Generally I'd say that tube mic + tube preamp = mushy sound. There are going to be specific exceptions to that but in general terms that is my experience. My advice would be to not worry about "tube". Find the best microphone for YOUR voice/application. Then find a preamp that accentuates that voice/mic combo. If any or both of those end up being tube devices then great. Just my thoughts.

It is worth looking at the impedance of the mic and then try a few pre-amps where input impedance can be adjusted.
For some mics ( if not all ) it brings a great improvement n sound when coupled to a proper impedance input.

Otherwise, I am with Jack. Tube on tube can be a bit dull sounding. But this depends also on the quality of the equipment you choose. The solo 610 certainly is a nice pre, though. As ever: let your ears be the judge of that...

There's tubes and there's tubes. The best advice is to ignore all mention of tubes in audio. They get mentioned in advertising as a hook for guitarists. The UA 610 is a great preamp, but its closest competitors - preamps with similar sound characteristics - are solid state. Don't focus on the tubes. The tube amp / solid state divide in the guitar world does not mean anything in the audio world.

With that said, I might as well give a review of the tube mics and pres that I own. I have the Rode K2 and the Mojave MA-200. If you put them into a blind test with a bunch of other condensers and asked people to pick out the tube mics they might get the Rode, but I doubt they would pick out the MA-200. The Mojave is a very precise, crisp mic. The Rode is, well...lush if you like it, mushy if you don't. The only tube pre I have is the GT Brick. I rarely use if for vocals now, but I tried it with the K2 some time ago and did not like the combination. Still I would not generalize from that to other tube/tube combinations.

I should add that GC sells a lot of "tube" devices where the tube is not in the main amplification path. It basically acts as a stompbox to add [strike]distortion[/strike] warmth. Pairing two of those devices together might well be a bad thing. So based on the stuff he normally sells, the GC sales geek might have been giving a realist piece of advice.

TheJackAttack, post: 354523 wrote: Find the best microphone for YOUR voice/application. Then find a preamp that accentuates that voice/mic combo. If any or both of those end up being tube devices then great.

+1. The right mic is critical, and whether it has a tube or not shouldn't be the deciding factor. Mics, and to a lesser degree preamps, are custom fit devices. You can't just pick the "best" and depend on it being right for your application. You have to try a mic and use your ears to decide.

Let's face it, Frank Sinatra sang into a Neumann U 47 plugged into some tube microphone preamps designed and manufactured by RCA. Nothing mushy there. Nothing sophisticated there either. Just quality components designed to do the best job they were designed to do with the best components that were available at the time. Now everything is made to lower the bottom line. What's that tell you? A tube preamp today is not the RCA tube preamp from 1948. Neither is the microphone. When was the last time you saw a new VF14 in a microphone? When was the last time you saw a new tube preamp designed with a 12 or 6SJ7, metal envelope with an anode cap? 12AX7/12au7/12at7 are all great dual triode's but they are not necessarily the greatest tube for a microphone.

And in any piece of tube equipment you need to see that it has a 250 to 350 V DC plates supply if it is really amplifying anything. Anything less than that is not an amplifying tube but merely a saturation distortion creation device. Utilizing cheap op amp's as your main amplification circuits. Oh my? Isn't that what they call hybrid technology? You bet! It's also called recycling. Utilizing tubes that are not adequate enough for decent amplification but instead, making those crappy tubes do what crappy tubes do best, Peter out & distort everything. Saturate it until it has no dynamics.

The same goes true for the microphones that utilize tubes. Tubes either come from China or Russia these days. Those fine Telefunken & Rayovac tubes of yesteryear are gone forever. And every one of those damn tubes sounds different from the next. There is even less consistency today than there was 30 years ago with tubes. Sadly, they are fabulous if not quite esoteric devices to behold in their thermionic electron transferring capabilities. And like the rest of us around here sometimes they have a tendency to get gassy. Of course that's when they look really cool when they look really purple and sound really bad.

Quality design transistor circuits can also be available as class A designs. That simply means that the transistor is always working at full capacity even when nothing is going through it. A lot more heat & wasted power when class AB output circuits are just fine, slightly lower in noise and generally cooler. Input sections are still frequently class A whether they are utilizing bipolar or FET transistor inputs with or without an input transformer. And that's another very important factor here. That microphone input transformer. Yup. Sometimes IT IS THE SOUND OF THAT PREAMP that really isn't the preamp but the input and/or output transformer. You only get these in quality microphone preamps. Output transformers are less critical in their design in comparison to the ever so important microphone input transformer. Having adjustable input impedances is an interesting thought. I used to switch between some microphone output impedances when loading into 150 ohm microphone inputs. It provided different output levels and different changes in the timbre & character. Not something I couldn't live without and have. Yes, I could change the input strapping on the St. Ives input transformers on my Neve 3115's. But I don't. It's not necessary. Regardless of microphone technologies in use. Most of these preamps while they might indicate that they are wired for 150 ohms generally have a DC input resistance of 1500 ohms which really isn't loading down any microphones. That was the standard design criteria for most microphone inputs that we highly covet such as the API & Neve's.

There you go. You are now mtowning to a Motown mutha
Mx. Remy Ann David

I cringe every time this question is asked and some of the reason for the asking is 'some dude @ Guitarget said.......' Okay. Most of the 'dudes' at gitarget arent any more knowledgeable than the noobies who post of recording sites asking the questions that a true pro recording gear house could answer.....but unfortunately most of these places are gone simply because of gitarget and the like....eor.

Your answer is found in all of the posts on this thread. Use your ears. Tubes dont mean distortion in high-end audio unless there are certain build factors present....low voltage to the plates (thanks Remy) is only one but is the biggest thing you can look for and easiest to recognize.

So. Do you like the vocal sounds from the 40's an 50's? Tubes everywhere. 60's? A mix. 70's? Solid-state for the most part though the tube mics were still being used just not talked about ....80's? The lost era. Every record that sounded great took 6 months to make. 90's? Digital with tube mics.

So you'll really like the Solo UA. Its a good stripped down representative of high-end audio. Very strightforward and easy to use. It will amplify any mic to its potential and the rest is all about your skills.

I did some comparison after reading this the other day. I was slightly questioning my gear, but then Remy popped in and I went ya, that's right.

Before I had the opportunity to own some high end gear, I had no idea the difference it makes. How easy it is to mix in comparison to using middle of the road gear. I'm still miles away from some of you, but, I do stand by this... You simply can't understand how easy sound fits into a mix until you have real quality to work with. Lower end gear, you don't notice some things ( like good cable as I just realized) and you notice other things that fool you into thinking something is not really what it claims to be, because you can't truly hear it.. So many opinions are based on the missing of something else that really matters. All I can say is, wow! when you have really powerful pre-amps.

I did this the other night because I second guessed myself from this thread. I took a bunch of pre's and various LDC tube mics ( $500, $1000, $2500). I did some comparisons to see how clear they all sounded with SS and tube preamps. The tube pre's with the biggest transformers sound super clear with all the tube mics. So, I'm with Remy on that. The SS sounded really clear, but to me, they all lacked the fat warm and really clear/ spacious sound I am loving more and more these days.
The two that kicked ass where my Millennia M-2b and the ADL 600. Both these two pres are twice the size and weight as all the other tube preamps I have. Once I got the gains set... its just a dream to hear. I'm so spoiled and blessed to have these beasts in my studio. I don't need much more. I often wonder why people need so many preamps and mics for flavour. But, its obvoius I'm still learning but couldn't help but share what I think. Tube to tube sounds great to me because I like fat sounds and space. I write and am inspired by music with space. Its what works for me.

John Hardy has been popping around here, if you find this thread John, please share some of your thoughts on this topic. You use transparent transformer designs yes? I'd love to hear what you have to say?

I guess one reason why I have often answered this particular question in the manner I did, is because often the OP is not using great tube mic's and often as not, mediocre fake tube preamps as well. And I was too lazy to qualify the post. I don't include the UA610 in that rubbish bin but it seems to me too often something like that UA preamp might be combined with a Beh#@$ or MXL or other low end "tube" mic. Now I have used some of those cheap end mic's in the past and am not above using them in a pinch, but I also know how to not push them and hide their flaws.

Also, I really do find that too many folks are worried about having a mic they read about or "someone told them" about instead of finding the right mic for their voice. I'd love to have as many U47's and U87's (hell throw in some M49's too) as I have SM57/58's but that ain't ever gonna happen. Definitely the better my preamps get, the better all my microphones sound.

The transformer John Hardy uses is a Jensen JT-16-B, which works wonderfully well for the Jensen 990 op-amp he uses.

I use the Jensen JT-115K-E60 which is amazingly transparent for the FET (class A) based amplifier I designed. The difference between the two is basically the impedance ratio.

The JT-16-B is 150 ohm to 600 ohm where as the JT-115K-E60 is 15 ohm to 15k ohm. FETs have a much higher input impedance that the BJT based 990 op-amp.

The JT-115K-E60 is also very well suited for tube amp design....

Long story short the Jensen make nice extremely linear transformers. They come very close to the linearity achievable by solid state inputs ;)

As for the silly tubes vs transistors argument.... A good design is a good design... tube, fet or bjt it doesn't matter.

The transformer John Hardy uses is a Jensen JT-16-B, which works wonderfully well for the Jensen 990 op-amp he uses.

I use the Jensen JT-115K-E60 which is amazingly transparent for the FET (class A) based amplifier I designed. The difference between the two is basically the impedance ratio.

The JT-16-B is 150 ohm to 600 ohm where as the JT-115K-E60 is 15 ohm to 15k ohm. FETs have a much higher input impedance that the BJT based 990 op-amp.

Check the general specs of the JT-16-B vs. the JT-115K-E on the summary page at Jensen:

http://www.jensentransformers.com/mic_in.html

Basic laws of physics at work: The lower the impedance ratio of a mic input transformer, the better it performs. The trade-off is, you don't get as much voltage gain from the lower ratio transformer.

All of the Jensen mic input transformers will be the best they can be at their specific impedance ratio, because they are made by Jensen. They are all excellent, but the lower ratio models will perform at least somewhat better than the higher ratio models. Check the detailed specs by clicking on the model numbers.

Regarding the overall discussion here, I have not read the whole thing. But try everything and use what works best for you.

John Hardy

JWHardy, post: 354780 wrote: Check the general specs of the JT-16-B vs. the JT-115K-E on the summary page at Jensen:

http://www.jensentransformers.com/mic_in.html

Basic laws of physics at work: The lower the impedance ratio of a mic input transformer, the better it performs. The trade-off is, you don't get as much voltage gain from the lower ratio transformer.

All of the Jensen mic input transformers will be the best they can be at their specific impedance ratio, because they are made by Jensen. They are all excellent, but the lower ratio models will perform at least somewhat better than the higher ratio models. Check the detailed specs by clicking on the model numbers.

Regarding the overall discussion here, I have not read the whole thing. But try everything and use what works best for you.

John Hardy

THIS is why I'm here.

An old MCI/Sony with John Hardy mic pres does it for me.....well it used to.....sigh.

I've read that an SM7B and the UA610 solo makes a nice combo for male vocals....and I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on that combo or maybe one of the Mojave mics...(tube or FET models) with the solo preamp.
I know these aren't real high end but for the price range it might be good bang for the buck??

The SM 7B is simply a deluxe SM58. Now these are great vocal mics for male and/or female vocals. No it's not a condenser like sound. It's smooth, has great presence and being a dynamic it has a more limited bandwidth than a condenser. This limited bandwidth inherent in most dynamic microphones can actually be quite beneficial. And if SM58 & SM 7 microphones are good enough to cut lead vocals for Arrowsmith/Steve Tyler, U2/Bono & Michael Jackson, for their mega-platinum albums, chances are, it should work for you too. But if you WANT that condenser sound then you need a condenser microphone. If you want an even warmer and smoother sound you might consider one of the new inexpensive ribbons such as the Cascades & others. So you think these microphones "aren't real high end"? Oh but they are. They really are. Quite frequently, these microphones can make a vocal set better in a mix than their condenser brethren. Try it, you'll like it. You better like it!

Save some money and go with the 58 and an additional foam pop filter.
Mx. Remy Ann David

I enjoy the vocal sounds i get using a Peluso 2247le (VF14 tube) into a Universal Audio 6176 (tube pre). The impedance switch is critical, in deciding if you get a darker, older sound or a clearer more modern sound. Also hitting the join switch and recording the output of the 1176 section (even in bypass) will give the track some 'electric' hard-to-describe magic. Doesn't mean i don't get great results from a solid state mic like the Beyer mc834 into the Crane Song Spider (soild state as well). Really depends on the tonal characteristics of the instrument or vocal to begin with.

Over the years I have enjoyed using the Focusrite Blue series coupled with a Neumann U87 but nowadays I've been leaning towards the higher end ADK microphones. Their tube mics rock! I am going on the hunt for the ultimate pre set up (for me and my clients) in 2011. So I will definitely post some results. What I want to find out is...are there any no name (boutique or otherwise?) mic pre companies that are truly worth us paying close attention to. I have always prided myself in finding "new" gear that not everyone uses. I'm not the type of guy to jump at a name brand just because it's made by xyz because there is something that is always better around the horizon made by someone in the world maybe even on this very forum. I hope you guys can come up with some stuff that the writer of this post and I and everyone else for that matter can look into. I believe that what we do is a skill but it is also an art form! I'm not just an engineer, I'm an artist painting a canvass like Van Gogh or Da Vinci...this means that I must choose my instruments wisely and I'm hoping to do just that in 2011!

You'll have to be more specific. Are you looking for no name tube preamps? Decent ones are named and known for a reason. All the low middle end of the tube preamp spectrum are not particularly good. IMO of course.

Either ss or tube. I'm just tired of the typical stuff you see at GC or Sam Ash. And I know about Neve, SSL, Crane Song, Millennia etc What I'm looking for is virtually unknown pres that are great, either tube or ss. Do you have any suggestions?

While not unknown, I utilize primarily True Precision preamps. I have several of their units and have been happy with them. A little known company for you might be Black Lion Audio. They have a whole line of audio outboard that falls in the semi colored realm but seem to be quite solid. DAV Electronics get a lot of love at GS and a moderate amount here. I have not owned them personally so cannot comment on their overall quality but I lay it out there. Gordon is a very good name but may or may not be overpriced for what you get which is by all reports excellent. The Seventh Circle Audio kits make a very good option for folks that are handy but I'd guess you need at least four to make them a great deal price wise, else they are simply good preamps.

I don't recommend unkown or cheap tube preamps as I think most are less than desirable.

TheJackAttack, post: 358206 wrote: While not unknown, I utilize primarily True Precision preamps. I have several of their units and have been happy with them. A little known company for you might be Black Lion Audio. They have a whole line of audio outboard that falls in the semi colored realm but seem to be quite solid. DAV Electronics get a lot of love at GS and a moderate amount here. I have not owned them personally so cannot comment on their overall quality but I lay it out there. Gordon is a very good name but may or may not be overpriced for what you get which is by all reports excellent. The Seventh Circle Audio kits make a very good option for folks that are handy but I'd guess you need at least four to make them a great deal price wise, else they are simply good preamps.

I don't recommend unkown or cheap tube preamps as I think most are less than desirable.

I loved your reply! I had heard a while back about Black Lion and I actually heard a true pre that drove me nuts a few years ago! Thank you for reminding me about them and introducing me to some "new" ones! I hope that once I begin to pick the pres that I will end up with that you will read the threads I post about my progress! Thanks again mate!

CHEERS!

The True Precision 8 is great but I also have a P2Analog which has a very nice feature. It has a phase display. Both units have in built M/S decoders. I only wish the P2Analog came in a ribbon variant. Not for more gain as both units have plenty for my Royer ribbons. I'm just terribly paranoid that some day the P48 will get turned on while I'm performing on stage during dual duty days. Should it happen? No but Murphy is a slippery bastage.

TheJackAttack, post: 358240 wrote: The True Precision 8 is great but I also have a P2Analog which has a very nice feature. It has a phase display. Both units have in built M/S decoders. I only wish the P2Analog came in a ribbon variant. Not for more gain as both units have plenty for my Royer ribbons. I'm just terribly paranoid that some day the P48 will get turned on while I'm performing on stage during dual duty days. Should it happen? No but Murphy is a slippery bastage.

That is nothing to worry about. Phantom won't hurt them unless you have something seriously wrong with your cables, or for some reason are not using xlrs

True for 98% of the time. I however am highly paranoid about Messier Murphy and friends showing up.

When I used to have a PA I had this little gem of a situation actually happen. Picture a 70M run of snake from the stage to the FOH position. Now picture in the middle of a tune many channels going dead. WTF? A kid had stuck a pin into the snake and shorted out a bunch of channels.

Is that likely to happen in my "classical" world? Nope. Do I think about it every gig? Yup. And yes I regularly test my cables.

I mean what if I accidentally grab that "special" cable I used to use for particularly nasty jack-a** lead singers that needed a little p48 dope slap?

Aha! The old 'training tool'......

I've been using a Soundelux (now Bock Audio) U195 through a DW Fearn tube pre. It's been my "default" vocal setup for a few years now and I still haven't tired of it. It's wonderful for everything except the screamers, in which case I swap out the Soundelux and run a ribbon mic or SM7 through the Fearn.

...a touch of EL7 "Fatso" doesn't hurt either :)

Ooof The DW Fearn's look nice inside man, one of these days, i'll cough up the 3 grand.
Tube into tube- my buddy uses and mxl v69, into and art mpa gold, and i think it was a waste of money. It's not that larger than life, 'right there' kinda sound you'd expect from tubes, it's rather mid-peaky, and small. My 414 smokes it through the same pre, but it's a clean clear sound. It all depends what your looking for in sound. To the point of diminishing returns, i think you get what you pay for in audio equipment. Nothing against the mpa, as it's nice for what it is, but it's a relatively small improvement to my m-audio's interface pre's, and in the future, i will not buy something like that, unless i need extra channels. For dynamic mics, check the sennheisser md441. I've used it instead of a 414, u87, on some vocals, cuz it sat in the mix better and picked up the pleasing elements, and ignored the unpleasant stuff the LDCs were picking up. That was at the studio i work at. My best advice is by once, by right. You'll never regret buying what your 'really' like. even if you get more and more gear, you'll find yourself still using them.
In my home studio use a 414 for an LDC and a 57 for a dynamic, through an mpa mk2 for vocs. For my limited budget i am very happy, but i have my eyes an the UA 2-610, as well as a transformer based pre (maybe API) when i step up the the plate this year. A peluso p12, is in mind for my tube mic, but i want to a/b w/ my boss's c12 to hear their differences/likeness's.
The other best advice i can give, is listen to the mic/pre your considering in YOUR place, or WHERE it's generally going to be used, other wise you might be unpleasantly surprised.
Economically, hi-end gear increases in value over the years, for instance my cousins les paul classic, or my 414. His guitar is worth as much used now, as he paid when he got it new. the 414 sells for $50 more new, than when i bought it new. Good Luck!
Lastly, Josh Holmes from queens of the stone age, used a $50 gorilla amp for a part of the project he did w/crooked vultures, which had jimmi page on it. so, it's all what YOU or your CLIENTS want hear.

The V69 is not a high quality tube. About two pages of this thread are about high quality tube gear. The bottom of the barrel really is useless. The V69 either needs a filter circuit or a different capsule ala Michael Joly or JJ Audio. It will not then be a Neumann but it will be a much better piece of gear after all the resistors/capsule etc are replaced. Peluso uses chinese parts as well and customizes them though he is pretty cagey about admitting that.

dunno what 'cagey' means. i think it's pretty well known that peluso uses oriental body parts, i think the claim to fame is the internals, for that brand. i could be wrong about that.
If DJFLEXX likes the True, awesome, but why question tube+tube, while loving a transparent, transformer based pre. maybe he's heard the 'truth'?
My point about the bottom-end tube mic/pre, was don't waste your time on low-end stuff in this situation.
your 'FOH 70M snake run', darnit, if it works leave it alone. Was it an accident, or an attempt at 'improvement'? what did you do?

From my personal point of view I like to keep things simple.
A tube mic has usualy enough gain, so any other preamp I see as abundant. When recording its best you have the band or the musician ballanced out, record their art and vocations and see how it comes out.
I would use a preamp for ribbon or dynamic mic.

somorastik, post: 359782 wrote: From my personal point of view I like to keep things simple.
A tube mic has usualy enough gain, so any other preamp I see as abundant. When recording its best you have the band or the musician ballanced out, record their art and vocations and see how it comes out.
I would use a preamp for ribbon or dynamic mic.

ALL mics need a preamp. Except those that put out a line level signal. There are a few and their use is very specific.

Yeah you`re right, Im a newbie to recording. My Multimix has a preamp at every channel. I try to use as little as I can in the recording chain. The hum and all the stuff builds up if I do.

On actual good gear, hum doesn't build up because it isn't there. Just another reason not to buy cheap gear tube or otherwise.

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]somorastik [/]="http://recording.or…"]somorastik [/]We certainly want to welcome you to Recording.org. Unfortunately, even in unbalanced, consumer equipment oriented environments, hmmm & Buzz only occur if you haven't crossed all of your " i's" & dotted all of your "t's". Which I think you are doing right now. If one wires directly in an unbalanced consumer oriented production studio, none of those problems are allowed to happen. They only happen when you really don't know how to plug everything in correctly. Something about this loopy ground thing that keeps going around & around & around, (humming and modulated up & down) ooooo oo oooo oo oo oooooo and it comes out here. So we really appreciate your highly experienced answers & experience that makes all of us professionals go " poop" in our pants. Of course we love those sounds and they are great for testing low-frequency response. I think you tested too many already?

Does eggnog do that to you too? With or without Brandi?
Mx. Remy Ann David

PS
it's okay we still love you.

I am a noob here too! I really learn alot reading these threads. thanks a bunch!!

Well welcome Joshuac. As you can tell there are a bunch of us here living on our royalties from all of our hits. Unfortunately, I'm not one of them. So I figured I might as well hang out here and try to help edgumacatin' patch cord addicts. If you've actually gleaned something something for my previous post then you'll obviously figure out that even crappy equipment isn't supposed to buzz or hum, when its interfaced correctly. This can become more complicated than it should more from not understanding grounding problems. The problems are generally too many grounds. The problem with choosing which grounds to " LIFT". What you may discover that you can solve these buzz & hum problems by merely eliminating the AC ground pin. That's the more dangerous way to solve the problem. Or one can leave the electrical grounds connected and start disconnecting the audio grounds. Generally one may want to follow a " ground at the source" patch cord theme. But that's like having broken patch cords. But when you do it right, you get great sound and no hmmm or buzz. Another option is to utilize an audio transformer between pieces of equipment. A transformer has the ability to pass the signal without any input wires being connected to any of the output wires. If they're not connected you can't get any hum. But they are connected electromagnetically without touching each other. And there's all kinds of audio transformers. Some will change the volume level. Some will raise it up, some will raise a down depending upon the ratios of windings of the wires around the iron (and/or nickel) core. So they can also step up & step down audio levels while isolating pieces of equipment electrical you from each other. They can be utilized in both balanced wiring schemes & unbalanced wiring schemes that are the basis of having a balanced wiring scheme. Balanced wiring schemes generally prevent most buzz & hum. That's not to say that the buzz and hum isn't there, it is. You just can't hear it and just because you can't hear it doesn't mean it's still not there. Which is the argument for not having a balanced system. The interference is still on the wires even though it is magically subtracted in the balancing process that the transformer helps to facilitate. Unfortunately the interfering noise while being inaudible has the ability to actually " modulate" the audio. Modulating audio frequently presents audible artifacts. So a clean balanced system doesn't mean you're going to make a better recording than a clean unbalanced system. The exceptions to this are microphones. Microphones produce such small, low output levels that professionals always must use balanced microphones. You can't use a cable longer than 15 feet if you tried to use a microphone unbalanced. And if it's a condenser microphone that requires +48 V DC, phantom power, supplied from the "output" from the microphone "input". And for that, you've got to have 3 wires and all must be connected at both ends. This is getting long winded because I'm always full of something. I think I'll go COIL some microphone cables now?

Rapped Up
Mx. Remy Ann David

You made a good investment in using Doug Fearn's tube preamp. He builds good gear and stands behind it. You get what you pay for.

Why waste a ribbon mic on screamers? The SM7 or SM58 may be good for them. Screamers would have a hard time destroying the EV 635A...anyone who screams at a mic deserves what the news reporters (and some politicians) use....let the screamers waste a cheap mic rather than an expensive one....

I have a lovely U-67 Neumann (have owned it for almost 30 years now) with an original Telefunken EF-86 NOS tube; and I was using it with my Digi002 Focusrite OEM pre's, but when I got the Blue Robbie mic pre (tube on tube) it really came to life. But in fact it does get something of an "edgy" distortion sound to it, not unlike what you sometimes hear on isolated tracks from early Beatles recording. You tend NOT to hear it when its in the mix, but when its soloed you do hear it.

Sounds like overdriving them a bit. Sometimes I like it when it does that, but sometimes it just ruins takes. I tend to use the pad on the mic when going tube on tube, because then there's usually only one stage that will want to OD. This is most difficult with older UA 610 and similar vintage pres, from my experience. They lack a bit of headroom and OD quickly. The modern ADL600, on the other hand, reacts very well with other tube mics and is very large sounding (if not a bit less toobey than the UA).

Not to say you can't OD SS pres as well...

I am just saying the tube on tube sound is something of a hallmark sound on a lot of recordings - it is VERY subtle, but I am so familiar with the sound of nice Nuemann tubes having used them exclusively on vocals for years (after I bought my U-67 I started working in a studio where our main vocal mike was Telefunken M-49). I know that sound like I know a Marshall or a Fender guitar amp. They are very rich and clear mics, but with an almost imperceptible "mush" (not a bad word for it really) that you can get on loud notes. Most people would just think its the singer getting emotional, until you solo it. Personally, I like the tube on tube sound and if it gets mushy on less that 1% of a track but is otherwise crystal clear and silky warm, I can live with that.

But I am also talking about top-quality gear, not re-engineered clones (which I have to admit I have never used). But it is also true that what people perceive as "warmth" - such as the difference between tape and digital recording - is also something that some people might describe as "mush." Some people used to set up their multi-tracks to record at +6 dB (which often gave the exact same kind of "mush" as I hear with tube on tube) - but some people like that sound.