Preamp A vs Preamp B - Discuss.
- Thread starter Neeps
- Start date
Steve Henningsgard
New member
OK wtf? I listened to the last second and the only thing(s) I noticed were the hiss and the actual quick-fade at the end... did I miss something?
HangDawg
bUnGhOlIo
I listened to neither clip but voted for 1 of the 3 choices. The song was played too fast, and you could have picked a better color for the ceiling. Your mom dresses you funny and you paid too much for both of those pres each of which need cleaned and don't sound very good anyway. Ohh and turn off your coffee pot. 
HangDawg said:I listened to neither clip but voted for 1 of the 3 choices. The song was played too fast, and you could have picked a better color for the ceiling. Your mom dresses you funny and you paid too much for both of those pres each of which need cleaned and don't sound very good anyway. Ohh and turn off your coffee pot.
Are you just saying random things to be awkward?
The distance between capsules of my MSH pair measures just over 3/4" when side by side, capsule center to center. In my own experimenting with mike positioning I've heard differences with as little as 3/4" change in placement when 10" from the gtr, especially at the neck/body joint since lobes can be so well defined in that area. That itself could amount to as much difference as the difference between the pre's here. Assuming they are different pre's. 
I tried my MSH's with pre's of varying quality and the difference was very small. It's not a mike that seems to need a particular type of pre to sound good.
I tried my MSH's with pre's of varying quality and the difference was very small. It's not a mike that seems to need a particular type of pre to sound good.
HangDawg
bUnGhOlIo
Timothy Lawler said:The distance between capsules of my MSH pair measures just over 3/4" when side by side, capsule center to center. In my own experimenting with mike positioning I've heard differences with as little as 3/4" change in placement when 10" from the gtr, especially at the neck/body joint since lobes can be so well defined in that area. That itself could amount to as much difference as the difference between the pre's here. Assuming they are different pre's.
I tried my MSH's with pre's of varying quality and the difference was very small. It's not a mike that seems to need a particular type of pre to sound good.
Guess we'll never know cause mystery boy here won't let on. 100 votes! What a clown.
rory
New member
Barn Owl said:
I call bullshit. Experiments are based on theories. You CANT go through psychology without learning the underlying theories that drive the experiements. Unless the program is bad. Hes like Marx in sociology. They might be outdated in their original forms, but many contemporary theories and experiments are derived from the original theories. But, truth be told, he DID perform many experiments. Hypnosis, cocaine, boundaries, etc. The main argument is that his experiements were not "scientific" and more qualitative than quantitative. Regardless, its impossible to study any type of psychology without studying Freud in academia.
HangDawg said:
If it's invalid why would you want to know?
I'm not trying to be mysterious but there would be no point in a blind test if I told you what was what straight away.
I hoped home recorders (myself included) could learn something from this test.
Maybe that was naive. Maybe mshilarious could explain why the test is invalid and we can learn something through that.
mshilarious
Banned
steve.h said:
Yes, the hiss. But don't listen to it, analyze it. The noise from the capsule very closely approximates white noise at high frequencies. However, both noise samples have been subjected to brickwall-type low pass filtration within the audio band, which is typical of mp3 encoding when the signal drops below a threshold, both in amplitude and frequency.
This would not normally be a problem in a comparative analysis if the effect were consistent, but in this case the corner frequency is different by 3kHz between the samples. I do not know if that is solely caused by vagaries of mp3 encoding, or if the encoding was simply doubling down on the frequency response of that particular preamp.
So while I can clearly hear a difference between the two files, I cannot conclude that it is solely caused by the preamps.
I am not averse to making judgments based on mp3s, but the samples have to be well controlled. On the other hand, if a 20 second wav won't do the job, then neither will a 2 minute mp3.
mamm7215
Member
Pre-amp B I thought was "fuller", crisper, brittle? (not in a bad way) on the high end.
Pre-amp A had a warmer?, mellow tone albeit somewhat less defined. Both were recorded well and sounded good and didn't sound all that different. Depending on the song application, either could be used effectively, it wasn't like one sucked or was way better than the other, although I'd give the edge to B in this one.
Pre-amp A had a warmer?, mellow tone albeit somewhat less defined. Both were recorded well and sounded good and didn't sound all that different. Depending on the song application, either could be used effectively, it wasn't like one sucked or was way better than the other, although I'd give the edge to B in this one.
craigmorris74
New member
Experiments often stem from hypotheses, not theories. A theory that hasn't been tested or backed up by observation is not a theory.
I'm not voting, either. Normalising would cover up valuable differences in the preamps, if they were, in fact, different.
Craig
I'm not voting, either. Normalising would cover up valuable differences in the preamps, if they were, in fact, different.
Craig