riffy
New member
Supercreep said:
Funny, funny...how did BBQ get in there?
Overall, this thread has been very enlightening, entertaining and revealing.
Funny, funny...how did BBQ get in there?
Overall, this thread has been very enlightening, entertaining and revealing.
B
boingoman
New member
SonicAlbert said:
motorboating is low-frequency oscillating, usually bad decoupling caps somewhere.........
S
sdelsolray
Active member
boingoman said:
Can you waterski behind it?
Supercreep
Lizard People
sdelsolray said:
Is a DJ a musician?
B
Big Kenny
New member
No, but you can take it fishing.sdelsolray said:
mshilarious
Banned
BigRay said:
The chip serves as a limiting factor. That's not to say a particular piece of gear that uses it is "limited", it's just that the surrounding circuitry can really only make it worse than its spec, not better. So while it's possible thay, say, a TL072-based pre could be better than INA217, that would require a severe screw-up on the part of the INA217 designer.
Now if we get into areas like "color", "warmth", etc., or use of components like transformers or tubes, the picture is a bit cloudier. But I gather that the concern here is with accuracy, so those aren't at issue.
mshilarious
Banned
boingoman said:
Oh boy, I have a Rolls pre you can have as a textbook example . . . I already replaced all the caps, made it better but it's still there. I think the DC converter must be a POS
It's just a pre for bench testing mics in my workshop, but it's still annoying I won't post any audio samples
B
boingoman
New member
mshilarious said:I think the DC converter must be a POS
That would be my next guess, too.
B
boingoman
New member
mshilarious said:
Well, I think that even though we don't measure or quantify "color", you can measure or explain the characteristics that give a component or piece of gear color. Same with tubes. No mystery why or how they sound different than solid-state. And at this point, people can use the accumulated experience to make gear sound the way they want to.
B
boingoman
New member
Ray-
Not trying to add to the fire, but though you may have a problem with chessrock's delivery, his original point was valid. There is no real way to evaluate the sound of the preamp from the sample you posted. And as you said, the DAV is a good preamp, in your opinion, and that the whole issue comes down to what one person prefers versus another person. So the real value in samples comes down to having a repeatable source, and changing one component only, be it preamp, cables, mics, etc. This lets people evaluate the effect the piece has on the sound a bit better. Not exactly, but a whole lot better, since what people are looking for is comparisons.
You actually have access to some other decent pres, it would be cool to hear them in relation to the DAV, and it would give people comparisons, which is really the important thing, it seems.
Not trying to add to the fire, but though you may have a problem with chessrock's delivery, his original point was valid. There is no real way to evaluate the sound of the preamp from the sample you posted. And as you said, the DAV is a good preamp, in your opinion, and that the whole issue comes down to what one person prefers versus another person. So the real value in samples comes down to having a repeatable source, and changing one component only, be it preamp, cables, mics, etc. This lets people evaluate the effect the piece has on the sound a bit better. Not exactly, but a whole lot better, since what people are looking for is comparisons.
You actually have access to some other decent pres, it would be cool to hear them in relation to the DAV, and it would give people comparisons, which is really the important thing, it seems.
BigRay
New member
Boingo, I am aware of that, and this has been discussed ad nauseum..but the original intent was not to be "critical comparison"...it was posted in response to a request....someone wanted to hear a sample of my work, and the preamp too, so I posted it....Xstatic, Chess, and others have made something out of nothing....it wasnt meant to be anything but a clip...no comparison, no critical listening... ..Little Dog, Alby, Sodelsolray,Supercreep, and others have grasped that...I dont know why some cannot. His point may have been valid, but it was not applicable here. Now if I had posted something with the header "this is a comparison of the DAV vs others"..he would have a point. Since I simply said "here is a sample" ...there is no point to be made. Are we on the same sheet of music??I hope so.
.
.
boingoman said:
Supercreep
Lizard People
boingoman said:
The greatest downside to a sharp wit is a tendency to go beyond the mark.
L
littledog
New member
Boingo, your point is pretty much exactly what I suggested much earlier, and Ray has indicated that he very well may do that at some point soon.
But would that really satisfy everyone? After all, it will still come down to a leap of our faith in Ray's honesty and ability to properly pull it off. I can only guess that if the DAV outperforms some other preamps with better paper specs, many of us here will wonder if maybe the volumes were precisely matched, the mic distances exactly the same, the gain staging was correct, or that Ray just flat out "cheated" to make his point.
So in the end it will come down to any of us that are really serious about the issue will have to grab a DAV and a Gordon and do our own comparison test that will satisfy each of our own strict requirements.
But Ray has still provided a service, at least to me, in putting DAV out there as a possibility to consider for my next round of comparison shopping and testing. In my case, it probably won't be real soon, because I already have 21 channels of outboard pres (not counting the 12 I use for live recording, and the dozens in the various cheap mixers), and swore I'd lay off for a while!
But would that really satisfy everyone? After all, it will still come down to a leap of our faith in Ray's honesty and ability to properly pull it off. I can only guess that if the DAV outperforms some other preamps with better paper specs, many of us here will wonder if maybe the volumes were precisely matched, the mic distances exactly the same, the gain staging was correct, or that Ray just flat out "cheated" to make his point.
So in the end it will come down to any of us that are really serious about the issue will have to grab a DAV and a Gordon and do our own comparison test that will satisfy each of our own strict requirements.
But Ray has still provided a service, at least to me, in putting DAV out there as a possibility to consider for my next round of comparison shopping and testing. In my case, it probably won't be real soon, because I already have 21 channels of outboard pres (not counting the 12 I use for live recording, and the dozens in the various cheap mixers), and swore I'd lay off for a while!
BigRay
New member
littledog said:
I am hip deep in a comparison at the moment, and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that it is damn near impossible to pull this sort of thing off, to "perfect" standards, unless one is recording canned music through the same monitor each and every time(but noone knows what the monitor adds or takes away, sonically)..I have tremendous respect for those that provide this sort of service(Listening Sessions, The Swiss Site, others)..because it just isnt easy. Musicians are not perfect, and they will NEVER play anything identically twice in a row. I promise. It is tremendously time consuming and has to be a labor of love......
I also encourage anyone who is quick to sling out criticisms to contribute something other than whining, bitching and complaining, to undertake your own "tests" and post results. It is damn easy to sit back and sling insults when you arent doing anything yourself...
B
boingoman
New member
BigRay said:
See, that's it. Canned music from monitors is a repeatable source. Since all you are doing is comparing the differences between pres, the source doesn't matter, really.
Play music through speakers, into chain. Record.
Change pre. Play same music, record.
Listen to both tapes, compare the differences in the recording. Simple as pie, really.
L
littledog
New member
boingoman said:
Except that then what you are hearing is the cumulative effect of whatever distortion (i.e. "coloring") the original preamp added, plus the distortion of the monitors, and finally the distortion (i.e. "coloring") of the preamp being tested.
B
boingoman
New member
littledog said:
But none of that matters, as it is constant, except the pre being tested. Each new pre hears the same source, distortion and all.
If one pre has a more pronounced midrange than another, who cares how much distortion the source used to demonstrate this difference has? One recorded sample will have a more pronounced midrange than the other, whether the source is a live snare drum or a recorded one played through Radio Shack speakers.
It's easy to overthink this, it's actually a very simple thing.
L
littledog
New member
Yes, but think of it this way - say you have a source that has a lot of high end grating content. You run it through a preamp that rolls off everything above 12k, and suddenly the track sounds fabulous. Other more accurate preamps sound like crap, because of the original source.
On a listening test, that might lead people to run out and buy the "nothing above 12k" preamp.
I guess the solution to that would be to also post the original source recording - before it went through any additional preamps.
On a listening test, that might lead people to run out and buy the "nothing above 12k" preamp.
I guess the solution to that would be to also post the original source recording - before it went through any additional preamps.
X
xstatic
New member
BigRay said:
Actually, I find it quite amusing that you have not grasped the concept of the other posts here. I have absolutely no problem with your intent here. I do find it to be a service as well. However, Chessrock's point was valid here, albeit based partly on a misconception. Rather than politely stating your intention ( which was not crystal clear in the first post since much of your intent was actually absent from your post) YOU have turned this into some sort of debate by responding in an immature and accusatory manor. Had you just politely stated your intent in response to Chessrock's comments rather than attacking him for them, much of this could have been avoided. Maybe Chessrock does not believe in the DAV the way you do, and that is OK, this is an open forum. I for one have no problem with believing the DAV may be a great preamp. For what you do and in your circumstance, it may even be the best preamp. I don't care if it has a 2017, or TL072 based design or whatever. I do believe that end results are all that matter. I am not here to talk crap about the DAV either. Sure I do not believe that it is some holy grail preamp like you have touted in the past, but I do believe form reading other reports as well that it is a great preamp, that is well worth what it costs. World class? Quite possibly, but only time will tell on that one. This actually reminds me a lot of the Portico thing when it came out. Many people jumped on the band wagon. It is a great preamp, it is cost effective, but in my opinion, has not lived up to the hype that surrounded it. In fact, I think all the hype may have been a disservice to it.
In the end, I do not "misunderstand your intentions". I also think it is great that you are posting your results and opinions. Sure I would like it if you were a little more reasonable and objective, but that is your right to be how you want. I do not doubt that the DAV preamps have served you well, and will continue to do so. I also do not doubt that given the different stuff that you and I do that the DAV would not be as used for me as it is for you. Does that mean I should not get one? Hell no. It just means that we do different things, and for my stuff, other things may be more appropriate much of the time. So, as soon as you are ready for this whole silly thing to fizzle out, that is completely in your control. It would be nice however if you could possibly refrain from choosing to see opinions that differ from yours as some sort of personal attack and understand that you have your way, and the rest of us have our ways. Sometimes those methods and preferences cross paths, sometimes they do not. This seems to be something that happens with you a lot here though.
As far as the newbie thing goes, I don't care if you have been doing this for 18 days, 18 months, or 18 years. However, it might be prudent for you to remember that over time you do learn more. What you love today you may actually not care for in a year. Those of us that have been doing this longer have seen more of that. Tendencies, styles, likes and dislikes change. Thank God for that or everything would sound the same. But, I still feel like there is something to learn from everyone, regardless of how long they have been doing it. I personally am not trying to take any of that away from you, but it seems that since I was willing to speak my mind when we disagreed on something that you have taken it as some sort of personal affront and prefer to resort to less civil methods of expressing yourself here. How about affording everyone else the same freedom of expression and opinion that you seem to so often utilize?
BigRay
New member
the only "accurate/purist" approach is to record an acoustic source in a controlled enviroment with the shortest signal path possible.(mic>>cable>pre>recorder) same cable every time, level matching...running things through a monitor is the only way to get consistancy of "performance"..but for the reasons you mentioned below, it is just not plausible as a perfect test mechanism...
littledog said: