How can this be? AT4060 Tube Mic

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I was looking at the Audio-Technica AT4060 Tube Mic on the Musician's
Friend site. It says that it uses "tube technology to achieve valve
sound" and also that "its output is always clear and consistent, lush
and uncolored." How can it have a "valve sound" and yet also be
"uncolored"? Isn't this a contradiction?

Also, anyone have an opinion on this mic or any other Audio-Technica
mic, especially for use recording vocals?

Here's the link if anyone is curious:

http/www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/g=home/search/detail/base_pid/270410/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 16 Sep 2004 06:49:34 -0700, iarwain_8@hotmail.com (Iarwain) wrote:

>I was looking at the Audio-Technica AT4060 Tube Mic on the Musician's
>Friend site. It says that it uses "tube technology to achieve valve
>sound" and also that "its output is always clear and consistent, lush
>and uncolored." How can it have a "valve sound" and yet also be
>"uncolored"? Isn't this a contradiction?
>

Yes. It was most likely written by someone from the Bush campaign.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http/liondogmusic.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Iarwain <iarwain_8@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I was looking at the Audio-Technica AT4060 Tube Mic on the Musician's
> Friend site. It says that it uses "tube technology to achieve valve
> sound" and also that "its output is always clear and consistent, lush
> and uncolored." How can it have a "valve sound" and yet also be
> "uncolored"? Isn't this a contradiction?

> Also, anyone have an opinion on this mic or any other Audio-Technica
> mic, especially for use recording vocals?

It isn't a bad mic at all. I would suggest that it is fairly uncoloured.
a bit boring, in fact. I would use it in situations where a neutral mic
is wanted.

If you want a more classic tube mic sound, you want the Rode Classic.
They are a few dollars more, though.

Rob R.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Iarwain" <iarwain_8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:17aca119.0409160549.3416e088@posting.google.com...
>I was looking at the Audio-Technica AT4060 Tube Mic on the Musician's
> Friend site. It says that it uses "tube technology to achieve valve
> sound" and also that "its output is always clear and consistent, lush
> and uncolored." How can it have a "valve sound" and yet also be
> "uncolored"? Isn't this a contradiction?

Yes. It's an obvious attempt by the marketing department to hit all of the
catch phrases that "studies" have shown effective. "Valve sound" for
starry-eyed novices in particular.

>
> Also, anyone have an opinion on this mic or any other Audio-Technica
> mic, especially for use recording vocals?

As with any mic, it depends on the voice. The 4060 is quite a nice mic,
used in the right application, as are the 4047 and the 4050. The 4047 in
particular has very low self-noise and a beefy bottom end, and the multiple
patterns of the 4050 make it a good choice for versatility with good sound
and build quality. The 4033 is a bit harder to match up with a voice due to
its peaky high end, but occasionally it's just the ticket for bringing the
right voice forward in the mix.

All of this is just the long way of saying what you see so often around here
(for good reason)--listen for yourself and see how it works for you. If you
don't trust your own ears enough to make that decision, you're in the wrong
business.

Bill Balmer

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 16 Sep 2004 06:49:34 -0700, iarwain_8@hotmail.com (Iarwain) wrote:

>I was looking at the Audio-Technica AT4060 Tube Mic on the Musician's
>Friend site. It says that it uses "tube technology to achieve valve
>sound" and also that "its output is always clear and consistent, lush
>and uncolored." How can it have a "valve sound" and yet also be
>"uncolored"? Isn't this a contradiction?
>
>Also, anyone have an opinion on this mic or any other Audio-Technica
>mic, especially for use recording vocals?
>
>Here's the link if anyone is curious:
>
>http/www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/g=home/search/detail/base_pid/270410/

It's a good mic, and a bad ad.

It looks like MF has got their own ad copywriters working on this,
because I don't think AT would write anything that stupid about their
own mic. The ad copywriters know nothing about the product, they're
just given a bunch of buzzwords that they are required to use as often
as possible. It's a sophisticated wetware version of the software
babble generator that creates the meaningless text used in some spam.

Mike T.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:49:34 -0400, Iarwain wrote
(in article <17aca119.0409160549.3416e088@posting.google.com>):

> I was looking at the Audio-Technica AT4060 Tube Mic on the Musician's
> Friend site. It says that it uses "tube technology to achieve valve
> sound" and also that "its output is always clear and consistent, lush
> and uncolored." How can it have a "valve sound" and yet also be
> "uncolored"? Isn't this a contradiction?
>
> Also, anyone have an opinion on this mic or any other Audio-Technica
> mic, especially for use recording vocals?
>
> Here's the link if anyone is curious:
>
> http/www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/g=home/search/detail/base_pid/270410/

Well, that's market speak, but the AT4060 I reviewed several years ago had a
very clear sound. Sort of like looking through a big glass of water;
something was going on, but it wasn't "thick and tubey"." I liked it a lot.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <YI6dnYce0dTf-9HcRVn-qA@comcast.com> tyreeford@comcast.net writes:

> Well, that's market speak, but the AT4060 I reviewed several years ago had a
> very clear sound. Sort of like looking through a big glass of water;
> something was going on, but it wasn't "thick and tubey"." I liked it a lot.

Hmmmm . . . everything I look at through a big glass of water is very
distorted. Market speak?

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:28:29 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article <znr1095528683k@trad>):

>
> In article <YI6dnYce0dTf-9HcRVn-qA@comcast.com> tyreeford@comcast.net writes:
>
>> Well, that's market speak, but the AT4060 I reviewed several years ago had
>> a
>> very clear sound. Sort of like looking through a big glass of water;
>> something was going on, but it wasn't "thick and tubey"." I liked it a lot.
>
> Hmmmm . . . everything I look at through a big glass of water is very
> distorted. Market speak?
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

No, just one of the best ways I had to describe it at the moment. Most people
back then had these expectations of either something very magical or
something very thick and slow sounding. The AT 4060 is neither, which sets it
apart from what was available back then.

It was a very neutral sound (which I really appreciated) a clarity with just
a bit of something going on. I believe my review is still up on my site.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

You can distort an image like crazy and still have it 'clear'.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some descriptve audio terms that were precise and
everyone understood.


>> Well, that's market speak, but the AT4060 I reviewed several years ago
>had a
>> very clear sound. Sort of like looking through a big glass of water;
>> something was going on, but it wasn't "thick and tubey"." I liked it
>a lot.
>
>Hmmmm . . . everything I look at through a big glass of water is very
>distorted. Market speak?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

HenryShap <henryshap@aol.com> wrote:

> Wouldn't it be nice to have some descriptve audio terms that were precise and
> everyone understood.

That is what meassurments are for. Find the property of interest and
devise a way to meassure it such that others can repeat your
meassurements. Then of course it becomes objective and the property of
anyone, rather than subjective and exlusive and thus some of the magic
will be lost...

L


--
lars farm // http/www.farm.se

 

[hassan]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mail.addr.can.be.found@www.farm.se (Lars Farm) wrote in message news:<1gkewym.hwbj2su4biwsN%mail.addr.can.be.found@www.farm.se>...
> HenryShap <henryshap@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't it be nice to have some descriptve audio terms that were precise and
> > everyone understood.
>
> That is what meassurments are for. Find the property of interest and
> devise a way to meassure it such that others can repeat your
> meassurements. Then of course it becomes objective and the property of
> anyone, rather than subjective and exlusive and thus some of the magic
> will be lost...
>
> L

Good idea, in theory. However, IMHO, the 'subjective' is still very
necessary to propagate feeling and nuance. Imagine someone describing
an excellent cheese by relating all of its contents in
part-per-million.

Music is more than the sum of its notes.

I do agree that a general consensus of what the subjective
descriptions sound/feel like would be helpful. For instance, we all
generally agree on sweet, sour, nutty and rich (though people vary in
their own personal food tastes, of course).

Here is a very quick stab at a few common terms (although missing is
the all-important aspect of all being together to hear and
agree/disagree/workout the fine points):

SOUNDS:

Bright: having exaggerated top-end (not necessarily strident)

Crisp: having defined attack and/or lack of overhangs (vague, I know)

Mid-Range-y: self explanatory

Strident: having a 'scratchy', somewhat irritating mid- to top-end

Thin: lacking bottom

Warm: Not thin, boosted bottom (but not to the point of being boomy)


EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE:

Airy: added top-end, slightly sizzling

Bright: having exaggerated top-end

Cloudy: masking, having slightly blurred transient response (not
necessarily in a desirable way)

Crisp: having accurate mid- to high-end transient response

Milky: having slightly blurred transients (but, in a pleasing way)
and, arguably, a slight addition of desirable 2nd/3rd order harmonics.
Leaves an almost light, creamy feeling 🙂

Smooth: Having slightly blurred transient response (not to the point
of being cloudy)

Transparent: adding/subtracting nothing (or relatively nothing) to the
signal


Open: somebody jump in here 🙂

Full: somebody jump in here 🙂

Hassan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hassan <hassandavis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I do agree that a general consensus of what the subjective
>descriptions sound/feel like would be helpful. For instance, we all
>generally agree on sweet, sour, nutty and rich (though people vary in
>their own personal food tastes, of course).

Jackie Hebrock did a conference paper a few years ago at an AES show, in
which she correlated various subjective descriptions of a microphone's sound
with impulse response measurements. It's worth checking out. Preprint
#4516. It's by no means complete, of course, but it's the sort of study I'd
like to see more of.

Stereophile had an article on common subjective description words as well,
though not with any real connection to any objective measure.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YI6dnYce0dTf-9HcRVn-qA@comcast.com...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:49:34 -0400, Iarwain wrote
> (in article <17aca119.0409160549.3416e088@posting.google.com>):
>
> > I was looking at the Audio-Technica AT4060 Tube Mic on the
Musician's
> > Friend site. It says that it uses "tube technology to achieve
valve
> > sound" and also that "its output is always clear and consistent,
lush
> > and uncolored." How can it have a "valve sound" and yet also be
> > "uncolored"? Isn't this a contradiction?
> >
> > Also, anyone have an opinion on this mic or any other
Audio-Technica
> > mic, especially for use recording vocals?
> >
> > Here's the link if anyone is curious:
> >
> >
http/www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/g=home/search/detail/base_pid/270410/
>
> Well, that's market speak, but the AT4060 I reviewed several years
ago had a
> very clear sound. Sort of like looking through a big glass of water;
> something was going on, but it wasn't "thick and tubey"." I liked
it a lot.

Quite often it's necessary to know that there's a tube in there before
one can hear the "valve sound". Indeed, it isn't really necessary
that the tube be connected to anything.

Norm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< Quite often it's necessary to know that there's a tube in there before
one can hear the "valve sound". Indeed, it isn't really necessary
that the tube be connected to anything. >>



Right, but the LED that provides the glow through the viewing window (to assure
that one understands the existence of the tube sound) has to be connected.

Scott Fraser

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cimsca$nr8$1@panix2.panix.com...

> Stereophile had an article on common subjective description words as well,
> though not with any real connection to any objective measure.

Very early in Stereophile's history, founder J. Gordon Holt proposed a
general vocabulary for the description of subjective responses to audio.
Several of the terms he proposed have made it into general usage --
"grainy", for example. He published a full glossary, which I think is still
available from Old Colony, and expressed the hope that as many correlations
as possible could be found between perceptual descriptions and quantifiable
measurements.

The idea of a mutually-agreed-upon vocabulary is a good one, if daunting.
Unfortunately, the early Absolute Sound guys took Holt's vocabulary and
extended it in a baroque fashion, to the point where you began seeing
equipment described as sounding like "a chocolate drop, but then think of a
pearl arching against a clear blue sky". (That, by the way, was about an
amplifier.) Lotta drugs went down in those days.

Still a worthwhile project; in addition to a printed glossary, though, you'd
need some sort of standard sound samples illustrating the terms, so people
would have some idea what other people meant by them.

Incidentally, a similar scheme was proposed in a late edition of the
Radiotron Designer's Handbook. There's even some overlap of terms, enough
that I suspect that's where Holt picked up the idea.

Peace,
Paul

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 04:49:29 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
<pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:

>The idea of a mutually-agreed-upon vocabulary is a good one, if daunting.
>Unfortunately, the early Absolute Sound guys took Holt's vocabulary and
>extended it in a baroque fashion, to the point where you began seeing
>equipment described as sounding like "a chocolate drop, but then think of a
>pearl arching against a clear blue sky". (That, by the way, was about an
>amplifier.) Lotta drugs went down in those days.

Good thing, too. Everybody's too old now. Harry Pearson was an
investigative journalist in Pine Bluff, Arkansas and a crusader
(not to say muck-raker) about environmental issues before his
New York adventures. Even worked on an excellent book chronicling
a trip down the entire Buffalo River, our first National River,
as the photographer.

Friends of his tell me that he was too troublesome for Pine Bluff,
and that's not much of a stretch.


>Still a worthwhile project; in addition to a printed glossary, though, you'd
>need some sort of standard sound samples illustrating the terms, so people
>would have some idea what other people meant by them.
>
>Incidentally, a similar scheme was proposed in a late edition of the
>Radiotron Designer's Handbook. There's even some overlap of terms, enough
>that I suspect that's where Holt picked up the idea.

HP's vocabulary of photographic terms made a lot of sense in earlier
days; maybe less today. But advancement of the art does depend on a
common language, and (only then) agreement on goals.

JGH's and HP's legacy to us is a rudimentary language; our next step
must (IOP, of course) be to extend that language into hardware terms.
Wetware to hardware. Folks after us can extent it into software.

Chris Hornbeck

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message
news:<cimsca$nr8$1@panix2.panix.com>...
> Stereophile had an article on common subjective description words as
> well, though not with any real connection to any objective measure.

You can find J. Gordon Holt's subjective glossary at
http/www.stereophile.com/reference/50 .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <tv74d.410551$OB3.29120@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> pstamlerhell@pobox.com writes:

> the early Absolute Sound guys took Holt's vocabulary and
> extended it in a baroque fashion, to the point where you began seeing
> equipment described as sounding like "a chocolate drop, but then think of a
> pearl arching against a clear blue sky".

That's exactly how I'd describe my voice. <g>


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo