Mics and Pres to Die For-

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:11 pm

goran wrote:

Zilla,

First of all my intention has never been to insult You or Any other in this forum.

Secondly maybe my truth should be: That there is no difference between "transparent" mic-pre's and not "quality" mic-pre's.

If I would believe your testing (wich i can do) I think the explanation may be that the constructors "build in" some "sound tweeks" i the mic preamps.

(Just as they do including transformers into mics. Now I don't know why some of these transformers do have to color the sound but if you really want to of course it can be done. )

I think it is would be easy to build a fully transparent (straight wire) mic preamp.

/Goran Sweden

Goran, several things are clear here. (unlike some of your writing.)

I suspect folks are ignoring you in droves because of the initial ludicrous posts you first made.

I'm fairly certain English is not your first language, and I'm not here to pick on you about it, but I do think perhaps you may want to check with someone fluent in your language as well as English to help you get your point across (if there IS one at this point.) I suspect you're using some king of translation tool (Babblefish?) and trust me, it's not working very well for you.

I'm no longer certain exactly WHAT your point is now; you are retreating from your original outrageous statements with qualifiers now. I'd hoped you'd have at least something to back up your original claim, but so far nothing's materialized, other than more oddly worded statements that are, at best, confusing.

Certainly, many well built preamps can and do sound nearly identical under similar loads and nominal operating conditions. But as any experienced engineer knows, (that would be a "Professional" in my book), Real-world situations are not like that. Input and output loading, in/out transformers, op amp design, use (or non-use) of capacitors, build-quality of potentiometers, tolerance/resistor values, even the very wiring path itself can cause surprising differences between even similarly designed units.

Tube, Transister (op amp or discrete), and transformer circuitry can sound AMAZINGLY different, and that's before you start to push them to find out what they REALLY sound like at full bore, or a whisper.

It's even possible your point was about high-end preamps, but it's good to keep in mind, we're often talking about the last couple bits of percentage points of quality here...maybe even less when it comes to critical listening.

I can agree with you to a certain (minor) degree that a lot of preamps sound much the same - at first blush, and in non-critical use. But of course a Preamp's sound changes with all the other variables, and it often comes down to simply personal taste which ones one prefers. It's like a paintbrush or a choice of canvas vs paper; you can get similar results (neither one good or "Bad"), but it's the engineer/artist's choice as to which tool to use for the job at hand. Sometimes you reach for a "Straight wire with gain" pre and sometimes you reach for a nice, fat, warmed up (and admittedly totally inaccurate!) pre.

If you're not hearing this for yourself already, perhaps there's something you need to investigage on your end. I'd start with good monitors and headphones, and work back from there. I don't know what you do for a living, perhaps this is all arm-chair quaterbacking for a hobby or something for you....?

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:12 pm

JoeH wrote:

Goran, several things are clear here. (unlike some of your writing.)

Nice post, Joe...

Anyone interested in the sound of preamps in particular would do well to read Russell Hamm's AES paper of 1973, which can be found here:

http://www.dwfearn.com/tvst1.htm

It's an easy read, quite interesting, and paves the way for further understanding of the factors involved.

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:01 pm

The assertion that there is no sonic difference between a Behringer mic pre and something like a John Hardy is ludicrous. I hope, for the poster's sake, that they are either joking, or not an audio professional.

I would concede that the average person walking down the street might have a hard time detecting the difference reliably, or, for that matter, a professional musician with decades of hearing damage.

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:37 am

Is there also a difference in sound quality between
XLR mic cables ?

/Goran Sweden

Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:36 am

goran wrote:

Is there also a difference in sound quality between
XLR mic cables ?

/Goran Sweden

Yes.

Especially over long runs.

Having an XLR on each end of a cable tells you little about the internal construction/properties of the cable, which can vary quite widely.

How significant is the difference would be a different question to which the answer will depend on more variables than the cable itself.

Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:13 pm

Got a hamptone HVTp2 in a trade of some other gear recently. Ive used it on a couple of gigs already. I am just blown away by how fantastic it sounds. I own several channels of Pendulum MDP-1 pres as well, and I have to say, the hamptone, to my ears is virtually indistinguishable from them.....the hamptone kits go for 599 and assembled, they go for 899??.. I was worried that it would sound too "tube-y" for the classical material that I record, but that isnt the case at all...it is a very subtle coloration that just accents things nicely...so if you are out there and are looking for a tube preamp that is subtle and sounds fantastic, check out hamptone! well, ive swapped my Millennias for DAV, and now ive found the hamptones!! Life is good! Thumbs Up

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:43 am

Cucco,

I see this thread is a about a year old now.... I noticed your love of the Rode K2 and it's possibilities re classical recording. Have you ever used a pair in stereo configuration for choir?

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:52 pm

Duckman wrote:

Cucco,

I see this thread is a about a year old now.... I noticed your love of the Rode K2 and it's possibilities re classical recording. Have you ever used a pair in stereo configuration for choir?

No.

I'm sure it would work quite well, but I have yet to obtain my second K2. I would personally use my other mics before it for that purpose anyway, but if I were forced, I could definitely use it for stereo pickup. (Actually, I would really like to try a Decca Tree with the K2 - I think that would truely be stunning!)

I am still digging the sound of the K2, however, I'm finding myself using it less and less. In the studio, I would pull it out for a LOT of female vocal stuff and a lot of male vox too. Where it REALLY shined though was as a drum mic. I would use it in Fig8 as part of a M/S pair (often pairing it with a completely different sounding mic) to pick up the sound of the kit.

Alas, with no more studio and only on-location stuff, my Schoeps, Gefells and AKGs get more of a workout than the K2.

Truthfully, my biggest problem with using tube microphones on orchestra is such a stupid complaint, but by my justification perfectly sane...
There's just too much stuff to carry...power supply, power cable, extra mic cable and mic (I mean, the size of the K2 case is HUGE). That goes for almost every other tube mic too.

Don't get me wrong, there are some fabulous tube mics out there, but I have found that I can get the sound I want using good ol' fashioned condenser or ribbon microphones.

I would make some exceptions to that if I were to get a hold of perhaps some nice Schoeps tube mics or the Neumann stereo tube mic (SM69?? I don't recall the model number, but I do recall the sound!!)

If you're interested in trying it though, go for it. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

My advice would be -
*Keep a decent distance between the mics and the performers
*Be prepared to make a small, Wide-Q dip at around 7K.

Good luck!

J.

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:45 am

I A-B'd a Studio Projects VTB-1 ($99) with an OO2r preamp. Guess which I though was better? VTB-1! 002r sounded like the ocean in the backround. Then someone came on the Digi DUC forum and stated blasting me, saying there wasn't anything wrong with the 002r pres, they were fine and all I needed to do was get some Daking pres right into my 002r. He's done many records this ways, and he was a big name producer/engineer. The 002r is now a large dongle. I wish I could reduce the size of it.
Everyone has big ones when they talk about their pres.

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:15 am

Everyone has big ones when they talk about their pres.

Welcome to the overhyped and subjective world known as "Mic Pre's". You'll get a different result and different opinion every time out.

Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:36 pm

"I would make some exceptions to that if I were to get a hold of perhaps some nice Schoeps tube mics or the Neumann stereo tube mic (SM69?? I don't recall the model number, but I do recall the sound!!)' -Cucco

Indeed! I use a pair of Neumann M269's* as a main pair quite often, and love them. I usually put up a DPA4003 pair as an alternate, and usually choose the M269s as 'best', especially for early music/ baroque orchestras & choirs. Sure, they are tube mics and require the power supply and cables, but IMO, this is worth it.

I do try to avoid tube mics on the spot miking duties- after all, I have to draw the line somewhere!

Exsultavit

*The SM69 and the M269 are very related mics. I loved the SM69 so much that I went a-hunting for one, and got turned on to the M269. The 269 is NOT a stereo mic (Looks like the U67), but shares the same capsule, tube, etc as the SM69, but with a beefier transformer. My pair has been modded by Klaus Heyne.

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:18 pm

I generally avoid threads like this one, but I just purchased a pair of mics that must go on the list...

I purchased a set of the new Sennheiser MKH 8040 microphones and I'm very impressed. Definitely sound like they are in the "sennheiser" camp with sound, but there is an openness and a richness to the sound that the original MKH40 does not have. There is also a lyric quality with impact that I get with them that the Schoeps and DPAs that I use simply don't have.

I've used them on all sorts of stuff- chamber shows, solo instruments, etc... and it sounds good on all of them.

Definitely a good mic to add to the list to purchase. Highly recommended.

--Ben

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:06 am

Quote:

I haven't been this impressed with a mic in a LONG time! The K2 should cost $4,000 - not $600!

I agree that the K2 delivers a sound much impressive with respect to its price. But may be not as good as the sound delivered by high end tube microphones. IMO not as good as the one from the mikes shown on the image here below. It's the sound quality diffrence worth like the price difference (about a factor ten...), that's another story and a question of personal appreciation. Wink

Quote:

Anyone interested in the sound of preamps in particular would do well to read Russell Hamm's AES paper of 1973, which can be found here:

[url]http://www.dwfearn.com/tvst1.htm [/url]

The link above is no longer valid. The paper is here
http://www.dwfearn.com/tubes_vs_transistors.html.
I think that this analysis is not sufficient for explaining why tubes sound is different from transistors because it is valid only at high recording level, while this difference also exists at low level.

By the way my mikes and preamp that I would not die for but I like so much are shown here below. You may recognize the preamp more easily than the mikes: these are FLEA 49s, which are clones of M49.

This topic sponsored by: