Middleman said:
First let me say, if you had read the entire thread you would have known I reversed my recommendation from NEVE to API. Regarding Neve however, you need to take some time and learn the differences. Neves are not that colored. Big ended, rich maybe but not deeply colored like a tube preamp.
I think I should reply to this, since you made some statements that I believe are highly inaccurate. First of all, I DID read the entire thread, and I AM aware that you changed your recommendation to API, instead of Neve. Both recommendations are bad. Keep in mind that the guy who is asking this question is a 19 yr. old kid who has a pitifully weak mic collection, will probably be monitoring his recordings on the
same computer speakers that he uses when he plays Doom III with his buddies, and most likely hasn't taken the time to train his ears to even be able to HEAR the difference between a Neve or an API preamp (or the ones on his 002, for that matter). Recommending ANY high end preamp to somebody like this is just plain irresponsible. ANY of them would be a ridiculous waste of his money.
I must admit that I am rather surprised that you still insist that the Neve-style pre's have relatively little "color," while also claiming that
ALL tube preamps are rather heavily "colored." I strongly disagree with that, on
both sides of the equation. I have always just assumed that it is common knowledge that Neve pre's are very nice sounding, but rather heavily colored. I thought EVERYBODY knew that. Obviously, that's not the case. But, since you've said that you're familiar with Lynn Fuston's Preamp Test CD, from 3D Audio, then I suggest that you break it out and do some comparative listening. Compare the Neve-style pre's (either the actual vintage pre, or the Great River) to any of the famously "neutral" pres such as the Earthworks or the Sytek, and I think that you will hear
quite clearly just how "colored" the Neve's are. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the Neve-style pres are some of the most strongly "colored" pres on the entire CD. But don't just take my word for it. Listen for yourself and learn the difference.
Furthermore, claiming that all tube pres are strongly colored is also very, very far from the truth. On CHEAP tube pres, yes, they do tend to have a certain "color." In particular, they often have rolled off high frequencies, and the highs that
are there tend to be blurry and indistinct. But QUALITY tube pres certainly don't sound like this. The good ones can be
supremely neutral and accurate. In fact, when I think of the "tube sound," I think of things like extended high frequencies, excellent spacial relationship and "air" between the various instruments, and EXTREMELY accurate tonal representation, especially in the midrange. To me (and many others), these qualities equal a MORE honest and truthful presentation than you can get from transistor electronics.
Of course, as to the question of whether or not tube electronics are MORE "accurate and realistic" than transistor electronics, well, this is a debate that has raged among the audiophile community for decades, and STILL hasn't been resolved. I don't know what YOUR music collection is like, Middleman. However, I will say that some of the most stunningly accurate "you are there"-type of recordings that I personally own are jazz and classical recordings that were recorded in the 1950's, which were made using tube mics AND tube preamps. In fact, there are a few audiophile-quality recordings out there that were recorded with tube mics, into tube preamps, and then sent directly to a
tube-driven cutting lathe to cut laquers that were then used to produce special limited-edition LP pressings. This is still being done (occasionally) today, even in this era of digital recordings. And, regardless of where you stand on the "transistor vs. tube debate," absolutely NOBODY could claim that these recordings (which are purely analog, and 100% tube-based) are "colored" in any sense of the term. I believe that they are, quite simply, some of the most stunningly life-like and truthful recordings ever made.
Middleman said:
I agree on this point. Lynn's CD is a great reference product for choosing preamps. However, there is adequate detail at Dan Richards (DOTs) site to make a decision.
It's not a matter of there being sufficient "detail," Middleman. MP3's certainly have plenty of
detail. Unfortunately, there are also some very deep, fundamental problems with MP3 files that make it
fundamentally impossible to make critical purchase decisions on something as sensitive as a microphone preamp.
For the sake of argument, let's just ignore the fact that MP3's alter the spacial relationship between instruments, and often make the high frequencies sound harsh and "brittle." For now, let's just focus on the one simple fact, which I mentioned earlier. When you encode a musical recording into MP3, it will
alter the frequency balance of the recording. Some frequencies will be attenuated, while others will be boosted. This is just a fact of life with MP3's. So, trying to compare the sound of two preamps that have been recorded to MP3 simply isn't going to work. It is, basically, like going to a listening session at a store, but before you get to listen to the pres, the salesman says, "Well, I'm going to let you listen to these two preamps, but first, I'm going to hook up this graphic equalizer, and I'm going to change the frequency response of the signal going into them, and I'm NOT GOING TO LET YOU KNOW which frequencies will be altered." Obviously, this won't work! Even the fact that both pres are changed in the same way, doesn't solve the problem, since one preamp might
benefit from a slight frequency boost at, let's say, 5 Khz, and another might be hurt by it. And we are only looking at ONE of the many problems with the MP3 format. Bottom line, it is incredibly unwise to try to make any critical purchase decisions on ANY piece of musical equipment, simply by listening to a bunch of MP3's.
Brad