Mic preamp comparison

> 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.

> Different EQ on one of the versions perhaps?
>

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

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."

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.