz range, and something like
a fuller spectrum of harmonics. The Neve 55's have that fatness as
well, and you can challenge an HV3 with jangle and not have it get
brittle like the VLZ does.
>
> I'd like to hear your explanation why that would make any difference though This just
> sounds like typical audio voodoo.
>
>
I think it was Scott that explained about the loading effect
that electronically balanced micpres have on Neumann U87s. I'm not an
EE, but I can tell that my U87 sounds better through my other micpres
than it does through a Mackie (Millennia HV3C, Telefunken V72 & V672,
or any Soundtracs I have had MRX or SoloMidi, or an Allen and Heath
Project 8 Console.) My Tascam DM24's pres sound more similar to the
Mackie to my ears though.
> > I also used the example of the Beyer 260 because it is a
> > ribbon mic - and the clean gain availble on your micpre matters, and
> > the difference between gear is much more discernable the more source
> > you are recording challenges your gear. Banjo, a mezzo soprano or
> > keys jangling can be particularly stressing on a mic or preamp.
> >
> > >
> > > The 'boutique' mic pres have little to offer aside from colouration ( and clever
> > > marketing ).
> > >
> > > As for a 10:1 comparison - just consider that a U87 is more like *1000* times
> > > what a 'Rat Shack' mic costs.
> > >
> > > He wasn't talking about going that low btw.
> >
> > So then, would you dismiss my being able to tell the difference by
> > calling it "coloration? Look, if you want to claim a Millenia HV3
> > (used pairs I have seen for as little as $1200) is no more transparent
> > than your Yamaha micpres, go ahead and stick you neck neck out.
>
> Consider the technical spec of a good modern transformerless low noise mic pre whether
> it be discrete transistor ( with or without op-amp stages ) or fully integrated.
>
> The specs are so 'clean' it's almost painful and all the competent ones have virtually
> lookalike performance. I can't say about any Yamaha pres specifically, since I'm not
> familiar with their configuration though.
>
> I can only imagine the boutique pres are indeed addding intentional colouration.
> Certainly any tube unit will have thd from the tube itself and coluration ( frequency
> response errors and appreciable LF distortion at larger signal levels ) from the
> transfomer.
My first book on Audio when I was a Studio Assistant took the
position *ALL* recorded audio is "Distortion". One can certainly make
the case that we are really seeking something euphonic that is pleasing
and well represents the source. I have seconded large Orchestral
sessions and know for fact that they need and use coloration all the
time for the most "purist" of recording pursuits. For example I saw
British DG engineers going straight to two tracks with a Decca tree
through a portable Studer console - with a Lexicon 300! On one session
the French Horn did not work until we put a jensen transformered micpre
on it.
Perhaps for some audio is in a way a search for truth, but your
position that one can spec that on a page is in fact little more than
intellectual vanity.
Look Graham, I have no intellectual or other reason to wish
anything to sound better or worse than anything else, only personal
observations made while working with mics, pres, and digital formats
day in and day out. Really, if an MP3 sounded as good as a CD to my
ears I would say so, I have often said that Dolby AC3 compression
(Digicarts, Instant replay) sounds pretty good if done in stereo, and
if a Mackie pre sounded as good with my Neumann mics as my Telefunkens
that would be very convenient for me (and save me money.) If an MP3
sounded as good as a CD to me I would say "Cool", easier for me to haul
music around. But it doesn't in my experience, and I have been working
40 hour or more weeks for over 15 years as an audio guy. Apparently
that does not count for much in your book.
Somehow seems to me that you have a desire to prove that numbers
on a page is all that is important, and you aren't shy about expressing
an insulting lack of respect for what mere "Audio Operators" have to
say about the gear and systems they work with. Well you might be a
"designer" brother, but we are the ones that actually have to use the
gear. Isn't it a well worn worst case dynamic, the design engineers
that do not respect the opinions of users?
Rich Friedel, the ABC Engineer who designed the Fox News Channel
startup (and Fox Sports in LA) told me back in the day, "There is audio
and there is sound. This is sound, but I thought you guys at least
deserved to have Neve 55's to work on." Good man. Had he not
appreciated the better quality of sound that the $250,000 55's had, we
might have been stuck with much cheaper consoles that some design
engineer thought "speced" similarly, like the Soundcraft Vienna's or
Venues of the day. Amazing sometimes how pressure from Accountants can
make some guys claim cheap gear is as good as a Neve. But Mr. Freidel
came from ABC where they actually respect audio guys and expect them to
be more than fader pushing monkeys, and he actually knew something
about audio quality and how better gear makes our job easier and more
consistent with a variety of users.
You should ask yourself the question, why would any audio operator
take issue with any gear he had to work with if it wasn't making the
work more difficult? Sure we can complain like anyone else, but we
love gear that makes life easier too. I am afraid the perspective you
are expressing just sounds a bit too familiar to me, and not in a good
way.
Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music & Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
WillStG
> Yes, I really think that none of people "here" could tell the difference
> between the expensive setup you mentioned above v. the same setup with the
> cheap Yamaha mixer substituted for the expensive Grace or Hardy mike
> preamps.
>
Your trolling disdain for people who do this for a living aside,
I have basically agreed that, given a very limited and unchallenging
source material, or with other things in the signal chain that mask or
diminish the micpre's character, or with poor monitoring this may be
the case. But what I want to know is, how have *you* tested and
challenged the performance capabilties of this $100 Yamaha mixer that
it has so convinced you it is the equal of $1000 micpres as you so
doggedly would claim?
Somehow I suspect you have little idea what kind of challenges
the real world might present to a piece of gear at all, and that what
you lack in practical experience you are seeking to make up for with
hubris.
> And yes, I really do believe that people spend 10-20x more on preamps just
> to impress clients.
"_Just_ to impress clients"? No, but large studio's do really
wish to meet their client's Professional expectations.
I doubt guys like Tom Lord Alge or Mutt Lange are much
"impressed" by the Neumann, Manley or Neve brand name. But they do
want to work on familiar, good sounding gear that meets a certain
professional standard of performance. It makes the job easier and
faster to accomplish, and time is money you know.....
Will Miho
NY Music and TV/Audio Post/Music & Live Sound Guy
Kurt Albershardt
> "Kurt Albershardt" <ku...@nv.net> wrote in message
> news:3t50q4F...@individual.net...
>
>> CWCunningham wrote:
>>
>>> As soon as you assume that testing a preamp requires a microphone, you make
>>> the test extremely difficult to perform and the results questionable.
>>
>>
>> Welcome to the real world. It *is* extremely difficult to perform.
>
>
> And that's why the mic is the first thing to factor out.
I'm all ears.
And fix the munged quoting, will you?
Paul Stamler
news:dkj2k...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> I'm also at a loss to understand how emitter or source follower buffer
> amplifiers used in condenser mics can present significant complex output
> impedence differences (as some seem to think they do.)
For the most part they don't, which is why (in my experience)
transformerless microphones tend to be a lot less critical of what preamp
they're used with. Transformer-coupled condenser microphones, or dynamics
(which may include transformers) or ribbons (which will include
transformers), care a lot more.
Peace,
Paul
Arny Krueger
news:7xebf.677$kd...@bignews4.bellsouth.net
> One would think that instrumentation could differentiate
> between component responses, but I've seen various
> equipment with virtually identical specs but totally
> different audible sonic characteristics, as I'm sure most
> of us have.
Some of that is due to specs that are actually audibly
broader than they might seem.
For example, if I get to specify where the in-spec response
variations are, you *will* hear the difference between two
pieces of equipment that are speced at 20-20 KHz +/- 1 dB.
A piece of equipment with 1 dB octave-wide dip at 1 KHz can
easily sound different than a piece of equipment with a 1 dB
peak at the same frequency. But, both will be arguably
20-20 KHz +/- 1 dB.
Arny Krueger
> Evangelos Himonides wrote:
>> Scott,
>>
>> Wouldn't a microphone splitter help capturing the same
>> performance with the same microphone and all PREs?
>
> My thought too. It would require careful splitter design
> and calibration but why not?
I've got some concerns about this.
Some of the controversy relates to how certain mic preamps
are said to load the mics.
Pooh Bear
Paul Stamler wrote:
All of which suggests to me that what ppl are listening to when they hear
differences is the transnsformer - *not* the preamp.
Things like peaking of the freq response or transient overshoot for example
which are both typical of transfomers.
Graham
Pooh Bear
Arny Krueger wrote:
+/- 1dB is +/- 12% in voltage terms. Not surprising it's audible.
This is where the idea that 1dB is the smallest audible difference
falls over. A trained ear can hear far better than that.
Graham
Arny Krueger
in message news:436DF143...@hotmail.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Porky" <no...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:7xebf.677$kd...@bignews4.bellsouth.net
>>
>>> One would think that instrumentation could
>>> differentiate between component responses, but I've
>>> seen various equipment with virtually identical specs
>>> but totally different audible sonic characteristics, as
>>> I'm sure most of us have.
>>
>> Some of that is due to specs that are actually audibly
>> broader than they might seem.
>>
>> For example, if I get to specify where the in-spec
>> response variations are, you *will* hear the difference
>> between two pieces of equipment that are speced at 20-20
>> KHz +/- 1 dB. A piece of equipment with 1 dB octave-wide
>> dip at 1 KHz can easily sound different than a piece of
>> equipment with a 1 dB peak at the same frequency. But,
>> both will be arguably 20-20 KHz +/- 1 dB.
>
> +/- 1dB is +/- 12% in voltage terms. Not surprising it's
> audible.
The audibility of measured variations in voltage is complex.
http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/FR/LevelMatch.gif
> This is where the idea that 1dB is the smallest audible
> difference falls over. A trained ear can hear far better
> than that.
About 0.3-0.5 dB is a reasonable limit:
http://www.pbabx.com/technical/levels/index.htm