DAV Preamp samples.

[chessrock]

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...

It's also pretty damn easy to make just about any wild claim you want -- like X mic pre is the best on the market -- so long as you don't have to actually back it up with anything even remotely resembling a comparison. Hell, if I wanted to, I could go on every forum and claim that the Behringer mic pre is better than a John Hardy. So long as I don't have to actually back anything up.

Say what you want, but I'm not the one making all the claims. The burdon isn't on me or anyone else to support anything. The only claim I made is that you're full of shit ... and I don't need to support that one. You do a perfectly fine job of that all by yourself.

.

 

[boingoman]

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.

That could easily be the case with a live source, as well, such as a pair of shitty hi-hats or poorly-tuned snare drum or screechy singer. The advantage of a repeatable source is that for better or worse, it won't change from minute to minute, unless it's done on purpose. It removes one variable, which is always good for this sort of thing. The fewer variables there are, the more accurately the differences in the devices under test can be heard and evaluated.

It's not as sexy as gathering a bunch of people together and recording a bunch of music, but then actual work like this rarely is.

 

[boingoman]

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...

Sorry, man, no offense, but read my above post. You seem to be into advancing yourself and your knowledge. So again no offense, but you don't seem to know alot about testing or comparisons. A repeatable source beats a non-repeatable source every time, if any valid comparison is going to be made.

 

[BigRay]

Ietc
.

well, the jist of what I am getting at is that I dont like you Chesscock... Never could stand you, from the day I first read one of your "posts", until now. I have seen first hand how you have run valuable members away from the forum,how you have created aliases with the sole purpose of starting more trouble, and how you have been nothing but a problem child from the get-go.

I will say this about my work. I put my money where my mouth is.I show examples regularly. In a year from now I will either be working for a major live firm or running my own studio in my home state. Funding that studio with money that I have already made as a working engineer... You??.I dont remember seeing anything youve done, yet you sling out "advice" as if you are some sort of engineering guru...but more than that you sling out insults, accusations, and counterproductive ego ridden bullshit more than anyone else here. What do you contribute?? I would love to see examples of your work, a client list, a gear list, educational credentials,..anything. I doubt you will ever provide anything like that, but itd be nice, you know, to help bolster this "advice" you give...because after all , anyone can claim anything, right?? I tell you, between you and FordVan, youve got the troll market covered.

I will sum up my thoughts on you..I am pretty certain that you arent a professional.I dont think you own a studio or much gear..I certainly dont think you have many clients, and I think you are as full of shit as the next guy. I can see very clearly that whatever amount of advice you have gets so buried in your own egocentric slagging off that people just dont take you seriously. I think you are a loudmouthed, small dicked, halfwitted jackass, and I take great comfort in the fact that this message board incorporates an Ignore function! That makes two on my list.


http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=89433&page=1&pp=20&highlight=chessrock+troll

 

[BigRay]

Sorry, man, no offense, but read my above post. You seem to be into advancing yourself and your knowledge. So again no offense, but you don't seem to know alot about testing or comparisons. A repeatable source beats a non-repeatable source every time, if any valid comparison is going to be made.

Sure, thats given..but your method is flawed. Mine is too because it is impossible to find a performer that can perform the same thing twice..If I could achieve that, I would be a happy man. Anyway, I dont intend to run things through a loudspeaker, so I will take chances with the performers that I have lined up. (myself , wife, a couple of string players, and a pianist) In my mind, a pure, acoustic source beats a loudspeaker every time. What I dont get perfect during the initial recording, as far as levels or whatnot, I will do in Sequoia after the fact. This isnt a competition, and this isnt really for the HR.COM audience anyway(though I will post it here). It is for myself and a few of my location recording colleagues here in Baden-Wurrtenburg. All of us are about to make some equipment purchases, so this is to help us. It will accomplish that goal, I am fairly certain. (I hope! )

I am all about advancing my knowledge, you are right there. I take no offense to your criticism. I encourage it. It is all about the presentation. While I have butted heads with you in the past, I am eager to hear what you have to say. I will respect you all day as long as the same is given.


wait! maybe I can record a singing robot or catfish?? they do the same thing every time!

 

[boingoman]

Sure, thats given..but your method is flawed.

How?............

 

[BigRay]

How?............

because the loudspeaker colorations skew the results...even with repeatable "performances" through a loudspeaker, the sound of a particular piece of gear may not come through accurately...the more you add to the path, the more problems you have.. you also have to take into account the amp for the speakers, cabling, transport....Acoustic sourced material is best in my opinion.

Jeesh, my brain hurts. I need a nap. Please feel free to keep discussing. I will resume when I come back.

Teddy.

 

[fraserhutch]

You barged into this thread on your high horse about comparisons..... BigRay NEVER mentioned a comparison.

NOWHERE in the initial part of this thread did he mention that the sample was intended to be a comparison of any type. How could it? A comparison by definition needs something to be compared to. I certainly never took it that way.

So if you want to argue that a sample is of no value unless it offers a direct comparison against something else, I'll take issue with that, as have others.

Otherwise, you're just ruffling your feathers.

I fiond these samples useful. Keep posting them Ray, and thanks.

Sorry, man, no offense, but read my above post. You seem to be into advancing yourself and your knowledge. So again no offense, but you don't seem to know alot about testing or comparisons. A repeatable source beats a non-repeatable source every time, if any valid comparison is going to be made.

 

[chessrock]

well, the jist of what I am getting at is that I dont like you Chesscock... Never could stand you, from the day I first read one of your "posts", until now. I have seen first hand how you have run valuable members away from the forum,how you have created aliases with the sole purpose of starting more trouble, and how you have been nothing but a problem child from the get-go.

I will say this about my work. I put my money where my mouth is.I show examples regularly. In a year from now I will either be working for a major live firm or running my own studio in my home state. Funding that studio with money that I have already made as a working engineer... You??.I dont remember seeing anything youve done, yet you sling out "advice" as if you are some sort of engineering guru...but more than that you sling out insults, accusations, and counterproductive ego ridden bullshit more than anyone else here. What do you contribute?? I would love to see examples of your work, a client list, a gear list, educational credentials,..anything. I doubt you will ever provide anything like that, but itd be nice, you know, to help bolster this "advice" you give...because after all , anyone can claim anything, right?? I tell you, between you and FordVan, youve got the troll market covered.

I will sum up my thoughts on you..I am pretty certain that you arent a professional.I dont think you own a studio or much gear..I certainly dont think you have many clients, and I think you are as full of shit as the next guy. I can see very clearly that whatever amount of advice you have gets so buried in your own egocentric slagging off that people just dont take you seriously. I think you are a loudmouthed, small dicked, halfwitted jackass, and I take great comfort in the fact that this message board incorporates an Ignore function! That makes two on my list.

So, uh, Ray ... Does this mean I'm not invited to your Christmas party this year?

Thanks for bringing up that old thread, by the way. That happens to be one of my all-time favorites.

If you wonder why I don't go around talking about people I've worked with ... it's probably because I don't feel the need to bolster my ego. Also, I figure since it bothers me to no end how people use these forums to self-promote ... I might as well walk the walk, as they say.

But if you're dying to hear me toot my own horn ... a few notable acts I've worked with include Josh Ritter, who's actually pretty big in Europe these days. http://www.joshritter.com Another group I'm proud to have worked with on their debut EP is one called "Bound Stems." http://www.boundstems.com/ And yet another Indie band I'm glad to have sort of helped launch is Metrovox, who've been getting a lot of label attention and I'm sure have a bright future. http://metrovox.tripod.com/

Interestingly enough, I recorded a song for an Irish folk singer by the name of Michael Londre, who was one of the main characters in Riverdance, which ran on Broadway for a while. http://www.michaellondra.com/ I don't know why I find that interesting, but I sort of do.

You can listen to some more examples of my engineering chops, if you want: http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/discography.php?aid=1298

Have a nice day, Jackass!

.

 

[Kevin Deschwazi]

But if you're dying to hear me toot my own horn ... a few notable acts I've worked with include Josh Ritter, who's actually pretty big in Europe these days. http://www.joshritter.com

Wow, I don't particularly want to get involved in this flame war but i fucking love Josh Ritter! I saw him just last month in bristol, great live too. I only have the 2 most recent albums, what stuff did you work on Chessrock if you don't mind my asking?

 

[chessrock]

Hey Kevin,

Yea, that Josh is quite the songwriter. Amazing lyricist. I actually worked on his first demo of "Girl in the War" when he was in Chicago a few years ago. Interestingly enough, my version didn't make it on to the record, as he worked on it and added all these extra intruments and arrangements and what not. Really produced the heck out of it, whereas the one he did with me was just really mellow and stripped down (Worlds better than the overproduced one that made his CD, if you asked me, but whadoIknow?).

I'm really more of a fan of "Golden age of Radio," and I kind of wish he had gone more in that direction ... but yea, the guy is just an amazing artist.

.

 

[littledog]

Wow, Chess!

You are Moon Unit? Nice website.

But $30 per hour in Chicago? $20 for 8 hour blocks? $15 introductory rate?

If you are booked solid 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year - you'll make $60,000. And if any of those hours are "introductory" or "blocks" the figure could be significantly less.

$60,000 isn't chump change, but you've got all your equipment and maintenance expenses that come off the top of that. It's admirable that you want to stay affordable- but at those rates you have to work your ass off just to tread water. I can't imagine working eight hours a day and having only $160 to show for it. No one could run a full featured studio in Boston with that kind of cash flow. Unless they never ate.

Unless you're independently wealthy, I don't know how you can ever afford a girlfriend, never mind a wife and kids! No wonder you get so grumpy!

 

[Kevin Deschwazi]

Hey Kevin,

Yea, that Josh is quite the songwriter. Amazing lyricist. I actually worked on his first demo of "Girl in the War" when he was in Chicago a few years ago. Interestingly enough, my version didn't make it on to the record, as he worked on it and added all these extra intruments and arrangements and what not. Really produced the heck out of it, whereas the one he did with me was just really mellow and stripped down (Worlds better than the overproduced one that made his CD, if you asked me, but whadoIknow?).

I'm really more of a fan of "Golden age of Radio," and I kind of wish he had gone more in that direction ... but yea, the guy is just an amazing artist.

.

Yep, stripped down always wins for me. I saw teddy thompson (son of Richard and Linda) recently and he blew me away. Bought the album and can't stand it. Too much other stuff going on, much better just the man and his geetar.

I'll have to check out JR's earlier stuff.

 

[boingoman]

because the loudspeaker colorations skew the results.

No, they don't. The point is to evaluate the differences in how two chains hear the same source. The source is a black box, ie nothing is known about it except for the sound it produces. Nothing needs to be known beyond that, for the purpose of comparing how two preamps sound. This is true whether the source is a speaker or a person singing.

 

[boingoman]

You barged into this thread on your high horse about comparisons..... BigRay NEVER mentioned a comparison.
.

Lighten up, jack. Ray and I are having a discussion, and in a civil manner, I might add. I have not flamed or said anything remotely mean or sarcastic. We are discussing test methodology, as far as comparisons.

The subject of comparisons was brought up originally to make the point that without something different to compare it to, it's hard to pick out what parts of a sample are due to the preamp. So though it's cool to have, it's of limited value in demonstrating how this pre sounds. It's a valid point.

 

[chessrock]

Yep, stripped down always wins for me. I saw teddy thompson (son of Richard and Linda) recently and he blew me away. Bought the album and can't stand it. Too much other stuff going on, much better just the man and his geetar.

I'll have to check out JR's earlier stuff.

If you want to PM me, I can email you a copy of the mp3 of Girl in the War he demo'd with me. I really like this particular version a lot, and I think I'm probably the only cat in the world who owns a copy.

.

 

[Kevin Deschwazi]

If you want to PM me, I can email you a copy of the mp3 of Girl in the War he demo'd with me. I really like this particular version a lot, and I think I'm probably the only cat in the world who owns a copy.

.

PM sent!

Thanks man, that's really kind.

 

[Robert D]

Robert, all this is speculation, and unprovable. What you are talking about is scientific/specs on paper...I am talking about how things SOUND..you cannot make claims of superiority in this gig...it is impossible...talking specs means absolutely nothing

Like I said, on paper, the Gordon should be the holy grail..yet I found nothing desirable about it. A preamp can have the all the perfect specs in the world but still sound offensive to the end user. The most anyone can hope to say is that there is no right answer, and there is no superior product overall..The end user is the judge. Noone else.. Bottom line.

That's a bit too much of an absolute. It is neither correct to say that specs mean nothing, nor to say that specs mean everything. It is also incorrect to make the assumption that the chip only provides some mathematical gain, devoid of sonic influence other than that pure gain product. If that were true, we could get great sounding preamps using the old 4558s. The chip does matter, and does influence the quality of the sound, but does not in itself define the sound.

 

[BigRay]

That's a bit too much of an absolute. It is neither correct to say that specs mean nothing, nor to say that specs mean everything. It is also incorrect to make the assumption that the chip only provides some mathematical gain, devoid of sonic influence other than that pure gain product. If that were true, we could get great sounding preamps using the old 4558s. The chip does matter, and does influence the quality of the sound, but does not in itself define the sound.

ok..let me restate. talking specs means nothing to those of us who use our ears and dont care about anything else..

 

[Robert D]

ok..let me restate. talking specs means nothing to those of us who use our ears and dont care about anything else..

That statement I can whole heartedly agree with. Being a hardware engineer though, I can't agree with your first premise that the chip doesn't matter. An analogy would be to say that it doesn't matter what tube you use, that it's all about the surrounding components and circuit topology. We all know that's not true. It matters more with tubes, but the same principle applys with ICs, as it also does with monolithic ICs vs discreet op-amps.