Use of pre-amp

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I have the same problem with that preamp chart that I have with the mic chart, though I think the mic chart is more aggregious: the scales on the charts don't make any sense.

With the preamp chart, the scale seems to implicate that a "clean" preamp is one that halfway up the scale of coloration. Funny, I've never considered "clean" to mean "half colored". if were talking about coloration, "clean" has always been synonymous with transparent to me.

That's assuming that they are even part of the same measurement. I don't believe they are. There can be such a thing as clean-sounding but colored, and even transaparent-sounding but noisy.

The mic chart is even worse. Aren't "bright" and "dark" both forms of coloration? Having them form a seperate axis just makes no sense. How can something like the AKG D12E be extremely dark and not very colored at the same time?

Then you have the problem with both charts which tend to imply that proximity equals similarity. This is probably why xstatic has a problem with the Avalon and the Grace being right next to each other; those two pres sound about as different as chocolate walnut and butter pecan. Sure, you might find those two ice creams to fall in the same place on a chart measuring texture and level of sweetness, but nobody would confuse them for being similar when they actually taste them. And as much as I DO like the MXL V69ME, it's just not in the same class as a U47, even though they are neighbors on the mic chart.

I'm not jumping on JTC111 here, I just think that one needs to really look hard at what those charts are really saying - and more importantly what they are not saying abut the gear on them, and how it may not quite be what one might think at first glance.

G.

 

[JTC111]

The mic chart is even worse. Aren't "bright" and "dark" both forms of coloration? Having them form a seperate axis just makes no sense. How can something like the AKG D12E be extremely dark and not very colored at the same time?
G.

Glen,
I agree with you on most of your points about the charts. There's no perfect way to represent sound with written words or charts; however, I think you're looking at the mic chart incorrectly.

This is going to be hard to explain, but I'm going to try anyway. But instead of words to represent the sound, I'll use color. I'll lay this out the same way the mic chart is laid out. The color choices here are limited, so I'll have to make do with what's available and the periods are necessary because the BB doesn't allow me to use multiple spaces for some reason.

.............................Bright


Transparent....................................Color


.............................Dark

Obviously, the mic chart isn't linear; it's two-dimensional. If we imagine that white represents an extremely transparent mic and black an extremely colored mic (and colored can be either bright or dark), all mics, regardless of whether they were transparent or colored would fall somewhere along that line. That would determine how far right of left a mic falls on the chart.

Now every mic will also be either bright or dark and this variable is independent from the transparent/color variable.

As I'm typing this, I'm realizing just how impossible a task it is to explain (at least for me). It's kind of like Einstein's Theory of Relativity in that I can sort of wrap my brain around the idea, but I'll be damed if I can explain it to anyone else in a way that would allow them to understand it. Ugh!

Maybe someone else can take this up in a new thread. It may not decide anything in the end but it'll make for an interesting conversation.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Glen,
I agree with you on most of your points about the charts. There's no perfect way to represent sound with written words or charts; however, I think you're looking at the mic chart incorrectly.

You might be right, maybe I am looking at them incorrectly. but it sure isn't for lack of effort on my (or anyone else's) part. I see it as lack of specific and proper definition on the part of the chart. Those charts are bad science.

You're kind of right when you say that one cannot perfectly represent "sound" with words. There's an old saying that talking about music is like dancing about architecture . Charts, OTOH, can accurately represent sound. The waveform display in your NLE software is a very accurate representation of amplitude on the Y axis and time on the X axis. A vectorscope or RMS cloud meter or a frequency response chart or a polar response pattern measurement or other such graphical measurements can very accurately analyze certain specific properties of sound.

The problem with the charts in question is there is no definition of what they are actually measuring. How do they define "transparent"? "What is color?" And most importantly, what actual physical properties are they actually measuring and then translating in the subjective words they are using as the scales on theor charts.

The answer is they aren't. I see nowhere where there is any agrement amongst the engineers as to just what defines the various adjectives they are using. there's no calibration. Like I say, if they asked me, and I were forced to agree that "clean" is related to color (which I DON'T agree, I think that's a huge problem right there), I'd have to throw "clean" down at the very bottom of the preamp chart, not at the middle.

Imagine asking ten people to describe the signal level of something with no calibration between them, they just have a scale between 0 and 10 they need to use to report their findings. One decides to use dBFS, another dBV, the third will equate 0 to the sound of a snot falling on a piece of felt and 10 as standing underneath the space shuttle when it launches, the fourth will just arbitrarily pick a number based upon what 'sounds right' to them, and so on. Where they wind up sticking their dots on the chart will be meaningless, and the chart will be meaningless.

Now tell those same people that the scale is not from 0 to 10, but rather from "0" to "left" to "the letter H" to "blue" to "up". That's where these charts are.

This is going to be hard to explain, but I'm going to try anyway. But instead of words to represent the sound, I'll use color.
...
Obviously, the mic chart isn't linear; it's two-dimensional. If we imagine that white represents an extremely transparent mic and black an extremely colored mic (and colored can be either bright or dark), all mics, regardless of whether they were transparent or colored would fall somewhere along that line. That would determine how far right of left a mic falls on the chart.

Now every mic will also be either bright or dark and this variable is independent from the transparent/color variable.

The problem is that "brightnes/darkness" is not an independent variable, at least not by any definition I can imagine. They are not like the visual analogy you use where brightness and hue (or is it color saturation?) are seperate variables. In sound, as far as I have ever known, "brightness/darkness" is a type of coloration, not a property independent of coloration. It just doesn't equate to me that something can be extremely dark yet only moderately colored at the same time. By any definition I can think of, extremely dark = extremely colored. That AKG mic is off in impossible land on that chart, because it implies that the mic is extremely dark but only slightly colored.

Even a relativistic warping of spacetime combined with quantum duality can't explain that dichotomy to me .

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

So if I understood correctly, you are using the pair of VT-4 on a stereo mix? If so, would those be a matched pair, or serial numbers in succession off the assembly line? In respect to maintaining the best stereo image possible?

Or is that not an issue?

Hi Lee,

Having a matched pair is an issue but successive serial numbers is not as critical as it would be in something like assembly line microphones. I had a good conversation with Doug on this as I may have him make a few custom mods. He said that one of the more difficult things to do with analog gear is to match tubes and resistors (all resistors are within a given tolerance and vary to a degree). He mentioned that he throws more out than he uses. He is very particular about units matching no matter when they were created.

I also check all of my gear at regular intervals with spectrafoo and a multimeter, they are all within what I would call "analog accuracy".

 

[SonicAlbert]

I don't think I would say that tube gear has too much maintenance. If you buy it new the tubes should last for many many years before needing replacement. You could also buy a couple extra sets of tubes when you originally purchase the unit, and that might very well be a lifetime supply.

Buying vintage tube gear would probably be another story, but it doesn't seem like that's what we are talking about here.

All I'm saying is go with the sound you want and don't worry about whether it has tubes or not.

 

[masteringhouse]

I don't think I would say that tube gear has too much maintenance. If you buy it new the tubes should last for many many years before needing replacement. You could also buy a couple extra sets of tubes when you originally purchase the unit, and that might very well be a lifetime supply.

Buying vintage tube gear would probably be another story, but it doesn't seem like that's what we are talking about here.

All I'm saying is go with the sound you want and don't worry about whether it has tubes or not.

Agreed.

Tube pres are one general category of sound. Tube pres are excellent for vocals and direct guitars (in particular bass). I believe that they are also great for adding depth and warmth to digital recordings, but I wouldn't always want to use a tube pre (for example a snare might be better served with a cleaner SS unit with lots of headroom). The answer is to have a variety of pres to choose from in the same way as having several microphones helps.