AT4060

OK Jeremy, you'll hardly be surprised to find that my vote will be for the AT4060.

This mic is astonishingly good. First of all it is very clean and clear, but when thigs take off, it makes things sound HUGE. Natural yet euphonic. Of course no mic is really neutral, but it can only give the impression that it is. This mic can take the edge off things, but makes them appear that that is the way they sounded in the first place. It also does that intangible expensive sound thing that I associate with mics that cost a whole lot more.

Voices in a good location sound amazing, but the only limitation is that it is cardioid only -I rarely use multi-pattern mics in cardioid mode. This mic sounds like it was designed to record small vocal groups. I have yet to put it up in front of an operatic soloist, but I can imagine that the results would be great.

My favourite trick is to mix in a little U87 (positioned a few inches underneath) just to give a hint of that crispy midrange detail.

John

OK I'll bite.

I know I've mentioned this in the past in an odd place or two, but here seems to be the actual place for it. I include it here because even though you can't walk into 'Pre's R Us' and buy this thing, they are occasionally to be had used, and it's tough to beat as far as bang for buck.

The pre is called an Altec Lansing 1567A. It was made just after the earth cooled. All hand wiring, and tubes.

I scored mine at a garage sale for $5, thinking it was a regular amp and we could mic the band and make noise! I didn't even know what it really was and it almost got chucked about 3 times, except that...wait for it...I liked the look of it, oh and the smell when you open it up. A bit of lurking here and a Google search and I found out what this thing really was.

It has 4 channels of mic pre, using 12AX7's, (as well as a 5th, line in pre that I ignore). It takes those 5 channels and mixes them into one. That doesn't sound too useful, until you do a few mods.

I took it to an electronics guy and for 600 'Dollars Light"(about $500 US) he went in and bypassed all the mixing section so it's now a 4 into 4 pre. Each channel now only has XLR's in and out, and it's own attenuator.

So for $150 a channel I have 4 channels of all tube pre. I tell you this because even if you were to pay 4-600 on the unit, by the time you did the mods, it would still be a gret deal.

Why do I like it? Well I'm not supposed to say, "Because it sounds good" so I won't...Ito my ears it sounds great. I'm willing to bet the music in heaven is run through 12AX7's before it goes to the Holy Amplifier.

Now the spec sheet says it only goes to 15K. Boo hoo. There's more to life than high end. I figure any loss in range is more than made up for by the fact that I'm here to make music, and tubes, in my opinion, make music sound better.

So to start my studio with 4 channels of tube and stick within my very limited budget, I couldn't be happier.

Check it out. Here's what the unit looks like. If you buy one you gotta do the mods though. I don't think they're even that technical to perform.

http://www.mojopie.com/blackbox2.html

Cheers mates
Keith

My choices would be for the following

B&K (now called DPA) 4006s

Neumann M-50 microphones

AKG Blueline series

AT-4050s

RCA 77DXs

Bluebird

I like all these microphones for the simple fact that they all work well, they sound good and I have used them for a number of recording session without any technical problems and they do well with what they were designed to do.

MTCW

I have a dream

Millennia HV-3D Eight Channel Microphone Preamplifiers 8-)

Im just waiting for some one to sponsoring mee :roll:

That would bring up my recordings a level :shock: or ????

Schoeps CMC621 - just astouding transparency, especially in a wide ORTF configuration.

Audio-Technica 4050 - I just get alot of mileage out of these, so much so I have 3 now and can always find a use for them. Close micing strings (particularly mandolin) in omni mode is just one of my favorite uses for a 4050.

I don't know if it's "to die for" but the True System Precision 8 is a wonderful pre...just every so slightly on the "juicy" side of transparent.

While not a pre or a mic - my Metric Halo Mobile I/O is an indespensible part of my location rig and deserves an honorable mention.

Here's an interesting one (err, 2)

I just recently purchased a rather famous variety of stereo ribbon microphone and after trying it on just about everything under the sun, I just couldn't dig it. As a matter of fact, on some things, I just downright hated it. Considering the $$$$, I was quite disappointed. Fortunately, I was able to recoup all my hard-earned dough and drop it on a couple other mics.

Still wanting a ribbon, I purchased a Beyer M130 - a mic which I'm quite familiar with already as I've used it numerous times before. I just don't have enough positive things to say about it. The price is AWESOME and the sound is smooth, lush, full and as realistic as it gets. It's also a damn cute microphone! Output really isn't a problem - it's hot enough to use just about any preamp and of course noise ain't an issue. I'm hoping to publish some recorded cello samples soon.

The "sleeper" was from Rode. I'm already familiar with many Rode mics too (I've still got one of the original NT-1's from way back when...) After having made up my mind on another mic, my sales rep at sweetwater suggested that I try the K2 Tube mic from Rode. Of course, if I didn't like it, he'd take it back. Uhh, he ain't getting it back!!!!!

I haven't been this impressed with a mic in a LONG time! The K2 should cost $4,000 - not $600! For solo voice - male or female in just about any flavor, you can get an amazing sound! I tried it in the studio the other night on 4 different vocalists - each of them loved it and I loved the sound too! What should have been a 1 hour session quickly turned into a 3.5 hour session since EVERYONE kept on wanting to use it. We tried it on all of the voices, acoustic guitar, amplified electric, kick drum, toms, room mic, marimba, clarinet, key jangles and even a flatulant (that guy's not allowed to have pizza in the studio any more!).

There is a magical sheen to this mic. Not brightness, not forced EQ sound all too common on lesser-grade "me too" mics that try to emulate classics. The sound of this mic simply makes things bigger, more lifelike and open.

I don't know how the Aussies are doing it for so damn cheap, but if you're looking for a tube mic or any LDC - BUY IT NOW before they figure out just how good of a mic they have and then jack it up to the same price as a M149. (Which was, consequently just bumped from my short list of mics to buy! I don't need it now with the purchase of the K2. Not to say they sound identical, cuz they don't! I just now have a great sounding tube condenser with switchable patterns which will work for so much - I don't need to drop the $4K+!)

Everything about this mic screams quality! The shockmount, although mostly plastic, is big, sturdy and quite effective. The cable is rugged and LONG! The body of the mic is finished as well as any German competitor and the CASE....The case could fit all your fishing gear and a game rifle with room to spare!

I'm thinking a couple more of these might be in order so I can:
Blumlein
Decca Tree
XY
AB
MS
or whatever the hell else I wanna do for the moment.

BTW - this mic will do JUST fine in an orchestral situation. It should be great for soloists (vocal or instrumental) or woodwinds/strings. For brass, it would not be my first choice, but I'm sure it would work. As for orchestral percussion - this might THE mic.

J.

I just recently purchased a rather famous variety of stereo ribbon microphone and after trying it on just about everything under the sun, I just couldn't dig it. As a matter of fact, on some things, I just downright hated it. Considering the $$$$, I was quite disappointed. Fortunately, I was able to recoup all my hard-earned dough and drop it on a couple other mics.

C'mon, Jeremy, what mic. Name names. And what preamp did you use with it? SF12? SF24?

hey Jeremy

I concurr on the k2. I bought one when they first came out and soon after I had to get a second one. Great on male & female vox and I've been recording congas and percussion with these mics a lot with great results. A real treasure for about 6C a piece (or a bit less if you look around- I think I paid around 550 for each of mine)

DavidSpearritt wrote:

I just recently purchased a rather famous variety of stereo ribbon microphone and after trying it on just about everything under the sun, I just couldn't dig it. As a matter of fact, on some things, I just downright hated it. Considering the $$$$, I was quite disappointed. Fortunately, I was able to recoup all my hard-earned dough and drop it on a couple other mics.

C'mon, Jeremy, what mic. Name names. And what preamp did you use with it? SF12? SF24?

Sorry, didn't mean to tease. I just recently got beaten up by a software manufacturer whose multi-thousand dollar product I compared to a $40 product from a partner of thiers.

Though, I would expect that the fine gentlemen who make these particular mics would gladly accept my opinion.

I will say:
Silly
For me, I replaced
1 stereo Mic with
2 mono Mics

I used True, Grace, Summit, Millennia, and Amek

They were smooth sounding, but IMO, to a fault.

J.

Jeremy, stop speaking in code. Spill the beans, man. What are you afraid of? ;)

Cucco wrote:
S illy
F or me, I replaced
1 stereo Mic with
2 mono Mics

deciphered?? :D

Indeed. But I am wondering about your conclusions. What sources did you record, what sort of room, and how close were you?

Well, I certainly don't mind going into those details...

Trial 1 -

Male voice through mic into Summit 2BA-221 in my studio.

Conclusion:
Unusable. The mic did not interface with any of my Summit Pres. The otherwise quiet pre was presented with a loud electrical hum (high frequency, not 60hz.) Trying to isolate the pre, the cable, the mic etc, I moved everything around. No matter what, I got this buzz. I increased the resistance (on this pre, it's variable) to its highest setting (10K ohms) and still problems.

Trial 2 -

Same male voice through mic into True Systems at around 45 dB of gain.

Conclusion:
Very usable. Sound was full and smooth. This got me excited, I REALLY liked it on this one instance.

Trial 3 -

Light picked dreadnaught through mic in blumelein configuration through Grace preamps and gain at ~ 50dB. Placement altered to get best sound where possible - ended up only about 10" away.

Conclusion:
Sound was unclear. Warm - yes, full - yes but the articulations were virtually non-existent. The whole sound was, to my ears, dull.

Trial 4 -

Female vocal through Amek 9098

Conclusion:

Too dark for use. Chose Gefell 930 instead.

Trial 5 -

Symphony orchestra with mic as main blumlein pair and Schoeps CMC6 MK2s as outriggers. First and ultimately patched through my Trues. However, to get a different sound, I patched through the house Millennias. (Which, btw, is another topic. The new Millennias sound AMAZING. I like them FAR better than previous versions - solid state HV3D - bass was more realistic but still characteristically full.)

Conclusion:

Tried numerous placements and heights. Ultimately, the only one I could get even remotely satisfied with was, as the cute and funny conductor put it, up her rear. The mic wound up having to be right up on the orchestra or I picked up way too much hall and not enough orchestra. The conductor also picked this mic as her least favorite as she stated it made the orchestra sound distant due to the lack of presence in the higher frequencies.

I tried it on a few other things too without much luck.

I know, many of you will think I'm insane on this one, I just really couldn't dig this mic. I wanted to - really badly! IMO, if it did satisfy me, I would have considered this mic to be a sort of holy grail. Instead of a multi-pattern mic, which by its nature is a compromise, you get a real multi-pattern mic by the nature of its design.

Ultimately, I returned to the Beyer M130 b/c I'm familiar with it, I like it and the price is right. I wouldn't use it for an orchestra (well, I might, if I get a second one and if it were the right orchestra) as it sounds a little dark also. But, considering the price difference, the 130 is a GREAT vocal mic for live and studio, it's great on brass, percussion, woodwinds, strings - well, I guess that's everything...

Seriously though - the M130 is in my comfort zone both pricewise and soundwise. The other mic was outside of my comfort zone for the sound which in turn made me uncomfortable with the price. I'm sure if I took more time with it and started to better educate myself with it, I could have made it do a lot of what I wanted - I just don't have the luxury of that time right now.

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks??

J. 8-)

Rode K2

Hi Jeremy,

Interested in your comparison of a Gefell 930 with a Rode K2 after your positively evangelical experience withe the Rode. I've just convinced a studio I work at to sell a bunch of Rode's (NT 1000's, NT-2's and NT2000) in order to get one decent LDC such as the Gefell 930. Last thing I thought I'd be doing was pondering another Rode but your recent post has got me thinking . . . especially since being a local they're so affordable. My main objection to even demoing a K2 was that it shared the same capsule as the NT2000 which I find quite unremarkable. Rode have definately toned down their hyped top-end along the way but in the case of the NT2000 all that is left IMO is a kind of smeared midrange and tubby lows. My primary application is male and female vocals.

cheers

Scott

The Rodents certainly get a panning (sic) here.
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/7346/9867/?SQ=cfe5c27ee472c472a92ef4275a7c07e6

I just dunno who to believe. :twisted:

Well, if Tony Falkner likes the NT5's, then they can't be all bad.
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/7926/0/32/9867/?SQ=0c7847893623619daa6dbd0d2d6afc61

Re: Rode K2

clambaker wrote: Hi Jeremy,

Interested in your comparison of a Gefell 930 with a Rode K2 after your positively evangelical experience withe the Rode. I've just convinced a studio I work at to sell a bunch of Rode's (NT 1000's, NT-2's and NT2000) in order to get one decent LDC such as the Gefell 930. Last thing I thought I'd be doing was pondering another Rode but your recent post has got me thinking . . . especially since being a local they're so affordable. My main objection to even demoing a K2 was that it shared the same capsule as the NT2000 which I find quite unremarkable. Rode have definately toned down their hyped top-end along the way but in the case of the NT2000 all that is left IMO is a kind of smeared midrange and tubby lows. My primary application is male and female vocals.

cheers

Scott

The Rode and the Gefell are different beasts. Both are useful in numerous scenarios but I find the Gefell to be far more neutral (as that's what it's designed for.) The Rode imparts a flavor - rich mids with a super clean high. If it seems too bright on female vocals (in card mode) drop it down below her chin and aim it back up - also back the polar pattern down to somewhere between card and omni. Both of these things soften the otherwise present high-range.

In any case, both are fantastic mics and if possible, one should own both. It's just that you can buy 2 of the Rodes for the price of one of the Gefells.

J.

For what it's worth, I just heard the RODE NT 4 on a Baroque chamber ensemble, in a fairly informal, "living room" type recording.

I was impressed enough to consider a trade with the guy...I've got some stuff piled up that he wants (power amps, etc.) and he's looking to sell his own NT4, since his employer just bought another one. Aside from the "Star-Trek Medical tool" look to it, I might give it a try on a few things. 8-)

I would go for these for souh..

Hey guys well i have been using these mics alot and definitly i m down with these most of the time..

Pair of Neuman TLM 103 and U87...for over heads..and other stereo recordings...
PLus i record sometimes my acoustic guitars with the BULMLein technique using Rode NT2000 they sound amazing..

SM-57s my fav...
ok this technique i came across by reading so much materials and listning to some senior engineers... its like to find the sweet spot on the snare...for the best miking position just put your hand on top of snare so that it barely touches it... and start hitting snare as hard as possible try to tell the drummer to do that because he does know the right way probably the way he plays.... now you move your hand over the snare after every hit you will feel air pushing towards your hand...the place where there is maximum preasure thats the sweet spot.. i tried this and i was amazed by the result i did the same thing for toms too...
and for my kick i most of the time use a low singal tone gated and triggered from the kick track..that sound awsome too some nice bottom end for the kick...
well i may not know much about live recordings i just like to share thigns no matter how much i know...may be if m wrong in some cases atleast i can get the correction thats wht i come to this forum its helping me alot to improve myself..and everyother day my skills are getting better

Every other day? Nice! I like your schedule... 8-)

I'm trying out a Pacifica - the stereo mic pre from A-Designs Audio.

I see Ben is already quoted on record about this wonderful pair of pre's in one box. Anyone else tried this unit and any thoughts?

I do classical location recording and acoustic recording here in Heidelberg Germany(US Army soldier)...and I have to say the DAV BG-1 is just an AMAZING pre.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec03/articles/davelectronicsbg1.htm

680 bucks for 2 channels of world class sound...

Mics are Gefell M930s(MG is my favorite company by far). AKG C426B(soon to be SPAUdio modded) and Schoeps CMC6/MK2S,MK4.

DAV BG1...awesome

Preamp to die for ? ... what ?

I don't know for sure when it comes to mic preamps.

But there is no difference between audio-power-amps.
(This has been tested many times and there were never any differences)

No there can be no differences between mic preamps (valves included).
The only factor (and of course very important) is noise.

If you feel you have to believe in something try Jesus Christ.

/Goran Sweden

I really love my Buzz Audio SSA1.1
Super clean and quiet. Man, I plug in a pair B&K 4007's, open the gain right up, throw on some cans and all I get is ambiant sounds..... no mic or preamp hiss... just a gorgeous true representation of life!

Really looking forward to using it on a brass band I'm recording next month.

goran wrote: Preamp to die for ? ... what ?

I don't know for sure when it comes to mic preamps.

But there is no difference between audio-power-amps.
(This has been tested many times and there were never any differences)

No there can be no differences between mic preamps (valves included).
The only factor (and of course very important) is noise.

If you feel you have to believe in something try Jesus Christ.

/Goran Sweden

Well, Goran...religion aside, I think you're sadly mistaken.

First, I have heard on NO tests which prove that power amplifiers are the same. Furthermore, this assertion is absurd. This would imply that I could make a power amplifier out of budget radio shack parts and find it to be as clean and pure as an Audio Note... A tad odd. Perhaps you could point us to one of these studies. I would love to see it.

Furthermore, to insinuate that microphone preamplifiers are also identical is again, plainly absurd. Perhaps you could educate everyone in the audio industry and they can stop wasting their hard-earned money on John Hardy stuff and stick with Behringer. After all, it MUST sound the same....

:-?

Cucco,

I was reading everything about this a long time ago. I can not remember any tests now.
But the fact is that all those tests have convinced rational people that there is absolutely no difference between "well constructed, non-clipping and non-EQed" power amps (it is in fact very hard to make an amp that sounds different). I have come across two very cheep stereo-radios with CD-player (since then) that I could suspect had some audiable dist. I measuerd on one of these and the transient distortin was in fact severe.

I once (upon a time) also made a blind A/B test with a stereo magasine reviewer. We listened to two power amps (both mono bloc class A non-push-pull (wonderful sound) one big one small both constructed and built by me).

He was absolutely convinced that he could hear a difference. Of course the sound was quite different when we know which one we were listening to. But in the blint test all differences dissapeared.

There has been many tests compairing vale amps with non-valve amps. The only difference in sound is implicit EQ-ing. When the valve out imp is high. And this "good-dist" do not exist.

Look here (the debate is still going on):
http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/

Of course we could put religion aside but not placebo.

I am fully convinced that a Behriner sounds as good as anything else. But there may be a difference in noise. The one and only Quality factor of mic amps.

/Goran Sweden

Wow! So the only difference between preamps is noise??

That's odd. So, if you were to split a mic signal to two amps, gain match them and then flip the phase on either of them, all that would remain would be a noise print? My personal experiences tell me very much otherwise.

Now, the "EQ-ing" to which you refer may or may not be intentional. In other words, using higher quality parts will yield a more euphonic midrange for example. Is this your definition of "EQing?" If so, than EVERY product on the planet has some degree of eq-ing. THAT is what makes the difference.

Here are, in my experience, things that make a difference in the sound of an amplifier (microphone or power):

Recovery rate - a slow amp can sound dull or lifeless. This isn't necessarily a BAD thing. Sometimes, you are looking for that kind of sound

Frequency response. Let's face it, not all circuits can handle high-bandwidth, some can't even handle normal bandwidth. An amp which allows the entire signal and its harmonics through is obviously going to sound more realistic

Distortion (NO, not just another word for noise). There are even harmonic distortions, odd-harmonic distortions, linear and non-linear distortions. None of these have to do with noise, they simply have to deal with the NATURAL reproduction of sound as ALL noise/sound/music, even in nature, creates distortions.

Noise - Yup, noise.

All of these different flavors (and then some) add up to the differences between brand A and brand B amplifiers.

Just a side note - I have two multichannel amplifiers in my home theater.

1 - Rotel RMB1075
2 - HK PA5800

I have done 3 different blind tests in the past to see which I prefer as my main channels (front 3) amplifier and EVERY time, I was able to pick out the sound of the Rotel.

All three times, the sound was amplitude matched using my trusty Radio Shack SPL meter and two seperate but identical volume control premplifiers.

J.

At the mastering facility I work at, we design and build our own equipment. That equipment which we cannot build we purchase and modify to our own standards. The purpose of this exercise is to improve sonic quality.

To prove to ourselves that we are indeed making improvements, we conduct blind listening test. It is the exception when there is no sonic change (good or bad) during these tests. There are times when changes are so close that we feel we may be fooling ourselves. In these situations I switch to testing whether the listener can, at least, consistently identify A versus B. If the listener can accurately identify A, say, 19 times out of 20, then I feel confident that there is a legitimate perceivable difference.

The claim that power amps or mic-pres sound the same as a general rule is absurd.

Cucco, Zilla

The problem here is that

if you believe in and do hear differences that are not real

your judgement about real things like different mixes and different
recording methods becomes invalid. :(

/Goran Sweden

Wow...that is one of the most arrogant and ignorant statements I've seen in quite some time. I won't even jump in about the insult to Zilla, he can handle himself. But I have to tell you, it's always easier to sit here and tell people that there's no difference without any proof.

I question your integrity and your ability to hear if you in fact believe that there are no differences in mic pres or amplifiers in general. The fact is, there are MEASURABLE differences - as in ~SCIENTIFIC~ it's not a matter of opinion.

You can read the output of amps or preamps actually validating the output of electrons and see that one piece differs from another. This is so simple to do, I bet even you could do it. Simply split your favorite mic to 2 different pres. Level match them as closely as possible. If you flip the phase, according to you, al you will hear is the noise differential. This is in fact quite UNTRUE.

So, instead of insulting members of this board and others all over the world citing only a debate held by a magazine reviewer and a forum regular poster, why don't you try to bring some science and knowledge to the table? You'll come off looking less like a jackass and more like an intelligent informed person.

Just my $.02

goran wrote: ....But there is no difference between audio-power-amps.
(This has been tested many times and there were never any differences)

No there can be no differences between mic preamps (valves included).
The only factor (and of course very important) is noise....

Goran- If you don't understand the basic principles of logic, it's a bad idea to apply them to science.

You start out with a statement that (tacitly) makes three universal assertions about audio-power-amps: EVERY listener will be unable to distinguish between ANY pair of audio amps playing ANY program material. It is physically impossible to actually prove this. The best you can ever do is show that SOME listeners were unable to distinguish between SOME pairs of audio amps playing CERTAIN program materials. Now, if the experiments are large and careful enough, it is possible that they would make the universal statement plausible, but they can never offer conclusive proof. (On the other hand, all it takes is one listener with "golden ears" and your assertion is garbage.)

So you start with a rather vast overstatement and then compound it by extrapolating the results to (a) a different kind of amplifier which handles (b) completely different types of program material (raw uncompressed mic inputs). You then insult people who disagree with your conclusions.

Bad logic, bad science, bad manners: you've hit the trifecta.

BobRogers wrote:
You start out with a statement that (tacitly) makes three universal assertions about audio-power-amps: EVERY listener will be unable to distinguish between ANY pair of audio amps playing ANY program material. It is physically impossible to actually prove this. The best you can ever do is show that SOME listeners were unable to distinguish between SOME pairs of audio amps playing CERTAIN program materials. Now, if the experiments are large and careful enough, it is possible that they would make the universal statement plausible, but they can never offer conclusive proof. (On the other hand, all it takes is one listener with "golden ears" and your assertion is garbage.)

So you start with a rather vast overstatement and then compound it by extrapolating the results to (a) a different kind of amplifier which handles (b) completely different types of program material (raw uncompressed mic inputs). You then insult people who disagree with your conclusions.

Being a statistician and statistical consultant by profession (only a location recordist as a hobby), I can offer complete concurrence with everything Bob states above.

BTW, were you aware all microphones are identical, too? :lol:

Mike

I'm actually enjoying this wacky turn of events. WHO is this goran person, really? Someone in disguise yanking our collective chain? (As usual, there's no information at all listed on this new user's profile....no website, no contact info, nada.)

Seems like someone with such a definitive, sweeping opinion on such a major topic would have a few credentials under his/her belt to back up such amazing claims.

Let's have it, Goran, what puts YOU in a position to make statements like this, with little more than "I forget exactly when, but I remember reading a survey about it all...."

Who knew we could have been building everything we need with parts off the shelf at Radio Shack, eh????

gee....all I hear now is crickets and tumbleweeds.....What happened to our "Authority" on this subject???

It was looking to be SOOOO much fun. :cry:

:twisted:

And he ( ? ) claims to be from Sweden as well. I´d like to a have a few words with the person eye to eye. It might be only a troll though.

Gunnar

I am not sure why everybody is getting excited. None of Goran's posts contain insulting language. He is just expressing a contrary opinion based on his own experiences. The style in which his argument [in english] is presented may be flawed and offend rules for good reasoning, but is not personally insulting.

It would be easy to test.

1.)
You choose 1 mic and 2 mic preamps (a Behringer and another high end one).

2.)
You record something from a speaker (so you can repeat it) first with the first amp then with the second mic preamp.

3.)
Now we have two files.

4.)
Let people download these files and decide.

5.)
If the test is to be conclusive everything has to be done very (very) properly. Please cosult an audio professional.

If you remember I said in my first post that threre was no difference between "well constructed" poweramps. I was not sure about mic preamps.
But I don't believe in such differences. I don't think that there could be any interactions with the mic. But maybe with a transformer coupled one (no !).

It would be very fun indeed if there was.

Then you have to publish this in JAES.

/Göran Sweden
( Göran in Sweden = George : a fighter for the truth) :wink:

goran wrote: It would be easy to test.

Absolutely false. You cannot prove the non-existence of an effect. Sorry, but that is, scientifically, the end of the discussion. Anything else is just jibberish or (misinformed) opinion.

Mike

hughesmr,

I was hoping for a positive result.

/Göran Sweden

goran wrote: ...choose 1 mic and 2 mic preamps...record something from a speaker (so you can repeat it).

In developing the recording system for Straight Ahead Records, I performed tests just as you described. Positioning and gain levels where carefully maintained. I can report to you that almost every change we made created a detectable difference in the recorded files. Differences which a group of engineers could reliably and repeatably identify in blind tests.

goran wrote:
( Göran in Sweden = George : a fighter for the truth)

Now, I might have an agenda or I might not. I could be lying or I might be telling the truth. It would appear that your truth is that there is no difference between "quality" mic-pre's, but I don't think your truth is worth fighting over.