Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp for
around four hundred clams? -- *·.¸_¸.·'¨¨) ¸.·' (_¸.·' Jonathan Go to http://www.guestroomproject.com/ to hear some music from my upcoming solo album, the Guestroom Project. I play all the instruments. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp for around four hundred clams? -- *·.¸_¸.·'¨¨) ¸.·' (_¸.·' Jonathan Used Peavey VMP-2, if you can find one. --Wayne -"sounded good to me"- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Used Peavey VMP-2, if you can find one.
Peavey? I don't like their amps -- is it pretty good? Why used? Do they not make it anymore? -- *·.¸_¸.·'¨¨) ¸.·' (_¸.·' Jonathan Go to http://www.guestroomproject.com/ to hear some music from my upcoming solo album, the Guestroom Project. I play all the instruments. "Wayne" wrote in message ... Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp for around four hundred clams? -- *·.¸_¸.·'¨¨) ¸.·' (_¸.·' Jonathan Used Peavey VMP-2, if you can find one. --Wayne -"sounded good to me"- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
£ Î Z @ R Ð wrote:
Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp for around four hundred clams? No. You can't even get the power supply section and the case for that much. Most of the inexpensive "tube" preamps are cheap solid-state preamps with cheesy tube-based distortion stages. Why not get a preamp that sounds good, and not worry about what technology it's built with? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
£ Î Z @ R Ð wrote:
Used Peavey VMP-2, if you can find one. Peavey? I don't like their amps -- is it pretty good? Why used? Do they not make it anymore? It's good. It's not made any more. And it isn't under $400. If you can find them for under $400, I'll take a dozen. When Peavey does make good gear, they don't promote it well and they don't seem to know how to sell it. So they wind up discontinuing it, like they did with the VMP-2. Now the VMP-2 sells for more on the used market than it ever cost new. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Why not get a preamp that sounds good, and not worry about what technology
it's built with? like what? -- *·.¸_¸.·'¨¨) ¸.·' (_¸.·' Jonathan Go to http://www.guestroomproject.com/ to hear some music from my upcoming solo album, the Guestroom Project. I play all the instruments. "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... £ Î Z @ R Ð wrote: Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp for around four hundred clams? No. You can't even get the power supply section and the case for that much. Most of the inexpensive "tube" preamps are cheap solid-state preamps with cheesy tube-based distortion stages. Why not get a preamp that sounds good, and not worry about what technology it's built with? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
£ Î Z @ R Ð wrote:
Why not get a preamp that sounds good, and not worry about what technology it's built with? Make it $475 and you could swing an RNP http://www.fmraudio.com/rnp/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
£ Î Z @ R Ð wrote:
Why not get a preamp that sounds good, and not worry about what technology it's built with? like what? Hmm... what is there under $400... there's the old Symetrix 202. There's the RNP, isn't there? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
£ Î Z @ R wrote:
Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp for around four hundred clams? I have a Rolls RP220 with beefed up power supply and better than stock tubes that I'd sell for $200 and shipping. I'm in northern California. Google has my comments on it. -- ha |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
In article , "£ Î Z @ R Ð"
writes: Peavey? I don't like their amps -- is it pretty good? Why used? Do they not make it anymore? Jonathan, The Peavey VMP 2 is actually a viable piece of audio gear despite the moniker. Its one of the few moden low cost tube pres that doesnt use a starved plate design as the ART and Aphex pieces do. Garth~ "I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle." Ed Cherney |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"£ Î Z @ R Ð" wrote Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp for around four hundred clams? Art MPA Gold - www.artroch.com http://www.zzounds.com/item--ARTMPAGOLD |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Powell wrote:
"£ Î Z @ R Ð" wrote Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp for around four hundred clams? Art MPA Gold - www.artroch.com http://www.zzounds.com/item--ARTMPAGOLD No. This is exactly an example of what is wrong with the whole "fake tube mike pre" thing. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"Scott Dorsey" wrote Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp for around four hundred clams? Art MPA Gold - www.artroch.com http://www.zzounds.com/item--ARTMPAGOLD No. This is exactly an example of what is wrong with the whole "fake tube mike pre" thing. How would you know? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
nospam wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp for around four hundred clams? Art MPA Gold - www.artroch.com http://www.zzounds.com/item--ARTMPAGOLD No. This is exactly an example of what is wrong with the whole "fake tube mike pre" thing. How would you know? oh boy. some chick singers at: http://home.comcast.net/~amostagain/sw_mix.mp3 http://home.comcast.net/~amostagain/sw_talk_mix.mp3 http://home.comcast.net/~amostagain/sw_trouble_mix.mp3 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Powell wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp for around four hundred clams? Art MPA Gold - www.artroch.com http://www.zzounds.com/item--ARTMPAGOLD No. This is exactly an example of what is wrong with the whole "fake tube mike pre" thing. How would you know? I had one for audition. Same thing as the original Tube MPA inside, really. IC front end, cheesy tube stage with 50V on the plate. Very smeary sounding... totally eliminates midrange detail. With a real tube preamp, the tube stages actually don't have much coloration and most of the actual coloration is the result of the audio transformers. If you make a solid state box without any transformers in it and add a tube stage running in starvation mode, it doesn't sound very much at all like the real thing. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
In article , "Powell"
writes: "Scott Dorsey" wrote No. This is exactly an example of what is wrong with the whole "fake tube mike pre" thing. How would you know? One way would be to listen. Garth~ "I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle." Ed Cherney |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
In article @ writes: Used Peavey VMP-2, if you can find one. Peavey? I don't like their amps -- This isn't an instrument amplifier. Besides, some of their amps are excellent. is it pretty good? Would someone recommend it if it wasn't? Why used? Because new it costs more than you wanted to pay Do they not make it anymore? No, which means you may not be able to find a used one for the price you're willing to pay, but you can try. There was some talk of making it again, which may make the used prices stop rising. -- I'm really Mike Rivers - ) 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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"£ Î Z @ R Ð" wrote in
: Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp for around four hundred clams? Call the folks at Tape Op magazine and get their back issue on building your own tube preamp. I haven't built one, but several here spoke highly of it. Parts would be well under $400 if you can handle a soldering iron. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"Scott Dorsey" wrote Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp for around four hundred clams? Art MPA Gold - www.artroch.com http://www.zzounds.com/item--ARTMPAGOLD No. This is exactly an example of what is wrong with the whole "fake tube mike pre" thing. How would you know? I had one for audition. Same thing as the original Tube MPA inside, really. IC front end, cheesy tube stage with 50V on the plate. Very smeary sounding... totally eliminates midrange detail. " I had one for audition"... ok. I've used the MPA Pro for over a year with Sure KSM 27's for voice over work only. In that environment I found the combination to be quite accurate. You can back off on the tube gain with the low efficiency KSM 27's and still achieve a satisfying flat frequency response when recorded digitally. First you wrote "Why not get a preamp that sounds good, and not worry about what technology it's built with?" Now you've put in biased qualifier to it "IC front end, cheesy tube stage with 50V on the plate." And now somehow the component parts "IC front end" and "cheesy tube stage" make a difference. So, which is it "preamp that sounds good" or "not worry about what technology it's built with" or IS IT the technology "cheesy tube stage?" All mixed signals to the consumer (original poster). With a real tube preamp, the tube stages actually don't have much coloration and most of the actual coloration is the result of the audio transformers. "With a real tube preamp"... what "real" anything? The discussion is the sub $500 pre-amp price point, BTW. "coloration"... all manufactured audio equipment has a sonic signature. Your equating "coloration" to you own biased preference and stereotype about equipment design, which is uniquely your own. Consumer don't have companies like Audio Research, CJ, VAC (tube examples) or Levinson, Krell, Classe (ss) to choose from. With few exceptions, the base of electronic of manufactures building microphone pre-amps produce shoddy goods (SS/Tube). I think the real question at the sub $500 price point is how does it sound? The proper implementation of electronic components is the manufacture’s constraint not the consumers. If you make a solid state box without any transformers in it and add a tube stage running in starvation mode, it doesn't sound very much at all like the real thing. Well, that's nice. What are your recomendations on specific makes and models of mic pre-amps under $500 price point? |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Garthrr wrote:
In article , (Scott Dorsey) writes: I had one for audition. Same thing as the original Tube MPA inside, really. IC front end, cheesy tube stage with 50V on the plate. Very smeary sounding... totally eliminates midrange detail. Is there anything that could be done inexpensively to improve the Pro MPA? Is there a "real preamp" in there waiting to come out or would it be a substantial rebuild? I have one laying around and it hardly ever gets used except for scratch vocals etc. It would be nice to be able to use it. Any way to goose up the plate voltage or something? Not really. There honestly isn't anything much in there worth doing much with. The $200 Bellari isn't a bad starting point for a project, though. It's got a transformer front end and a real tube gain stage in front. It's not a very good transformer and it's got a very wimpy power supply driving that tube gain stage (and the IC drive stuff afterward is kind of doubtful), but at least you're starting with a general topology you can work with. With the Aphex 107, you can bypass the tube stage. You lose only about 10 dB of gain and it sounds a whole lot better. But my attempts at doing this with the ART weren't really very successful. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Powell wrote:
I've used the MPA Pro for over a year with Sure KSM 27's for voice over work only. In that environment I found the combination to be quite accurate. You can back off on the tube gain with the low efficiency KSM 27's and still achieve a satisfying flat frequency response when recorded digitally. Yes, but it still has no midrange detail. First you wrote "Why not get a preamp that sounds good, and not worry about what technology it's built with?" Now you've put in biased qualifier to it "IC front end, cheesy tube stage with 50V on the plate." And now somehow the component parts "IC front end" and "cheesy tube stage" make a difference. My argument is that the tube stage in there is just so they can put "tube mike pre" on the box, and not for any real sonic reason. And, in fact, it does not sound anything like a typical tube preamplifier does. Typical tube preamps do all sound different, though, because different stages and different transformers sound different. The Tube MP doesn't sound like any of the standard designs, though. And it just sounds bad. So, which is it "preamp that sounds good" or "not worry about what technology it's built with" or IS IT the technology "cheesy tube stage?" All mixed signals to the consumer (original poster). Get a preamp that sounds good, and do not be blinded by advertising that says you should buy a preamp that has a tube in it. Listen to things and compare them. If you buy something with a tube in it, buy it because it sounds good, not because it has a tube in it. With a real tube preamp, the tube stages actually don't have much coloration and most of the actual coloration is the result of the audio transformers. "With a real tube preamp"... what "real" anything? The discussion is the sub $500 pre-amp price point, BTW. You won't get a good tube preamp for under $500. The transformers alone for two channels will cost more than that if you want any degree of quality. Sorry about that. All you will get is a cheesy imitation of the real thing. But you CAN get a good sounding solid state preamp for that price. "coloration"... all manufactured audio equipment has a sonic signature. Your equating "coloration" to you own biased preference and stereotype about equipment design, which is uniquely your own. I suggest you listen to a quality preamp, compare it with your ART, and then you might share my bias as well. Consumer don't have companies like Audio Research, CJ, VAC (tube examples) or Levinson, Krell, Classe (ss) to choose from. With few exceptions, the base of electronic of manufactures building microphone pre-amps produce shoddy goods (SS/Tube). I think the real question at the sub $500 price point is how does it sound? The proper implementation of electronic components is the manufacture’s constraint not the consumers. I would tend to agree, which is why I don't like the ART. It sounds bad. Once again, I urge you to compare it with something like the inexpensive RNP, or even with the console preamps on a cheap Mackie 1202 (take the signal out of the inserts and bypass the rest of the Mackie electronics). If you make a solid state box without any transformers in it and add a tube stage running in starvation mode, it doesn't sound very much at all like the real thing. Well, that's nice. What are your recomendations on specific makes and models of mic pre-amps under $500 price point? RNP. The old Event EMP-1 isn't so bad, either. The Bellari is not a very good preamp, but it is a starting point to build one around. You might be able to find a used single channel John Hardy preamp in that range, even, if you look hard. That's about the cheapest preamp you will find with a transformer input, which is rather important if you are using dynamic mikes. Something like an SM-57 will sound a lot better into a transformer than into a resistive load. Several folks have mentioned the Peavey VMP-2, which at $750 was an absolutely incredible deal. I don't think you'll find one used for $500, but if you do you should snap it up. But even the Mackie console preamps are going to be an improvement over some of the cheap outboard stuff being made now. And that's really sad. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"Powell" wrote in message ... "Scott Dorsey" wrote Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp for around four hundred clams? Art MPA Gold - www.artroch.com http://www.zzounds.com/item--ARTMPAGOLD No. This is exactly an example of what is wrong with the whole "fake tube mike pre" thing. How would you know? You're new here, aren't you? Glenn D. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"£ Î Z @ R Ð" wrote in message ... Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp for around four hundred clams? Yes, I know it's a matter of opinion, but the last place I'd consider using tubes is a mike preamp, where noise is a principal consideration. Instead, warm it up in some sort of line level device where the signal/noise ratio isn't so important. Norm Strong |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Carey,
Is that the PAIA build, or something else? Got an issue #? George Reiswig Song of the River Music "Carey Carlan" wrote in message . 203... "£ Î Z @ R Ð" wrote in : Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp for around four hundred clams? Call the folks at Tape Op magazine and get their back issue on building your own tube preamp. I haven't built one, but several here spoke highly of it. Parts would be well under $400 if you can handle a soldering iron. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Powell wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp for around four hundred clams? Art MPA Gold - www.artroch.com http://www.zzounds.com/item--ARTMPAGOLD No. This is exactly an example of what is wrong with the whole "fake tube mike pre" thing. How would you know? Is that your head in your ass or are you just hiding a football? If you're not kidding, then either you can go to Google and find out why Scott Dorsey would know or you could shut up and not make a complete fool of yourself. Any other questions? -- hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose" |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"Scott Dorsey" wrote I've used the MPA Pro for over a year with Sure KSM 27's for voice over work only. In that environment I found the combination to be quite accurate. You can back off on the tube gain with the low efficiency KSM 27's and still achieve a satisfying flat frequency response when recorded digitally. Yes, but it still has no midrange detail. High level "midrange detail"... is not available at three times the price point base on manufacturing costs to produce really high level detail. Consumers have little choice but to comprise in one form or another, in the low end market. OTOH, I use a Audio Power conditioner with the MPA Pro and find the midrange accuracy to be suitable for critical work. First you wrote "Why not get a preamp that sounds good, and not worry about what technology it's built with?" Now you've put in biased qualifier to it "IC front end, cheesy tube stage with 50V on the plate." And now somehow the component parts "IC front end" and "cheesy tube stage" make a difference. My argument is that the tube stage in there is just so they can put "tube mike pre" on the box, and not for any real sonic reason. I considered the “tube” aspect, from a marketing point of view, to be negative reason to purchase. Why do think being tube is good or bad? Either can be well served (SS/tube/make good sound) depending on the preferences of the user and the application. And, in fact, it does not sound anything like a typical tube preamplifier does. I'm not aware of a "typical tube" sound associated with tubes. If you mean warm sounding, for example, that can be achieved (distorted) to do so with either implementation (SS/tube). If the sound deviates from anything but a flat response then preference comes into play. Typical tube preamps do all sound different, though, because different stages and different transformers sound different. The Tube MP doesn't sound like any of the standard designs, though. And it just sounds bad. So, which is it "preamp that sounds good" or "not worry about what technology it's built with" or IS IT the technology "cheesy tube stage?" All mixed signals to the consumer (original poster). Get a preamp that sounds good, and do not be blinded by advertising that says you should buy a preamp that has a tube in it. Listen to things and compare them. "Listen to things and compare them"... always good words. But there is little opportunity to audition low end electronics. "With a real tube preamp"... what "real" anything? The discussion is the sub $500 pre-amp price point, BTW. You won't get a good tube preamp for under $500. The transformers alone for two channels will cost more than that if you want any degree of quality. Sorry about that. Well, I guess the original poster shouldn’t purchase anything because it doesn't meet your standards... your personal preferences. All you will get is a cheesy imitation of the real thing. But you CAN get a good sounding solid state preamp for that price. So you say. But there will be comprises, they are unavoidable. Consumer don't have companies like Audio Research, CJ, VAC (tube examples) or Levinson, Krell, Classe (ss) to choose from. With few exceptions, the base of electronic of manufactures building microphone pre-amps produce shoddy goods (SS/Tube). I think the real question at the sub $500 price point is how does it sound? The proper implementation of electronic components is the manufacture’s constraint not the consumers. I would tend to agree, which is why I don't like the ART. It sounds bad. That's an opinion you get to have. Once again, I urge you to compare it with something like the inexpensive RNP, or even with the console preamps on a cheap Mackie 1202 (take the signal out of the inserts and bypass the rest of the Mackie electronics). "Mackie"... another dog with different fleas. If you make a solid state box without any transformers in it and add a tube stage running in starvation mode, it doesn't sound very much at all like the real thing. Well, that's nice. What are your recomendations on specific makes and models of mic pre-amps under $500 price point? RNP. The old Event EMP-1 isn't so bad, either. Are you talking 8380... minimalist design to be sure? Several folks have mentioned the Peavey VMP-2, which at $750 was an absolutely incredible deal. I don't think you'll find one used for $500, but if you do you should snap it up. I don't see it on the web site. Has it been discontinued? http://www.peavey.com/products/ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Yes, I know it's a matter of opinion, but the last place I'd consider using tubes is a mike preamp, where noise is a principal consideration. Instead, warm it up in some sort of line level device where the signal/noise ratio isn't so important. admittedly I am a newbie, I like tubes in my guitar amps, and so I thought they'd go well in a mic preamp. I'm not married to the idea. I am recording with a Yammy AW4416. I am unimpressed with their preamps -- too clinical for my taste. I'd like a good warm preamp to make up for it.. -- *·.¸_¸.·'¨¨) ¸.·' (_¸.·' Jonathan Go to http://www.guestroomproject.com/ to hear some music from my upcoming solo album, the Guestroom Project. I play all the instruments. "normanstrong" wrote in message news:0H_8c.100509$_w.1311926@attbi_s53... "£ Î Z @ R Ð" wrote in message ... Anyone have a good recommendation for a warm, tube, 2-channel mic preamp for around four hundred clams? Yes, I know it's a matter of opinion, but the last place I'd consider using tubes is a mike preamp, where noise is a principal consideration. Instead, warm it up in some sort of line level device where the signal/noise ratio isn't so important. Norm Strong |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"hank alrich" wrote So, which is it "preamp that sounds good" or "not worry about what technology it's built with" or IS IT the technology "cheesy tube stage?" All mixed signals to the consumer (original poster). It's nice that you appreciate a sucky preamp for your voiceovers; that's no reason for anybody seeking a quality microphone preamplifier to use it. You don't get it... there are no "quality" mic pre-amps at the sub $500 level. Voicingover and music recording may not have much in common. Reproduction of the human voice is the most demanding aspect of audio production/reproduction. The ear detects the most details and microdynamics in this frequency range. What don't they have in common (music/voice)? Please provide a technically based list of objections? "With a real tube preamp"... what "real" anything? The discussion is the sub $500 pre-amp price point, BTW. He's talking about a preamp where the tube elements provide the significant gain, not some cheesdeball setup designed in marketing to dupe the unaware into thinking what they've bought uses tubes for amplification. Quack, quack, quack... I have no quarrel with anybody wanting to use coloration, but I take issue with the idea that tubes have some inherent coloration that is at all represented by the likes of your sucky preamp. Please enlighten me then. What empirical experiences lead you to that conclusion? Have you personally auditioned the PMA Pro Gold in you setup? Do you have something to add that someone else didn't tell you (empirical)? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"£ Î Z @ R Ð" wrote in message ...
I am recording with a Yammy AW4416. I am unimpressed with their preamps -- too clinical for my taste. I'd like a good warm preamp to make up for it.. I know with say an SM57 into my aw4416, I have to turn up the guitar amp pretty darn loud just to get a decent level, and I didn't like the sound much either (going for a metal sound). I had MUCH better luck at lower volumes with a Marshall MXL 603s, captured a sound that was much closer to what I actually heard coming from the amp than I could with the SM57. (All I have is cheap mics. I'm strictly amateur.) What mics have you tried? (Maybe you don't really need a new preamp.) A bit offtopic: Just FYI, in case you don't already know about it, there is a yahoo groups mailing list for the AW4416 with a whole bunch of people on it that really know that machine pretty well. For instance, I vaguely remember seeing a message or two on there some time back about chaining the mic pres on inputs 1 & 2 together to get more gain. Something like that. Don't really recall the details though. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AW4416/ -- steve |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"Glenn Dowdy" wrote How would you know? You're new here, aren't you? I’ve posted a few times on r.a.o over the years. We have a different accent in our conversations over there . |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Tubes can be a good thing, but you can't even get a decent single
channel tube pre at your price level let alone a pair. Twist Turner http://tinyurl.com/ul70 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Powell wrote:
High level "midrange detail"... is not available at three times the price point base on manufacturing costs to produce really high level detail. Consumers have little choice but to comprise in one form or another, in the low end market. Have you used an FMR RNP? OTOH, I use a Audio Power conditioner with the MPA Pro and find the midrange accuracy to be suitable for critical work. Critical is as critical does; there's a man posts here who considers his GML pre apt for voiceover work. It's also apt for just about any other "high level" music recording application. I am uncertain why you think detail is improved by the power conditioner unless your source AC is pretty screwed up. If the sound deviates from anything but a flat response then preference comes into play. I recently enjoyed a casual comparison of four truly excellent preamps (Gordon Model 3, Grace Lunatec V. 3, Great River MP2-MH and Millennia Media HV-3D), all with admirable linearity to 100 KHz or well beyond, all with admirable phase coherence and extremely low noise floors bumping theoretical minimum, and they all sounded different. _Flat response_ is a single aspect of performance and not necessarily indicative of any unit's sound. -- ha |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
£ Î Z @ R wrote:
admittedly I am a newbie, I like tubes in my guitar amps, and so I thought they'd go well in a mic preamp. I'm not married to the idea. I am recording with a Yammy AW4416. I am unimpressed with their preamps -- too clinical for my taste. I'd like a good warm preamp to make up for it.. You really do want to audition an FMR RNP. I'd go so far as to say just get it and learn from using it. It will take excellent care of you, and it's also a good instrument DI. -- ha |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
In article , "Powell"
writes: High level "midrange detail"... is not available at three times the price point base on manufacturing costs to produce really high level detail. Consumers have little choice but to comprise in one form or another, in the low end market. Not true. The FMR RNP is quite a nice piece for about $500. Garth~ "I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle." Ed Cherney |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"Powell" wrote in message ... "Glenn Dowdy" wrote How would you know? You're new here, aren't you? I've posted a few times on r.a.o over the years. We have a different accent in our conversations over there . That explains a lot. Spending more time talking than listening. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
"hank alrich" wrote High level "midrange detail"... is not available at three times the price point base on manufacturing costs to produce really high level detail. Consumers have little choice but to comprise in one form or another, in the low end market. Have you used an FMR RNP? No, but I went to the web site and read about the product. The manufacture states this about the RNP, "WHAT SUCKS Now I will violate a very important marketing rule by telling you what I think sucks about the RNP. Why? Because nothing is perfect and compromises always have to be made."... I have claimed nothing different. After reading the product information it doesn’t appear to be a good candidate for studio use. If used for this purpose one would need a roll of duck tape to hold it down in an equipment rack. Weak power supply. It also only has three LED lights to represent the entire audio spectrum, that not very useful. The incomplete specification sheet is particularly troubling, too. OTOH, I use a Audio Power conditioner with the MPA Pro and find the midrange accuracy to be suitable for critical work. Critical is as critical does; there's a man posts here who considers his GML pre apt for voiceover work. It's also apt for just about any other "high level" music recording application. I am uncertain why you think detail is improved by the power conditioner unless your source AC is pretty screwed up. Power supplies appear to be weak links on most low end electronics... even on some high end stereo audio products, too. It’s an easy place to cut manufacturing expenses. All A/C current is dirty. The only real question is how much and how audible is it. Running the mic pre-amp and computer, while recording, through a power conditioner I can see that the noise floor drops 4-7 dB on the meter while idling. The audio effect is a blacker/quieter background. If the sound deviates from anything but a flat response then preference comes into play. I recently enjoyed a casual comparison of four truly excellent preamps (Gordon Model 3, Grace Lunatec V. 3, Great River MP2-MH and Millennia Media HV-3D), all with admirable linearity to 100 KHz or well beyond, all with admirable phase coherence and extremely low noise floors bumping theoretical minimum, and they all sounded different. If they are not identical sounding then they must have audio spectrum differences. "extremely low noise floors bumping theoretical minimum"... not likely. _Flat response_ is a single aspect of performance and not necessarily indicative of any unit's sound. Well, yes and no. If the output of the unit was truly flat, however you wish to define that, it would have not have any apparent sound quality/signature. It would truly be “straight wire with gain.” None of the sited manufactures are working the on bleeding edge of technology. In a similar technology like phono pre-amps, for example, one has to invest $2-10 K per channel to reach that level. There is no market place in the sound recording industry for that kind of assault. Some have said that it’s the recording industry who is holding up high end media like types like DVD-A & SACD from becoming more popular because of all this foot dragging. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Recommend a ~$400 2-channel tube mic-preamp?
Powell wrote:
You don't get it... there are no "quality" mic pre-amps at the sub $500 level. (a) he definitelty gets it and (b) have you ever used an FMR RNP? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 2/5) | Car Audio | |||
DIY Multi Channel Tube Preamp | High End Audio | |||
Tube preamp low freq loss | Pro Audio | |||
AES Show Report (LONG!!!!) | Pro Audio | |||
art tube mp mic preamp | Pro Audio |