How about that ! ;)
Any thoughts ?
Tags
Comments
Sean G, post: 440908, member: 49362 wrote: You forgot a shower t
Sean G, post: 440908, member: 49362 wrote: You forgot a shower too
Fortunately they haven't commercialized smellevision. At least the guy can hear.
The comparison of the two recordings is pretty useless. The way to compare is to record through a split into both interfaces. The clocks won't quite match but it would be more informative than two different recordings. Do a basic mix with one set of files then swap them out for the other set of files. You'd have to normalize all the files, perhaps set them all to peak at -12dBFS.
Sean G, post: 440911, member: 49362 wrote: Now I wish I had a fe
Sean G, post: 440911, member: 49362 wrote: Now I wish I had a few more.
I got eight ISAs (1x ISA428 and 2 ISA Two) and I've been thinking about the ISA 220 to replace one of my 2 UA LA-610..
That's how much I love them !! ;)
Don't get me wrong, I love the LA-610 and the 4-710 I have. But they need very cautious gain staging to avoid saturation (which is what we sometime want so they are nice to have)
On the other hand, it's very difficult to screw the sound with the ISAs. I could have 2 x 828 and 1 x 220 and be happy !
My god I can't imagine what it would be with Millennias and/or Graces...
I've long maintained that those who say that "preamps don't matt
I've long maintained that those who say that "preamps don't matter" have never had the chance to really A/B a nice pre with an "okay" pre.
Having used my share of both, I can say it's not always a definitive and immediate obvious difference, ( although sometimes it certainly is immediately apparent) but that difference really comes into play when you start adding multiple tracks through the same preamp(s), or when the preamps are pushed. Cheaper pres breakup, and get noisy as the gain is increased, where high quality pres can actually sound better as they are pushed, and are known for their whisper-silent nature, even at higher gain levels.
The ISA series of preamps are great sounding models; built upon the specs of the original 110 channel module for the famous and highly respected Forte' and Studio consoles. According to the engineers who were lucky enough to actually get to record and mix on the limited number of those consoles made, Focusrite hit it out of the park with the sound of those desks. The Lundhal LL1538 XFO's that were used in the 110 preamps played a part in this sound, and became sought after on their own as well. I've never had the luxury of mixing on a Focusrite console, but I do have an ADK pre with "pop and swap" ability, allowing me to remove and replace various transformers known for their quality and character of sound - and the Lundhal 1538 is one of my go-to faves. Warm, smooth, silky and punchy...
There's nothing that says that you can't do good work and get "decent" results with a cheaper pre; something like a budget level Presonus or Focusrite, (or even a Behringer), because you can.
But, for the quality that really separates the "average" sounding mixes from those that stand out as obviously pro, then the quality of the mics and preamps does matter, (and for digital recording, a good converter is also a must) if you want to turn out the same quality of sound that pro studios do.
There's a reason that the big studios aren't using gear made by Behringer or Tascam; believe me, if they could get the same quality out of those pieces that they do with the high caliber gear they have, they would - because if they could, they could save themselves multiple thousands of dollars, and being in business means cutting outlay cost corners whenever you can, ( hopefully wherever it isn't obvious that you've done so), and turning as high of a profit as possible at the same time.
No... the reason they choose to use the high quality gear is because it DOES make a big difference in the quality of the final product, and the final product in that case is the sound that they ultimately are able to provide. ;)
IMHO of course.
d.
I'm glad transformers were mentioned. They are to preamps what p
I'm glad transformers were mentioned. They are to preamps what preamps are to mics, a fundamental contributor to audio quality. One of my greatest flea market scores was a hand built dual channel direct box with a pair of 70s Reichenbach transformers (still available from Cinemag). I haven't used it a lot but it always sounds sweet. I like it on my AT822 mic that has unbalanced 1/4" output, for feeding long XLR runs.
DonnyThompson, post: 440925, member: 46114 wrote: There's nothin
DonnyThompson, post: 440925, member: 46114 wrote: There's nothing that says that you can't do good work and get "decent" results with a cheaper pre; something like a budget level Presonus or Focusrite, (or even a Behringer), because you can.
But, for the quality that really separates the "average" sounding mixes from those that stand out as obviously pro, then the quality of the mics and preamps does matter, (and for digital recording, a good converter is also a must) if you want to turn out the same quality of sound that pro studios do.
I agree, you can get decent results with some (not all) of the better prosumer stuff these days.
The built in DuoPre pre amps in my Allen & Heath Zed12FX are not bad for the price point, neither are the XMAX pre amps in my 1818vsl interface for that matter...they get the job done much better than other pre amp options targeted to the home / project studio market. The Eureka channel strip I have also is good value for money for a transformer coupled pre with added EQ & compressor for how it sounds.
For me making the jump to the ISA and hearing it for the first time..."that extra 10%" if you could call it that, the difference between the prosumer level pres and the higher calibre pres, well when you hear it, you get it. Its like a light-bulb moment.
IMO its like the difference between a Hyundai and a Ferrari...both will get you from A to B along the same road on four wheels, but you'll fly under the radar unnoticed in the Hyundai whereas you are going to turn some heads in the Ferrari. Theres' just a better quality engine under the bonnet with those Lundahl transformers.
And that can be dangerous for your bank balance...because you suddenly start to look differently at those lesser pre amps that have been your ol' faithfuls, your trusted Hyundai's...up to now blissfully unaware of their shortcomings whilst they were getting the job done, getting you from A to B up to the point where you slid your backside into those leather race seats of that Ferrari pre amp. Now you then start looking at those old pre amps with a raised eyebrow and a sense of suspicion...questioning whether you will ever look at them the same way again now you have a taste of that hand-stiched Italian leather...how could anyone ever see you drive down the street again in that old Hyundai now you have been running around town in that flash new Ferrari?....
And before you know it, your having thoughts of how not just one, but a few of those nice shiny Ferrari's will look in your garage...and thats dangerous to your wallet.;)
Sean G, post: 440936, member: 49362 wrote: the difference betwee
Sean G, post: 440936, member: 49362 wrote: the difference between the prosumer level pres and the higher calibre pres, well when you hear it, you get it. Its like a light-bulb moment.
I had the same experience with my first ISA Two unit. With every new highend preamp I got, I would re-evaluate all my mics. Boy, my jaw droped when I heard the sm57 on them...
Sean G, post: 440936, member: 49362 wrote: you then start looking at those old pre amps with a raised eyebrow and a sense of suspicion
I lived the exact same thing going from an old mixer with Delta cards, to a saffire 56 interface with an octopre, to a RME FF800 with my current ISA / UA preamps.
I can agree that I was able to record in the past and get good results. But today, getting good results is WAY easier ! That's the thing, you get there faster with less effort !
If I compare EQs I used then and now.. it's a world of differences. I did vocal tracking yesterday; none of my EQ changes were more than 3db !!
pcrecord, post: 440939, member: 46460 wrote: I lived the exact s
pcrecord, post: 440939, member: 46460 wrote: I lived the exact same thing going from an old mixer with Delta cards, to a saffire 56 interface with an octopre, to a RME FF800 with my current ISA / UA preamps.
I can agree that I was able to record in the past and get good results. But today, getting good results is WAY easier ! That's the thing, you get there faster with less effort !
If I compare EQs I used then and now.. it's a world of differences. I did vocal tracking yesterday; none of my EQ changes were more than 3db !!
I agree with you there Marco...the quality of the recorded material is much better sonically and there is less to do to try and shape it.
I don't really know how you can have the opinion that preamps do
I don't really know how you can have the opinion that preamps don't matter, if you have any exposure to a professional studio/and or different preamps.
The differences, imo, are undeniable.
Unless they are thinking it's placebo. After you hear enough of them, you know it's not placebo.
Richard Clark had a $1ok challenge, to prove that with amplifiers (no preamp, just the amp section), a clean watt, is a clean watt. Take anything superfluous out of the path, and the $100 amp sounds the same, so long as it remains unclipped, as the $1,000 amplifier. To my knowledge, nobody ever won, and in my opinion the challenge was set up fairly. People could not tell the difference. Even with tube amps, he would just add a resistor to mimic the distortion and people couldn't tell the difference (iirc, and I think I do). It was a very heated topic for a long time.
My point is, this guy who was pretty influential in certain parts of the audio world, never made such an assertion with preamps. Never. If I could upgrade anything I have to a significantly higher status, it would be my preamp.
there was a guy named Julian Hirsch who used to say that all amp
there was a guy named Julian Hirsch who used to say that all amplifiers sound the same. some have "ears" and some don't. some people can hear the difference others don't. guitar players know better. the difference between a Fender and a Marshall are undeniable. it's the same with pre amps and i agree that nothing is more critical than the mic / pre amp combination. years ago, Ethan Winer tried to argue here that a table top Mackie mixer was as good as anything else. lol! that was when i began to question everything he says. obviously, he can't hear very well.
this is the problem with self publishing and the "anyone can acc
this is the problem with self publishing and the "anyone can access the internet" world we live in. any idiot can publish stupidity and be taken seriously. much of what i have written in past years bears the proof ..... lol! so even this post should be viewed with skepticism. what the hell do i know? it's mostly opinion.
here's my story. i grew up on semi pro gear, Tapco / Biamp / Teac-Tascam / Mackies and at the start i was determined that i was going to produce recordings that would stand up to records made by the "big kids". my vision was someone would come to me and say, "This sounds as good as anything recorded in a pro studio." guess what? it never happened. and i gotta tell you, the first time i sat down at a large format console and began to tweak a drum set for tracking i said to my self, " Oh ........ now i get it!" that was a life changing moment that spurred me on to find and purchase an MCI JH-636.
pay attention to the caveats contained within the O/P's remarks ........ as long as you don't drive it too hard .... or, better amps have lower noise or when used specifically to raise the level ..... and this ...... when used within there intended gain structure and design limits ........ that' a pretty restrictive criterion that has little relevance in the real world of making records. also to be considered is the cumulative effect of many tracks at mix. in my experience, it takes high volt rails to make great audio. regardless of what the manufactures claims, until you get to +/- 16 volts or higher, it's a toy. one particular p.o.s. with a 9 volt wall wart power supply comes to mind.
last, testing is a difficult process. so much can change when performing these comparisons. mic placement, performance, air pressure and temperature, (it makes a difference) just to mention a few. bottom line to me is if all this crud was true, why are people still using Neves and API's (etc.) instead of Mackie or Crap-in- gher gear?
i see most of this as marketing. SOS sells ads. i will bet the farm Yamaha, Mackie, Turd-in-gher, ART and the like spend more on ads than a handful of boutique pre manufacturers do. no one is buying ads for vintage 1073's or 1081's. anyone who publishes advertising is compromised imo and therefore anything they say is to be taken with a grain of salt.
Kurt Foster, post: 441065, member: 7836 wrote: Ethan Winer tried
Kurt Foster, post: 441065, member: 7836 wrote: Ethan Winer tried to argue here that a table top Mackie mixer was as good as anything else. lol! that was when i began to question everything he says. obviously, he can't hear very well.
(y)
Kurt Foster, post: 441073, member: 7836 wrote: this is the problem with self publishing and the "anyone can access the internet" world we live in. any idiot can publish stupidity and be taken seriously. much of what i have written in past years bears the proof ..... lol! so even this post should be viewed with skepticism. what the hell do i know? it's mostly opinion
+1 for myself as well.
Kurt Foster, post: 441073, member: 7836 wrote: pay attention to the caveats contained within the O/P's remarks ........ as long as you don't drive it too hard .... or, better amps have lower noise or when used specifically to raise the level ..... and this ...... when used within there intended gain structure and design limits ........ that' a pretty restrictive criterion that has little relevance in the real world of making records. also to be considered is the cumulative effect of many tracks at mix. in my experience, it takes high volt rails to make great audio. regardless of what the manufactures claims, until you get to +/- 16 volts or higher, it's a toy. one particular p.o.s. with a 9 volt wall wart power supply comes to mind.
(y)
Kurt Foster, post: 441073, member: 7836 wrote: i see most of this as marketing. SOS sells ads. i will bet the farm Yamaha, Mackie, Turd-in-gher, ART and the like spend more on ads than a handful of boutique pre manufacturers do. no one is buying ads for vintage 1076's or 1081's. anyone who publishes advertising is compromised imo and therefore anything they say is to be taken with a grain of salt.
(y)
My life changing preamp is the Millennia M-2b. I will pass that to my children as a pre-amp to cherish.
Kurt Foster, post: 441073, member: 7836 wrote: regardless of wha
Kurt Foster, post: 441073, member: 7836 wrote: regardless of what the manufactures claims, until you get to +/- 16 volts or higher, it's a toy. one particular p.o.s. with a 9 volt wall wart power supply comes to mind.
No disrespect intended but Warm Audio is a great example of this. They pass of their WA12 with a stupid wall wart.
What these knockoffs do best is train to twist knobs and look for EQ's to help expand what you will never achieve.
audiokid, post: 441083, member: 1 wrote: No disrespect intended
audiokid, post: 441083, member: 1 wrote: No disrespect intended but Warm Audio is a great example of this. They pass of their WA12 with a stupid wall wart.
What these knockoffs do best is train to twist knobs and look for EQ's to help expand what you will never achieve.
to be fair, it is a 24 volt wall wart. and some of their stuff is not wall wart powered. nothing wrong with a wall wart if it provides plenty of volts. my JLM TMP 8 has a wall wart and it's killer. but the ability to run on 9 volts and no concern to the polarity says to me "junk".
re edited: Kurt Foster, post: 441085, member: 7836 wrote: to be
re edited:
Kurt Foster, post: 441085, member: 7836 wrote: to be fair, it is a 24 volt wall wart. and some of their stuff is not wall wart powered. nothing wrong with a wall wart if it provides plenty of volts. my JLM TMP 8 has a wall wart and it's killer. but the ability to run on 9 volts and no concern to the polarity says to me "junk".
I agree, and suspect their Pultecs are a good buy but as you know,
Kurt Foster, post: 441073, member: 7836 wrote: as long as you don't drive it too hard .... or, better amps have lower noise or when used specifically to raise the level ..... and this ...... when used within there intended gain structure and design limits ........ that' a pretty restrictive criterion that has little relevance in the real world of making records. also to be considered is the cumulative effect of many tracks at mix. in my experience, it takes high volt rails to make great audio. regardless of what the manufactures claims, until you get to +/- 16 volts or higher, it's a toy. one particular p.o.s. with a 9 volt wall wart power supply comes to mind.
I had one and sold it because it was small sounding. That isn't a bad thing either. Which is also why I think most consoles and tape deck worked so well. Budget consoles may not have that big sound but at least they sound consistent.
Today, we have too many options to distract; send us looking in the wrong directions.
Related to preamps: My thoughts on consoles... when we track everything through a console, there is nothing that stands out as sonically wrong or mismatched. (High def mixed with low def or professionally tracked samples mixed with budget vocal tracks).
I am a firm believer, when we are consistent start to finish, audio mixes better. The correlation to this is all about sounding less tampered with. The realistic and welcoming sound of musicians all playing together at once. etc etc.
I know you get this Kurt so I'm not directing this at you or anyone. Of course we can use all sorts of things to create character. But pre-amps are the most important part of my chain.
I cannot deny my M-2b makes an SM58 sound wonderful. The same 58 track through example: a SS pre in a all-in one converter, the same results are pretty shallow.
I have no problem with something not living up to my specs but my point here is in relation to your comment about big rails.
I translate: less EQ = good preamp.
Big rails immediately ended my thinking an EQ will solve the inherent problems of poor designs. Once you use a top level preamp, .... :cool: it changes you. Its an instant.... oh yeah... that's how they get that sound.
audiokid, post: 441079, member: 1 wrote: My life changing preamp
audiokid, post: 441079, member: 1 wrote: My life changing preamp is the Millennia M-2b. I will pass that to my children as a pre-amp to cherish.
That's not doing my GAS any favours Chris !!! {Twitch twitch};)
audiokid, post: 441086, member: 1 wrote: Once you use a top level preamp, .... :cool: it changes you. Its an instant.... oh yeah... that's how they get that sound.
Yep, exactly how I felt when I tried my ISA for the first time...the light-bulb moment...when you suddenly get it...then you look at everything else of lesser quality with an air of suspicion from that time on.
In respect to the Warm Audio stuff, I have their version of the
In respect to the Warm Audio stuff, I have their version of the Pultec and its high voltage (we are on 240 volts here in Oz) and uses a standard IEC connector.
I don't mind it...you can really dial up the low-end without it sounding muddy and it has a nice tubey warmth about it.
The WA-76 uses a 24 volt power supply as Kurt indicated.
Re edited Sean G, post: 441089, member: 49362 wrote: In respect
Re edited
Sean G, post: 441089, member: 49362 wrote: In respect to the Warm Audio stuff, I have their version of the Pultec and its high voltage (we are on 240 volts here in Oz) and uses a standard IEC connector.
I don't mind it...you can really dial up the low-end without it sounding muddy and it has a nice tubey warmth about it.The WA-76 uses a 24 volt power supply as Kurt indicated.
I'm sure it is really nice. (y)
I'm thinking the big rails have more impact on pre-amps ability, voltage stability to keep up with the task regardless of what you throw at it. Which also include counterparts like EQ's drawing from the source which would be in a console workflow (everything sharing the power). Maybe Bos and friends could share some technical insight into this?
I have owned big rail EQ's and summing amps and although they sounded just beautiful. NOTE: I used to refer high end as huge but... my experience say's the benefit is more about sonic accuracy, transparency and non restricting, all which mean being unnoticed until you start turning knobs.... Then the true test is revealed. After that phase in my life... comes the test to what can be accomplished ITB and what I thought was helping OTB, was merely an illusion (support of purchase). But, there is also a part of gear that has all to do with being able to twist the real deal. So on that note, I love gear and the more the merrier. :love:
Never the less... All of what I learned to date could never have been accomplished quite so well without a second DAW. Using one to out do the other per say. Plug-ins vs hardware. Using one to play with gear and the other to see if I could do it all ITB.
The true test on how good gear is "for me"... I expect a hard bypass to show little notice its there. Cheap gear always has a big trade-off in bandwidth and what I refer to as smaller.
The best thing about my Neos and Dangerous Master consoles is having the ability to study gear, thus, realizing you really don't need it as much as good converters and preamps (besides the obvious acoustics, monitoring, mics etc etc). The best stuff I choose doesn't take all the size out of my chain.
There isn't much out there today that is worth what you can get ITB now. In my humble opinion, unless you actually do the tests to hear what outboard gear is really doing (cause and effect) , its easy to be distracted into thinking stuff is actually helping you. Meaning.... once ITB, stay ITB.
Mic(s)Preamp(s) first and foremost, then conversion, a few character pieces based on track counts (as always UA LA2A's, 1176's), Pultecs and Bricasti's are about all I would invest in today.
Don't go overboard equating plug-top (wall-wart) power supplies
Don't go overboard equating plug-top (wall-wart) power supplies with a lesser audio performance. In principle, it does not matter what voltage goes from the output of an external power supply into a piece of gear, as, these days, you can convert that voltage up or down to almost anything you like inside the unit. Naturally, there are practicalities governing the associated currents and the overall wattage, and there is the big problem of getting the system to meet EMC regulations.
Talking with my professional designer's hat on, I've produced quality designs that use internal +/-18V rails where the commissioning company insisted on having a (12V) plug-top external supply. There was no difference in the audio performance compared with fitting an internal mains supply.
I always have a wry smile when tracking through my API 3124+ pre-amp each time I remember not to plug mics that require high gain into channel 4, as that channel is next to the internal mains transformer, and hum is quite evident on the ch4 output at higher gains.
In general, however, what having an external supply does show is a lack of clear design management understanding of where the boundaries of quality lie, both the measureable qualities and the perceived ones. PC's picture of the Focusrite ISA box is an example of the quality boundary extending to the entire design - the innards were not meant to be seen by a potential purchaser; they are they way they are to create the quality performance that is recognised by the purchaser.
Some time ago I saw a TV programme about old clocks. There was a lovely 18th century bracket clock that had beautiful engraving on the front and also on the rear of all the metal surfaces that could be seen when you opened the back. However, until the clock was recently dismantled for cleaning, no-one had realised that the intricate engraving was on all the internal inside-facing surfaces as well, completely invisible to the owner. Why would the maker do this? Did it make the clock perform better? No, but it made the designer make a better clock.
Kurt Foster, post: 441065, member: 7836 wrote: there was a guy n
Kurt Foster, post: 441065, member: 7836 wrote: there was a guy named Julian Hirsch who used to say that all amplifiers sound the same. some have "ears" and some don't. some people can hear the difference others don't. guitar players know better. the difference between a Fender and a Marshall are undeniable. it's the same with pre amps and i agree that nothing is more critical than the mic / pre amp combination. years ago, Ethan Winer tried to argue here that a table top Mackie mixer was as good as anything else. lol! that was when i began to question everything he says. obviously, he can't hear very well.
No, no....not that kind of amp. I play a little guitar, so I understand exactly what you are talking about. We have a Marshall, a Fender, and my fav, a lil Mesa Boogie. But that's not what I'm talking about.
I must have phrased my point poorly. For what RC was saying, you MUST take crossovers out of the path, preamps, DA's etc, or make all that equal. When you do, the amps WILL sound the same. Not a guitar type amp, an AMP amp, like I used to have an Adcom GFA 500? I wish I never sold that one. I currently have a Yamaha 200w, I'd love to try a Mcintosh, or Krell...any car audio amp would qualify etc. There is about a decade's worth of argument on line, posted test results, a radio shack amp vs a Krell amp, and many a guy with "golden ears" picking the radio shack amp as the better amp 6 out of 10 times. I don't want to argue it here, the subject has been done to death. That being said, I never tried the challenge myself. Keep in mind, the challenge was not a bet. You didn't have to put up $10k to do it. If you could tell the amps apart, you could walk away with $10k. Nobody was ever able to do it.
The RC point is no preamp, no crossovers, no filters. Simply raw amplification, and make sure the signal remains unclipped, and people could not hear a difference. You can read all about it yourself, just search Richard Clark Amp Challenge. I was in that scene, when that was happening, it was quite the uproar. Reading as much as I have about it and seeing that no one could tell the difference, I'm satisfied. He asserts that a clean watt, is a clean watt. And, he put enough work into proving it (math, physics, endless tests with "golden ear" volunteers) that it seems to be the case. His point is more for knowledge than anything else. Because many amps have filters, crossovers, etc. In the case of guitar amps you have a driver difference to account for.
What RC is saying, is that if you remove those from the path, or make them all equal, you cannot hear a difference between the expensive amp and the cheapest one you can find. But he wasn't saying that "all amps sound the same." He was saying/proving, that "in just the amplification stage, an unclipped watt is an unclipped watt. It sounds the same." Or similar enough that people are not able to tell the difference. And a lot of big names said he was wrong, but they bellied up to the bar, and couldn't tell the difference.
My point, and RC's salient point, is that it's the quality of everything else, besides that "amp only" stage that matters, e.g. preamps.
Julian Hirsch, I know that name from somewhere. I don't want to look it up yet because I want to remember on my own. But I am not of the same opinion that you say he has. Nor is Richard Clark. Richard Clark's main point was that what makes a difference in the sound, is the preamps, D/A's, drivers.
I don't know if I'm making sense but it's a "if this is true, than this must be true" type of situation. We know that all amps do not sound the same. He proved that if you strip the superfluous stuff out of the path, the amps will sound the same, unclipped. It's been well documented, for decades.
Ergo, what makes the audible difference IS, all that other stuff. So, saying preamps don't matter...has basically already been proven false. There, I finally got my point out concisely. Only took me 7 paragraphs.
Now the ''All Amp sounds the same'' myth is exposed again !! ;)
Now the ''All Amp sounds the same'' myth is exposed again !! ;)
There will always be a mass of people who won't hear a difference between a sound and an other.
Some will think they hear a difference and fail a placebo test
But some very well trained audio engineer will in fact hear a difference. Will they choose the expensive over the cheap one, maybe not but they will hear the difference.
Of course It's all dependant on the source and on what speakers the tests are made.. some monitors will reveal more than others and you can trick many just by not offering a good resolution at the end...
audiokid, post: 441083, member: 1 wrote: No disrespect intended
audiokid, post: 441083, member: 1 wrote: No disrespect intended but Warm Audio is a great example of this. They pass of their WA12 with a stupid wall wart.
What these knockoffs do best is train to twist knobs and look for EQ's to help expand what you will never achieve.
I quickly had to look up wall wart. I don't think there's a cream available for that affliction.
pcrecord, post: 441100, member: 46460 wrote: It's all dependant
pcrecord, post: 441100, member: 46460 wrote: It's all dependant on the source and on what speakers the tests are made.. some monitors will reveal more than others and you can trick many just by not offering a good resolution at the end...
The challenge is there for you to read and interpret (within reason) as you like. But on a large scale, it seems you are thus far, misinformed as to the rules of the challenge.
My whole point was, it's the quality of all the other stuff that matters.
Boswell, post: 441095, member: 29034 wrote: Don't go overboard e
Boswell, post: 441095, member: 29034 wrote: Don't go overboard equating plug-top (wall-wart) power supplies with a lesser audio performance. In principle, it does not matter what voltage goes from the output of an external power supply into a piece of gear, as, these days, you can convert that voltage up or down to almost anything you like inside the unit. Naturally, there are practicalities governing the associated currents and the overall wattage, and there is the big problem of getting the system to meet EMC regulations.
Thanks for chiming in and clarifying that.
For fun I'll keep chatting opinions and speaking my thoughts on pre's (so we are still on pre's and wires lol :)
I've had quiet a few product over the last 4 decades that had wall warts, that are still working and do exactly what they were designed to do. But they are also noisy. Even the Neos and Dangerous Master use an external PSU so I suppose they use a type of wart lol (external PSU).
But the wire on both those gems looks to last decades if not a lifetime. They are also dead quiet.
But then again, the WA-12 is only around $400 or so, so I would hardly expect it to preform like an M-2b.
I also suspect it was the best way to keep hum away, being half rack and very affordable.
Point being, if we are comparing why some preamps simply sound better (I'm thinking the ones with bigger rails do in comparison to smaller rails), does the PSU and rails of the build have no significance to sound? If so, why is that? Sorry for what must sound like a very silly question but...why aren't all pre-amps using $28 wall warts?
http://www.ebay.ie/itm/291802357888
I'm pretty naive about electronics so I stick to what sounds right and really don't care a lot about the specs. If I need something, I simply find a way to get it. I usually don't buy hardware based on budget either.
There have been times in my life where I would have dropped $250,000 on a console, if I actually felt it was the direction I was going. I've never thought about the rails on anything really until Kurt Foster started talking about them. :)
Later to my surprise, my favorite pre's and consoles all have substantial PSU and "rails". Is this a coincident?
Being said, I generally buy because it must do what I need it to do. That could indeed include something with a tiny wall wart but I have to admit, the tiny wire on some of them is a seriously turn off for me. Being an old road musician, I hated them back then and still do today.
Here is the inside of the WA-12. I wonder how an SM-58 would compare through this vs the ISA PC shared?
After owning a few nice pres and hearing a difference, I would be perfectly happy with any pre that had the bigger rail sound like M-2b, Gordon, Hardy to name a few.. Any one of these would make me very happy. M-2b's are my go to pre for all studio work. But I am also not tracking drums so I am limiting myself , and share no opinion.
The open sound of an M-2b trumps everything else I've spent money on.
I find its easy to shrink audio down and to add character to most anything after the fact so my thoughts today are... for those who are at this for more than just a hobby... why start off using pre-amps that are already compromising your sound? Or if we all had the luxury of hearing to believe, maybe we are simply not aware of how significant the top level pre's sound? The difference to me is huge.
For years now I have been wondering why people are so caught up on mixing and matching so many types of preamps. When I first started RO back in the 90's, it was more about the console and mics. Today I really feel we are distracted by pre-amps that sound tinny and small. It seems to me, budget is creating an industry where we keep buying more crap to fix what we will never reach.
After hearing what a big rail pre does for example: a $75 sm58 ... the attitude you can add to them by simply adding something like an 1176 .... , nothing else even makes sense to me.
All this being said, I like Prism and Lavry pre/converter combo's. The simplicity of these pre/converter combo's make remote work simple, they sound "good enough" but still that 2 dimensional sound. If I had more time in life, hope for this industry and didn't mind hauling 100 lbs road racks, I would start off with 24 channels of M-2b's, then maybe add few other character pre's specific for reducing the sound which would most likely include SPL Premiums, Great River, "API, Neve flavours".
And finally, I can't help think what this OP would say about SM-58's before he figured out that pre-amps do make a difference. The ebay sales on Gearslutz would go through the roof if we all knew how good they really do sound lol..
Anyway, I'm not trying to sway or come off as buy the best or you'll suck... but since this is about pre-amps, if I was just getting started in this business, the first thing I would be telling my kids and friends... get the best pre you can right off the bat because that is really where it all starts and ends.
Inside a Gordon preamp.
IMO, and I could be wrong on this so I'm happy to be corrected b
IMO, and I could be wrong on this so I'm happy to be corrected by someone like Boswell who is far more versed on the subject than I (being our resident Guru on the subject), but it has always been my understanding that the manufacturers' main selling point for powering gear with an external PSU or "wall wart" as you guys like to call it, was to keep the noise down.
Read most reviews of any piece of gear powered as such and when they get to the part where they talk about voltage / power supply this seems to be the line most used for doing so.
I know this was the case in a few reviews that I read online regarding the Warm Audio WA-76.
Now I don't know how much of this is just spin or how much is actual fact...or how much cost plays a part of the equation , but I would think that cost would be up there as the major, if not driving factor as to why manufacturers build gear powered by low voltage PSUs' as opposed to high voltage rails.
Personally I tend to prefer my gear I how I prefer my cars....with plenty of power under the bonnet. ;)
one reason for wall warts is to help with noise. another is to m
one reason for wall warts is to help with noise. another is to make it easy to adapt to different voltages for different countries. another is that sometimes they can buy them from a supplier for less than they can build them. another is to make it easier to get IEC / UL approval. if the wall wart is approved already then they can skip the whole testing and approval procedure. nothing wrong with external power supplies as long as they deliver plenty of volts and amperes.
and while it's true you can always step up or down inside the device as Bos said, there's still no such thing as a free lunch. i'm pretty sure stepping up volts means you are stepping down amperes. it all about getting the device to run on as much energy as possible. EveAnna Manley once said, "Joules man, Joules!"
i could hold my hand about 6 inches above the surface of my JH-636 and feel the heat rising up off of it. never needed a heater for the C/R lol.
A good quality pre amp makes a world of difference. I like this
A good quality pre amp makes a world of difference.
I like this guys' videos, his Reaper videos are very informative...but whenever I see him I think of Elmer Fudd for some reason.
I recently picked up an ISA 220...I cannot look at my other pre amps the same again...and its leading to me thinking that its now time to now flip the others.