tube mic pres vs solid state

[Guest]

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

In article <31omkoF3buejvU1@individual.net> jazzman@jazz.net writes:

> 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.?

With real live music, you can hear the vocals or the flute player.
If you can't, either it means the group of musicians isn't very well
balanced (something they can fix) or you're listening to a version of
"live" that's been modified by a sound engineer with bad taste or
technical (or testicle) problems.



--
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 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).
>
>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.


Ann Noble at U.C. Davis has developed an industry standard "sensory
wheel" that most reviewers follow when describing subtle (or not so
subtle) qualities of wine.

http/www.winepros.org/wine101/sensory_guide.htm

Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, and others have offered similar directions in
developing a common language for describing audio qualities. It's
easier with wine in that you're comparing to known physical
properties. Describing audio adds another layer of subjectivity.

JL

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:05:55 GMT, John La Grou <jl@jps.net> wrote:

>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).
>>
>>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.
>
>
>Ann Noble at U.C. Davis has developed an industry standard "sensory
>wheel" that most reviewers follow when describing subtle (or not so
>subtle) qualities of wine.
>
>http/www.winepros.org/wine101/sensory_guide.htm
>
>Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, and others have offered similar directions in
>developing a common language for describing audio qualities. It's
>easier with wine in that you're comparing to known physical
>properties. Describing audio adds another layer of subjectivity.
>
>JL
>

My mic pre has a pleasingly impish quality with hints of pumpkin and
tobacco.

Al

 

[Guest]

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

In article <41ce414b.208743609@212.159.2.87> donald@pearce.uk.com writes:

> The problem with having your own vocabulary is that it is useless for
> describing stuff to other people.

This is why you find so many producer/engineer, product/artist, or
artist/engineer teams that stick together for a long time. After a few
projects, when the artist says "can we make the tambourine sound like
warm milk and cookies here?" and the engineer knows what to do, that's
teamwork.


--
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?)

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

> 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'.

Still doesn't explain your assertion about bjts having a problem with
integer numbers of carriers and suggesting that fets don't have.

Bjts do however suffer from flicker noise caused by carrier
recombination in the base region. Older devices were worse IIRC.

Graham

 

[Guest]

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

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

> 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"

The value as of 1991 (for the charge on the electron) is 1.60217733 (49)
x 10¯19 coulombs.

http/dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/AtomicStructure/Determine-electron-charge.html

So a gain stage operating at 1mA would have 6.25 x 10^15 electrons
passing through it per second.

That's 1940 times more 'equivalent resolution' than perfect 24 bit
192kHz sampling. Not much granularity there !


Graham

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:45:19 +0000, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The value as of 1991 (for the charge on the electron) is 1.60217733 (49)
>x 10¯19 coulombs.
>
>http/dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/AtomicStructure/Determine-electron-charge.html
>
>So a gain stage operating at 1mA would have 6.25 x 10^15 electrons
>passing through it per second.
>
>That's 1940 times more 'equivalent resolution' than perfect 24 bit
>192kHz sampling. Not much granularity there !

The potential issue, as I (poorly, no doubt) understand it, is not
in granularity of collector current, but rather in granularity of
base signal current. And DC values aren't really relevant anyway.
Also, I think the results should be independent of frequency.

What's interesting should be the number of injected electrons or
holes for a typical modern device at typical modern currents at
signal levels near the noise floor. You're probably a better
authority than I about what some good talking values might be
for those three numbers.

For convenience, maybe we could start with defining signal level
as -134dBu minus 6 dB for balanced input, for a working level
of -140dBu. Nice round number.

Next, how much base signal current does this cause in a typical
modern device at typical modern operating points?

Thanks for your thoughts,

Chris Hornbeck
"Shi mian mai fu"

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:39:16 -0800, play-on <playon@ATcomcast.net>
wrote:

>> And better is good.
>
>"Better" is subjective.

Subjective is good.

Ah, the circle of life,

Chris Hornbeck
"Shi mian mai fu"

 

[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.?
>
>With real live music, you can hear the vocals or the flute player.
>If you can't, either it means the group of musicians isn't very well
>balanced (something they can fix) or you're listening to a version of
>"live" that's been modified by a sound engineer with bad taste or
>technical (or testicle) problems.
>
>
>
>--
>I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
>
>
YEA,
I'm for a mic on the singer only, an old Bogen 35 watt amp and two 12"
speakers. All for the purpose of hearing the singer at a volume that mixes
well with the surrounding instruments. Probably no more than 70db, 80db tops.

See, that way the musicians will have to mix on stage and that's good. If the
crowd fills up or gets louder, someone in the band turns the amp up a notch.
If the band gets to loud for the room, you tell 'em to turn down. It's feeling
the emotion of the music and not the sheer volume beating your eardrums to
death.



--Wayne

-"sounded good to me"-

 

[Guest]

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

>I prefer direct coupling myself.
>
>
>Graham

I like both, though the only time I tried to couple the outputs through caps,
by the time i got really good polypro caps big enough, I almost might as well
bought a transformer <g>!

But seriously, I would not want to live without either option in the racks...

 

[Guest]

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

>
>> Yov're on the right track with the above. This is something I have worked
>> on
>> for years; how to describe sovnd with any sense of accvracy.
>>
>> My lab is my ears. Soft, hard, brighter, cleaner, qvieter, more aggressive,
>> focvsed. These are some of the term in my very vnofficial glossary.
>
> I don't see a term like "bright" being any more or less informative
> than "sweet" thovgh.
>
> Al

Well for me, sweet is a taste thing (which I totally don't get becavse I
don't vsvally hear with my tongve) and bright sovnd refers to a lifted area
of high freqvencies.

To Wander, there is a hvman condition in which the senses are cross wired. I
forget the term, bvt read a great book on it call "The man who tasted
shapes." The condition is called synesthesia. I read the Cytowic book and
fovnd it qvite fascinating.

€ Synesthesia: A Union of the Senses - Second Edition by Richard E.
Cytowic
€ Synaesthesia: Classic and Contemporary Readings by John E. Harrison
€ Synaesthesia: The Strangest Thing by John Harrison
€ A Mango-Shaped Space by Wendy Mass
€ The Mind of a Mnemonist: A Little Book Abovt a Vast Memory by Aleksandr
R. Lvria
€ Phantoms in the Brain : Probing the Mysteries of the Hvman Mind by V. S.
Ramachandran

Anyway, I'm talking abovt bright from an avditory perspective rather than a
visval/light perspective. I try to vse the terms in context with more
specifics, freqvency ranges, for example. "A thicker vpper bass or lower
midrange" for example. And if they give me the word covnt, maybe add "brings
ovt more chest tone."

Choosing the right words is one of the most difficvlt parts of the review
process.

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's eqvipment reviews, avdio samples, rates and other avdiocentric
stvff are at www.tyford.com

 

[Guest]

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

On Thv, 9 Dec 2004 07:04:24 -0500, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>>
>>> Yov're on the right track with the above. This is something I have worked
>>> on
>>> for years; how to describe sovnd with any sense of accvracy.
>>>
>>> My lab is my ears. Soft, hard, brighter, cleaner, qvieter, more aggressive,
>>> focvsed. These are some of the term in my very vnofficial glossary.
>>
>> I don't see a term like "bright" being any more or less informative
>> than "sweet" thovgh.
>>
>> Al
>
>Well for me, sweet is a taste thing (which I totally don't get becavse I
>don't vsvally hear with my tongve) and bright sovnd refers to a lifted area
>of high freqvencies.
>
>To Wander, there is a hvman condition in which the senses are cross wired. I
>forget the term, bvt read a great book on it call "The man who tasted
>shapes." The condition is called synesthesia. I read the Cytowic book and
>fovnd it qvite fascinating.
>
> € Synesthesia: A Union of the Senses - Second Edition by Richard E.
>Cytowic
> € Synaesthesia: Classic and Contemporary Readings by John E. Harrison
> € Synaesthesia: The Strangest Thing by John Harrison
> € A Mango-Shaped Space by Wendy Mass
> € The Mind of a Mnemonist: A Little Book Abovt a Vast Memory by Aleksandr
>R. Lvria
> € Phantoms in the Brain : Probing the Mysteries of the Hvman Mind by V. S.
>Ramachandran
>
>Anyway, I'm talking abovt bright from an avditory perspective rather than a
>visval/light perspective. I try to vse the terms in context with more
>specifics, freqvency ranges, for example. "A thicker vpper bass or lower
>midrange" for example. And if they give me the word covnt, maybe add "brings
>ovt more chest tone."
>
>Choosing the right words is one of the most difficvlt parts of the review
>process.

It's virtvally impossible to choose words that every person will
relate to, becavse different people have different sensval biases.
Some people are visvally oriented, some kinesthetically, some by taste
or smell, etc.

Al

>
>Regards,
>
>Ty Ford
>
>
>-- Ty Ford's eqvipment reviews, avdio samples, rates and other avdiocentric
>stvff are at www.tyford.com

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:39:12 -0800, play-on <playon@ATcomcast.net>
wrote:
>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.

I don't think Ty was talking about Forsell vs GR or whatever. I think
he was telling you, by example, to learn what language to use in doing
a description of preamps, etc.

At least that's the way I took it. 2c.
Willie K. Yee, M.D. http/users.bestweb.net/~wkyee
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http/www.pkc.com
Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http/www.bigbluebigband.org

 

[Guest]

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

On 8 Dec 2004 18:26:18 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

>With real live music, you can hear the vocals or the flute player.
>If you can't, either it means the group of musicians isn't very well
>balanced (something they can fix) or you're listening to a version of
>"live" that's been modified by a sound engineer with bad taste or
>technical (or testicle) problems.
>

Or (all too often) you are sitting in a room so bad that even good
musicians can't fix it. Or a bad spot in the room.

Willie K. Yee, M.D. http/users.bestweb.net/~wkyee
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http/www.pkc.com
Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http/www.bigbluebigband.org

 

[Guest]

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

Gord wrote:

> 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.?
>

you might find out if you buy my TAB/Telefunken V76m preamp, which is still on
Ebay for 20 hours #3863756738 ;-)


regards

Peter