MXL 960 Tube Swap Options

  • Thread starter Thread starter Twinhit
  • Start date Start date
miroslav said:
Actually...the Thursday batches are noticably "warmer" sounding, and considerd by most as THE ones to get.
It has something to do with Tuesday night happy hour in Purple Creek, Montana...and everyone being somewhat hung over on Wednesdays...so QC wasn't really paying as much attention. :)

:laughings:



Hey Twinhit...a few thoughts about swapping tubes…in mics….

Yeah, you can try out some NOS tubes...etc...but keep in mind that it's a bit more delicate than swapping tubes in an amp. The sockets in tube mics are often lightly held in place, and there are very thin, small wires connecting everything. It's easy to !#$& something up. :eek:
Also...mics are often designed with a specific tube in mind. Yeah...you can probably use various tubes in the same family, but you might find that anything but the recommended tube will not really be a pleasant character change as it might be in a guitar amp.
Finally...most decent tube manufactures at least make a point of picking better tubes (the real good manufactures take a lot of care in tube selection)...so even though you might have that NOS tube made on Thursday in Purple Creek, Montana... ;) ...it actually may not be any improvement over the new production stock tube that came with the mic which was selected for the mic.

I'm not saying DON'T try out other tubes...but to make it a worthwhile effort, you at least want to know you have some "upscale" tubes to try out.
Heck...I have a few cases of tubes for my amps, rack gear and for some of my tube mics....and sometimes I can go through a dozen tubes (same brand/vintage) to find 1-2 that are really good. The others or either microphonic… :( … or just so-so, and might work OK as spares, but certainly not as any improvement.

Besides all that...I don't want to slam your mic choice...but there's more to it than just the tube, and the MXL 690 isn't really a high-end tube mic, so if you are looking for some silky smooth, high-end sounding tube mic tones...it's going to take a bit more than a tube swap in a MXL 690, so don’t be too disappointed if other tubes make little difference.
Click to expand...

thanks Miroslav for your reply.

I can't say I've heard of the little old lady from purple creek. I have heard about the little old lady from Pasadena. She's the terror on Colorado Bvld.
I really don't think I have any preconcieved notions about much in this topic as I am comin' in, new to the art.
I had already swapped the tube and I noticed the wires are indeed very small and that the mic is a delecate instrument. Appreciate the warning. I may still need it though.

As far as the MXL 690, I'll take your advice steer clear of it.
 
Twinhit said:
Q: Why do people intentionally swap what otherwise sounds like perfectly good vacuum tubes? (Remember I am thinking clean and quiet)

A: because of the "color" that it can impart to a sound.

Is that answer what it really boils down to?
Click to expand...
Yes...and not so yes. That's the "reason" or "excuse" commonly given. But as Miro rather nicely explained, it's not necessarily so cut-and-dried as that.

As far as which tubes are ascribed which colors, neither am I the expert in that fine a grain of detail on the subject, nor am I convinced that such a fine grain of detail can be described with any real certainty. It's not as easy as, "Get RCA tubes if you want this effect, but get Raytheon tubes if you want that effect." First, there's the Miro Effect, where there's no guarantee that any one tube will actually sound different or not. Second, there's no guarantee that any one tube will have the same effect in this mic circuit that it has in that guitar amp circuit. And so forth.

While perhaps some general trends can be codified, such as "if you put a 12AX7 into a circuit spec'd for a 12AT7, chances are your output will be increased and you therefore might get more distortion", but as to whether that signifies a good thing or not is up to both the purpose of the circuit and the ears of the beholder.

There are times on this forum where it starts to feel (IME, IMHO) that way too much bandwidth is being used trying to drill down the details on a subject which really doesn't carry that much import. Like going on for pages upon pages on digital sample rate. It's such a small factor in the overall equation, that it seems a disservice to be implying otherwise by devoting so much energy to it's discussion. Nothing personal intended, but that's how I'm starting to feel here. Swapping tubes is such an esoteric customization option, and has such little bearing on the overall equation of making a fine audio recording, that I have to wonder if it's really worth pursuing any further.

Like was stated earlier, a tube swap is not going to make a difference between a good recording and a great one. And as far as listening tests go, I'd bet that no greater than 50% of the folks reading this would choose one example over the other in a two-example comparison - a number no different than a random flipping of the coin. And that's just amongst those that would even hear a difference, of which I'd bet that in many cases a significant number would not.

G.
 
miroslav said:
I'm going to try and work out a deal with Universal Audio for a "signature" box set. ;)
Click to expand...
I get royalties for the name idea.

I suppose it only makes sense that the next step in plug-ins would be a set of plugs which are explicitly designed to randomly not change your sound at all. I honestly think there's a fortune to be made there.

Just imagine the preset possibilities! An infinite number of tube presets that potentially do nothing! You just won't know until you try them. That alone has to be worth somethng...

G.
 
Well, for what it's worth, I have already swapped the MXL tube with the RCA tube and if I, someone who is hard of hearing can discern a distinctive difference folloing the swap, I am sure others with perfect hearing can too.
Is it better? Worse? My ears are telling me that the swap's sound difference is just that, different.
I am not going to knock or tease someone because they think x tube sounds better than y tube.

My point in asking about tone difference is more about trying to understand the language of terms and expressions because it is not something I am used to talking about nor hearing for myself, for my hearing disability.
I am not trying to waste anyone's time. Just trying to understand.
 
Well that's just it with tube swaps...you really can't know how a particular tube will sound until you try it. Often it's a subtle difference...but I've replaced some nasty/harsh sounding tubes and seen fairly noticable improvement with a different/better quality tube, and other times not been able to hear much difference at all.....
 
miroslav said:
Well that's just it with tube swaps...you really can't know how a particular tube will sound until you try it. Often it's a subtle difference...but I've replaced some nasty/harsh sounding tubes and seen fairly noticable improvement with a different/better quality tube, and other times not been able to hear much difference at all.....
Click to expand...

Same here. It's at times a roll of the dice. Some times when I know what I want out of a tube microphone and don't know where to turn I ask Christian ~ proaudiotubes@aol.com ~ and tell him where I would like to go with a tube microphone or a tube preamp and he will make a few recommendations and then I'll take it from there.

Like Twinhit stated his microphone sounded "different". Hopefully it's for the good and that's all you can ask for.
As for me I can't say how I can describe the change after a tube swap it just sounds right. I'd like to say that it sounds richer,fuller,more robust but, it's more of a know that it's right once it's there.
Really kind of hard to explain and once you do say that it's this or that someone will say, how can you say that?
 
Twinhit said:
Is it better? Worse? My ears are telling me that the swap's sound difference is just that, different.
Click to expand...
That pretty much ties it all up in a nice neat package.

What adjectives you decide to assign to that difference is completely up to you. Because the chances that they'll be the same as any more than 50% of the other opinions out here are pretty low. There is no official, scientific definition for "warm", "present", "transparent", etc. They are all fairly subjective terms. And what one person thinks sounds "warm", another person thinks sounds "veiled".

There are some generalities relating certain attributes of sound to certain parts of the frequency spectrum, If you check out my frequency chart, near the bottom is a graphical representation of the approximate frequency ranges most often given certain attributes such as "warmth", "crunch", etc, but any correlation between these usages and the specific coloration any given tube may be providing is tenuous at best.

The bottom line is that this whole subject is just as much voodoo as it is science, and it's really up to the individual to make of it what they will. How does that "difference" in the sound of the tubes make you feel? Does that RCA sound "warmer" to you, or more "transparent" to you, or something else altogether, like it makes you want to sneeze when you hear it? That personal relationship between you and that sound is what's important and what the voodoo is really all about.

And that is really what this whole pursuit is all about. It's not so much a matter of learning how to hear what other people hear, as it is learning how to listen to what you hear yourself. Never mind if your hearing is not perfect. It's more about what your brain does with what you hear than what you actually hear. :)

G.
 
If you want some detailed info about tubes...check out this website:

Guitar Amplifier Blueprinting

The author is Myles Rose...he is a tube/amp guru and has worked for Groove Tubes and now 65 Amps. He also posts on a few forums as an expert on tube amps and more specifically, on how different tubes affect them. He does "amplifier blueprinting" as he calls it...meaning he will take an amp and fine tune it with the right tweaks and tubes to give you exactly what you are after tone-wise.

His website is a bit "scattered" to say that least... :) ...mainly because there is an overwhelming amount of information (and cool stuff too)...but it's worth a look if you want to learn about tubes and more so, about tube amps.
He doesn't really cover mics a heck of a lot, but I've asked him some tube questions about my Groove Tubes mics awhile back...so he certainly knows his tubes!!! :cool:
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
That pretty much ties it all up in a nice neat package.

What adjectives you decide to assign to that difference is completely up to you. Because the chances that they'll be the same as any more than 50% of the other opinions out here are pretty low. There is no official, scientific definition for "warm", "present", "transparent", etc. They are all fairly subjective terms. And what one person thinks sounds "warm", another person thinks sounds "veiled".

There are some generalities relating certain attributes of sound to certain parts of the frequency spectrum, If you check out my frequency chart, near the bottom is a graphical representation of the approximate frequency ranges most often given certain attributes such as "warmth", "crunch", etc, but any correlation between these usages and the specific coloration any given tube may be providing is tenuous at best.

The bottom line is that this whole subject is just as much voodoo as it is science, and it's really up to the individual to make of it what they will. How does that "difference" in the sound of the tubes make you feel? Does that RCA sound "warmer" to you, or more "transparent" to you, or something else altogether, like it makes you want to sneeze when you hear it? That personal relationship between you and that sound is what's important and what the voodoo is really all about.

And that is really what this whole pursuit is all about. It's not so much a matter of learning how to hear what other people hear, as it is learning how to listen to what you hear yourself. Never mind if your hearing is not perfect. It's more about what your brain does with what you hear than what you actually hear. :)

G.
Click to expand...

I following the reading of the above, I "think", I am understanding what is being said a bit better. I think that
the the reply plus the chart and some added reading of the respondants on this thread's second page helped explain very well what I am attempting to understand.
I hesitated to respond sooner as I had wanted give time to think about what was said, and thought I would throw
a graphic and three short audio clips.

Magix_MXL960-O-R-D_01.jpg


Clip 1

Clip 2

Clip 3


Clip 1 Notes:
In clip 1 we hear the sentence "and balanced pan settings" - This clip is found on S: 10 on the mixer and track 10
on the track where you can see the generalized wave profile.

Clip 2 Notes:
In clip 2 we hear the sentence "and balanced pan settings" - This clip is found on S: 11 on the mixer and track 11 on the track where you can see the generalized wave profile.

Clip 3 Notes:
In clip 3 we hear the sentence "and balanced pan settings" - This clip is found on S: 12 on the mixer and track 12 on the track where you can see the generalized wave profile. It is a recording of clip 1 and clip 2, combined for comparison.

Notice all three tracks are balanced on the physical mixer and have no eq modifications on the physical mixer nor in the daw program's mixer. With exception of the master output possessing various eq values on the right channel (didn't notice that, but even so, the file all reflect the same master Right channel EQ parameters)


My personal impression of the MXL 960's tube swap sound variation. (enter subjective adjectives)

Clip one sounds "airyer", "brighter", "cooler" and "treblier": it sounds like it's in a room with some small reflections (Think The Kitchen)

Clip two sounds "stuffier", "darker", "warmer" and "bassier": it sounds like it's in room with even smaller reflections (Think The Den)

Clip three offers the native original sound of both tubes when played together and recorded on a single track.

Discrepency note: I "may" have boo-boo'd and accidentally exported and uploaded both clip 1 and 2 from the same track. (i'll double check this discrepency)

So.... with these clips, and subjective adjectives in mind, do my adjectives describe my clips similarly with how others might perceive and describe the same sounds? Again, I recognise that it's subjective territory not easily defined nor codified. I personally feel that my particular voice sounds better with some bass added and some mid-low treble carefully trimmed. I've also noticed that combined dual track (Not this case) with slight eq mod. of my voice seems to be more pleasing to my ears than a straight up single mic'd native-sound track.
 
miroslav said:
If you want some detailed info about tubes...check out this website:

Guitar Amplifier Blueprinting

The author is Myles Rose...he is a tube/amp guru and has worked for Groove Tubes and now 65 Amps. He also posts on a few forums as an expert on tube amps and more specifically, on how different tubes affect them. He does "amplifier blueprinting" as he calls it...meaning he will take an amp and fine tune it with the right tweaks and tubes to give you exactly what you are after tone-wise.

His website is a bit "scattered" to say that least... :) ...mainly because there is an overwhelming amount of information (and cool stuff too)...but it's worth a look if you want to learn about tubes and more so, about tube amps.
He doesn't really cover mics a heck of a lot, but I've asked him some tube questions about my Groove Tubes mics awhile back...so he certainly knows his tubes!!! :cool:
Click to expand...

Thank you for the link and input. btw, I think I have visited the guitar site you linked to some time in the past. Nice to see it again.
If you have any input on my last response to Glen, please have at it, if you wish.
 
Ahhh snowballs. Just when it was getting interesting, everyone goes back to work. :(
 
Twinhit said:
Ahhh snowballs. Just when it was getting interesting, everyone goes back to work. :(
Click to expand...
I'm not in a place where I can meaningfully listen to the clips at the moment. Also the sharpness on your screenshot is a bit lacking, but it looks like you're probably in a good ballpark, as it appears that clip one has some sharper high frequency content, which is usually associated in some way with most of the adjectives you're using for it.

I can understand your desire to compare your impressions with those of others, and that it may be hard for you to understand when I say such comparisons are unimportant. But they really are unimportant. What is important is that you have the self-confidence to create your own impressions and to stand by them, and you really DON'T need anyone else to confirm them for you. As long as you are confident that what you say clip 1 and clip 2 sound like to you - especially in relation to each other - that really is all that matters. Whether I or anybody else may agree or disagree with you is completely irrelevant.

If clip 1 sounds "brighter" and more "airy" to you, then it sounds brighter and more airy to you. Case closed. End of story.

Trust yourself, there's no reason not to. And there's no reason to have to get approval from anyone else on that ladder.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
I'm not in a place where I can meaningfully listen to the clips at the moment. Also the sharpness on your screenshot is a bit lacking, but it looks like you're probably in a good ballpark, as it appears that clip one has some sharper high frequency content, which is usually associated in some way with most of the adjectives you're using for it.

I can understand your desire to compare your impressions with those of others, and that it may be hard for you to understand when I say such comparisons are unimportant. But they really are unimportant. What is important is that you have the self-confidence to create your own impressions and to stand by them, and you really DON'T need anyone else to confirm them for you. As long as you are confident that what you say clip 1 and clip 2 sound like to you - especially in relation to each other - that really is all that matters. Whether I or anybody else may agree or disagree with you is completely irrelevant.

If clip 1 sounds "brighter" and more "airy" to you, then it sounds brighter and more airy to you. Case closed. End of story.

Trust yourself, there's no reason not to. And there's no reason to have to get approval from anyone else on that ladder.

G.
Click to expand...

This should be sharper. Will have to get back later - I am having a diabetic attack.
Image Link
 
southside glen said:
i can understand your desire to compare your impressions with those of others, and that it may be hard for you to understand when i say such comparisons are unimportant. But they really are unimportant. What is important is that you have the self-confidence to create your own impressions and to stand by them, and you really don't need anyone else to confirm them for you.

.............

Trust yourself, there's no reason not to. And there's no reason to have to get approval from anyone else on that ladder.
Click to expand...


........ditto
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
I'm not in a place where I can meaningfully listen to the clips at the moment. Also the sharpness on your screenshot is a bit lacking, but it looks like you're probably in a good ballpark, as it appears that clip one has some sharper high frequency content, which is usually associated in some way with most of the adjectives you're using for it.

I can understand your desire to compare your impressions with those of others, and that it may be hard for you to understand when I say such comparisons are unimportant. But they really are unimportant. What is important is that you have the self-confidence to create your own impressions and to stand by them, and you really DON'T need anyone else to confirm them for you. As long as you are confident that what you say clip 1 and clip 2 sound like to you - especially in relation to each other - that really is all that matters. Whether I or anybody else may agree or disagree with you is completely irrelevant.

If clip 1 sounds "brighter" and more "airy" to you, then it sounds brighter and more airy to you. Case closed. End of story.

Trust yourself, there's no reason not to. And there's no reason to have to get approval from anyone else on that ladder.

G.
Click to expand...

Sorry I hadn't answered sooner. I haven't been feeling too good.

Thank you for taking the time to try and explain it to me. There ARE some parts in what you say that give me pause to think and say.. so that's what it is.. or that makes sense and/or it's making more sense to me. Even so, I am resigned to reasoning that it's obviously going take me a little bit of time and experience before I get the confidence not be askin' others for second opinion.

As for microphone tube swaps, I now feel confident that the differences are indeed subtle between tubes, though as aforementioned, there is a difference. Also, following some tests, I am also confident that even a common batch set of 2 tubes
can yield one good tube and one bad tube or one that is not quite perfect which takes me back to what I said at the beginning: You want quiet tubes. Not Snap, Crackle and Pop. Whatever it's sound color is, is what it is. If you love the sound, then take good care of it as best you can cause when it's gone, it's gone. With that in mind, I'd say that it is not a grand idea to fall in love
with a particularly specific vacuum tube simply because that tube has a life span that lasts only so long. With that in mind, it's no wonder they are charging what they do for vintage tubes. I believe they all likely have their own unique sound quality but it's in the geek's nano-microanalysis of tubes which can be colored yet again by the aging capsule and other components in the microphone, not to mention whatever other audio devices which may be used in the signal chain.

Where I stand at this point in my experience is simply this:
1) Find a quiet tube
2) experiment with various tubes
3) expect only subtle differences (and don't be surprised if there are some obvious differences)
4) work with what you have and fret not if you cannot have what you want.

Two analogies:
The two RCA "Twins" tubes I tested reminds me of two women. One is very sweet and quiet while the other has something to say and not in a nice way.

Tubes are like fish. Did you catch a guppy or did you catch a Marlin?
"Fishin' for tubes" is a perfect analogy for me. You never know exactly what your going to get.

Thank you Glen for taking the time. :)
 
I'd add a +1 to Moresound's recommendation to talk to Christian Whitmore.

I bought some tubes for guitar amp and compressor from him recently and he is a great resource. He can tell you what the likely differences between tube manufacturer's products are going to be and he extensively tests every tube before he sends them to you for noise, microphonics, gas leak and so on.
You'll have an idea of what the sonic properties of various tubes are going to be (he'll even make recommendations of what can get you where you want to be if you describe what you are loooking for) and will get a really solid, well performing tube from him

I'd also add a big +1 to Glens post saying to trust what you like. Whether you started yesterday or ten years ago, trust your own instincts and if you like it, it's good
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top