tube mic pres vs solid state

[Guest]

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> 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.

Is it horrible ?

It's a simplification for sure but at least it gives the OP some ides of the
factors involved which is what I thought he was enquiring about. I also avoided
mentioning ICs much.

> A pentode has a totally
> different transfer characteristic than a triode.

Perfectly true. And of course all the tube nuts now seem to like to triode connect
their pentodes it seems. Maybe it's flavour of the month ?

> A triode set up as a cathode follower has a totally different transfer
> characteristic than one set up
> for voltage gain.

For a mic amp most of the work is the voltage gain. I'm sure a cathode follower
would be nice on the output but don't even get me started on the limitations of
'single ended' followers. A sad limitation of tubes is the absence of the
complementary pair.

> All of these tube circuits sound totally different... so how can we say there is
> a "tube sound."

'Cos the market says so ? I have played iwth the idea of simulating a 'tube sound'
just using a fet but I'm sure the tube fans want a real fire bottle.


Graham

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:41:34 +0000, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I have played with the idea of simulating a 'tube sound'
>just using a fet but I'm sure the tube fans want a real fire bottle.

Not yet mentioned is a qualitative fundamental difference between
junction transistors and field effect devices (both semiconductor
and non-conductor-hot-cathode): BJT's have an intrinsic granularity
caused by their integer number of injected electrons or holes.

For some microphone level signals and typical beta's, this might
become an audible issue. Field effect devices' granularity goes
way down into the spooky-physics level.

Not all that many years ago, some tree-hugging types were making
a related argument for tape head amplifiers and phono cartridge
amplifiers. Of course, nobody cares about those things anymore.

Chris Hornbeck
"Shi mian mai fu"

 

[Guest]

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

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

This is truth but you negleted to mention that in many cases, transformers, or
at least GOOD trannies, sound great! In fact it can be argued that the
transformer(s) are as much of the sound as the tubes are.

-jeff

 

[Guest]

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

On 08 Dec 2004 06:24:50 GMT, handywired@aol.com (Handywired) wrote:

>>Transformers have a whole stack of deficiencies of their own. This has to
>>be considered in the context of a tube pre.
>
>This is truth but you negleted to mention that in many cases, transformers, or
>at least GOOD trannies, sound great! In fact it can be argued that the
>transformer(s) are as much of the sound as the tubes are. <snip>

FINALLY...someone got it RIGHT. "Tube sound," in most cases, is
really "transformer sound." Get rid of the transformer coupling in a
tube circuit and you have "FET sound."

dB

 

[Guest]

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

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:41:34 +0000, Pooh Bear
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have played with the idea of simulating a 'tube sound'
> >just using a fet but I'm sure the tube fans want a real fire bottle.
>
> Not yet mentioned is a qualitative fundamental difference between
> junction transistors and field effect devices (both semiconductor
> and non-conductor-hot-cathode): BJT's have an intrinsic granularity
> caused by their integer number of injected electrons or holes.

At the atomic level for sure !

Have you recently checked the charge on an electron ?

Quantum effects are present in all devices if you want to labour the
point. Your point is largely spurious. The method of control of current
is interestingly different but please don't labour the point.

I suppose you'll be counting the *exact* number of electrons passing from
cathode to plate next ? Ooops - that implies quantisation - i.e
'granularity' too !

LMAO !


> For some microphone level signals and typical beta's, this might
> become an audible issue. Field effect devices' granularity goes
> way down into the spooky-physics level.
>
> Not all that many years ago, some tree-hugging types were making
> a related argument for tape head amplifiers and phono cartridge
> amplifiers. Of course, nobody cares about those things anymore.

They were nuts.


Graham

 

[Guest]

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

Handywired wrote:

> >Transformers have a whole stack of deficiencies of their own. This has to
> >be considered in the context of a tube pre.
>
> This is truth but you negleted to mention that in many cases, transformers, or
> at least GOOD trannies, sound great! In fact it can be argued that the
> transformer(s) are as much of the sound as the tubes are.

It is indeed possible to make a *good* transformer. As opposed to a *bad*
transformer.

I have indeed used several from OEP ( Oxford Electronic Products ) and Sowter (
E.A Sowter Ltd ) in some of my products.

They are far from being linear devices though. They are bedevilled with classic
transformerish problems like handling low frequencies at high level ( for starters
).

Do they contribute to the sound ? I bet they do !

I prefer direct coupling myself.


Graham

 

[Guest]

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

Neil Henderson <neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>"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!

That's probably me, but I hate speakers and microphones much more.
Only live music is any good at all.
--scott


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

 

[Guest]

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

In article <41B6940E.923781E7@hotmail.com> rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com writes:

> I have played iwth the idea of simulating a 'tube
> sound' just using a fet but I'm sure the tube fans want a real fire bottle.

MXL displayed a new line of solid state mics at the AES that they say
accurately emulate the sound of tube mics - whatever that is.



--
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?)

In article <znr1102506973k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>In article <41B6940E.923781E7@hotmail.com> rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com writes:
>
>> I have played iwth the idea of simulating a 'tube
>> sound' just using a fet but I'm sure the tube fans want a real fire bottle.
>
>MXL displayed a new line of solid state mics at the AES that they say
>accurately emulate the sound of tube mics - whatever that is.

I think the big deal as far as a microphone goes is that the input capacitance
of a FET changes with modulation. You can think of the FET junction as being
like a varactor diode. This is less of a problem than it used to be with
the 2SK170 available now, and it's much less of a problem with a cathode
follower, but it's still a measurable and probably audible effect that does
not happen with a tube impedance converter stage.

So, this is a coloration that solid-state systems have which tubes do not,
and so emulating the "tube sound" in this regard involves eliminating a
coloration effect, which is a hard thing to do.

There are some tube mikes, like the U47, which have considerable nonlinearity
in the gain stage itself, due to the way the tube stage is built. But this
is not typical of tube designs and I'd consider it a disadvantage, personally.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> That's probably me, but I hate speakers and microphones much more.
> Only live music is any good at all.

Even if you can't hear the vocals, or the flute player, etc.?

I.m.o. there are things done in the studio that make the music sound
better. And better is good.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:22:14 -0500, play-on wrote
(in article <m4bcr0h6k0ncqtm63cqh7oump94gsubkgn@4ax.com>):
> 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

Al,

Sweeter tells me you like it (presuming you like sweets).

You're on the right track with the above. This is something I have worked on
for years; how to describe sound with any sense of accuracy.

My lab is my ears. Soft, hard, brighter, cleaner, quieter, more aggressive,
focused. These are some of the term in my very unofficial glossary.

Lot of times I'll compare two or more mics to help with pinning down what the
one I'm reviewing sounds like. If the reader knows what Mic A sounds like,
maybe that'll help with explaining Mic B.

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?)

Ty,

I understand what you're saying here, but for some reason, *sweet* also was
the first thought I had when I ran a signal through my CS-1. This jfet
reacts in such a way that just imparts something unique to a signal. Hard to
describe.

Regards,

DJ
http/www.graphicresultsofdurango.com/musicstudio.html
"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cOmdnWfln_sG3SrcRVn-qg@comcast.com...
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:22:14 -0500, play-on wrote
> (in article <m4bcr0h6k0ncqtm63cqh7oump94gsubkgn@4ax.com>):
> > 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
>
> Al,
>
> Sweeter tells me you like it (presuming you like sweets).
>
> You're on the right track with the above. This is something I have worked
on
> for years; how to describe sound with any sense of accuracy.
>
> My lab is my ears. Soft, hard, brighter, cleaner, quieter, more
aggressive,
> focused. These are some of the term in my very unofficial glossary.
>
> Lot of times I'll compare two or more mics to help with pinning down what
the
> one I'm reviewing sounds like. If the reader knows what Mic A sounds like,
> maybe that'll help with explaining Mic B.
>
> 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?)

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 02:31:56 -0500, play-on wrote
(in article <4dbdr0hk0am1etov51q87nsi95fu64634k@4ax.com>):

> 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

At the risk of sounding too pushy, jump over to my archives and read a review
or two.

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?)

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:59:22 -0500, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 02:31:56 -0500, play-on wrote
>(in article <4dbdr0hk0am1etov51q87nsi95fu64634k@4ax.com>):
>
>> 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
>
>At the risk of sounding too pushy, jump over to my archives and read a review
>or two.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ty Ford

Hi Ty, I've visited your excellent site many times. You have an
advantage in that you are able to audition and compare so many
different pieces of gear. At the time I owned the Forsell all I could
compare it to was the Great River or a Mackie board.

Al

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:57:48 -0500, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:22:14 -0500, play-on wrote
>(in article <m4bcr0h6k0ncqtm63cqh7oump94gsubkgn@4ax.com>):
>> 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
>
>Al,
>
>Sweeter tells me you like it (presuming you like sweets).

No, I sold it.

>You're on the right track with the above. This is something I have worked on
>for years; how to describe sound with any sense of accuracy.
>
>My lab is my ears. Soft, hard, brighter, cleaner, quieter, more aggressive,
>focused. These are some of the term in my very unofficial glossary.

I don't see a term like "bright" being any more or less informative
than "sweet" though.

Al

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 10:00:16 -0600, Jazz Meister <jazzman@jazz.net>
wrote:

>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> That's probably me, but I hate speakers and microphones much more.
>> Only live music is any good at all.
>
>Even if you can't hear the vocals, or the flute player, etc.?
>
>I.m.o. there are things done in the studio that make the music sound
>better. And better is good.

"Better" is subjective.

 

[Guest]

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

On 08 Dec 2004 21:47:40 GMT, mothra666@aol.com (Fill X) wrote:

>one side note is that, it is my feeling, that I dont think a lot of people
>share, that you really need more mics than mic pre's. Part of this feeling
>comes from the fact that most of the recorded work I like was made through the
>same mic pre's from the smae console. So i just look for something i like in
>general and maybe one other thing that works better with certain kinds of mics.
>I more concerned about the output and loading issues for the micrphones than
>whether it's tube or solid state.
>
>There's a lot of great gear out there, but if it's so wonderful I wonder where
>all the good sounding records are. It just shows it's not the gear, and I'm not
>taking a swipe at anyone in particular, but rather noting that it seems this
>industry is way too wrapped up in what they think they need to own to make a
>good recording.
>

It's the same thing with musical instruments. There are a ton of
great guitars being manufactured nowadays but I'm not hearing a lot
more great guitar music. There are a lot of well-heeled hobbyists out
there who like to own nice gear but that doesn't mean they know how to
produce good music with it.

Al

 

[Guest]

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

I've got a very old JoeMeek VC-1 here that I would characterize as slutty,
with a bit too much color and a faint whiff of stale barroom but satisfying
in a organic sort of way.

;O)

DJ


"play-on" <playon@ATcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:04ter05oshqqupf0jjp3ahku3t63004rgr@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:57:48 -0500, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:22:14 -0500, play-on wrote
> >(in article <m4bcr0h6k0ncqtm63cqh7oump94gsubkgn@4ax.com>):
> >> 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
> >
> >Al,
> >
> >Sweeter tells me you like it (presuming you like sweets).
>
> No, I sold it.
>
> >You're on the right track with the above. This is something I have worked
on
> >for years; how to describe sound with any sense of accuracy.
> >
> >My lab is my ears. Soft, hard, brighter, cleaner, quieter, more
aggressive,
> >focused. These are some of the term in my very unofficial glossary.
>
> I don't see a term like "bright" being any more or less informative
> than "sweet" though.
>
> Al

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 08:21:33 +0000, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

>LMAO !

>They were nuts.

The numbers aren't that difficult to do and may surprise ya'.

Chris Hornbeck
"Shi mian mai fu"

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:57:48 -0500, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>Sweeter tells me you like it (presuming you like sweets).
>
>You're on the right track with the above. This is something I have worked on
>for years; how to describe sound with any sense of accuracy.
>
>My lab is my ears. Soft, hard, brighter, cleaner, quieter, more aggressive,
>focused. These are some of the term in my very unofficial glossary.
>
>Lot of times I'll compare two or more mics to help with pinning down what the
>one I'm reviewing sounds like. If the reader knows what Mic A sounds like,
>maybe that'll help with explaining Mic B.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ty Ford

The problem with having your own vocabulary is that it is useless for
describing stuff to other people. Likewise, describing a mic in terms
of the sound of another mic is only helpful if your audience is well
acquainted with that second mic.

It is strange that it only seems to be the visual sense that has a
fully formed vocabulary of its own. All the others seem to borrow
heavily - and ambiguously.

And I hate sweet, so for me that would be a bad thing.

d

Pearce Consulting
http/www.pearce.uk.com