Transformers
- Thread starter chessrock
- Start date
I can't wait for the day when people start coming on these boards saying stuff like:
"I'm so excited. I just got this awesome vintage pre the other day. And it's got tons of chips in it ! ! Man, those SSM's are something else. Way better than that Texas Instruments crap. If you want your tracks to sound tight and clear, you gotta' get yourself some chip in the path. "
"I'm so excited. I just got this awesome vintage pre the other day. And it's got tons of chips in it ! ! Man, those SSM's are something else. Way better than that Texas Instruments crap. If you want your tracks to sound tight and clear, you gotta' get yourself some chip in the path. "
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
chessrock said:I think Massive Mastering is taking me literally rather than figuratively.
Yes, my bad. I should really read the whole of the posts first...
Gotcha - the fairly new "boutique" craze for upgraded transformers, op-amps, etc. being similar to the craze for tube gear.
I just saw "trasformer" and "what tubes were" in the same paragraphs and... You know... It happens... Gonna go have more coffee now.
John
DJL said:
Hi
You have to step back and look at the big picture when discussing transformers.
If you look at the output from the device the transformer sees (besides the components of the load) the resistance, capacitance and inductance of the cable. This depends on the length and nature of the cable. As an example, if there was a lot of capacitance in the cable it would resonate with the transformer and shift the frequency response... usually causing a rise in HF response above 20KHz that adds sibilance to frequency lower down.
If you look at the input to the device it's sort of the other way around. How does the transformer and it's inductance, capacitance and resistance (impedance factors) affect the device driving it? How does the cable characteristic affect the device driving it? And finally, how do these parameters affect the transformer.
In the old days... which, sadly, I can remember... circuits were based on telephone practice and were 600 ohm working. That's both an output and input impedance of 600 ohms... where maximum power transfer took place... but, except for ancient tube compressors, we use the alternative low to high impedance matching.
So, the output impedance of a device has to be very low (usually below 100 ohms) and the input impedance of the next stage is usually very high (usually above 10Kohms). The output impedance of the previous stage adequately damps the primary of the next stage, and the primary does not excessively load the output of the previous stage.
Generally the output impedance of the driving stage should never rise above 50% of the input impedance of the following stage.
Of course, transformer are wound for custom applications so they might have a 1200 ohm impedance for a mic and a 47Kohm impedance for a DI.
As for how it sounds... all those variables I discussed will affect the sound on top of what effect the transformer has. Speaking from a vintage Neve viewpoint, I doubt that any clipping is the transformer but it could be distortion from the following circuitry and a grossly overloaded amplifier input stage would reflect back strange things to the secondary of the transformer.
regebro
Insane Genious!
chessrock said:You're kind of right. People do sort of go crazy over the JFET or burr-brown channels on a Sytek, for example.
Oh my god . . . it's already starting, isn't it?
Yes, and maybe people would then slowly realize that you can create good sound in many different ways. And you could probably even create the same sound in many different ways. And the same construction can sound very different.
There are no fixed rule. Tubes are not better than transistors, digital is not better than analog, and so on for ever.
One piece of equipment will sound different from another piece of equipment. Some clearly better than others. But there is not one answer to why these do sound better. They just do.
Thanks Geoff, I'm still soaking all that in. Please stick around... we could use your help around here more often. Thanks again.Geoff_T said:Hi
You have to step back and look at the big picture when discussing transformers.
If you look at the output from the device the transformer sees (besides the components of the load) the resistance, capacitance and inductance of the cable. This depends on the length and nature of the cable. As an example, if there was a lot of capacitance in the cable it would resonate with the transformer and shift the frequency response... usually causing a rise in HF response above 20KHz that adds sibilance to frequency lower down.
If you look at the input to the device it's sort of the other way around. How does the transformer and it's inductance, capacitance and resistance (impedance factors) affect the device driving it? How does the cable characteristic affect the device driving it? And finally, how do these parameters affect the transformer.
In the old days... which, sadly, I can remember... circuits were based on telephone practice and were 600 ohm working. That's both an output and input impedance of 600 ohms... where maximum power transfer took place... but, except for ancient tube compressors, we use the alternative low to high impedance matching.
So, the output impedance of a device has to be very low (usually below 100 ohms) and the input impedance of the next stage is usually very high (usually above 10Kohms). The output impedance of the previous stage adequately damps the primary of the next stage, and the primary does not excessively load the output of the previous stage.
Generally the output impedance of the driving stage should never rise above 50% of the input impedance of the following stage.
Of course, transformer are wound for custom applications so they might have a 1200 ohm impedance for a mic and a 47Kohm impedance for a DI.
As for how it sounds... all those variables I discussed will affect the sound on top of what effect the transformer has. Speaking from a vintage Neve viewpoint, I doubt that any clipping is the transformer but it could be distortion from the following circuitry and a grossly overloaded amplifier input stage would reflect back strange things to the secondary of the transformer.
MISTERQCUE
Not Just Anutha Brutha
Geoff_T said:Hi
You have to step back and look at the big picture when discussing transformers.
If you look at the output from the device the transformer sees (besides the components of the load) the resistance, capacitance and inductance of the cable. This depends on the length and nature of the cable. As an example, if there was a lot of capacitance in the cable it would resonate with the transformer and shift the frequency response... usually causing a rise in HF response above 20KHz that adds sibilance to frequency lower down.
If you look at the input to the device it's sort of the other way around. How does the transformer and it's inductance, capacitance and resistance (impedance factors) affect the device driving it? How does the cable characteristic affect the device driving it? And finally, how do these parameters affect the transformer.
In the old days... which, sadly, I can remember... circuits were based on telephone practice and were 600 ohm working. That's both an output and input impedance of 600 ohms... where maximum power transfer took place... but, except for ancient tube compressors, we use the alternative low to high impedance matching.
So, the output impedance of a device has to be very low (usually below 100 ohms) and the input impedance of the next stage is usually very high (usually above 10Kohms). The output impedance of the previous stage adequately damps the primary of the next stage, and the primary does not excessively load the output of the previous stage.
Generally the output impedance of the driving stage should never rise above 50% of the input impedance of the following stage.
Of course, transformer are wound for custom applications so they might have a 1200 ohm impedance for a mic and a 47Kohm impedance for a DI.
As for how it sounds... all those variables I discussed will affect the sound on top of what effect the transformer has. Speaking from a vintage Neve viewpoint, I doubt that any clipping is the transformer but it could be distortion from the following circuitry and a grossly overloaded amplifier input stage would reflect back strange things to the secondary of the transformer.
I have taught you well Geoff!!
You were always one of my favorite students always minding to have his homework assignments in on time! You done me proud son!
Welcome to HR!!
regebro
Insane Genious!
Yes, because that has been the major trend for the last few years. Tooobs man, tooobs! Before that it wasn't a major trend, except in the extremely conservative guitarist-world.DJL said:
At the same time there are smaller subtrends, which very well may become larger trands soo, to return to "low-fi digital" to get the grit you get with old 8-bit stuff. Because thats what THEY like.
It's just a matter of taste. Personally I still think several of the recordings I made on my 4-track cassette sounds better than the one I'm doing on 8-track reel-2-reel. You can't exactly blame THAT on analog-vs-digital, can ya? My all-transistor (possible even op-amp, what do I know) preamp sound darn much better than my tube preamp. Which doesn't sound bad. There are trends within the audophile world against circuitboards, and yes, for green markers.
It's all just blue smoke and buzzwords. If something sounds good, it sounds good. End of story. There is no single explanation available for why something sounds good. It's the total combination of all the circuitry that makes it sound good. Putting a tube in the signal path will not automatically sound better or worse. Removing all the transistors in the signal path will not automatically make it sound better or worse.
MISTERQCUE said:I have taught you well Geoff!!
You were always one of my favorite students always minding to have his homework assignments in on time! You done me proud son!
Welcome to HR!!
Hi
You must be old then!
One of my first electronic lecturers, I wish I could remember his name, was Chief engineer of the railway system in Singapore before the start of WW2.
The folk defending the country anticipated a sea landing and had guns aimed out to sea but the Japanese invaded overland and took them all by surprise.
My lecturer had to tell his workers to disable/wreck the steam locomotives so that the Japanese couldn't use them (hoping that they would derail them or blow up the boilers, but when he went outside the workers were all hitting the locomotives with hammers!
He spent the rest of the war in a Japanese POW camp.
Geoff
Most of the guitarist I know love tube amps and hate transistor amps and I tend to agree with them. Anyway, I have question for you... (if tape had a sample rate, maybe it does?) if we were to compare tape recording with digital recording, which one would be considered to have the higher sample rate. In other words, which one captures the most data? I'm only asking because I want to learn, and not because I know the answer or want to argue. I just want learn. Thanksregebro said:
Don't worry about that... it happens all the time here. You can hit the edit button and delete the second post if you want... but, I don't think anyone here really cares if you leave it either... I'm just happy to have you here with us.Geoff_T said:Oops... double posted accidentally because of congestion on site...
DJL said:
Hmmm. Sample rate would be most likened to tape speed and width. In other words, think of it as the total amount of magnetic particles that can pass over a tape head per second versus the amount of digital samples or frames per second.
You'd think that with 2" tape running at 30 ips, it would be tough to beat analog tape in terms of the amount of sound info. or "data" as you put it. But then a good portion of the info. being passed along on analog tape would be non-audio info -- hiss or noise floor.
Beats the crap outa' me. Doesn't seem like either is completely ideal or perfect. I'd say analog would have digital beat in terms of frequency response, but digital would kick the shit outa' analog in terms of dynamic range.
Flatpicker
...
Geoff! Good to see you here! I saw your name at the top of "The Rack" forum and thought I'd look around and see where you were posting. Hope you can visit often!
Flatpicker said:Geoff! Good to see you here! I saw your name at the top of "The Rack" forum and thought I'd look around and see where you were posting. Hope you can visit often!
Hi
Thanks! I'll try to!
Geoff
http://www.auroraaudio.net/main.shtml