Query - Pre-Amp technology OLD vs. NEW

[CyanJaguar]

about the mackie/telefunken spec debate,

you have to consider the "strength of reported specs"

An early 70s muscle car would have been rated at 250 horses, but could have had up to 500 real horses.

A 2002 Hyundai might be rated at 260 horses, but only have 185 real horses.

 

[sjjohnston]

about the mackie/telefunken spec debate,

you have to consider the "strength of reported specs"

An early 70s muscle car would have been rated at 250 horses, but could have had up to 500 real horses.

A 2002 Hyundai might be rated at 260 horses, but only have 185 real horses.

You get real horses with your car? Where are you car shopping? Where do you keep so many horses?

 

[littledog]

Hi Ethan,

Thanks for bearing with my lengthy posts and taking the time to clarify your positions for me. In light of your latest explanation, I think we are in about 80% agreement. There is that 20% however...

Originally it was a discussion of vintage versus modern. And the first point I made is that the mystique of vintage gear probably comes from beginners who are dissatisfied with their mixes. They hear great recordings of the past and wrongly assume they need the same old gear to duplicate that. When they can't afford a vintage compressor, the audio stores are happy to sell them a newer model that uses tubes claiming it's just as good.

I have no problem with your argument here. One should never use lack of any particular piece of gear as an excuse for one's lack of engineering skills. On the other hand, one should not take that as an excuse to extrapolate the argument to "therefore the value of expensive gear is of not ever worth it's price."

> The extension of your argument for accuracy would have to apply to mics as well. <

Mostly. But a large diaphragm mike with its proximity effect does usually sound fuller for vocals than a "measurement" mike. And larger diaphragm mikes usually have a better signal to noise ratio because the larger diaphragm yields more signal.

I agree with all of that. But I have no problem with also saying a certain preamp can sound "fuller" for vocals too. It seems dogmatic (to say nothing of counterproductive) to say it's fine to chose a mic for optimum sound, but one is not allowed to do the same with a preamp.

What bothers me most is that vendors want to have it both ways. I often see the words "warm," "transparent," and "accurate" all in the same sentence in ads for preamps.

I'm with you here. But usually that kind of annoying hype is in mass circulation catalogs from the big mail order houses describing mostly crappy hybrid tube designs. I doubt if you called Mercenary and spoke to Fletcher, that you would get those kind of descriptions.

> I doubt even you can say with a straight face that the only difference between a Mackie and a Rupert Neve designed desk is the brand name? <

I dunno. What's the difference? A modern Mackie is probably cleaner, no? It's easy to dirty up the sound with a plug-in or other effect, but you can never make gritty audio sound cleaner.

Only that blind listening test will evidently convince you otherwise. What you're calling "dirty" most others might hear as "character" or "balls". And it's not as easy as you seem to imply adding in that character/balls factor after the fact just by slapping on some EQ. If it was, I'd be jumping over to your side in an instant!

The ears always win. But measurement technology is advanced enough that the two pretty much always correlate.

That has not been my experience. I find very little correlation between specs and "good sound", once the specs get past a certain point.

The very expensive brands claim to be very accurate, so it's not like you're spending the extra money to get a particular character. Of course, with mixers the additional money also buys you more channels and more features in each channel. But with all else being equal, I'll buy the cheapest gear that is accurate enough that you can't tell it's in the signal path.

It's not that I wouldn't like the choice. More options is always better than fewer. But I object to the notion that you have to spend $3000 for a mike preamp to get a good recording. A few months ago in a Mix interview, a famous engineer said she could get a great sound with pretty much any mike, and what mattered most was the room and the players. I agree, and I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference what mike or preamp you use, not counting obvious junk like a $20 mike from Radio Shack. And of course a decent condenser mike is needed for anything with a lot of treble content - you'll never get a good cymbal sound with a dynamic mike, no matter how much it costs.

I agree with a good deal of that, but not all. There's a lot of practical applications that are not usually covered by specs, and that has little or nothing to do with transparency. For example, let's say that you are slightly overdriving your preamp (either intentionally or by accident). An API or a NEVE will certainly handle a very hot signal in a more musical way than the Mackie. (One reason some people love API is for that very situation!) The specs on the Mackie weren't measured at those levels, so the specs would not give you a clue. So again it comes down to how much published specs cover the spectrum of real world useage. In my opinion, they only tell a very small part of the story.

I don't see preamps as tone shapers. That's what EQ is for. Sure, you could buy an assortment of expensive and varied preamps just for tone shaping. But why bother? Using a mike that has a certain response is the same as using a flat mike with an EQ set to the same response. (Within reason - EQ can never restore frequencies that weren't captured in the first place.) I always laugh when a magazine mike review says something like "the added presence at 5 KHz was very noticeable and really helped the sound." So why not just use a flat mike and add a little EQ?

I have a pair of audiotechnica 4033s that I love. A friend of mine has a small commercial studio and last year bought his first Neumann, a TLM103. I asked him why he paid so much more for the Neumann when a 4033 is just as good. He said he wants to impress his clients, which is valid. Then we put both mikes side by side and recorded me singing into them both. When we played them back the Neumann sounded a little brighter. We looked at the published frequency response and the Neumann had a slight boost at 5 KHz. Then we EQ'd the 4033 to have the same curve and could no longer hear any difference.

You can probably get away with that method in some cases, but it is also a fact that boosting a signal with EQ introduces phase anomalies, and it is almost universally accepted that getting the sound you want with good instruments, good room acoustics, proper mic positioning and proper choice of devices in the signal path is superior to trying to simulate the above with EQ.

Plus you are using the example of a 4033 vs. a TLM103 - hardly the epitome of cheap vs. expensive. You want to put your 4033 up against a Stephen Paul modded U67 and see if you can erase the difference with EQ? I'd be willing to bet you the price of a TLM103 that you couldn't convince a panel of obective experienced listeners. Hell, I doubt you could ever make a 4033 even sound like my Lawson L47mp. If you can, you must be one hell of an engineer, cause i own both, and I know I sure as hell can't!

> The bottom line is I'm guessing you would be hard pressed to find any top engineers that would agree with your position. <

That doesn't bother me at all. I have a lot of positions on other, non-audio subjects that I know are correct but in the minority. Mostly in matters of consumerism, politics, and religion. For example, a very large number of people believe in ghosts. That doesn't mean ghosts are real.

There was a time when the popular masses thought the earth was flat, but never a time when knowledgeable astronomers and geographers thought so. We are not talking about the opinions of the "great unwashed", but the opinions of the finest engineers in the world, who have made recordings whose quality we all aspire to. That's not to say you have to agree with everything they say, but I think you have to give their opinions more respect than merely dismissing them as ghost stories or some other form of mass superstition.

I'm sure we'll never convince eachother through words, but if i could sit you down in my studio for about 15 minutes some day....

Let me know if you are ever coming to Boston!

 

[Ethan Winer]

LD,

> "therefore the value of expensive gear is of not ever worth it's price." <

I won't say never, but price often has nothing to do with quality or features or value. Is a Neumann shockmount accessory really worth $200? When I see that price, and the obvious gouge it represents, I can only assume the mikes themselves are grossly overpriced too. Understand I have owned real Neumann mikes, so this argument is not from ignorance. When I ran a pro studio I had a pair of U87s and also a tube U47.

> I agree with all of that. But I have no problem with also saying a certain preamp can sound "fuller" for vocals too. <

Define fuller. You can get "fuller" easily by adding a little boost at 150-250 Hz.

> It seems dogmatic (to say nothing of counterproductive) to say it's fine to chose a mic for optimum sound, but one is not allowed to do the same with a preamp. <

You can certainly do that if you like the idea of having a dozen different preamps to use as a palette. Hey, it's your money. I'd rather determine what causes the difference in sound and dial it in some other way. Again, just to avoid having to spend a lot of money on several different preamps. To me it's much simpler to just track everything flat through a clean preamp, and then futz around with it later when mixing.

> I doubt if you called Mercenary and spoke to Fletcher, that you would get those kind of descriptions. <

Ha ha ha. It took me 10 seconds to find these gems on Fletcher's web site:

"Simply put, the z-Q2 is one of the finest digital equalizers money can buy. The z-Q2 combines the precision and repeatability of digital with the “openness” and “airiness” of the best analog EQs."

"Utilizing the same successful ribbon transducers as found on our Standard R-121 and SF series microphones, the new Active Series microphones deliver all of the deliciously warm, natural tonality that engineers worldwide have come to expect from Royer ribbons..."

> it's not as easy as you seem to imply adding in that character/balls factor after the fact just by slapping on some EQ. If it was, I'd be jumping over to your side in an instant! <

Well if you think about it, there are not that many different types of degradation you can apply. Without getting into artifacts that happen only in the digital domain, there's EQ, compression, and distortion. Since Harmonic and IM distortion go hand in hand, there's no need to separate them out for this discussion. So what else do you think a preamp that has "character" is applying?

> I find very little correlation between specs and "good sound", once the specs get past a certain point. <

Once the specs get past a certain point, it is doubtful that anyone can hear any difference. The human ear is not very precise, our auditory memory is very short, and expectation plays a bigger role than most people realize. There is no way you'll hear the difference between a preamp having 0.001% distortion and one having 0.0001%. If you can repeatedly identify one versus the other, then something else is different.

> There's a lot of practical applications that are not usually covered by specs, and that has little or nothing to do with transparency. <

Again, I ask you to define transparency.

> let's say that you are slightly overdriving your preamp (either intentionally or by accident). An API or a NEVE will certainly handle a very hot signal in a more musical way than the Mackie. <

If you are overdriving a preamp by mistake then you need to go back to recording school. And if you're doing it on purpose, then you're using it as a fuzz effect and specs mean nothing. To say that one preamp handles overloading in a more "musical" way than another is pretty silly, no?

> The specs on the Mackie weren't measured at those levels <

How could you possibly know that Mackie designers never measured the distortion of their preamps at high levels? I would be very surprised if they didn't! It seems like you are trying to make a mystery out of what should be purely scientific.

> In my opinion, they only tell a very small part of the story. <

So what is the rest of the story? Black magic? A mysterious audio phenomenon that isn't yet fully understood?

> it is also a fact that boosting a signal with EQ introduces phase anomalies <

Sorry but this is yet more nonsense. I am certain you have never compared an audio track or mix that has had nothing except phase shift applied. If phase shift alone were a problem, nobody would use Dolby noise reduction or analog tape recorders.

> it is almost universally accepted that getting the sound you want with good instruments, good room acoustics, proper mic positioning and proper choice of devices in the signal path is superior to trying to simulate the above with EQ. <

Yes, EQ can never substitute for good room acoustics. But that's apples and oranges. Room acoustics determine the amount of ambience that is captured, and EQ alters the frequency response.

> You want to put your 4033 up against a Stephen Paul modded U67 and see if you can erase the difference with EQ? <

Then explain to me what the difference would be due to if not frequency response, proximity effect, and distortion. What else is there?

--Ethan

 

[littledog]

It seemed for a while back there that we were maybe approaching something of a meeting of the minds, or at least figuring where we can agree to disagree. But this last post has reclaimed a firm position on the unagreeable, so maybe it's time to just let this thread die.

Correct me if I am mis-stating anything, but here is what it seems you are telling me:

Ostensably fine mics like the U47 are not only overpriced, but can be easily (at least by someone with your skills) be duplicated by a 4033 and an EQ. I still think that if it was so easy, microphone modeling devices would be far more successful than they are. I don't think you are being disingenuous, but I have to remain skeptical until a time comes when i can see it demonstrated for myself.

My remark about a preamp helping a vocal to sound "fuller" was only making a parallel reference to your earlier statement that mic choice can make a voice sound "fuller" (your term, not mine). Later, you proceeded to define fuller by saying all it means is adding a little boost at 150-250 Hz. If that is true, why not just use the flattest mic you can find on any source and add in 150-250 Hz if you need it?

You demean the idea of selecting a preamp for it's characteristic sound - just fix it in the mix is your solution. But you don't mind choosing a mic or a compressor for it's characteristic sound? Forgive me for not understanding the arbitrary distinction. Why is it logical to spend thousands on a huge mic cabinet or have a number of compressor choices, but restrict your preamp options to only a Mackie?

You say once the specs get past a certain point, no one can really hear the difference. Yet we do hear differences between certain pieces of gear with similar specs - often very easily! So it seems this argument supports my position that specs on a particular set of parameters is only a small part of what we are actually hearing.

(Sorry if you didn't like my use of the term transparency - maybe you prefer the term accuracy. I was only going for a synonym.)

If you are overdriving a preamp by mistake then you need to go back to recording school. And if you're doing it on purpose, then you're using it as a fuzz effect and specs mean nothing. To say that one preamp handles overloading in a more "musical" way than another is pretty silly, no?

Now, now, let's keep it clean. I would love to go to recording school (for the first time, not a repeat course) but I'm too old and have too many real world commitments. And I would prefer to be judged on my relative lack of ability and skill based on my work, not on how clearly you are able to interpret stuff I write at 5 a.m.

What i was TRYING to say was that certain preamps handle the upper limit of their dynamic range better than others. You can preset a level setting with all the skill in the world, but every once in a while the musician or singer will surprise you with a transient or two in the heat of passion. Some gear has more headroom than others. Some gear, when it gets close to actual clipping sounds really awful, and other gear still sounds remarkably good. And some gear sounds so interesting when it is run borderline to it's theoretical limit, that people intentionally take advantage of that as a deliberate choice. I would choose an API preamp as one example of getting a great sound while driving it hard. I don't know anyone who would choose a Mackie in that situation. I'm sorry if you think that disqualifies me as a professional. Like almost all of my points, this is something determined by personal real world listening experience. I wouldn't begin to know where on a spec sheet I could determine that information purely by looking at numbers.

So what is the rest of the story? Black magic? A mysterious audio phenomenon that isn't yet fully understood?

No. I'm sure a technical person might have plenty of good explanations. Or maybe not. Maybe the combination of hundreds or even thouasnds of little individual factors is what gives something its unique sound. The way it's wired, the choice of caps or resistors, use and selection of transformers or tubes, the way it deals with heat, quality of pots and switches... and who knows how many other things all can contribute to the sound. As a musician and not an electrical engineer, what sounds good to me is how I select gear. I compare units using appropriate real world sources whenever possible, and then make buying decisions.

I'm very happy to pick up whatever technical knowledge I can, and in the past you have been very helpful and enlightening. But if you tell me that red and green are really the same color, and provide me with a whole volume of equations to prove it - I may find the argument intellectually interesting, but in the end I have to go with what my own senses tell me. My own senses tell me I can hear the difference between pieces of gear that you say have the same specs, and therefore MUST sound the same. So I guess we are at an impasse.

I also think that I can hear the difference between getting a sound at the source using positioning and mic/preamp selection - and simulating it with EQ boost. And the issue of cutting some frequencies and raising volume being "healthier" to the ultimate sound than boosting other frequencies via EQ is something that i don't have the technical expertise to justify. I know it works for me, and it seems to be about as close to a universal axiom amongst the body of working engineers out there, whose opinions apparently you either despise or dismiss as purveyors of superstition and untruths.

Aside from that, since most gear doesn't capture sound in a purely linear fashion, (as level or frequency of the signal input changes), it seems that modelling one piece of gear by substituting another plus EQ is a very shoddy compromise, unless you could somehow have an EQ with hundreds of bands who's parameters were dynamically changing constantly as the levels and frequencies change. Doesn't seem like a very easy task.

Anyway, not much use continuing this as a two-way debate, unless someone with fresh input wants to step in. I admire your courage in taking a stand which puts you on the fringe of the recording community at large. But until my ears can validate your theories, I'll have to leave them on the fringe for now. Best of luck in your future endeavors.

 

[Stevebol]

I don't want to butt in, but isn't it possible that tube and solid-state pre-amps will continue to evolve side by side the same way that digital recording and analog tape have?

 

[Ethan Winer]

LD,

> Ostensably fine mics like the U47 are not only overpriced, but can be easily (at least by someone with your skills) be duplicated by a 4033 and an EQ. <

I didn't really say that, but I did ask, and again ask, what you think is the difference between mikes that are otherwise similar - when both are large diaphragm, both have solid state transformerless outputs, etc.

> Later, you proceeded to define fuller by saying all it means is adding a little boost at 150-250 Hz. <

That's not the only definition of fuller, but it's certainly one definition.

> If that is true, why not just use the flattest mic you can find on any source and add in 150-250 Hz if you need it? <

That's not a bad approach. Of course, there are fundamental characteristic differences between large and small diaphragms, and omni and cardioid-like patterns. But again I ask you to explain what would be different between mikes other than frequency response, proximity effects, off-axis response, and distortion?

> You demean the idea of selecting a preamp for it's characteristic sound ... But you don't mind choosing a mic or a compressor for it's characteristic sound? <

Mikes do respond differently when you get close to them, and they have different off-axis frequency patterns. And compressors surely sound different depending on how they implement gain reduction. But a clean preamp should be a clean preamp.

> You say once the specs get past a certain point, no one can really hear the difference. Yet we do hear differences between certain pieces of gear with similar specs - often very easily! So it seems this argument supports my position that specs on a particular set of parameters is only a small part of what we are actually hearing. <

Again it depends on the type of gear, and I don't think we can include compressors. But with preamps, if one sounds different than another it should not be hard to identify the difference and what causes it.

> Now, now, let's keep it clean. I would love to go to recording school <

I didn't mean you personally. I meant the generic "you" as in someone or anyone. I am never rude (intentionally), and I consider all of this to be a friendly discusssion of the issues.

> What i was TRYING to say was that certain preamps handle the upper limit of their dynamic range better than others. ... every once in a while the musician or singer will surprise you with a transient or two in the heat of passion. Some gear has more headroom than others. <

True, but there's no reason to have the preamp gain so high that you're even close to clipping. If that's the only reason to spend $2000 per channel for a preamp, I'd rather pay closer attention to gain staging.

> I would choose an API preamp as one example of getting a great sound while driving it hard. <

I honestly don't understand the appeal of using a preamp as a distortion effect. People spend thousands on preamps because they are ultra clean and transparent, and then drive them almost to the point of overload to get a "sound?" That makes no sense to me, nor does the appeal of overdriving analog tape to get a particular sound. The problem with recording that way is all the IM distortion that is generated. Harmonic distortion is not always bad, and a single-note melody like a vocal or fuzz guitar lead will not suffer from moderate distortion. But any track that has more than one note will become crappy sounding very quickly. Unless you want that sound for an effect, which is valid. But I can get a crappy overloaded sound easily enough, without an API preamp.

> I'm sure a technical person might have plenty of good explanations. Or maybe not. Maybe the combination of hundreds or even thouasnds of little individual factors is what gives something its unique sound. <

Again, there are only so many things that have an effect on analog audio quality. This is why I keep asking what you think is responsible, and why you think it's something other than frequency response and distortion.

> The way it's wired, the choice of caps or resistors, use and selection of transformers or tubes, the way it deals with heat, quality of pots and switches. <

Right, all of those combine to give a certain overall frequency response and total amount and quality of distortion.

> My own senses tell me I can hear the difference between pieces of gear that you say have the same specs, and therefore MUST sound the same. <

Give me some specifics. To keep it simple, let's start with two items which you can pick, and tell me the specs (or point me to a URL). Then I'll try to explain what might account for any audible differences. I will say this over and over: there is no magic. There is little today that is not understood about audio equipment. It all can be explained using science and common sense. I am not saying that all preamps sound the same. What I am saying is that differences can be identified and explained.

> I also think that I can hear the difference between getting a sound at the source using positioning and mic/preamp selection - and simulating it with EQ boost. <

Absolutely. Mike positioning affects more than just frequency response!

> the issue of cutting some frequencies and raising volume being "healthier" to the ultimate sound <

Yes, but that is very easy to explain. EQ boosts tend to produce a wah effect, and also ringing if the Q is set high. Cutting avoids that, and the difference in frequency response between the two methods is easily measured.

> whose opinions apparently you either despise or dismiss as purveyors of superstition and untruths. <

That is not my attitude at all! I do see a lot of misinformation being spread by amateurs and pros alike, and perhaps the worst offenders are magazine editors. But I try very hard not to have an "attitude" about any of this.

> since most gear doesn't capture sound in a purely linear fashion, (as level or frequency of the signal input changes) ... unless you could somehow have an EQ with hundreds of bands who's parameters were dynamically changing <

It's not nearly that complicated! Yes, linearity does change with signal level and frequency, but at reasonable levels (at least a few dB below hard clipping) distortion in a decent preamp should be so far below the music as to be inaudible.

> I admire your courage in taking a stand which puts you on the fringe of the recording community at large. But until my ears can validate your theories, I'll have to leave them on the fringe for now. <

I suspect we are not as far apart as you think, and none of what I've said is really a "theory." Like you, I am in favor of high quality audio reproduction, and I appreciate artful use of audio gear to shape the sound. You can shape sound with a lot of devices, and no one method is necessarily superior. One method may be a lot more expensive than another, but that's irrelevant in purely theoretical terms.

--Ethan

 

[littledog]

I feel better about your last post than the previous one - at least my impression is that the discussion is back on track in a more useful fashion...

...I did ask, and again ask, what you think is the difference between mikes that are otherwise similar - when both are large diaphragm, both have solid state transformerless outputs, etc.

... again I ask you to explain what would be different between mikes other than frequency response, proximity effects, off-axis response, and distortion?

Maybe there is nothing else than the specs that you chose to read, and that the manufacturers chose to provide. Maybe there is. I'm not qualified to say. Someone like Stephen Paul would be the one to ask, not me. To paraphrase Julian Standen: "I can't build them, fix them, or tell you how they work. I just know how to use them." I'm not necessarily bragging about my ignorance, but some of the best race car drivers are probably lousy mechanics or designers. I may be in the bottom percentile of engineers as far as technical knowledge, but I compensate to at least some extent with musical ability, taste, and listening skills. Meanwhile I'm trying to fill in the gaps by talking to folks like you.

So I can't tell you why i hear a difference. To try and describe aural differences verbally gets into more semantic trouble than it's worth. (e.g. "warm" transparent" etc.) I can't even say for sure you are right or wrong. All I know is, when I put up four mics and four preamps for an artist to audition, they hear differences, I hear differences, they have strong preferences, and I have strong preferences. If i told them the specs were worse on the one they liked, do you think they would care? Do you think anyone should care? If you found the perfect sampled sound for a piece of music, would you suddenly say - "Oh, sorry, we can't use it. It's only 12 bits. The specs on these other 16 bit sounds are much better!" I use what I have in whatever way I can to get the best sound for a particular context. I A/B choices by listening, not by reading specs.

Mikes do respond differently when you get close to them, and they have different off-axis frequency patterns. And compressors surely sound different depending on how they implement gain reduction. But a clean preamp should be a clean preamp.

...with preamps, if one sounds different than another it should not be hard to identify the difference and what causes it.

Maybe not hard for you. It would be pretty hard for me. But it doesn't matter to me, other than perhaps intellectual curiousity. If I need to drive to the store to buy something, what matters to me is that i know which turns in the road to make, how to operate the vehicle safely, and that i remembered my wallet. If I knew how to build or improve the performance of the car, it would be a very nice and useful thing, but not the most essential skill set necessary to performing the task of shopping.

...there's no reason to have the preamp gain so high that you're even close to clipping. If that's the only reason to spend $2000 per channel for a preamp, I'd rather pay closer attention to gain staging.

I honestly don't understand the appeal of using a preamp as a distortion effect. People spend thousands on preamps because they are ultra clean and transparent, and then drive them almost to the point of overload to get a "sound?" That makes no sense to me, nor does the appeal of overdriving analog tape to get a particular sound. The problem with recording that way is all the IM distortion that is generated. Harmonic distortion is not always bad, and a single-note melody like a vocal or fuzz guitar lead will not suffer from moderate distortion. But any track that has more than one note will become crappy sounding very quickly. Unless you want that sound for an effect, which is valid. But I can get a crappy overloaded sound easily enough, without an API preamp.

When I record a performance with tremendous dynamic range, there is no question that having increased headroom from a preamp before unacceptable distortion levels is an advantage to me. That may just make me a lousy engineer, or it may mean that I'm recording a lot 'wilder" sources than you tend to do. I'm not one of those people who would suggest, as others have on occasion around here. to "just tell the drummer not to play the cymbals so loud."

As far as getting a desireable sound at higher levels, i'm guessing you would be very much against tape compression as well, at least if your argument is to be consistent. No one is talking about a fuzz box here. We are talking about useful musical enhancement. The listener to the end product may be thrilled by accuracy if the product is a recording of an orchestra in a wonderful hall. But in most other cases, the most accurate reproduction of the performance may not be the most musical or artistically compelling. I don't have any problem with that. Especially speaking as someone who records a lot in less than ideal acoustic spaces. It still comes down to i'm going to use whatever settings on whatever equipment gives me the best sound. And I wish I could explain what "best sound" is, or why it sounds that way, but I can't! It's like that classic definition of pornography: "I can't define it, but I know what it is when i see it." Now, in the case of pornography, I can't personally make that statement. But I know what i like when I hear it.

Perhaps with your skills, I could get the same results in a cheaper fashion. Perhaps every one of the sounds i get is possible with a Mackie, a 4033, and whatever EQ you are endorsing. But not everyone is as bad an engineer as i am. Certainly there must be at least a few others who are skillful enough to do the same manipulations you are capable of doing. So, i wonder, why don't they all just sell all their high end gear, invest in a Mackie and a few 4033's, and take that huge windfall and buy a boat or something?

I am not saying that all preamps sound the same. What I am saying is that differences can be identified and explained.

If that is important to you, go for it! I like the color purple. The physics,optical, and psychological explanations for why I see something as "purple" have only a very peripheral effect on the fact that I like purple. At least to me. The formula for which combination of primary colors in light and/or pigment will give me a purple result is very interesting. But it won't make me like it more or less.

EQ boosts tend to produce a wah effect, and also ringing if the Q is set high. Cutting avoids that, and the difference in frequency response between the two methods is easily measured.

I brought this up originally in response to your "boosting at 250hz" remarks. So now I'm confused. Perhaps earlier I used the wrong terms, which you jumped all over. Maybe I should have said "wah effect" and/or "ringing" instead of phasing problems. Sorry, just my technical ignorance again. So let's see... where were we? Oh yeah... no need to choose a preamp for a "fuller" sound when we can just boost at 250 hz and get that nice "wah" and "ringing" effect at no extra charge! I'm sure that's not what you meant, of course. But if you combine your statements from a couple of different posts, it kind of implies it.

Someday I hope to have the knowledge to answer your very valid questions raised in the course of this discussion. While it may smack of a logical cop-out to keep replying "Duh, i dunno, it just sounds good to me!" unfortunately, sometimes it's the best i can do. Fortunately my clients seem to think it's good enough. Do me a favor, and please don't disillusion them!

 

[darrin_h2000]

Its like I understand all of this, but sometimes the less I know the happier I am.

If it sounds good, do it.

 

[Ethan Winer]

littledog (any chance of ever getting your real name?),

> Someone like Stephen Paul would be the one to ask, not me. <

Actually, Stephen Paul is one of the worst offenders for confusing fact with fancy and science with psuedo-science. I'm not saying he doesn't have a way with mikes - he probably does, though I have no first-hand experience. I can tell you that I got into the most unfriendly (him, not me!) discussion with him last year in another forum. I saved all exchanges, and maybe someday I'll post them on my web site. Stephen's behavior was truly disgraceful, and his lack of knowledge on several fundamental concepts was surprising.

> To paraphrase Julian Standen: "I can't build them, fix them, or tell you how they work. I just know how to use them." <

And there is nothing wrong with that. You don't have to know how to design a radio to play one. I do feel that understanding at least a little about electronics is useful for audio engineers, but it's not mandatory.

> when I put up four mics and four preamps for an artist to audition, they hear differences, I hear differences, they have strong preferences, and I have strong preferences. <

How much difference do you hear between preamps when you use the same mike? Though even that test is elusive because every performance is different. A good friend of mine composes music for two popular soaps, and when 96 KHz converters first came out he went to a manufacturer's demo and told me he had heard a difference. I asked him how they tested and he said someone sang into a mike recorded at 44.1. Then the same person sang again while recording at 96. I explained that moving your head a tiny bit can make a big difference, and of course nobody can sing exactly the same way twice. Just a touch more sibilance on one performance makes the sound seem much brighter. He immediately understood, and now he agrees with me that 96 by itself is a waste of disk space.

> If i told them the specs were worse on the one they liked, do you think they would care? Do you think anyone should care? <

Nor do I care (to a point).

> there is no question that having increased headroom from a preamp before unacceptable distortion levels is an advantage to me. <

And to me too. Do you think an API preamp has a wider total dynamic range than a Mackie? I don't have the specs in front of me, but I'm pretty sure they'll be within a dB or two of each other.

> i'm guessing you would be very much against tape compression as well ... No one is talking about a fuzz box here. We are talking about useful musical enhancement. <

Yes, and no. I admit that I've made some of my own mixes sound "better" by recording them to a cassette and then back into digital. I've also used a tape emulator plug-in for the same purpose. The result sounded more cohesive and fuller after processing, though I understand exactly what is happening and why. If I didn't make this point before in this thread, let me make it now: I am not opposed to any process that's used as an effect, as long as it's understood that it's an effect. And as with any effect it can be applied during tracking or when mixing. But just because something sounds "better" does not mean it's more accurate. I know you said how something sounds is more important than accuracy, and I agree. But the makers of $3000 preamps tout accuracy as the main justification for a high price, and that's why I keep harping on that.

> But in most other cases, the most accurate reproduction of the performance may not be the most musical or artistically compelling. <

Agreed. What bothers me is when people that should know better wrongly claim that, for example, analog tape is better than digital recording because it's more transparent. Versus understanding that analog tape is an effect they happen to find pleasing.

> Perhaps with your skills, I could get the same results in a cheaper fashion. <

I do not consider myself a particularly good mixer. I'm good with the tech stuff, and I like to think I know how things work. But lots of folks who know less than me about circuitry can make mixes that sound much better than mine.

> why don't they all just sell all their high end gear, invest in a Mackie and a few 4033's, and take that huge windfall and buy a boat or something? <

Because recording engineers are human, and we all have human expectations, prejudices and logic gaps. Why do some otherwise intelligent people pay money to an astrologer? Or buy a brand name product when the exact same thing is available as a store brand? My mom was a very intelligent woman, yet she always bought Tylenol for five times the cost of a generic brand even though the generic has the exact same chemical makeup. No matter how many times I told her they were the same, she insisted she could tell a difference.

> no need to choose a preamp for a "fuller" sound when we can just boost at 250 hz and get that nice "wah" and "ringing" effect at no extra charge! <

Yeah! But the point is that boosting one frequency does not yield the same curve as cutting all other frequencies. Maybe it's possible with a parametric EQ having enough bands, but generally you don't get the same curve. And boosting does give a wah effect, but I should have made more of the fact that it is most pronounced when the filter Q is high (narrow bandwidth). If you boost 250 Hz with a Q of 1 or less, you won't get a wah effect as much as an overall fattening - assuming the source track has frequencies in that range.

--Ethan

 

[littledog]

Well, I think we're about as close as we're ever going to get! There's probably no end to the amount of times we can pick out a dozen statements from each other's posts that we feel were misinterpretations of the other's positions or heinous violations of logic and/or good taste.

But I think we've gone far enough with this, especially since we seemed to have bored the shit out of everyone else around here!

I can't hope to exert any significant influence over anyone who so cavalierly dismisses the opinions of:

1)Stephen Paul
2) Every other audio engineer in the business
3) His own mother!

But it's been fun. Maybe we'll find another excuse to wrestle in the near future.

By the way, Littledog is the name of my studio. Not so much me trying to be cool by appropriating youthful idioms ("dog"), and certainly not a reference to my size or shape, but because of the studio mascot (6 lb. Yorkshire Terrier).

I kind of enjoy the nom-de-plume, but I'm perfectly willing to divulge personal data via PM.

 

[Robert D]

Whew, I'm worn out from reading all that! Allow me to throw in a couple of points, obvious as they may be.
Like winemaking, the equipment necessary to make a high quality preamp has been around for some time. Modern components and assembly equipment have brought the cost to manufacture down to levels where quality preamps can be made available to more people with thinner wallets. That's the real advance of the technology, and it's a great advancement.
IF the sole measure of the quality of a preamp were to be it's specs and transparancy, then you could make the argument that advances in technology have brought us better preamps. But fine audio gear, like fine wine, defies such clinical assessment, and ultimately can only be judged by the pallet, or the ear. Debating them is like debating art or sculptor. It is truely in the ear of the beholder.
Why doesn't it sound good to quantitize musical notes and beats to perfect time? It's too sterile, unnatural, and unmusical. The same can be said of the most perfectly transparent preamps.
Why paint things? It's grossly less accurate than photography. Shouldn't the camera have rendered the easle and brush obsolete? I hope you get my point. It's not just being romantic about old gear, it's all about art, which music is very much a form of, as is the recording process.
Cheers, RD

 

[Sky Blue Lou]

Very interesting "argument" guys. I think Robert D sums it up best in two ways. "Whew". And whatever else he said.

lou

 

[littledog]

Thanks RD for a beautifully stated post.

Too bad you didn't put this up a while ago - it would have saved me from trying to say in about three pages what you said so much better in three paragraphs.

Next time I'll just call you first...

 

[Ethan Winer]

LD,

> we seemed to have bored the shit out of everyone else around here! <

Hey, the thread rating is five stars!

> I can't hope to exert any significant influence over anyone who so cavalierly dismisses the opinions of: 1) Stephen Paul <

Nobody is above having their statements scrutinized, not even Stephen Paul. Some people think the president of the US should always be supported without question. I'm sure you can see the silliness of that. Same for the pope. Infallible? Hardly! So why would you blindly accept everything Stephen Paul says?

> 2) Every other audio engineer in the business <

Actually, plenty of people agree with me. But strictly speaking, how many people agree or disagree with a given opinion has no bearing on whether said opinion is true or not.

> His own mother!

The point was to illustrate human foibles, in answer to you asking why someone would pay more than necessary for a preamp.

> But it's been fun. Maybe we'll find another excuse to wrestle in the near future. <

I have no problem stopping the discussion if that's what you want. I'm sorry that you'd rather avoid discussing the issues and instead accept the status quo without even thinking about it. These are all important topics that need to be brought out in the open, not stuffed in the closet. To say, "Nobody else agrees with your opinion" doesn't address the issues; it just hides from them. But the choice is yours. I can't force you to reply to me.

> I kind of enjoy the nom-de-plume, but I'm perfectly willing to divulge personal data via PM. <

You're always welcome to email me through my web site:

www.ethanwiner.com

--Ethan

 

[littledog]

LD,

Nobody is above having their statements scrutinized, not even Stephen Paul. Some people think the president of the US should always be supported without question. I'm sure you can see the silliness of that. Same for the pope. Infallible? Hardly! So why would you blindly accept everything Stephen Paul says?

Actually, plenty of people agree with me. But strictly speaking, how many people agree or disagree with a given opinion has no bearing on whether said opinion is true or not.

I'm not sure who you're arguing with now. I hope you're not trying to put most of those words in my mouth. First of all, I was trying to make a humorous (and mood lightening) juxtaposition of Stephen Paul, everyone in the industry, and your mother. Apparently a sense of humor is not one of those easily quantifiable qualities, which might explain why you seem to have a problem in that area.

On the other hand, if you're asking who's opinion I might tend to give more respect and credence to on say, the subject of mathematics between Sir Isaac Newton and Ethan Winer, I guess I might lean just slightly towards Ike. No one said that being an expert, or even a genius, is the same as infallibility (see John Nash for instance!), but if Ted Williams were to rise from the dead and give me a tip on my batting stance, it would be pretty dumb to insist his opinions carry no more weight than mine, so why should I consider anything he has to say. If you have a source who happens to be the best in the world within a certain field, maybe the fact that you don't see their thinking as totally linear and logical is part of what MAKES them operate on a higher plain than us poor literalists. Yeah, i know, you insist there's no magic - everything is totally predictable if you just have enough data, blah blah blah. That may make someone a great scientist (at least until they run head on into quantum mechanics) but it might make them really suck as an artist.

I'm sorry that you'd rather avoid discussing the issues and instead accept the status quo without even thinking about it. These are all important topics that need to be brought out in the open, not stuffed in the closet. To say, "Nobody else agrees with your opinion" doesn't address the issues; it just hides from them. But the choice is yours. I can't force you to reply to me.

You know, part of me was feeling like I was going to miss these daily exchanges - it was kind of a ritual like the morning coffee and bagel with the NY Times. Until that last statement, which I think is incredibly FUCKING OUT OF LINE.

Do you want to go back and count how many words, posts, and hours in total I've spent on this endeavor? Then please explain to me how that represents avoiding discussion? If you want to accuse anyone of avoiding discussion, there's about 15,000 or so members here who have contributed far less than I have on this thread. Go make snide remarks to all of them, and then get back to me. Since when did continuing a thread ad infinitum become a litmus test of intellectual honesty or committment. So, Ethan, what then is the acceptable limit for disengaging from a discussion? 100 posts? 1000 posts? 1,000,000?

And if someone does happen to agree with someone else (besides you), please explain how that automatically means they couldn't possibly be capable of critical thought? Are the ONLY correct ideas original ones? Can you not learn from anyone else's experience?

I thought my last post was an attempt at a gracious, humorous, and respectful way of bringing some sort of closure our discussion, since it seemed we had both staked out our positions fairly clearly and at great length. Your ungracious response shows that maybe you should spend less time poring over spec sheets and more time working on your social skills.

Anyway, you're right, you can't force me to reply to you. (Like you've really had a gun to my head all this time!) But you're on exactly the right path to get me to ignore you. I expected better of you. Hopefully you were just having a bad day.

 

[TexRoadkill]

The one thing missing from this discussion is the concept of 'space'. This is the hardest element of sound to quantify or define on a spec sheet. The mix bus is very important in defining space but the preamp must capture space correctly in the first place.

What is space? On one end of the spectrum would be 'in your face' then '3D or ambient' then 'thin or distant'. Although you can fake these elements with EQ they are not constants and EQ is.

Some preamps capture a more even picture of the freq range over the entire dynamic range while others seem to have smaller 'sweet spots'. This sweet spot is not going to be at 0db all the time. Usually better gear will have a bigger sweet spot.

Ethan- You are obviously intelligent but you seem to be overly dogmatic in your world views. I remember you posting in a thread about subliminal messages and you stated it was a myth. 1000s of years of science have yet to understand a fraction of how our brains work but you are some how able to state with absolute certainty exactly how our brains perceive sound.

That brings us back to the current discussion in that sometimes there is much more to a piece of gear than can be plotted on a spec sheet. It's this undefinable 'x factor' that makes the difference between something of great value and something that is invaluable.

 

[Ethan Winer]

LD,

> I was trying to make a humorous (and mood lightening) juxtaposition of Stephen Paul, everyone in the industry, and your mother. <

I had no idea. Sorry. It sounded like you were criticizing me (versus criticizing the points I've been making).

> Apparently a sense of humor ... you seem to have a problem in that area. <

Heck no. My favorite TV shows are all sitcoms, with The Simpsons at the top of the list.

> on say, the subject of mathematics between Sir Isaac Newton and Ethan Winer <

Stephen Paul is no Isaac Newton, I assure you. Nor is he a Ted Williams.

> maybe the fact that you don't see their thinking as totally linear and logical is part of what MAKES them operate on a higher plain than us poor literalists. <

Not likely. In my dealings with Stephen he was immature and petty, and his rantings bordered on psychotic. Should I post a few fragments of the exchange?

> you insist there's no magic - everything is totally predictable if you just have enough data, blah blah blah. <

And you dispute that? Are you saying there is magic? Again, we're talking about audio science here, not art. At least I've been talking about science.

> Do you want to go back and count how many words, posts, and hours in total I've spent on this endeavor? Then please explain to me how that represents avoiding discussion? <

Okay, good point. I guess I'll never convince you that audio electronics is simple and understandable science, and you'll never convince me that the known factors (noise, distortion, frequency response, etc.) are insufficient to define all that needs defining.

> if someone [doesn't agree with you] please explain how that automatically means they couldn't possibly be capable of critical thought? <

Did I say that?

> Your ungracious response

Sorry, that was never my intent!

--Ethan

 

[littledog]

Thanks to Tex and Robert D for making some well written points pertaining to the discussion. They are making some of my intended points a whole lot better than i seem to be able to do, so perhaps, Ethan, you would be better served by continuing the discussion with them, since you are eager to keep making the same arguments ad infinitem.

No offense, but the whole exercise, which was once fun, is now getting tedious. I don't know about you, but at my age spending a lot of time and energy on tedious activities is not the way i wish to occupy my remaining alottment of existence. Once i start hearing the same points stated and restated then I think it's time to call it a day on this thread.

The only point I care to address is the continuing shots at Stephan Paul. I'm sorry you had a bad personal experience with Stephen (and he is the first to admit he can be prickly), which I'm sure in your mind justifies your disregard for him. But I could easily see how it could happen - the combination of your humorless dogmatism (Simpsons notwithstanding) and Stephen's somewhat fragile ego and quick temper would be like nitro and glycerin. Too bad, but I'm sure it's more your loss than his. While he may be neither I. Newton or T. Williams, in the area of microphone design he is the closest thing that you and I will ever likely meet.

Idiosyncratic personality comes with the territory for many of the specially gifted. Add in the unbelievable anatomical and medical ordeals and unremitting physical pain, and I'd say Stephen is probably doing a whole lot better than you or i might in the same circumstances. The fact that he is functioning at all is somewhat miraculous, and surely a testament to his sheer will and determination to continue his work. Let's shrink you by a foot, drop 100 pounds off your frame, and leave you with near useless contorted limbs - and see how your temperment is.

Plus, I'm perfectly willing to hold those truely gifted contributors to art and science to a more lenient standard of social behavior, given the contributions they make in return. Any other way just seems petty and non-constructive.

I have already seen him snap at others on a number of occasions, so i don't need you to republish your own personal little grudge match. Usually, if you are willing to meet him even halfway, he reconsiders and apologizes. But that would not be your style.

Go ahead and have the last word. I'm outta here.

 

[tanberg]

old vs new

I agree with chessrock...its our ears.All my life i have been chasing this sound i hear inmy head.its raw and warm and a bit dirty.well its R&R...That sound was created back in the 50s when i was first being seduced by Buddy Holly,Fats,Little Richard,The Moonglows,Carl Perkins,Elvis,Ronnie Hawkins,etc..and then the Beatles,Cream,and the 70s...
I now have the money to have anythingi want as far as gear goes...Damn ,i've lived and worked long enough!!.I have a $50,000 console,I have a couple of V-72s,I have ADMs,I have great mikes,some of them using neumann U-67 capsules.I have a digital 8 trk.So I can record myself however i want.But when all is said and done,I find myself using my RCA 74 ribbon mikes,mixed with my A/T 4033s and oktavas...old ampex tube preamps(very clean,very warm,very "here")and sending it all to my tascam TSR-8. after that i go to cd or cassette.But my point is,that that sound that they got in the 50s was so satisfying and sounded so good that I prefer the end product created like i described to pro-tools or avalon or my 72s even! Its THE sound.Its hot.It rocks.
I read last month in recording mag that elvis did almost exactly what I'm doing.But i found this w/o Knowing what they did.He went into RCA ribbons directly into 2 track Ampex tape machines...and the rest is history.For reverb they used hallways and staircases before plate.Who can deny the beauty of "Tryin to get to You","Mystery Train","Baby lets Play House","Blue suede Shoes","Honey Dont","Who Do You Love"?? Or those old Bo Diddley sounds.So here we are 40-45 years later and when you hear those records you smile and go "yeah!!!"...
I personally dont like that clean sterile sound thats pervasive now.People arent like that and Rock and Roll sure wasnt suposed to be....Hell,Life isnt.Why would I want my music to sound sterile??So its in the equipment AND the ears...Whats my point?? I think Im saying that 40 years and all that so called better,more advanced technology doesnt necessarilly make a nicer recording.So there is hope for the young guy starting out without alot of money...Just a thought.Thanks for listening.