Gordon vs. Pueblo (vs. Forssell, Pendulum, NPNG, Audio Upgrades...)
Rumi
Thread Starter
#1
22nd August 2013
Old 22nd August 2013
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Gordon vs. Pueblo (vs. Forssell, Pendulum, NPNG, Audio Upgrades...)

Hello,

has anyone tested the Pueblo micpre yet, and compared it to a Gordon, or another pre that is called "clean" or "transparent"?

I am very impressed by the Gordon samples I've heard so far, but the Pueblo got my attention, and from what I know about it so far, its sound and strenths seem to be similar to the Gordon.
I currently use Forssell and Pendulum as "clean" micpres (along with the Soundfield MKV, which I would also consider "clean"). I mainly do acoustic music (Folk, Jazz, Rock).

Thanks!

Best wishes,
Rumi
Rumi
Thread Starter
#2
23rd August 2013
Old 23rd August 2013
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Anyone?
#3
23rd August 2013
Old 23rd August 2013
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
I did have a chance to use both on an orchestra main pair over a series of recordings--dress rehearsal and performances.

A friend of mine purchased 4 channels of Pueblo and I had the Gordon Model 5 there too.

We compared and contrasted the two mic amps on a Schoeps MSTC64 ORTF main pair.

Pueblo offered outstanding sound but oddly it portrayed the mic placement as closer to the orchestra than did the Gordon. With the Pueblo I felt that my mic placement was heard as a little too close to the front vln. stands. Gordon portrayed the stereo picture as I expected to hear it.

I have worked with this orchestra for 16 years and always in this same hall. I have my mic placement down to a science there and I am always pleased with the placement and the recorded results.

I was put off by what the Pueblo did to the perspective.

When editing the material later, I had a chance to study the two sounds from the two different mic amps.

Pueblo is a very good mic amp with an apparently unique design. I liked its sound which was hyper detailed and with added depth to the sound. Added depth is a give away that the mic amp is preserving detail from the microphone in an admirable way. With the Pueblo mic amps in use, I would have moved my stereo pair back several feet to get the sound I am used to in that hall.

Both mic amps offered outstanding detail, accurate tonal balance, high headroom. There really was not a lot of difference overall.

The Gordon mic amp is a remote controlled mic amp and this is quite important to the way I work.

I already own some Gordon channels so I did not buy the Pueblo. I can always use my buddy's unit.

Overall, not a revolutionary difference between the two in actual useage.

Grant Carpenter, the designer of the Gordon mic amp, will talk to you as much as you like and answer all your questions about his design. Scott, the fellow from Pueblo, will also talk as long as you like but won't answer questions about his design because it is secret. Very Hollywood. Scott will also try hard to sell you a $900 "special" AC power cord.

In the end, the super high performance Gordon with its remote controlled capability won it for me. I am buying more Gordon channels now.
Quote
3
#4
23rd August 2013
Old 23rd August 2013
  #4
Lives for gear
 
GYang's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
I did have a chance to use both on an orchestra main pair over a series of recordings--dress rehearsal and performances.

A friend of mine purchased 4 channels of Pueblo and I had the Gordon Model 5 there too.

We compared and contrasted the two mic amps on a Schoeps MSTC64 ORTF main pair.

Pueblo offered outstanding sound but oddly it portrayed the mic placement as closer to the orchestra than did the Gordon. With the Pueblo I felt that my mic placement was heard as a little too close to the front vln. stands. Gordon portrayed the stereo picture as I expected to hear it.

I have worked with this orchestra for 16 years and always in this same hall. I have my mic placement down to a science there and I am always pleased with the placement and the recorded results.

I was put off by what the Pueblo did to the perspective.

When editing the material later, I had a chance to study the two sounds from the two different mic amps.

Pueblo is a very good mic amp with an apparently unique design. I liked its sound which was hyper detailed and with added depth to the sound. Added depth is a give away that the mic amp is preserving detail from the microphone in an admirable way. With the Pueblo mic amps in use, I would have moved my stereo pair back several feet to get the sound I am used to in that hall.

Both mic amps offered outstanding detail, accurate tonal balance, high headroom. There really was not a lot of difference overall.

The Gordon mic amp is a remote controlled mic amp and this is quite important to the way I work.

I already own some Gordon channels so I did not buy the Pueblo. I can always use my buddy's unit.

Overall, not a revolutionary difference between the two in actual useage.

Grant Carpenter, the designer of the Gordon mic amp, will talk to you as much as you like and answer all your questions about his design. Scott, the fellow from Pueblo, will also talk as long as you like but won't answer questions about his design because it is secret. Very Hollywood. Scott will also try hard to sell you a $900 "special" AC power cord.

In the end, the super high performance Gordon with its remote controlled capability won it for me. I am buying more Gordon channels now.
Thanks, great report.
I was not impressed by several 'verbal' opinions heard in between, never saw one myself.
Gordon is so fvckin' great that I simply don't see space for substantial improvements on any of its aspects, except if $900 power cord doesn't do the trick.
Well, Hollywood
Ordering additional 2 ch of Gordon, soon.
Yes, Grant is cooool
#5
24th August 2013
Old 24th August 2013
  #5
Gear interested
 
PuebloAudio's Avatar
 

Hi Plush,

Having not had the pleasure of using a Model 5 myself, I was very interested to read your comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
I liked its sound which was hyper detailed and with added depth to the sound. Added depth is a give away that the mic amp is preserving detail from the microphone in an admirable way. With the Pueblo mic amps in use, I would have moved my stereo pair back several feet to get the sound I am used to
Yes, this is consistent with reports back from Pueblo users and my own experience. While unexpected at first, after spending time working with it I found the more distant positioning allowed ensemble sound to mix "in the air", rather than at console or daw, rendering a more realistic and visceral experience. And without sacrificing detail. This may cause some to alter their usual technique a little. Much like when switching to higher fidelity monitors: mix flaws that were previously undetected now demand new solutions, making the engineer and product that much stronger. I am always open to tools which encourage expanded technique.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Scott will also try hard to sell you a $900 "special" AC power cord.
This appears to be a misunderstanding which I should like to clear. The first production run of PS34's included hand-built power cords as standard. Meanwhile, a colleague of mine developed a high end power cable which I found to be even better. A period of trials concluded the benefits of this cable as undeniable and so was offered as an upgrade. I did heavily recommend it, but the cable was never $900. That amount was for the whole unit including the cable. In the end, when the first run sold out, all but two customers had purchased the higher end cable.
With the second run now in production, and greater purchasing power, I have been able to negotiate integrating the high-end cable as standard: only one version now. And as you can see here is offered at a reasonable price. More like Sears than Rodeo Drive

When compared to other products in the same performance-class, its fair to say Pueblo pricing is economical, even friendly. Particularly in greater channel counts. It is one of the few products who's price-per-channel actually decreases as channels are added.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Both mic amps offered outstanding detail, accurate tonal balance, high headroom. There really was not a lot of difference overall.
Having an experienced engineer such as yourself place our preamp's quality in the same orbit with such an esteemed product is very gratifying. I am also excited that the pricing we struggled to attain places this level of performance within reach of a wider user base.

Thanks!
Quote
2
Rumi
Thread Starter
#6
24th August 2013
Old 24th August 2013
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Hi Plush,

thank you so much for your reply!

Interestingly enough Ben (fifthcircle) described a similar observation in relation to mic placement with the Pueblos in comparison to the Forssell:

Quote:
Originally Posted by fifthcircle View Post
They are completely different. Surprisingly so- when I was demoing the Pueblos, I put them up against the Forssell on a gig as I had always considered my Forssell to be the pinnacle of transparency. (I don't have experience, btw, with Gordon or Pendulum)

The presentation at first listen was similar, but I soon heard differences that I was having difficulties really understanding. Both were fantastic, but different in subtle ways. When I got home, I brought the files into the studio where I could hear a bit more clearly and the differences became very obvious.

The Pueblo brought in a transparency and clarity that I've simply never heard with other preamps. The room became very obvious- both for its strengths and weaknesses. The front to back imaging was extremely deep. The Forssell had a forwardness in the midrange that while euphonic was not as true to the source. In comparison, the image also seemed a bit flat on the Forssell. Without the comparison, you'd never notice these things about the Forssell, but neverless they were quite definitely there.

Since I've purchased the Pueblos, I have noticed a couple things. 1- my mics end up being positioned further away from the source yet they are much more detailed. 2- when I'm doing large ensemble recordings with them, (ie orchestras, etc...) I find that my spot microphone levels are on average 8-15 dB lower in the mix than they normally would be. With these pres, there just isn't a need for as many spots which results in a bigger, more open sound. 3- as somebody that has generally avoided the more transparent gear because of a clinical nature (I still use Grace and Millennia and a number of other transparent pres), these pres still give me a very musical presentation. They are ultra-transparent, but yet they don't get hard, they seem very smooth throughout all frequencies, the image doesn't compress, etc... I couldn't be happier with them.

--Ben
Plush, do I understand you correctly that the overall perspective is not distorted or "wrong" with the Pueblos, it's just that everything seems closer (but to the same extent, thus preserving the perspective "inside the picture")?

Another question: How would you compare Gordon and Pueblo to DAV and John Hardy now?

GYang, would you mind to share what you mean with "I was not impressed by several 'verbal' opinions heard in between, never saw one myself"?

Scott, thank you very much for joining this thread! You will likely be contacted by me soon...

Best wishes,
Rumi
#7
25th August 2013
Old 25th August 2013
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Yes, Pueblo is excellent and there are no problems in preserving the internal balances when using it. I liked what I heard from the Pueblo--it was a unique and new sound to me. I can understand why people feel that it offers a seductive sound.

John Hardy is a transformer in / out design and so it presents a clean but thicker sound due to the transformers. Still relatively transparent and very high quality. D.A.V. electronics adds "syrup." (this is my term, used originally by me to describe the sound and it does describe it well.) The Broadhurst Gardens range of mic amps is also slightly darker sound than any of the aforementioned mic amps.

When you get to this high level of design and build, the mic amp is not the limitation to any of the sound. It is purely amplifying the microphone (whose signal contains all the detail.)
#8
25th August 2013
Old 25th August 2013
  #8
Lives for gear
 
toneguru's Avatar
I have never used the Gordon or Pueblo, but I have used the Martech with xlnt results.

Does anyone have experience with the Martech relative to the Gordon or Pueblo?

Thank you.
#9
25th August 2013
Old 25th August 2013
  #9
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 

I appreciate this thread and want to thank all the contributors.

One thing I like about the Gordon is how fully and accurately it portrays room information and does so in a natural balance with direct sources. Moving the mic nearer or farther will change the relative ratio, of course, but the room sound should remain accurate. For example, you should be able to hear walls, floors, ceilings, and so on, and the tail in rooms with tall RT's should diminish accurately without becoming thin, thick, or tonally modal.

I'll be interested if any comments appear on GS regarding these aspects of room "sounds" captured with Pueblo.
Rumi
Thread Starter
#10
26th August 2013
Old 26th August 2013
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by toneguru View Post
I have never used the Gordon or Pueblo, but I have used the Martech with xlnt results.

Does anyone have experience with the Martech relative to the Gordon or Pueblo?

Thank you.
I find the "Preamps in Paradise" DVDs quite revealing, more so than most audio samples I've heard so far, except some of Ivo's samples, which usually show a lot about the different textures of the equipment.
The "Preamps in Paradise" DVDs have Martech, Gordon, Forssell Fetcode, Grace, Millennia, Flamingo, Lipinski, Pendulum, True, etc. The good thing is that you can create your own mixes with all the instruments (voc, ac guit, el guit, piano, bass, drums), and they're recorded really well.
What was very interesting was that an instrument could sound great with one preamp solo'ed, but when you added another instrument it could get lost, suddenly sound muddy, or whatever. I've often experienced that the sound of the bass changes when you compress the drums etc, but still it was an interesting experience to hear to what an extent the same happens with preamp choice.
Another thing that made me think was that when I took the pre that sounded best solo'ed for each instrument, the resulting mix didn't sound as good as the mix that consisted only of takes recorded through the Gordon.
Another insight was that I need to use my Pendulums more often. I liked the Pendulum mix almost as much as the Gordon mix.

In those samples the Martech sounded a little bright in a very pleasing and musical way. Very detailed. I liked it a lot on steel string guitar.
I still prefered the sound of the Gordon, though.

Another good comparison is what Syra put on gearslutz a while ago. I was very impressed by the NPNG take. The NPNG seems to be "fatter" than both the Gordon and the Martech.

All those impressions come from samples - so far I haven't had the pleasure of testing those pres (what I currently have is Pendulum, Forssell, Daking, API, M72s, Siemens V78, Soundfield MKV, NTP, ZAG, MIO 2882. I used to work with TAB V76, Studer 289, Millennia, Avalon M5, Vipre, Slam!, Voxbox, and probably some other I don't recall now).

I would love to hear good samples (or better yet, comparisons to other pres) of the John Hardy preamps.
Rumi
Thread Starter
#11
27th August 2013
Old 27th August 2013
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Thank you all for your contributions!
Rumi
Thread Starter
#12
22nd September 2013
Old 22nd September 2013
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
I've found another interesting description of the Pueblo:
Holy grail preamp: most versatile?

I am in the process of ordering 4 channel units of both NPNG and Pueblo, and plan to do a comparison with what I already have (Forssell, Pendulum, ULN-8, Mercury M72s, Daking etc.).
Rumi
Thread Starter
#13
22nd September 2013
Old 22nd September 2013
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by toneguru View Post
I have never used the Gordon or Pueblo, but I have used the Martech with xlnt results.

Does anyone have experience with the Martech relative to the Gordon or Pueblo?

Thank you.
I haven't yet worked with any of these units, but in the comparison files I've heard (Syra's test and Lynn Fuston's preamp summit) to my ears the Martech sounds great, but has something strange in the high mids going on, which you can either call euphonic (it sounds "neat") or "slightly wrong". I also hear that on Paul Simon's "You're the one" CD, for which they used Martechs. To me this is a "slight lack of meat", and doesn't sound completely natural. It could be great for certain tracks, though (for example, I liked it a lot on steel string guitar in the preamp summit files, and I am very picky about acoustic guitar sounds).

Apart from that I seem to like the sound of the Martech a lot.

The Martech is still one of the most interesting units for me, and the effect I described is small. And as said, my comment is not based on direct experience with the unit. So please take this comment as what it is: an impression I got while listening to a few recordings that were done with the Martech.
#14
22nd September 2013
Old 22nd September 2013
  #14
Lives for gear
@Rumi,

Have you listened to the Sound On Sound preamp comparison? Just because other preamp comparisons show more differences doesn't mean they're valid, but rather, flawed. There's no way to compare preamps via files effectively other than recording an exact duplicate live performance the way Sound On Sound did it. When comparing their samples, you begin to see just how similar many preamps are, and if you are hearing 'big' differences, it's likely placebo. Yes, preamps do sound different and more so when pushed. But, in most conditions they vary much much less than the gearslut fantasy world would like you to believe.

Flame suit on...
#15
22nd September 2013
Old 22nd September 2013
  #15
Lives for gear
 
MIKEHARRIS's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoSueMe View Post
@Rumi,

Have you listened to the Sound On Sound preamp comparison? Just because other preamp comparisons show more differences doesn't mean they're valid, but rather, flawed. There's no way to compare preamps via files effectively other than recording an exact duplicate live performance the way Sound On Sound did it. When comparing their samples, you begin to see just how similar many preamps are, and if you are hearing 'big' differences, it's likely placebo. Yes, preamps do sound different and more so when pushed. But, in most conditions they vary much much less than the gearslut fantasy world would like you to believe.

Flame suit on...
Maybe something like the process of digitization reduces the apparent differences...
I guess I'm too old school to evaluate via files or CDs

I give props to Plush who uses what I consider a reference mic ( ORTF Schoeps ) and live instruments to hear the subtle differences at the sharp end of this game.
The corollary being crappy mics & crappy pres sound similar to good ones through crappy converters.
Rumi
Thread Starter
#16
22nd September 2013
Old 22nd September 2013
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoSueMe View Post
@Rumi,

Have you listened to the Sound On Sound preamp comparison? Just because other preamp comparisons show more differences doesn't mean they're valid, but rather, flawed. There's no way to compare preamps via files effectively other than recording an exact duplicate live performance the way Sound On Sound did it. When comparing their samples, you begin to see just how similar many preamps are, and if you are hearing 'big' differences, it's likely placebo. Yes, preamps do sound different and more so when pushed. But, in most conditions they vary much much less than the gearslut fantasy world would like you to believe.

Flame suit on...
Hi,

yes, I have listened to that comparison, and it was interesting! That ART is on my list now.

I do agree on tendencies to overrate those differences, and a part of it certainly is placebo, wishful thinking, etc. Among other tests, I have conducted some comparisons of bit-identical files with seven professional engineers and/or musicians that were eye openers - they all described the differences in the same way, and were able to pick the same files again and again. It wasn't double-blind, though.
After that test I had a phase of "What am I actually doing when I EQ something and find the result better?" But in the longer run that test had a relaxing effect on me.

Still, what you describe is not my experience. I have made quite some comparisons myself, and have also experienced problems in a mix that were due to the wrong mic preamp choice.
Of course mic placement is more important than mic pre choice, but to my ears a mic preamp can make a big difference. And of course we're talking about small differences when comparing Forssell with Gordon etc., but that's where I currently am.

And no one tells you not to be completely happy with that ART!
#17
22nd September 2013
Old 22nd September 2013
  #17
Lives for gear
 
MIKEHARRIS's Avatar
 

Evaluating files is so DtoA dependent.
Hard for me to find any credibility when an API and a Gordon sound not very different.

I was taught the importance of DtoA conversion many years (pre ProTools) ago. My client had Sound Tools and I brought him the just released Apogee AD8000...the companion DtoA had yet to be released..and I asked him what he thought. He said it wasn't much different from his interface...a bit shocked I asked what DtoA he was using. I was told the converter in his Panasonic 3500 dat machine. A bad DtoA prohibits you from making any valid judgements upstream..microphone..preamp,converter or even cable.
#18
22nd September 2013
Old 22nd September 2013
  #18
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumi View Post
...yes, I have listened to that comparison, and it was interesting! That ART is on my list now.
IMO, if someone can't get a top notch recording with these preamps, then the problem is not the preamp.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumi View Post
Among other tests, I have conducted some comparisons of bit-identical files with seven professional engineers and/or musicians that were eye openers - they all described the differences in the same way, and were able to pick the same files again and again. It wasn't double-blind, though.
It's not difficult at all to describe differences between equipment in a flawed test.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumi View Post
Still, what you describe is not my experience. I have made quite some comparisons myself, and have also experienced problems in a mix that were due to the wrong mic preamp choice.
I've had that same experience many times, only to find later that the difference was due to something as little as a 0.5 dB difference in the level of the new track versus the old one. A difference that small can make a huge difference in the way humans perceive sound. All of the sudden, things become more ___________ <- insert perception here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumi View Post
Of course mic placement is more important than mic pre choice, but to my ears a mic preamp can make a big difference. And of course we're talking about small differences when comparing Forssell with Gordon etc., but that's where I currently am.
IMO mic preamps can make at most a 5% difference with *most* mics (some are more susceptible to preamp choices than others). Personally I own high end AND low end mic preamps, and have no problem using the eight mic preamps in the Steinberg MR816 for everything and still be happy (and I'm extremely picky). Of course, I may subconsciously compensate using a slightly different approach to mic selection and placement. That said, I would forego using any ribbons in that case (I would make up for it by substituting other non-ribbons).

I recently discovered something surprising in that my Forssell with the Line Audio CM3 is a horrible combination; in that case, I'd say the outcome was way more than 5% (for the worse). The CM3 actually sounds much better using the MR816's preamps. Perhaps they just like transformers.

The Forssell is a great match with the CMC6 + MK2 in my opinion. I've got my eye on the Pueblo, too, but I feel I can never have enough mics since they have WAY more effect on the sound, not to mention their placement.
#19
22nd September 2013
Old 22nd September 2013
  #19
Gear interested
 

IMO mic preamps can make at most a 5% difference...

Thats wild! I've found the difference to be more like 21%, but that's just my opinion.

Quote
1
#20
22nd September 2013
Old 22nd September 2013
  #20
Gear interested
 

Just to add to this thread in a real way, the NPNG is a special mic pre. It's not clean but it's not colored either. It sounds like Montana looks...huge, 3 deeep and clear.

The difference between an NPNG and the Altec 1566a that we have in the studio is more like 88%. The similarity being that they both make an incoming mic signal louder.
#21
22nd September 2013
Old 22nd September 2013
  #21
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardrawls View Post
IMO mic preamps can make at most a 5% difference...

Thats wild! I've found the difference to be more like 21%, but that's just my opinion.

Okay, 5.1%
Quote
1
#22
23rd September 2013
Old 23rd September 2013
  #22
Lives for gear
 
toneguru's Avatar
BTW,

Preamps tend to sound different depending on whether you are tracking digi or analog.

For instance, a Martech and api 312 might not sound quite up to its best in a digi environ yet shine in an analog.

Test the Martech and api in digi with a cheaper adc converter and the Neve 1272 and also a Tele V76 tube pre will both probably sound better. Then throw a Burl adc up and the Martech and api might not have the disadvantage to such a degree.

Just some food for thought...

- Carry on
#23
23rd September 2013
Old 23rd September 2013
  #23
Gear addict
 
Ryan Gregory's Avatar
 

for me, (also just an opinion), I've found SOME pres to sound extremely different from each other, while others have had very minor sound differences.
Quote
1
#24
23rd September 2013
Old 23rd September 2013
  #24
Lives for gear
 
mpr3's Avatar
 

And we cannot forget the relationship between microphone and pre, one that is either helped or hindered by the impedance matching, slew rate, and quality of phantom power delivered (if applicable).

I no longer have access to the Pueblos, but I am ordering my first pair soon and will report back here with more thoughts soon after.

FWIW I like to test pres with both CMC6mk21 and M150 more than any other mics because they cater to decay information very well. I sold 4006s cuz the schoeps were that good - less clinical, more musical in contrast...
#25
23rd September 2013
Old 23rd September 2013
  #25
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpr3 View Post
And we cannot forget the relationship between microphone and pre, one that is either helped or hindered by the impedance matching, slew rate, and quality of phantom power delivered (if applicable).

I no longer have access to the Pueblos, but I am ordering my first pair soon and will report back here with more thoughts soon after.

FWIW I like to test pres with both CMC6mk21 and M150 more than any other mics because they cater to decay information very well. I sold 4006s cuz the schoeps were that good - less clinical, more musical in contrast...
Do you currently have the Forssell or Gordon? I'd be interested on your take between either one of those and the Pueblo using the MK21.
#26
23rd September 2013
Old 23rd September 2013
  #26
Lives for gear
 
mpr3's Avatar
 

Unfortunately, I do not. Both were brought into my studio and left for a few weeks during a session, and I abused them. They were both so good, but I felt the transformer-less Buzz MA2.2 hung right there with them, so I wasn't planning on adding either of them permanently. Then i heard the Pueblo and if I wasn't currently investing in a high end mastering rig, I would have had 8 Pueblos by now.

As you may know, the mk21 caps are on the 'warmer' side compared to the others, and to my surprise, the Pueblos let me hear this characteristic roundness better than ever before.

Another eye opening example: I have 3 U47s (vf14s) and no other mic pre has brought out the subtleties and difference between them as well as the Pueblo. Their curves are not bent towards a commonality as many other pres tend to do with these mics, but they were instead exaggerated away from each other. "This 47 is more 3D than the others" and "This one has the most air".

Not only that, but I heard more character off my entire microphone collection than ever before. Would you call that boring transparency or what?

So for someone like me that loves collecting microphones, each for their unique vibe, the Pueblo is a breath of fresh air.

Sooner or later someone is gonna come here and say "i dont get it, i heard the Pueblo and it didnt do anything special compared to my others" because the Pueblo is not 'creamy', 'punchy' or 'harmonic' across the board - no, but its not clinical or super transparent sounding either, especially compared to the Gordon, Buzz or Forssell. Or maybe thats not true - I dunno.

Cant wait to get my own Pueblos soon.
Rumi
Thread Starter
#27
23rd September 2013
Old 23rd September 2013
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Thank you all so much for your comments!

I am looking forward to the Pueblos! Scott is in the process of finding the best way to ship the unit to Switzerland (it will be the first one in Switzerland).
Karl of NPNG will start upgrading my unit to 4 channels tomorrow.
And my new ULN-8 should be on its way.

Some years ago there was a burglary in my studio, and among other things 21 microphones were stolen. My mic collection has not recuperated from that (and some of the mics were irreplaceable).

I currently have 4 Grosser-modified Gefells MV 691 that I could use for tests, but I need to get more capsules for them. So if anyone is willing to sell or loan me some Thiersch-refurbished M70 or M94, feel free!

I would like to do my tests with two identical stereo mics, and two preamps at a time. I have a split box, but am not overly interested in finding out how the preamps handle an impedance mismatch (the splitter seems to have trannies, though - would that lead to useful test recordings?).

Unfortunately I don't have any Schoeps, and have never worked with one. I have a Wagner U47, though, that I could include in the test (and we're also planning to compare it to a Flea 47 Next). And I really like the CAD 350, of which I have 3. And I will also include the Soundfield MkV in those tests.

Any advice or wishes (or loans of mics / mic capsules) for those tests are appreciated! But I must say that my schedule doesn't allow me much at the moment, so don't expect that those files will be available within a few weeks.

If anyone in Switzerland is reading this, and interested in contributing a mic pre or an instrument, that would be great! My studio is located in Winterthur.

Pres I have / will have:
2 ch Forssell SMP-2
2 ch Pendulum Quartet
4 ch Pueblo
4 ch NPNG
8 ch ULN-8
2 ch Mercury M72s
2 ch Daking Pre/EQ
5 ch ZAG
1 ch API
1 ch Siemens V78
2 ch NTP
Soundfield MkV

Instruments available:
Acoustic guitars
Electric guitar
Mandolin and Mandocello
Hammond
Piano
Egg shaker
Dharbouka
Vocals
#28
23rd September 2013
Old 23rd September 2013
  #28
Lives for gear
@Rumi,

Some people here feel that mono comparisons aren't representative enough. Personally I think they are fine.

Just remember to swap the preamps and do an additional recording for each pair! Why? Because the two mics will in fact sound different no matter how you place them. In other words, you may favor the position of one over the other, or even the frequency response of the other. Swapping and recording both versions alleviates this.

If you want to go all out, I can level match everything for you, and turn it into a low bias scientific test and then repost the files with an encrypted key.
#29
23rd September 2013
Old 23rd September 2013
  #29
Lives for gear
Oh, and running the mics through a passive splitter like the Radial is a total fail. This is because it is not true isolation and one preamp will influence the other, and I can prove this.

One way to observe this phenomenon is to compare two preamps, one of which has controls that can change the impedance or switch transformers on the fly. When making these changes, listen to the sound of the other preamp and you'll notice the sound of it will change. I've done this test many times with the APA Juggernaut Twin.
#30
23rd September 2013
Old 23rd September 2013
  #30
Lives for gear
 

SoSueMe- you're absolutely correct.

This is why I didn't ever post any of the tests I did when I was first trying the Pueblos. I did a shootout during a sound check between them and my Forssell pres. However, to make sure they were behaving to their absolute highest quality, I plugged the mics directly into each pre. However, that also meant that I wasn't always recording the exact same music/performance/etc... Didn't feel like dealing with the GS "experts" that didn't listen to the test and just want to poke holes in the method.

And Rumi- glad that you're finally going to get a way to listen to the Pueblos. I think you're going to be happy with them.

--Ben
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.