1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

Mic Splitter box, any recommendations

Discussion in 'Microphones' started by audiokid, Dec 25, 2014.

  1. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Mic Splitter box, any recommendations? I want it for comparing various pre-amps. Would this work: pro/ cons?

    link removed

  2. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    that box will give you a split but one of them will go through a transformer (and a not very good one at that).

    Radial does http://www.radialeng.com/js2.php
  3. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Thanks Kurt, that's what I'm looking for!! but won't the Jensen get in the way for critical comparisons?

  4. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    the only ways to do a split are either completely passive (Y cable) which impacts impeadence through transformers or through an active amp (mixer) .... choose your poison.
  5. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    The beauty of transformers. :)

    I suppose without be completely anal , both A/B would be sharing the same tranny path which levels the playing field.
    I like Radial equipment. There stuff is build like a tank. Have use used this one?
  6. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Exactly what I'm talking about. Either for comparisons or stacking . JS3 might even be better.
    js2-js3-app-2.jpg js2-js3-app-3.jpg

  7. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    no ..... i do have x4 pro co lying around somewhere.
  8. pan60

    pan60 Active Member

    I would look for an older radial withe the Jensen in it, they are pretty nice transformer in those. I do not believe the new ones are still using Jensen?
    Also if your are using an active unit I believe you are also adding color ( the IC sound and for the record not something I am against ), to the signal as well.
    Not sure I would do a y cable set up?
    I would just buy a Jensen transformer ( have a friend wire it up for you or do it yourself ), and be done.
  9. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Thanks Pan,

    Through research, Apparently a simple Y could do it too, and regardless of what route I take, to expect a slight drop the level. Its an easy makeup gain on the pre's so I'm not overly anal about a slight change but I will be using Transformerless Pre's too, so it would be choice to have the straightest wire.
    The better transformers are going to be less coloured. Radial claims to be using silver winding yielding a transparent path. Perhaps transparency could mean opinion or fact.

    Using our search, there is plenty of discussions here too:
  10. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    A good one about using a Y for a Mic Splitter, when Remy was at her best I must say.

  11. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    don't hold my feet to the fire on this but i think Radial bought Jensen.
  12. paulears

    paulears Well-Known Member

    I read Remy's piece and think she got it spot on. We have a company in the UK (Sowter) who make respected transformers for audio applications - and for the electrical isolation, they're useful to have in line - but the reality seems to be that passive splits or tranformer ones seem to me to be indistinguishable from each other, after you have spent a few seconds inserting them. They work, they appear to do the job, and as long as they work - I'm happy. Both Jensen and Sowter talk about the changes in sound that happen when audio passes through a transformer, so I guess we should add them to the list of devices that 'colour' the sound that people now very strangely seem to like?
  13. Reverend Lucas

    Reverend Lucas Active Member

    Radial purchased Jensen in July. I know they were using Jensens before, at least in their higher end boxes. I'd be surprised if they didn't move completely toward Jensens, if they're not already.
  14. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    I like this comment! I feel like I just got a new friend :love:. Paul, I've been pretty vocal about my "appreciation" towards a more "transformerless" approach . Care to expand why you put it this way?
  15. paulears

    paulears Well-Known Member

    For years, I subscribed to the notion that we should record with the best fidelity we can manage on our budget, not record with any eq, or treatment of any kind, because this is destructive to the original, and should be applied as necessary as a post-recording process. However, now we seem to like microphones, processors, pre-amps and other devices that add something of themselves to the signal passing through. Colouration was a bad thing, we wanted transparency, truth, even if this did reveal problems with our sound source. We'd be happy to tweak, enhance and even disguise afterwards. Now we buy equipment that is deliberately coloured, as in NOT transparent. This, to me, is a complete reversal to what I was taught, and is to use a rather nice word, in humble opinion humbug!

    (PS - all the really expensive devices are by design, destructive to what I call reality) Colour is really distortion, nice distortion maybe to some, but it's less than the original and surely this is bad?
    bigtree likes this.
  16. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Nice one Paul, thanks for sharing (y)
  17. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Here is a most interesting observation.

    When looking for "character/ colour" I have not been able to get a better vocal chain without an LA2A /1176 combo going into a "transformerless preamp", preferably the M-2b
    I do not get the expected results using the same UA gear through a transformer based mic-pre. The signal always sounds smaller and less interesting compared. Big rail, transformerless pre-amps are my choice.

    Transformer preamps combined with tube mics, tube comps sound smaller with less interesting character.
    Transformerless preamps combined with tube mics, tube comps sound huge and full of character.
    Transformerless preamps sound closest to the real thing. Like using clean water for a pot of coffee. You can taste the bean, the roast, the cream better.
  18. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    I don't know what you mean when you say "NOW we are buying..." We've been buying colored equipment for years... either in various consoles/pres, or gain reduction, both FET and Tube based, or through mics that use tubes and circuitry designed to deliver a particular character. How many hits have been tracked in music history using U47's, ELAM251's, Neumann Tube mics...? Well, more than I could ever count, to be sure.

    This may be your choice. I can't take exception to it. But thousands of albums have been recorded using tube mics, tube pres, console strips that were known for their "character", and plenty of EQ "on the way in".
    Clearmountain to Lang, Alge to Emerick, Parsons to Rundgren, Nile Rodgers to Tom Dowd, Nichols to Swedien, have all used "character/colored" signal paths on the way to the multi track destination, in many different variations, over many years. I'm not gonna deny that their methods didn't play huge parts to the success of the albums/artists they recorded.

    IMHO, to call it "humbug" is a bit of a stretch. Use what you use, and it if works for you, then that's all that counts. But, for you guys to say unequivocally that these methods are BS is pretty grandiose, and just because what you do works for you, doesn't mean that your way is the only "right" way to do things.

    Except that if you are going through an LA2, you are going through transformers... maybe it's an A-10, maybe it's a UTC HA100x, but still transformers nonetheless...and, in addition to that you are also sending signal through tubes, too.

    So I'm trying to figure out what you guys are saying when you say you like a transparent signal path the best, yet then say something like "I have not been able to get a better vocal chain without an LA2A /1176 combo..."

  19. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    .... and to take it a step further, an LA2a even though it's a tube box, is much "cleaner" sounding than an 1176 which in spite of being solid state, has a particularly filthy sound.
  20. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    You tell me? If you were here and we did the comparison through that beast, I'm pretty sure you would be typing the same thing too hehe.

    All I know is a transformerless mic-pre combined with tube gear sounds better vs the a transformer mic-pre with the same chain. I think Paul is somewhere along the same lines as me on this.

    Personally, I don't really care about the past and all the testimonials. The present and future is where I look today. So much of what old school says is great, is dated in my world. We used to have all the old schoolers here and they all said Pro Tools would never take out the big studios. Those same guys all raved about Big Bens and 10M.

    Look at me, only up until last year did I say analog and hybrid was better. Today I hear different. I need less of what I used last year because I'm learning how to implement today's technologies "better".And we all know better is subjective too.

    Too much of one thing is mud so I am beginning to wonder (if you have this option), the capture sounds better if I put the colour into the mic, comps, and EQ, rather than on the pre. A purer Pre's is looking like the better choice when combining UA grit. That's what I'm saying.

    That's what I think today.

Share This Page