Running a TUBE MIC thorugh a TUBE PRE necessary?

[groove9028]

Title says it all,

I'm in the process of acquiring more sophisticated equipment.

I'm running a "Dave Thomas" AA CM-12 as my main mic. The mic being a tube mic, is a tube preamp just gonna mud up my signal? Or should i run it directly through my Alesis iO14 which some people on several forums say, it's got a pretty good mic pre built it.

Some of the tube pre's i was looking at were the more cheaper of the bunch.

Studio Projects VTB-1
Electro-Harmonix 12AY7 Mic Pre
ART MP Tube Preamp

Don't judge me too hard now. I know my setup looks cheap. Y'all know that we acquire all the great gear over time, not all at once!

[DeeDrive]

use you ears! they will give you more information than anyone here

Also, an ART tube preamp isn't really a tube preamp, but an IC preamp with a tube on the output stage. Much different than a preamp that only uses tubes to amplify the signal.

I've heard people say that a tube mic + tube pre can be too "tubey" or whatever, but just use your ears and listen to the different combinations of sounds you get and figure out what you like.

[Chris Lago]

Originally Posted by groove9028

Title says it all,

I'm in the process of acquiring more sophisticated equipment.

I'm running a "Dave Thomas" AA CM-12 as my main mic. The mic being a tube mic, is a tube preamp just gonna mud up my signal? Or should i run it directly through my Alesis iO14 which some people on several forums say, it's got a pretty good mic pre built it.

Some of the tube pre's i was looking at were the more cheaper of the bunch.

Studio Projects VTB-1
Electro-Harmonix 12AY7 Mic Pre
ART MP Tube Preamp

Don't judge me too hard now. I know my setup looks cheap. Y'all know that we acquire all the great gear over time, not all at once!

A great mic like the CM12 needs a great pre! I'd say go for a Great River, Blue Robbie, Grace101, you'll be amazed at how much better these pres will make the mic sound.

[groove9028]

You know, I would love to buy a Great River, Blue, Grace 101 preamp, but I just don't have any cash for something that big and expensive. With that said, is my mic going to benefit at all through "less expensive" preamp ($100-$300) or should I just plug in directly into my ADC?

[JohnRoberts]

nah

[rty5150]

Originally Posted by groove9028

You know, I would love to buy a Great River, Blue, Grace 101 preamp, but I just don't have any cash for something that big and expensive. With that said, is my mic going to benefit at all through "less expensive" preamp ($100-$300) or should I just plug in directly into my ADC?

that's like buying a corvette and putting some walmart deal of the day tires on it. it'll work, but the performance is stifled quite a bit. not as noticeable in everyday driving, but when you need it it just isn't there.

typically my mics are less expensive than my preamps. most mics today are well built and engineered. preamps are getting there, but the components in preamps are more involved and the effect is cumulative. most mics today are simply amazing as compared to 10 years ago and most preamps have actually gone down due to cost and the public's mp3 fidelity loss and compromise. both the pre and mic should be roughly on the same level, but for me, the preamp is a VERY important part of the chain. DON'T SKIMP!!!

rich

[B.Rupe]

Originally Posted by groove9028

Title says it all,

I'm in the process of acquiring more sophisticated equipment.

I'm running a "Dave Thomas" AA CM-12 as my main mic. The mic being a tube mic, is a tube preamp just gonna mud up my signal? Or should i run it directly through my Alesis iO14 which some people on several forums say, it's got a pretty good mic pre built it.

Some of the tube pre's i was looking at were the more cheaper of the bunch.

Studio Projects VTB-1
Electro-Harmonix 12AY7 Mic Pre
ART MP Tube Preamp

Don't judge me too hard now. I know my setup looks cheap. Y'all know that we acquire all the great gear over time, not all at once!

I run a RFT Telefunken AK47 through a UA 2-610 all the time and I dont notice it being "tubey". But then, at 52, I suppose most of the music I grew up with was recorded with a lot of tube gear, and the sonic qualities sound "normal" to me.
I suppose it depends on what you like/

[memphisindie]

In the old days, that would happen if you "had to" no one would choose it.
So, no, no tube pre after a tube mic.
It usually doesn't sound workable.
If it does in your setup, why not?

[B.Rupe]

Originally Posted by memphisindie

In the old days, that would happen if you "had to" no one would choose it.
So, no, no tube pre after a tube mic.
It usually doesn't sound workable.
If it does in your setup, why not?

I guess I missed that chapter in the Recording Rule Book. But yes, I remember how undesirable those U47's sounded through those V72's at Abbey Road. Not to mention tube tape machines. Its a good thing we know much better now.

[memphisindie]

Originally Posted by B.Rupe

I guess I missed that chapter in the Recording Rule Book. But yes, I remember how undesirable those U47's sounded through those V72's at Abbey Road. Not to mention tube tape machines. Its a good thing we know much better now.

That's because it isn't a rule.
That's what they had, that's what they used. When solid state came into being, reproduction improved and it became standard to put tube mics into solid state pre's or processing since not as much emphasis was required on the high end anymore.

Please a bit more polite in your responses as sarcasm is uglier than ignorance and no improvement on silence.
People are trying to keep this board respectable.

[rty5150]

but what about sinatra with a u47 through a 610 console at united with bill putnam. i think that vocal sound is great.


rich

[B.Rupe]

Originally Posted by memphisindie

That's because it isn't a rule.
That's what they had, that's what they used. When solid state came into being, reproduction improved and it became standard to put tube mics into solid state pre's or processing since not as much emphasis was required on the high end anymore.

Please a bit more polite in your responses as sarcasm is uglier than ignorance and no improvement on silence.
People are trying to keep this board respectable.

I think when anybody presents absolutes with respect to the recording process (except in the case of ohm's law) they need to be checked. I simply disagree with you. If your not prepared for that, then perhaps you need to re-examine the purpose of this board. No disrespect intended.

[B.Rupe]

Originally Posted by rty5150

but what about sinatra with a u47 through a 610 console at united with bill putnam. i think that vocal sound is great.


rich

Agreed. I have a friend named Steve Melton who was an engineer at Muscle Shoals for many years. And Im sure he would agree that the tube mics used there into the 610 console (which by the way, the Rolling Stones used for Brown Sugar) has a particulary wonderful quality to it.
There are no rules in recording. This has been proven again and again.

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by memphisindie

In the old days, that would happen if you "had to" no one would choose it.
So, no, no tube pre after a tube mic.
It usually doesn't sound workable.
If it does in your setup, why not?

No tube pre after tube mic? Why not?

There are as many different sounding tube pres' as there are solid state ones. Some will sound tubey. Some will have an extremely clean, accurate sound.

[memphisindie]

Originally Posted by B.Rupe

I think when anybody presents absolutes with respect to the recording process (except in the case of ohm's law) they need to be checked. I simply disagree with you. If your not prepared for that, then perhaps you need to re-examine the purpose of this board. No disrespect intended.

I agree with the first part, and I know why you posted it, but, I didn't present an absolute. It's fine to disagree, but, there is never a reason to assume that you have an OK to be rude, sarcastic, or assume that is the reason for this board. It's not.

Originally Posted by Sounds Great

No tube pre after tube mic? Why not?
There are as many different sounding tube pres' as there are solid state ones. Some will sound tubey. Some will have an extremely clean, accurate sound.

I know, put a good clean tube mic in front of a good clean tube pre and mic up a marshall. It all depends on what your doing and what you're using. It all depends.

Originally Posted by memphisindie

It usually doesn't sound workable.
If it does in your setup(as in if your setup sounds good doing that), why not? (as in why not do it).
That's because it isn't a rule.( There are no rules.)

the OP posted this :

Originally Posted by groove9028

Running a TUBE MIC thorugh a TUBE PRE necessary?
Some of the tube pre's i was looking at were the more cheaper of the bunch.
Studio Projects VTB-1
Electro-Harmonix 12AY7 Mic Pre
ART MP Tube Preamp

And the answer is still no, it isn't necessary.
But if it sounds good, why not?




can ya hear me now?

[B.Rupe]

"In the old days, that would happen if you "had to" no one would choose it."

I still stand by my response.

[memphisindie]

Originally Posted by B.Rupe

"In the old days, that would happen if you "had to" no one would choose it."

I still stand by response.

Yeah, real nice, cut the bit you want out of context only to use to make yourself "look right" because you couldn't possibly be mistaken, make sure you omit the word "usually" and "if it sounds good, why not?" too, whatever, kinda egothumperesque, there's some real brainpower for ya. Twisting peoples words. too weird.
I learned from people 30 and 40 years my senior over 25 years ago, That gear wasn't even considered vintage yet,.
The only thing you are wrong about trying to put words in people's mouths and projecting intent I obviously didn't mean.

Originally Posted by groove9028

Running a TUBE MIC thorugh a TUBE PRE necessary?
Title says it all,

He asked if it was necessary and it's not.
There wasn't a lot of solid state stuff in Sinatra's or the early Beatles day.
Maybe you can rewrite history,Bob, and everyone will believe you.
I don't care.

Maybe there's even someone gullible enough to believe that in this day and age one pre and mic will do everything well because Frank and the Beatles used them.

In 1958 the first stereo two-channel records were issued—by Audio Fidelity in the USA and Pye in Britain, using the Westrex "45/45" single-groove system. This system was invented by Alan Blumlein of EMI in 1931 and patented the same year. EMI cut the first stereo test discs using the system in 1933. It was not used commercially until a quarter of a century later.
In the late 1970s and 1980s, a method to improve the dynamic range of mass produced records involved highly advanced disc cutting equipment. These techniques, marketed as the CBS DisComputer and Teldec Direct Metal Mastering, were used to reduce inner-groove distortion. RCA Victor introduced another system to boost dynamic range and achieve a groove with less surface noise under the commercial name of Dynagroove.
Evidence from the early technical literature concerning electrical recording suggests that it wasn't until the 1942–1949 period that there were serious efforts to standardize recording characteristics within an industry.

Don Hassler: The frequency response was limited to probably about 18 kilohertz, which is higher than people can hear but there would be a restriction in overtones, transients wouldn't always sound as good. The dynamic range of tapes was much less than it became after the Dolby system took over. The Dolby system took over probably in maybe in the mid-60s. They started adding Dolby processors to master tapes in those days. But that wasn't all. The mixing boards in those days were vacuum tubes, not transistors. That didn't come about until later on, probably in the 60s. The microphones weren't nearly as sensitive or as good, although they used condenser mikes and ribbon mikes mostly, for good recording in the studio. There was some standard electromagnetic mikes, but they just didn't have the crisp quality. But then the L.P.s in those days - and everything was coming out on 33-1/3 - the L.P.s didn't require that much quality because the L.P. format didn't give you that much capability compared to a CD or even a cassette. Cassette tapes were definitely a step up from L.P.s.

[JohnRoberts]

Originally Posted by memphisindie

But then the L.P.s in those days - and everything was coming out on 33-1/3 - the L.P.s didn't require that much quality because the L.P. format didn't give you that much capability compared to a CD or even a cassette. Cassette tapes were definitely a step up from L.P.s. [/B]

I hope I have quoted you accurately. Not to quibble but I don't believe that cassette tapes are universally regarded as a step up from LPs.

In fairness they are both flawed but in different ways so there may be some preference depending on the relative importance of each's short comings. Kind of academic at this point.

JR

[memphisindie]

Originally Posted by JohnRoberts

I hope I have quoted you accurately. Not to quibble but I don't believe that cassette tapes are universally regarded as a step up from LPs.

In fairness they are both flawed but in different ways so there may be some preference depending on the relative importance of each's short comings. Kind of academic at this point.

JR

It's not my statement, it's Don Hassler's from an interview with him about Capitol Records and their recording of Frank Sinatra.
At the time period Don Hassler was talking about, cassettes had more bandwidth fidelity than LP's did. That changed fairly quickly considering fidelity didn't improve once records became electronically made for 60+ years, and certain mics used then haven't either, but, they're still in demand.
Don worked at Capitol when Sinatra was contracted and recorded there.

I don't think they ended up being that much better sonically but, more transportable, better bandwidth, and it was what the masters were recorded on, big high speed pancakes of 1/4" tape, to someone who had been working with what he was, I can see how tapes were more appealing at the time.

[lerone]

Originally Posted by groove9028

You know, I would love to buy a Great River, Blue, Grace 101 preamp, but I just don't have any cash for something that big and expensive. With that said, is my mic going to benefit at all through "less expensive" preamp ($100-$300) or should I just plug in directly into my ADC?

The EHX 12ay7 is a lovely sounding pre!! It pairs very favourably with several valve mics I own. Well designed valve equiptment should not sound muddy!

[Tommy like sound]

I put a Rode K2 into a TLA C1 all the time. the Rode is clean the C1 is mellow. Good combo. I'll agree with the "no rules" attitude. Though I have wondered before if it could be overpowering on some sources. What you are recording and what you want at the end dictates everything.

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by Tommy like sound

I put a Rode K2 into a TLA C1 all the time. the Rode is clean the C1 is mellow. Good combo. I'll agree with the "no rules" attitude. Though I have wondered before if it could be overpowering on some sources. What you are recording and what you want at the end dictates everything.

Hi Tommy, the C1 does not have a tube preamp. It is a solid state preamp. The tube is applied to the compressor, and I think it may only be in the gain stage. I had the C1 in the mid 90's.


Here, I found some info:

C-1 2-Channel Tube Compressor

The C-1 features a low noise solid state preamp followed by two valve stages per channel. The valves are General Electric ECC83/12AX7A types, run from a stabilised 250v DC power supply. The first valve stage acts as a voltage amplifier, with the second stage forming part of the gain control element. The gain control is performed by our own unique transconductance stage which avoids the use of VCAs - thus improving transparency and minimising distortion, which is virtually constant at 0.05% over the full bandwidth. The frequency response of the C-1 is virtually flat between 20Hz and 40kHz, and measured between -3dB points, the C-1's bandwidth is a staggering 5Hz to 70kHz!

[ulysses]

It doesn't matter if you've got a tube in there or not. What matters is that you use the highest-quality preamp you can afford. My personal observation is that if you can only afford a very inexpensive preamp, you'll be hard pressed to find a very high quality preamp with a tube in it. Building a good tube preamp costs money (for the tube, transformers, and power supply). Seeing a tube in a cheap preamp that doesn't budget for transformers or a worthwhile power supply is a pretty good indication that sound quality was not the primary design criteria.

[memphisindie]

Unless you want a transformerless sound, as in uncolored, and smooth top, where as transformer output limits bandwidth and has a somewhat to very colored output with big but controlled bass and funky top.
There are a few companies that make both, Millennia, Groove Tubes, and Hamptone, make a tube/solidstate, transformer or transformerless, option are switched, preamp. They cost about $1k.

[B.Rupe]

Originally Posted by memphisindie

Yeah, real nice, cut the bit you want out of context only to use to make yourself "look right" because you couldn't possibly be mistaken, make sure you omit the word "usually" and "if it sounds good, why not?" too, whatever, kinda egothumperesque, there's some real brainpower for ya. Twisting peoples words. too weird.
I learned from people 30 and 40 years my senior over 25 years ago, That gear wasn't even considered vintage yet,.
The only thing you are wrong about trying to put words in people's mouths and projecting intent I obviously didn't mean.

He asked if it was necessary and it's not.
There wasn't a lot of solid state stuff in Sinatra's or the early Beatles day.
Maybe you can rewrite history,Bob, and everyone will believe you.
I don't care.

Maybe there's even someone gullible enough to believe that in this day and age one pre and mic will do everything well because Frank and the Beatles used them.

In 1958 the first stereo two-channel records were issued—by Audio Fidelity in the USA and Pye in Britain, using the Westrex "45/45" single-groove system. This system was invented by Alan Blumlein of EMI in 1931 and patented the same year. EMI cut the first stereo test discs using the system in 1933. It was not used commercially until a quarter of a century later.
In the late 1970s and 1980s, a method to improve the dynamic range of mass produced records involved highly advanced disc cutting equipment. These techniques, marketed as the CBS DisComputer and Teldec Direct Metal Mastering, were used to reduce inner-groove distortion. RCA Victor introduced another system to boost dynamic range and achieve a groove with less surface noise under the commercial name of Dynagroove.
Evidence from the early technical literature concerning electrical recording suggests that it wasn't until the 1942–1949 period that there were serious efforts to standardize recording characteristics within an industry.

Don Hassler: The frequency response was limited to probably about 18 kilohertz, which is higher than people can hear but there would be a restriction in overtones, transients wouldn't always sound as good. The dynamic range of tapes was much less than it became after the Dolby system took over. The Dolby system took over probably in maybe in the mid-60s. They started adding Dolby processors to master tapes in those days. But that wasn't all. The mixing boards in those days were vacuum tubes, not transistors. That didn't come about until later on, probably in the 60s. The microphones weren't nearly as sensitive or as good, although they used condenser mikes and ribbon mikes mostly, for good recording in the studio. There was some standard electromagnetic mikes, but they just didn't have the crisp quality. But then the L.P.s in those days - and everything was coming out on 33-1/3 - the L.P.s didn't require that much quality because the L.P. format didn't give you that much capability compared to a CD or even a cassette. Cassette tapes were definitely a step up from L.P.s.

Sheesh, what a hothead.

[memphisindie]

Originally Posted by B.Rupe

Sheesh, what a hothead.

Sorry man, no heat intended, really.
Just info, not revisionism or voodoo.

[B.Rupe]

Originally Posted by memphisindie

Sorry man, no heat intended, really.
Just info, not revisionism or voodoo.

My initial assertion to the original post is that the answer to his question is "yes". A tube mic through a tube pre IS necessary, provided that is the sound you desire or, ina good way accidently discover. Groove 9028 is asking a question that, essentially has no right answer. As wrong as it is for me to say "yes" it is also wrong for anyone to say no. Or that some technique that they would not use is wrong or incorrect.
Groove 9028 is presenting a question that is indicative of someone who is developing an interest in the process of recording. And he will most likely come to his own finite conclusion regarding tube mics and tube pres as his involvment continues over the years.
I boldly encourage Mr. Groove9028 to experiment with this combination, along with any other combination, or universally considered incorrect method. Because, speaking as a musician and producer, thats where the art is.
If Colombus had not had a revisionist mind, the world would still be flat.

I welcome the opinions of any or all of gearslutz members.

[3rd&4thT]

To the original poster - missing from your list is the GAP Pre73. If your budget is tight, this is your first choice in the bang-for-the-buck department.

Cheers,
3rd&4thT

[memphisindie]

Originally Posted by B.Rupe

My initial assertion to the original post is that the answer to his question is "yes". A tube mic through a tube pre IS necessary, provided that is the sound you desire or, ina good way accidently discover. Groove 9028 is asking a question that, essentially has no right answer. As wrong as it is for me to say "yes" it is also wrong for anyone to say no. Or that some technique that they would not use is wrong or incorrect.
Groove 9028 is presenting a question that is indicative of someone who is developing an interest in the process of recording. And he will most likely come to his own finite conclusion regarding tube mics and tube pres as his involvment continues over the years.
I boldly encourage Mr. Groove9028 to experiment with this combination, along with any other combination, or universally considered incorrect method. Because, speaking as a musician and producer, thats where the art is.
If Colombus had not had a revisionist mind, the world would still be flat.

I welcome the opinions of any or all of gearslutz members.

The answer to every question on gearslutz is going to be the same regarding gear choice, selection, styles, etc. Tony Belmont said it best, "IT DEPENDS".
What did Columbus revise in history? Nothing, he discovered that the paradigm created of unexperienced assumptions was inaccurate. No one ever experienced falling off the edge. Is the world flat? It depends, but, there is no edge to sail off into space without sufficient velocity. If you have sufficient velocity, it may as well be flat.
There are NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED RULES OR PRACTICES CONSIDERED SUCH as far as gear selection goes and no one has stated that there are, ever, on this thread.
It depends.

[rty5150]

i want neve...