tube mic pres vs solid state

[Guest]

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

Hi,

I've read a bunch of posts regarding the differences between tube and
transistor mic preamps. Apparently, circuit design and component
quality has more to do with the sound than the tube vs. solid state
issue. I've even read many posts saying that there is no "tube sound".

But I would guess that there are many well respected people out there
who would beg to differ, (*don't* quote me on this), possibly Doug
Fearn, Aspen Pittman, Oliver Archut, etc., who might even say that
tubes make better preamps.

On the other hand, there might be people out there which we all
respect and they believe the best products are solid state preamps.

Is there a global difference between top-of-the-line tube preamps and
top-of-the-line solid state preamps that can be put into words? I know
that all preamps are different, but if a recording (in my case, live
in-the-studio local pop/rock bands) was done through a variety of
great tube pres, ie. Vipre, Fearn, Pendulum, Tab-Funkenwerk, etc.,
what kind of difference could I expect in my recording processes and
finished products vs. doing the same recordings with a variety of
great solid state preamps, ie. Neve, API, GML, Great River, etc.?

I'm sure they'd be quite different, but how?

Thanks,
Gord

 

[Guest]

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

On 6 Dec 2004 18:19:12 -0800, gabasa@rogers.com (Gord) wrote:

>But I would guess that there are many well respected people out there
>who would beg to differ, (*don't* quote me on this), possibly Doug
>Fearn, Aspen Pittman <snip>

Aspen...<snicker!> Ho boy, now THERE'S some snake oil for ya! HAR!

dB

 

[Guest]

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

Gord <gabasa@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>I've read a bunch of posts regarding the differences between tube and
>transistor mic preamps. Apparently, circuit design and component
>quality has more to do with the sound than the tube vs. solid state
>issue. I've even read many posts saying that there is no "tube sound".

Right.

>But I would guess that there are many well respected people out there
>who would beg to differ, (*don't* quote me on this), possibly Doug
>Fearn, Aspen Pittman, Oliver Archut, etc., who might even say that
>tubes make better preamps.

They make different preamps. And of the three folks you list, they
all make preamps that sound radically different than one another.

>On the other hand, there might be people out there which we all
>respect and they believe the best products are solid state preamps.

No, the best product is the one that fits your particular application
on a particular track on a particular song. If everybody wanted the
same thing, they wouldn't have to make so many kinds.

Right now, the most neutral-sounding preamps happen to be solid state
ones, although Fred Forssell is definitely in the running with a very
neutral tube preamp. I tend to be a fan of neutrality in preamps myself.
Others aren't.

>Is there a global difference between top-of-the-line tube preamps and
>top-of-the-line solid state preamps that can be put into words? I know
>that all preamps are different, but if a recording (in my case, live
>in-the-studio local pop/rock bands) was done through a variety of
>great tube pres, ie. Vipre, Fearn, Pendulum, Tab-Funkenwerk, etc.,
>what kind of difference could I expect in my recording processes and
>finished products vs. doing the same recordings with a variety of
>great solid state preamps, ie. Neve, API, GML, Great River, etc.?

Most of the preamps you describe are colored preamps, and most of them
are designed for particular coloration. And yes, they all sound
different. Not different enough to be religious about it, but different
enough that if you had a varied selection, you'd want to use different
preamps on different tracks.

>I'm sure they'd be quite different, but how?

You need to listen to the Boston Pre Party CD, or to Lynn Fuston's preamp
shootout CD.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

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

On 6 Dec 2004 22:00:52 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Right now, the most neutral-sounding preamps happen to be solid state
>ones, although Fred Forssell is definitely in the running with a very
>neutral tube preamp.

I had a Forsell pre for awhile, and it may have been neutral but it
definitely had a different quality than a solid state pre, "sweeter"
somehow, especially on the high end. It was a pretty sound but I
actually preferred the accuracy of solid state when comparing it to my
Great River MP2H, & I eventually sold the Forsell.

Al

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:24:32 -0500, play-on wrote
(in article <bf8ar01hmb5f77f4625dlmg5q2s9kbb3mt@4ax.com>):

> On 6 Dec 2004 22:00:52 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> Right now, the most neutral-sounding preamps happen to be solid state
>> ones, although Fred Forssell is definitely in the running with a very
>> neutral tube preamp.
>
> I had a Forsell pre for awhile, and it may have been neutral but it
> definitely had a different quality than a solid state pre, "sweeter"
> somehow, especially on the high end. It was a pretty sound but I
> actually preferred the accuracy of solid state when comparing it to my
> Great River MP2H, & I eventually sold the Forsell.
>
> Al

Define sweeter. Is it relative to salt, sour or sugar? I see sweeter too
frequently and most of the time it seems to mean "I like it."

I think we could all do with a little less "sweeter."

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?)

<< Is there a global difference between top-of-the-line tube preamps and
top-of-the-line solid state preamps that can be put into words? >>



No. The differences between the top-of-the-line tube preamps (& between the top
solid state pres) will be as great as the differences between top tube & solid
state gear.
Scott Fraser

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 23:43:14 -0500, ScotFraser wrote
(in article <20041206234314.06368.00001355@mb-m18.aol.com>):

> << Is there a global difference between top-of-the-line tube preamps and
> top-of-the-line solid state preamps that can be put into words? >>


>
> No. The differences between the top-of-the-line tube preamps (& between the
> top
> solid state pres) will be as great as the differences between top tube &
solid
> state gear.
> Scott Fraser

As I mentioned before; good tubes are better than bad solid state. Good solid
state is better than bad tubes.

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?)

Gord wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've read a bunch of posts regarding the differences between tube and
> transistor mic preamps. Apparently, circuit design and component
> quality has more to do with the sound than the tube vs. solid state
> issue. I've even read many posts saying that there is no "tube sound".

If you want to be pedantic, there *is* a tube sound, a bipolar transistor
sound and a *fet* sound.

This arises from their different 'transfer characteristics'. No gain
device is linear. The non-linearities produce audible effects such as
distortion. Tubes and fets produce mainly even order distortion products
whereas bipolar transistors produce mainly odd-order distortion.

There is one *big* caveat. A single bipolar transistor stage can provide
much more gain than a tube ( or fet ) stage. This allows use of local
negative feedback to reduce it's THD.

Transistors are so much cheaper ( especially when within an IC ) that it's
no problem to use lots of highly linearised transistor stages to produce
vanishingly small amounts of distortion. This can be achieved through
local and / or global feedback. In comparison, it isn't really practical
to do this with tubes.

Note that feedback isn't a bad thing like some audiophools ( who wouldn't
understand technology if you whacked them round the head with it )
suggest. Even valve ( oops tube ) circuits use feedback.


> But I would guess that there are many well respected people out there
> who would beg to differ, (*don't* quote me on this), possibly Doug
> Fearn, Aspen Pittman, Oliver Archut, etc., who might even say that
> tubes make better preamps.
>
> On the other hand, there might be people out there which we all
> respect and they believe the best products are solid state preamps.

For a mic pre-amp, a critical factor is the noise figure. Suitable bipolar
transistors ( and some fets ) have such low noise figures that it's
possible to directly ( a.c. ) couple the mic to the active devices and get
super noise figures.

By their nature, tubes do not perform so well with regard to voltage
noise. To get a really quiet tube pre-amp you *have* to use an input
transformer.

Transformers have a whole stack of deficiencies of their own. This has to
be considered in the context of a tube pre.


> Is there a global difference between top-of-the-line tube preamps and
> top-of-the-line solid state preamps that can be put into words? I know
> that all preamps are different, but if a recording (in my case, live
> in-the-studio local pop/rock bands) was done through a variety of
> great tube pres, ie. Vipre, Fearn, Pendulum, Tab-Funkenwerk, etc.,
> what kind of difference could I expect in my recording processes and
> finished products vs. doing the same recordings with a variety of
> great solid state preamps, ie. Neve, API, GML, Great River, etc.?
>
> I'm sure they'd be quite different, but how?

Transistor mic pres don't need input transformers. Tube ones do. That
alone is likely to colour any comparison.

Choose one you like.


Graham

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 00:14:59 -0500, DeserTBoB wrote
(in article <uvear0lq03uequq7janmmcpf98ihfk40e6@4ax.com>):

> On 6 Dec 2004 18:19:12 -0800, gabasa@rogers.com (Gord) wrote:
>
>> But I would guess that there are many well respected people out there
>> who would beg to differ, (*don't* quote me on this), possibly Doug
>> Fearn, Aspen Pittman <snip>
>
> Aspen...<snicker!> Ho boy, now THERE'S some snake oil for ya! HAR!
>
> dB

The GT tubes in my recently restored Fender amps tell a different story.

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 <b5c01b28.0412061819.202c7869@posting.google.com> gabasa@rogers.com writes:

> I've even read many posts saying that there is no "tube sound".
>
> But I would guess that there are many well respected people out there
> who would beg to differ, (*don't* quote me on this), possibly Doug
> Fearn, Aspen Pittman, Oliver Archut, etc., who might even say that
> tubes make better preamps.

You've just been quoted (so people know what you said). There are
people who say that they like the preamps that they make using tubes.
There are people who say they like the preamps they make using solid
state components. With only a few exceptions, there is someone who
loves every preamp ever made. There are no generalizations other than
"sounds good most of the time" or "sounds bad most of the time",
neither of which apply to tube or solid state design.

> Is there a global difference between top-of-the-line tube preamps and
> top-of-the-line solid state preamps that can be put into words?

No. A well designed preamp is a well designed preamp. There are many
preamps, both solid state and tube, that have basically good designs
but certain compromises have been made to save money, to meet
production schedules, or simply out of ignorance (for instance the
importance of a well designed grounding system) and those are not as
well designed as preamps where everything that can possibly be looked
at AND LISTENED TO has been investigated and evaluated.

The Gordon preamp made by Grant Carpenter is a good example. If you're
ever at an AES show, stop by his booth, look at his preamp (he always
has one with the cover off) and talk with him for a while. This is
probably the most completely designed preamp I have ever seen (and
it's solid state). Is it the best sounding preamp ever? I don't know.
He thinks so, so do his customers. Will it replace all the API, Great
River, Millenia Media, Manley, Neve . . . preamps out there? I doubt
it - because they all sound different.

> I know
> that all preamps are different, but if a recording (in my case, live
> in-the-studio local pop/rock bands) was done through a variety of
> great tube pres, ie. Vipre, Fearn, Pendulum, Tab-Funkenwerk, etc.,
> what kind of difference could I expect in my recording processes and
> finished products vs. doing the same recordings with a variety of
> great solid state preamps, ie. Neve, API, GML, Great River, etc.?

Probably very little. It depends more on the mics you have and the
techniques you use.

--
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?)

Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>If you want to be pedantic, there *is* a tube sound, a bipolar transistor
>sound and a *fet* sound.
>
>This arises from their different 'transfer characteristics'. No gain
>device is linear. The non-linearities produce audible effects such as
>distortion. Tubes and fets produce mainly even order distortion products
>whereas bipolar transistors produce mainly odd-order distortion.

This is a horrible oversimplification, though. A pentode has a totally
different transfer characteristic than a triode. A triode set up as a cathode
follower has a totally different transfer characteristic than one set up
for voltage gain. All of these tube circuits sound totally different... so
how can we say there is a "tube sound."
--scott


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

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 08:09:47 +0000, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


>
>Transistor mic pres don't need input transformers. Tube ones do.

Naw.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 07:48:52 -0500, John La Grou wrote
(in article <oj9br0hlqkibog393b9jq2pvtb3vjcf40b@4ax.com>):

> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 08:09:47 +0000, Pooh Bear
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Transistor mic pres don't need input transformers. Tube ones do.
>
> Naw.

and will someone please hand me a KleenWipe to remove the coffee from my
screen.

Ty


-- 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?)

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 00:41:55 -0500, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:24:32 -0500, play-on wrote
>(in article <bf8ar01hmb5f77f4625dlmg5q2s9kbb3mt@4ax.com>):
>
>> On 6 Dec 2004 22:00:52 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>> Right now, the most neutral-sounding preamps happen to be solid state
>>> ones, although Fred Forssell is definitely in the running with a very
>>> neutral tube preamp.
>>
>> I had a Forsell pre for awhile, and it may have been neutral but it
>> definitely had a different quality than a solid state pre, "sweeter"
>> somehow, especially on the high end. It was a pretty sound but I
>> actually preferred the accuracy of solid state when comparing it to my
>> Great River MP2H, & I eventually sold the Forsell.
>>
>> Al
>
>Define sweeter. Is it relative to salt, sour or sugar? I see sweeter too
>frequently and most of the time it seems to mean "I like it."
>
>I think we could all do with a little less "sweeter."

sweet ( P ) Pronunciation Key (swt)

Pleasing to the senses; agreeable: the sweet song of the lark; a sweet
face.

Pleasing to the mind or feelings; gratifying: sweet revenge.
Having a pleasing disposition; lovable: a sweet child.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

What adjectives to you prefer, since I have no lab to test these
things in. The top end on the Forsell sounded more liquid somehow, a
bit softer, the detail ever so slightly more blurred sounding. To me.

Al

 

[Guest]

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

> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> news:znr1102420267k@trad...
> >With only a few exceptions, there is someone who
> > loves every preamp ever made.
>

Yes, ... but not at the same time.

RD

 

[Guest]

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

In article <m4bcr0h6k0ncqtm63cqh7oump94gsubkgn@4ax.com> playonATcomcast.net writes:

> sweet ( P ) Pronunciation Key (swt)
>
> Pleasing to the senses; agreeable: the sweet song of the lark; a sweet
> face.
>
> Pleasing to the mind or feelings; gratifying: sweet revenge.
> Having a pleasing disposition; lovable: a sweet child.

Yeah, I know a mic preamp just like that. C'mon, that doesn't say
anything about frequency response, distortion products, or stray
noises.

--
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?)

I've got 7 Forssell channels here (a CS-1 and a JMP-6 prototype-I've also
demo'ed the FEtcode and it's a wonderful sounding circuit too) I've also got
a GR MP2-MH. I hate trying describe the sonic qualities of preamps, so
please excuse the audio porn analogies I'll be making, but I did a shootout
between the JMP and the GR a while back reamping a recorded source through a
pair of ADS 1520's into a Stephen Paul U87 (3 micron) which was palced about
7 feet in front of the ADS' speakers about 4' off the floor. The recorded
source was *Forget About It* by Allison Krause. Lots of ear candy as far as
well recorded and mixed acoustic instruments. I'd also describe the Forssell
as *sweet/warm with a softer top end, (the JFet circuit I figure)* and the
GR as *sweet/accurate with a bit more open top*, but both are in that same
sonic big league. I've got a CD of that test around here somewhere.

Doug Joyce
http/www.graphicresultsofdurango.com/musicstudio.html


"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2eidnSbzldQ_3yjcRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:24:32 -0500, play-on wrote
> (in article <bf8ar01hmb5f77f4625dlmg5q2s9kbb3mt@4ax.com>):
>
> > On 6 Dec 2004 22:00:52 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >
> >> Right now, the most neutral-sounding preamps happen to be solid state
> >> ones, although Fred Forssell is definitely in the running with a very
> >> neutral tube preamp.
> >
> > I had a Forsell pre for awhile, and it may have been neutral but it
> > definitely had a different quality than a solid state pre, "sweeter"
> > somehow, especially on the high end. It was a pretty sound but I
> > actually preferred the accuracy of solid state when comparing it to my
> > Great River MP2H, & I eventually sold the Forsell.
> >
> > Al
>
> Define sweeter. Is it relative to salt, sour or sugar? I see sweeter too
> frequently and most of the time it seems to mean "I like it."
>
> I think we could all do with a little less "sweeter."
>
> 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?)

On 7 Dec 2004 20:20:31 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

>
>In article <m4bcr0h6k0ncqtm63cqh7oump94gsubkgn@4ax.com> playonATcomcast.net writes:
>
>> sweet ( P ) Pronunciation Key (swt)
>>
>> Pleasing to the senses; agreeable: the sweet song of the lark; a sweet
>> face.
>>
>> Pleasing to the mind or feelings; gratifying: sweet revenge.
>> Having a pleasing disposition; lovable: a sweet child.
>
>Yeah, I know a mic preamp just like that. C'mon, that doesn't say
>anything about frequency response, distortion products, or stray
>noises.

My ears & brain are subjective, not lab measurement devices. Didn't
hear any stray noises or distortion. So how else does one describe
the differences one hears?

Al

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 23:19:16 -0700, "Animix"
<animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:

>I've got 7 Forssell channels here (a CS-1 and a JMP-6 prototype-I've also
>demo'ed the FEtcode and it's a wonderful sounding circuit too) I've also got
>a GR MP2-MH. I hate trying describe the sonic qualities of preamps, so
>please excuse the audio porn analogies I'll be making, but I did a shootout
>between the JMP and the GR a while back reamping a recorded source through a
>pair of ADS 1520's into a Stephen Paul U87 (3 micron) which was palced about
>7 feet in front of the ADS' speakers about 4' off the floor. The recorded
>source was *Forget About It* by Allison Krause. Lots of ear candy as far as
>well recorded and mixed acoustic instruments. I'd also describe the Forssell
>as *sweet/warm with a softer top end, (the JFet circuit I figure)* and the
>GR as *sweet/accurate with a bit more open top*, but both are in that same
>sonic big league. I've got a CD of that test around here somewhere.

Uh huh uh huh... you said the "s" word... sweet.

Al

>
>Doug Joyce
>http/www.graphicresultsofdurango.com/musicstudio.html
>
>
>"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:2eidnSbzldQ_3yjcRVn-uA@comcast.com...
>> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:24:32 -0500, play-on wrote
>> (in article <bf8ar01hmb5f77f4625dlmg5q2s9kbb3mt@4ax.com>):
>>
>> > On 6 Dec 2004 22:00:52 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Right now, the most neutral-sounding preamps happen to be solid state
>> >> ones, although Fred Forssell is definitely in the running with a very
>> >> neutral tube preamp.
>> >
>> > I had a Forsell pre for awhile, and it may have been neutral but it
>> > definitely had a different quality than a solid state pre, "sweeter"
>> > somehow, especially on the high end. It was a pretty sound but I
>> > actually preferred the accuracy of solid state when comparing it to my
>> > Great River MP2H, & I eventually sold the Forsell.
>> >
>> > Al
>>
>> Define sweeter. Is it relative to salt, sour or sugar? I see sweeter too
>> frequently and most of the time it seems to mean "I like it."
>>
>> I think we could all do with a little less "sweeter."
>>
>> 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?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1102420267k@trad...
>With only a few exceptions, there is someone who
> loves every preamp ever made.

Well, then, it seems pretty clear that - just to be contrary - someone here
should go on record as *hating* every preamp ever made... who's it gonna be?
Huh? C'mon, somebody step up to it!



Neil Henderson