[Tobiah]

I recorded two mono channels, each through a different preamp into the same
audio interface. I normalized those, then arranged the results as A/B/A/B
into the same sound file.

All things were as equal as I could make them, other than the preamps.
Can you detect a difference? Do you like one better?

http://ven.rcsreg.com/r2/2_pres.wav

Later, I'll disclose the premps.


Tobiah

[Chris K-Man]

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 5:18:05 PM UTC-4, Tobiah wrote:
I recorded two mono channels, each through a different preamp into the same
audio interface. I normalized those, then arranged the results as A/B/A/B
into the same sound file.

All things were as equal as I could make them, other than the preamps.
Can you detect a difference? Do you like one better?

http://ven.rcsreg.com/r2/2_pres.wav

Later, I'll disclose the premps.


Tobiah
___________

Where does the second pre-amp recording begin - about 18sec?

[[email protected]]

Tobiah wrote:
=============
I recorded two mono channels, each through a different preamp into the same
audio interface. I normalized those, then arranged the results as A/B/A/B
into the same sound file.


** For his next trick, Tobia will video himself ****ing through a keyhole ...


.... Phil

[Tobiah]

** For his next trick, Tobia will video himself ****ing through a keyhole ...

I take it that you found my post uninteresting. I stretch it here
at times since the traffic is so much lower now than it used to be.

[Tobiah]

Where does the second pre-amp recording begin - about 18sec?


About 9 seconds in, then three more times alternating preamps.

[[email protected]]

Tobiah wrote:

----------------------------
** For his next trick, Tobia will video himself ****ing through a keyhole ...

I take it that you found my post uninteresting.

** Wrong.

I found it totally pointless and vapid.


....... Phil

[geoff]

On 20/05/2021 1:49 pm, wrote:
Tobiah wrote:
=============
I recorded two mono channels, each through a different preamp into the same
audio interface. I normalized those, then arranged the results as A/B/A/B
into the same sound file.


** For his next trick, Tobia will video himself ****ing through a keyhole ...


... Phil


And for his next trick Phallison will swallow a white rabbit, and pull a
brown hare out of his arse.

geoff

[geoff]

On 20/05/2021 9:17 am, Tobiah wrote:
I recorded two mono channels, each through a different preamp into the same
audio interface.Â* I normalized those, then arranged the results as A/B/A/B
into the same sound file.

All things were as equal as I could make them, other than the preamps.
Can you detect a difference?Â* Do you like one better?

http://ven.rcsreg.com/r2/2_pres.wav

Later, I'll disclose the premps.


Tobiah


One seems to give a little more twang off the higher strings than the other.

On my cruddy computer speakers at least ...

geoff

[Chris K-Man]

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 6:20:19 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 20/05/2021 9:17 am, Tobiah wrote:
I recorded two mono channels, each through a different preamp into the same
audio interface. I normalized those, then arranged the results as A/B/A/B
into the same sound file.

All things were as equal as I could make them, other than the preamps.
Can you detect a difference? Do you like one better?

http://ven.rcsreg.com/r2/2_pres.wav

Later, I'll disclose the premps.


Tobiah
One seems to give a little more twang off the higher strings than the other.

On my cruddy computer speakers at least ...

geoff
____

Different EQ on one of the versions perhaps?

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote:
==============
On 20/05/2021 1:49 pm, wrote:


** For his next trick, Tobia will video himself ****ing through a keyhole ...


... Phil

And for his next trick Phallison will swallow a white rabbit, and pull a
brown hare out of his arse.

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

** However, zero chance exists "geoff" would ever extricate his giant swollen head from his constipated rectum any time at all.

Cos a massive, fatal **** storm would ensue.




..... Phil

[Ty Ford[_2_]]

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 5:18:05 PM UTC-4, Tobiah wrote:
I recorded two mono channels, each through a different preamp into the same
audio interface. I normalized those, then arranged the results as A/B/A/B
into the same sound file.

All things were as equal as I could make them, other than the preamps.
Can you detect a difference? Do you like one better?

http://ven.rcsreg.com/r2/2_pres.wav

Later, I'll disclose the premps.


Tobiah

Due to my present situation, I have not listened, but need to mention................
The mic/preamp match is not a simple thing. Years ago I found that a certain SD mic sounded better through a Mackie preamp than my GML. I was surprised. I don't think it was due to a problem with the GML. I think a better mic would have sounded MUCH better with the GML than the SD mic in question sounded with the Mackie.

[Roy W. Rising]

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 2:18:05 PM UTC-7, Tobiah wrote:
I recorded two mono channels, each through a different preamp into the same
audio interface. I normalized those, then arranged the results as A/B/A/B
into the same sound file.

All things were as equal as I could make them, other than the preamps.
Can you detect a difference? Do you like one better?

http://ven.rcsreg.com/r2/2_pres.wav

Later, I'll disclose the premps.


Tobiah

My preferred way to A/B audio gear is to record the choices simultaneously on separate tracks. This removes the question about when the 'switch' takes place. The evaluating listener decides when to switch. Here, I'd use a "Y" cord to feed the mic to both preamps. Their outputs would go to two tracks. Typical input impedances should prevent cross-loading problems. Scott?

[Tobiah[_6_]]

On 5/19/21 2:17 PM, Tobiah wrote:
I recorded two mono channels, each through a different preamp into the same
audio interface.Â* I normalized those, then arranged the results as A/B/A/B
into the same sound file.

All things were as equal as I could make them, other than the preamps.
Can you detect a difference?Â* Do you like one better?

http://ven.rcsreg.com/r2/2_pres.wav

Later, I'll disclose the premps.


Tobiah



It was Two NT1-A's positioned side by side. One went into
a Mackie 1402-VLZ Pro preamp and out the insert into the
line input of a Presonus 1810 inteface.

The second mic went into a preamp of the 1810.

Each was recorded simultaneously onto separate tracks,
then arranged Mackie/Presonus/Mackie/Presonus.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 20 May 2021 11:30:12 -0700, Tobiah
wrote:

On 5/19/21 2:17 PM, Tobiah wrote:
I recorded two mono channels, each through a different preamp into the same
audio interface.Â* I normalized those, then arranged the results as A/B/A/B
into the same sound file.

All things were as equal as I could make them, other than the preamps.
Can you detect a difference?Â* Do you like one better?

http://ven.rcsreg.com/r2/2_pres.wav

Later, I'll disclose the premps.


Tobiah



It was Two NT1-A's positioned side by side. One went into
a Mackie 1402-VLZ Pro preamp and out the insert into the
line input of a Presonus 1810 inteface.

The second mic went into a preamp of the 1810.

Each was recorded simultaneously onto separate tracks,
then arranged Mackie/Presonus/Mackie/Presonus.

It did sound like you had them quite close to the sound hole, though,
which is not good for balance. I also use NT1-As, and I reckon the
ideal position for recording acoustic guitar is about six feet away.
You need a decent room of course.

d

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[geoff]

On 21/05/2021 6:30 am, Tobiah wrote:
On 5/19/21 2:17 PM, Tobiah wrote:
I recorded two mono channels, each through a different preamp into the
same
audio interface.Â* I normalized those, then arranged the results as
A/B/A/B
into the same sound file.

All things were as equal as I could make them, other than the preamps.
Can you detect a difference?Â* Do you like one better?

http://ven.rcsreg.com/r2/2_pres.wav

Later, I'll disclose the premps.


Tobiah



It was Two NT1-A's positioned side by side.Â* One went into
a Mackie 1402-VLZ Pro preamp and out the insert into the
line input of a Presonus 1810 inteface.

The second mic went into a preamp of the 1810.

Each was recorded simultaneously onto separate tracks,
then arranged Mackie/Presonus/Mackie/Presonus.


"Side by side" could itself cause a subtle difference.

Better option would have been to use one mic and a mic-splitter. But
that would defeat the point of a mic preamp test ;-/

geoff

[geoff]

On 20/05/2021 10:40 pm, Chris K-Man wrote:
On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 6:20:19 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 20/05/2021 9:17 am, Tobiah wrote:
I recorded two mono channels, each through a different preamp into the same
audio interface. I normalized those, then arranged the results as A/B/A/B
into the same sound file.

All things were as equal as I could make them, other than the preamps.
Can you detect a difference? Do you like one better?

http://ven.rcsreg.com/r2/2_pres.wav

Later, I'll disclose the premps.


Tobiah
One seems to give a little more twang off the higher strings than the other.

On my cruddy computer speakers at least ...

geoff
____

Different EQ on one of the versions perhaps?



Doh. I don't think the OP is as dumb.

geoff

[Chris K-Man]

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 5:13:49 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 20/05/2021 10:40 pm, Chris K-Man wrote:
On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 6:20:19 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 20/05/2021 9:17 am, Tobiah wrote:
I recorded two mono channels, each through a different preamp into the same
audio interface. I normalized those, then arranged the results as A/B/A/B
into the same sound file.

All things were as equal as I could make them, other than the preamps.
Can you detect a difference? Do you like one better?

http://ven.rcsreg.com/r2/2_pres.wav

Later, I'll disclose the premps.


Tobiah
One seems to give a little more twang off the higher strings than the other.

On my cruddy computer speakers at least ...

geoff
____

Different EQ on one of the versions perhaps?

Doh. I don't think the OP is as dumb.

geoff
____

Just pointing out that I'd attribute any audible
difference to mastering than to any difference among
preamps, or DACs, etc.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/20/2021 7:46 PM, Chris K-Man wrote:
Just pointing out that I'd attribute any audible
difference to mastering than to any difference among
preamps, or DACs, etc.

Who said anything about mastering? Tobiah was trying to compare
differences in signal path - preamps and converters. However, I suspect
that the difference between the sound of the two mics, even though
they're the same make and model, are greater, though of a different
nature, than the difference between good preamps and converters.

This is a flawed experiment but is of value in demonstrating that the
difference between the two signal chains is audible. Preference for one
over the other is subjective.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote:
==========

"Side by side" could itself cause a subtle difference.

Better option would have been to use one mic and a mic-splitter. But
that would defeat the point of a mic preamp test ;-/


** A Rode NT-1A ( source Z = 100ohms) could easily drive several pre-amps at once.
The output level is very high ( 35mV at 94dB SPL) so pre-amp self noise is a non issue.

The dopey OP needed to make a Y lead and match gains to a fraction a dB - a basic DMM could do this with a steady sound source.

Famous saying:

" Never let an audiophool devise his own test ".


...... Phil

[geoff]

On 21/05/2021 11:46 am, Chris K-Man wrote:
On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 5:13:49 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 20/05/2021 10:40 pm, Chris K-Man wrote:
On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 6:20:19 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 20/05/2021 9:17 am, Tobiah wrote:
I recorded two mono channels, each through a different preamp into the same
audio interface. I normalized those, then arranged the results as A/B/A/B
into the same sound file.

All things were as equal as I could make them, other than the preamps.
Can you detect a difference? Do you like one better?

http://ven.rcsreg.com/r2/2_pres.wav

Later, I'll disclose the premps.


Tobiah
One seems to give a little more twang off the higher strings than the other.

On my cruddy computer speakers at least ...

geoff
____

Different EQ on one of the versions perhaps?

Doh. I don't think the OP is as dumb.

geoff
____

Just pointing out that I'd attribute any audible
difference to mastering than to any difference among
preamps, or DACs, etc.



Only a ****wit would think of mastering tracks in any way whatsoever for
a mic preamp comparison.

geoff

[Tobiah[_6_]]

Who said anything about mastering? Tobiah was trying to compare
differences in signal path - preamps and converters.
Both signals went into the 1810, so the converters were
the same.

[Tobiah[_6_]]

Different EQ on one of the versions perhaps?


I took the Mackie signal out of the insert - no signal
went through even zeroed eq.

[Scott Dorsey]

Ty Ford wrote:
The mic/preamp match is not a simple thing. Years ago I found that a certai=
n SD mic sounded better through a Mackie preamp than my GML. I was surprise=
d. I don't think it was due to a problem with the GML. I think a better mic=
would have sounded MUCH better with the GML than the SD mic in question so=
unded with the Mackie.=20

It's not so hard in the condenser mike world where you can design an
amplifier to go into a wide range of loads, but with a dynamic or ribbon
mike it's hard to make a mike that is immune to loading and also has a high
output level. Plenty of mikes like the SM-57 are touchy about loading,
while others like the 441 sacrifice efficiency for being able to work into
a wide range of preamps without changing response.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Chris K-Man]

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 12:01:31 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 21/05/2021 11:46 am, Chris K-Man wrote:
On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 5:13:49 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 20/05/2021 10:40 pm, Chris K-Man wrote:
On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 6:20:19 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 20/05/2021 9:17 am, Tobiah wrote:
I recorded two mono channels, each through a different preamp into the same
audio interface. I normalized those, then arranged the results as A/B/A/B
into the same sound file.

All things were as equal as I could make them, other than the preamps.
Can you detect a difference? Do you like one better?

http://ven.rcsreg.com/r2/2_pres.wav

Later, I'll disclose the premps.


Tobiah
One seems to give a little more twang off the higher strings than the other.

On my cruddy computer speakers at least ...

geoff
____

Different EQ on one of the versions perhaps?

Doh. I don't think the OP is as dumb.

geoff
____

Just pointing out that I'd attribute any audible
difference to mastering than to any difference among
preamps, or DACs, etc.

Only a ****wit would think of mastering tracks in any way whatsoever for
a mic preamp comparison.

geoff
_______
It is to the DEGREE of difference(pre-amp vs pre-amp vs different masterings)
which I am referring. Understand now?

Just 2dB of top added to one of those recordings, or 1dB of mids scooped
out, and that's a bigger difference than the difference between two well made
pre-amps.

[geoff]

On 22/05/2021 5:07 am, Chris K-Man wrote:
On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 12:01:31 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 21/05/2021 11:46 am, Chris K-Man wrote:
On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 5:13:49 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 20/05/2021 10:40 pm, Chris K-Man wrote:
On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 6:20:19 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 20/05/2021 9:17 am, Tobiah wrote:
I recorded two mono channels, each through a different preamp into the same
audio interface. I normalized those, then arranged the results as A/B/A/B
into the same sound file.

All things were as equal as I could make them, other than the preamps.
Can you detect a difference? Do you like one better?

http://ven.rcsreg.com/r2/2_pres.wav

Later, I'll disclose the premps.


Tobiah
One seems to give a little more twang off the higher strings than the other.

On my cruddy computer speakers at least ...

geoff
____

Different EQ on one of the versions perhaps?

Doh. I don't think the OP is as dumb.

geoff
____

Just pointing out that I'd attribute any audible
difference to mastering than to any difference among
preamps, or DACs, etc.

Only a ****wit would think of mastering tracks in any way whatsoever for
a mic preamp comparison.

geoff
_______
It is to the DEGREE of difference(pre-amp vs pre-amp vs different masterings)
which I am referring. Understand now?

Just 2dB of top added to one of those recordings, or 1dB of mids scooped
out, and that's a bigger difference than the difference between two well made
pre-amps.


Yes, I understand, but you apparently still don't. No mastering should
be done at all.

It is a mic preamp comparison. The only adjustment made should be
level-matching the recorded signal. Nothing will be 'scooped out'
because then it is no longer a preamp comparison.

geoff

[Chris K-Man]

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 8:49:20 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 22/05/2021 5:07 am, Chris K-Man wrote:
On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 12:01:31 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 21/05/2021 11:46 am, Chris K-Man wrote:
On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 5:13:49 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 20/05/2021 10:40 pm, Chris K-Man wrote:
On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 6:20:19 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 20/05/2021 9:17 am, Tobiah wrote:
I recorded two mono channels, each through a different preamp into the same
audio interface. I normalized those, then arranged the results as A/B/A/B
into the same sound file.

All things were as equal as I could make them, other than the preamps.
Can you detect a difference? Do you like one better?

http://ven.rcsreg.com/r2/2_pres.wav

Later, I'll disclose the premps.


Tobiah
One seems to give a little more twang off the higher strings than the other.

On my cruddy computer speakers at least ...

geoff
____

Different EQ on one of the versions perhaps?

Doh. I don't think the OP is as dumb.

geoff
____

Just pointing out that I'd attribute any audible
difference to mastering than to any difference among
preamps, or DACs, etc.

Only a ****wit would think of mastering tracks in any way whatsoever for
a mic preamp comparison.

geoff
_______
It is to the DEGREE of difference(pre-amp vs pre-amp vs different masterings)
which I am referring. Understand now?

Just 2dB of top added to one of those recordings, or 1dB of mids scooped
out, and that's a bigger difference than the difference between two well made
pre-amps.

Yes, I understand, but you apparently still don't. No mastering should
be done at all.
________
That's why I hear no difference!

It is a mic preamp comparison.

geoff
______
No ****, Sherlock

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/21/2021 10:45 PM, Chris K-Man wrote:
It is a mic preamp comparison.
geoff

______
No ****, Sherlock

But didn't Tobiah say that both mics went into the two mic input
channels of the same interface? Or was that someone else in another
discussion?


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Chris K-Man]

On Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 11:23:42 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/21/2021 10:45 PM, Chris K-Man wrote:
It is a mic preamp comparison.
geoff

______
No ****, Sherlock
But didn't Tobiah say that both mics went into the two mic input
channels of the same interface? Or was that someone else in another
discussion?
--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com
______

Yes.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 21 May 2021 15:12:52 -0000, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:
The mic/preamp match is not a simple thing. Years ago I found that a certai=
n SD mic sounded better through a Mackie preamp than my GML. I was surprise=
d. I don't think it was due to a problem with the GML. I think a better mic=
would have sounded MUCH better with the GML than the SD mic in question so=
unded with the Mackie.=20

It's not so hard in the condenser mike world where you can design an
amplifier to go into a wide range of loads, but with a dynamic or ribbon
mike it's hard to make a mike that is immune to loading and also has a high
output level. Plenty of mikes like the SM-57 are touchy about loading,
while others like the 441 sacrifice efficiency for being able to work into
a wide range of preamps without changing response.
--scott

It's easy with a condenser mic because the first stage of the preamp
is built into the mic, so the loading is always going to be right.

d

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[None]

On Thu, 20 May 2021 16:46:02 -0700, theckma @ dumb****.shortbus.edu wrote:


Just pointing out that I'd attribute any audible difference to
mastering than to any difference among preamps, or DACs, etc.

Just desperately trying to change the topic to one of your hobby-horses.
In this case, your bizarre combination of obsession with mastering, and
complete ignorance about it.

Except in the retarded world of Theckmah the Village Dumb****, the thread
has nothing to do mastering. Which, as you continue to prove, you don't
know anything about.

[Tobiah[_6_]]

But didn't Tobiah say that both mics went into the two mic input
channels of the same interface? Or was that someone else in another
discussion?

One mic went into a 1402VLZ-Pro preamp, out the insert, and into
a line-in of the 1810. The other went into a mic pre of
the 1810.

[Tobiah]

It's easy with a condenser mic because the first stage of the preamp
is built into the mic, so the loading is always going to be right.

This leads me to wonder why it's not more popular to put the
whole preamp in the microphone. At one time the answer was
that the preamp was expensive and many mics could use the same
preamp. Now I wonder (and am asking) whether it would be more
advantageous to engineer the mics to output line level signals
all by themselves. I'm aware of the advent of USB mics and that
they, in a vague sense, address this.


Tobiah

[[email protected]]

Tobiah = audiophool wrote:

==========================


This leads me to wonder why it's not more popular to put the
whole preamp in the microphone.

** Keep wondering.....

At one time the answer was
that the preamp was expensive and many mics could use the same
preamp.

** Never the reason.

Now I wonder (and am asking) whether it would be more
advantageous to engineer the mics to output line level signals
all by themselves.

** Only possible if ALL mics were phantom powered, a massive disadvantage and big issue in live music.

Having the mic pre separate ALLOWS the gain to be set by an operator to CREATE a "line level " signal.

The raw signal coming from a mic varies over a huge range so mic pres have *gain controls* with 60 to 70 dB of adjustment to cater for this. No way exists to do this automatically, in the mic.



...... Phil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/23/2021 8:40 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
It's easy with a condenser mic because the first stage of the preamp
is built into the mic, so the loading is always going to be right.

That's the easy part. Where condenser mics differ in their sound when
connected to different preamps is whether there's an output transformer
or not, and if there is, it has a sound and that sound can be different
for preamps with different input impedance, and whether the preamp has
an input transformer or is transformerless, and the circuit topology of
a transformerless output (mic) or input (preamp.

There are so many ways to affect the sound between the diaphragm and a
usable output voltage (or digital output if the preamp includes it - a
whole other potential can of worms.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/24/2021 8:23 PM, Tobiah wrote:
This leads me to wonder why it's not more popular to put the
whole preamp in the microphone.Â* At one time the answer was
that the preamp was expensive and many mics could use the same
preamp.Â* Now I wonder (and am asking) whether it would be more
advantageous to engineer the mics to output line level signals
all by themselves.

Well, a dozen or so years ago, we started to see ribbon mics with a
built-in preamp. But this brought the output level of the mic into the
ballpark of a condenser mic. It does provide (we hope) the proper load
on the ribbon assembly, eliminating one variable when the mic is part of
a system, but the output of the built-in "pre-preamp" isn't line level.
One reason for this is that today's generation of "engineers" wouldn't
know what to do with it.

Also many inputs on a preamp or mixer that are labeled "line" are
actually the mic preamp with an attenuator and a couple of capacitors to
block phantom power. Personally I don't think that's as bad as some
people do, but it's a hurdle for some users and manufacturers.

Short story: If you have a low sensitivity microphone, a built-in
amplifier that brings it up to the sensitivity of other mics you may be
using is a smart thing. But a mic with line level output is still an
oddity.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 24 May 2021 20:48:44 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 5/23/2021 8:40 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
It's easy with a condenser mic because the first stage of the preamp
is built into the mic, so the loading is always going to be right.

That's the easy part. Where condenser mics differ in their sound when
connected to different preamps is whether there's an output transformer
or not, and if there is, it has a sound and that sound can be different
for preamps with different input impedance, and whether the preamp has
an input transformer or is transformerless, and the circuit topology of
a transformerless output (mic) or input (preamp.

There are so many ways to affect the sound between the diaphragm and a
usable output voltage (or digital output if the preamp includes it - a
whole other potential can of worms.

Well, anyone who is still messing with transformers gets what he
deserves. Active electronics provide common mode rejection every bit
as good these days, and without the distortion and frequency response
penalties inherent in the non-linear magnetic properties of iron.

d

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:
On 21 May 2021 15:12:52 -0000, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Ty Ford wrote:
The mic/preamp match is not a simple thing. Years ago I found that a certai=
n SD mic sounded better through a Mackie preamp than my GML. I was surprise=
d. I don't think it was due to a problem with the GML. I think a better mic=
would have sounded MUCH better with the GML than the SD mic in question so=
unded with the Mackie.=20

It's not so hard in the condenser mike world where you can design an
amplifier to go into a wide range of loads, but with a dynamic or ribbon
mike it's hard to make a mike that is immune to loading and also has a high
output level. Plenty of mikes like the SM-57 are touchy about loading,
while others like the 441 sacrifice efficiency for being able to work into
a wide range of preamps without changing response.

It's easy with a condenser mic because the first stage of the preamp
is built into the mic, so the loading is always going to be right.

You'd think so, and that's true with a well-designed condenser mike that has
a nice low output impedance. But I have seen a few condenser mikes with
transformer outputs that were touchy about loading!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 25 May 2021 12:54:43 -0000, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On 21 May 2021 15:12:52 -0000, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Ty Ford wrote:
The mic/preamp match is not a simple thing. Years ago I found that a certai=
n SD mic sounded better through a Mackie preamp than my GML. I was surprise=
d. I don't think it was due to a problem with the GML. I think a better mic=
would have sounded MUCH better with the GML than the SD mic in question so=
unded with the Mackie.=20

It's not so hard in the condenser mike world where you can design an
amplifier to go into a wide range of loads, but with a dynamic or ribbon
mike it's hard to make a mike that is immune to loading and also has a high
output level. Plenty of mikes like the SM-57 are touchy about loading,
while others like the 441 sacrifice efficiency for being able to work into
a wide range of preamps without changing response.

It's easy with a condenser mic because the first stage of the preamp
is built into the mic, so the loading is always going to be right.

You'd think so, and that's true with a well-designed condenser mike that has
a nice low output impedance. But I have seen a few condenser mikes with
transformer outputs that were touchy about loading!
--scott

Transformer - there's your problem.

d

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/25/2021 4:30 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
Well, anyone who is still messing with transformers gets what he
deserves. Active electronics provide common mode rejection every bit
as good these days, and without the distortion and frequency response
penalties inherent in the non-linear magnetic properties of iron.

If the only reason to "mess" with transformers was to provide an
accurate balanced connection, then, sure, get rid of them. The THAT
chips make for better common mode rejection than any transformer.

However, today's recordists have either been brainwashed or have decided
on their own that their recordings should include some of the "vintage"
sound of 50 year old equipment, to which transformers are a significant
contributor. And for that, there's nothing like a transformer.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 25 May 2021 09:19:31 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 5/25/2021 4:30 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
Well, anyone who is still messing with transformers gets what he
deserves. Active electronics provide common mode rejection every bit
as good these days, and without the distortion and frequency response
penalties inherent in the non-linear magnetic properties of iron.

If the only reason to "mess" with transformers was to provide an
accurate balanced connection, then, sure, get rid of them. The THAT
chips make for better common mode rejection than any transformer.

However, today's recordists have either been brainwashed or have decided
on their own that their recordings should include some of the "vintage"
sound of 50 year old equipment, to which transformers are a significant
contributor. And for that, there's nothing like a transformer.

Nobody has yet designed a VST transformer effect? About time, I
reckon.

d

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus