Tubes and Classical

[Legacy]

Hi All,

I'm hoping to NOT initiate another Tube vs. SS debate.....please ;-)

But I have been thinking a bit lately about harmonic distortion and euphonic qualities of gear as it relates to classical work flow.

I'm hoping others with more experience with tube preamps on location will chime in with their experience with specific models.

I'm particularly interested in units that are 'sweet' and 'thicken the sound' a bit but are still able to grab all the low level detail to the back of the hall and are not aggressive in the midrange.

For instance I recall listening to a recording that Richard King made in Mechanics Hall of Marc O-Connor, Yo-Yo Ma, and Edgar Meyer with a single pair of DPA 4003s into Mastering Lab tube pres (with the +130 option). Beautiful string sound IMO. Lots of detail of the instruments and space with nice up front punch and warmth.
Despite some pretty intense bowing there is no annoying harshness etc.

I'm also increasingly curious about the Thermionic Culture Earlybird which I believe some here use.

Thanks in advance,
Silas

[fifthcircle]

One of my favorite tube pres that fits that description exactly is the Vac Rac preamp. Only problem is that they aren't really being made anymore. There may be some that will hit the used market relatively soon, but otherwise they are pretty tough to find. You could probably talk to Steve Firlotte at Inward Connections and he could probably make a one-off for you, but it probably wouldn't be cheap. FWIW, another plus is that they look really cool (see picture)

Otherwise, I've liked the sound of the Millennia tube preamp as well. The A Designs is nice, too, but it can get a bit thick. I like it a great deal as a pre for solo mics, etc... I have used it on orchestral work, but it was a bit thick for that unless I balanced it with something more transparent.

--Ben

[Legacy]

Thanks Ben. The Vac-Rac is a cool looking beast. I should have the Millennia 2B on the list - I had forgotten about it. +130 is a nice thing to have for me.

I'm particularly interested in preamps that folks feel can be used on the main array - so detailed and maybe on the subtler side (?).

-Silas

[Plush]

Hello Silas,

Right on! and a thumbs up for your brainstorm to consider a tube front end.

I think that a multitude of good news is picked up when one uses a tube mic amp. The benefits are real and they tend to be:

a thickening and phat 'ning of the sound of the main pair.

a quicker transient response than solid state---a snappier sound.

moderation of glassiness from less than Vienna Phil. strings

a special je ne sais quoi sound quality that fuzzes over imperfections but leaves the majesty intact.

The ones I have used for a long time are the EAR mic amps.
Recently I switched to the Thermionic Culture Earlybird 1.2 because it offered up a more desirable sound to me without treble emphasis. This Earlybird is worth the money and is an outstanding mic amp.

I recently was using a Gordon mic amp on a stereo pair and found that the sound of the house's old 451's was ragged and nasty. I switched to the Earlybird and all nasty sins were ameliorated. The Gordon showed too much from the mics.

Also consider Presonus ADL600--don't laugh! This mic amp has the goods as well.

None of the above mic amps have too much color or thickness to use with any acoustic source. They are not to be missed---especially the Earlybird.

[boojum]

From what you write about the "tube sound" and how it enhances recordings I think that they can be described as the soft focus lenses of the audio world. SS and digital would then be more like a photo engraver's lens: precise and very detailed.

I started with tube amps back in the 50's and had a number of them ending with a LEAK stereo amp with self-balancing output tubes.

L8R

[Roland]

I would say that the tubes = warm, fat & large sounding, solid state = small, cold, thin argument for me doesn't hold up. I've heard beautifully warm virtually all digital path recordings as much as I've heard cold, clinical all tube path stuff.

I recently was listening to some older "tube" recordings that are often rated and the thing that particularly struck me was the levels of obvious distortion. I still really enjoyed the experience, but that was due to the musical content/performance rather than the recording itself.

My personal view is that the valve gear I have enjoyed the most was of the class A variety. I own a couple of Telefunken 221b's which I love and I've had a couple of good experiences with other valve mics (C12, Telefunken 251, U67) but not significant enough to feel I needed to have this to get "my sound".

Regards


Roland

[andy_simpson]

The question of a recording sounding 'better than the real source' can always be settled by direct comparison to the real source.

For me, this is where tube magic always falls down embarassingly.

The 'phatness' & 'magic' of tubes is distortion and comes at a cost (dynamics, listening fatigue, etc).

A fairchild 670 can work (wreak) wonders on bad recording or bad performance, but the cost is quite clear and it will never improve something that is actually good in the first place.

Andy

[Legacy]

Hi All,

Many thanks for the info.

Hudson - I'm glad you chimed in especially about the Early Bird as I thought that you have used it. I'm happy to hear that it gives you more of what you're after than the $11k EAR pres for many reasons;-)

I have heard that the ADL-600 was a very well built pre but had assumed that it was too strongly / wrongly colored for our kind of work. Nice to hear that its an option for classical.

I'm surprised to hear you say that the tube gear you have is faster than the SS stuff as I always assumed the opposite to be true (compared to something like GML which actually seems to exceed the speed of electrons IME ;-). So many assumptions to do away with, so little cash...

Roland - I agree that characterising all tube or SS based designs as having a certain set of adjectives is a mistake (and erroneous). I should have started the thread simply talking about the euphonic characters I'm interested in playing with in the toolbox and going from there. The 221Bs you mention are an interesting case as sometimes I find their very specific sonic signature to be outstandingly beautiful and other times find it oppressive depending on the project. I'm hoping that somehow with preamps there is a middle ground where the effect is just part of the accumulation of subtleties that makes an emotionally engaging recording (yes, WAY after the good musicians, good space on the list). Sort of nudging the mic's character that I know well with SS gear into another color palate a bit.

Andy - I would never expect any chain to make a recording 'better than the source'. For me its about minimizing the inherent deficiencies of the recording process (ie. mics don't hear like our ears do) and maximizing the emotive impact of the listening part of the recording process as a parallel experience to hearing it live ie. its just always going to be a different ride in my living room for better or worse (and the better or worse is hopefully where we come in). Most of this of course is about mic (and musician) placement. It's also about timbre / color which I think is what I'd like to explore a bit more boldly than I feel I have in the past. I think there is a progression where at first I wanted to be as transparent as possible to the emotive experience (not necessarily the live event...). With many years of recording under my belt I am curious about tailoring the sound to each project with more of a commitment of a sonic signature - how that supports the particular project.

In the past I have found distinct sonic signatures of gear to be fatiguing, unnatural, and eventually quite irritating. I think some kinds are particularly so when they tend to be stronger or rather one-dimensional (ie. always present regardless of input signal characteristics - dynamics etc).

Man, its just lifetimes of learning ahead in this little bubble of acoustic music...

-Silas

[fifthcircle]

I find the subject of coloration in classical recording to be an interesting one... On one hand, there is a whole school based on the "straight wire with gain" principle. It must reproduce exactly what went in- out of this has come the usual favorites that include Grace, Millennia, Gordon and such. On the other side is the more traditional "color" is good, if Decca and RCA used tubes and tape, then we should too... I've heard great recordings come out of both camps.

My personal feeling is that there are places for both and my rig reflects that. Most of my pres are solid state, but I have a wide range of color there- from my Grace 801 to my API312 and A-Designs Pacifica (which is a great preamp- solid state, but also may provide much of what you are looking for). When I record, I try to recreate the experience of listening to the music. When one performs or listens to live music, it is a visceral experience. To me, I expect that my recording should reflect that. Going too far towards one side or the other, IME, won't do that. In my recordings I balance the colors of my gear from the mics through converters to create that visceral sonic picture. I may use a tranparent mic with a colored preamp. I may use a pre that gives "punch" to a recording so that a loud orchestral hit has impact, etc.... Sometimes I'll even use compression to get that sound (GASP!!!!).

I love the Vac Rac and I love the Pacifica as those are the two preamps that I have here that can give me more of that kind of feeling than any others. I use the Grace to open up the sound on some of these recordings or in situations like my opera recording where I need to get reach and depth on a stage. I'm glad to have the colors I have at my disposal and hope that it assists in a level of artistry that the performers we record show.

--Ben

[Roland]

Originally Posted by fifthcircle

I find the subject of coloration in classical recording to be an interesting one... On one hand, there is a whole school based on the "straight wire with gain" principle. It must reproduce exactly what went in- out of this has come the usual favorites that include Grace, Millennia, Gordon and such. On the other side is the more traditional "color" is good, if Decca and RCA used tubes and tape, then we should too... I've heard great recordings come out of both camps. --Ben

I think that Decca would feel offended at the sugestion that their sound is/was coloured , certainly they don't use tube mics or mic amplifiers and haven't done so for many, many years and if I am very much mistaken neither do RCA (though I believe they use a few independents who might).

I personally tend not to think of recordings I make as coloured or uncoloured, just good/better or not, depending on the conditions one is faced with on the session.

Regards





Roland

[fifthcircle]

They certainly did a long time ago (think RCA living stereo era...).

These are the recordings that many folks have put on a pedestal for being an example of great recording technique. My reference was more commenting on the old technology versus new. Many (including myself) see modern technology being so clean that the life is sucked out of the music. It is almost too perfect and as a result, boring.

--Ben

[staudio]

I have enjoyed my Manley Dual Mono for many classical recordings. The Manley pre is not an overdone tube sound, it is a very clear and open sound with a hint of euphonic coloration. I also enjoy solid state pre amps as well, what I use depends on the desired result.

[themaidsroom]

two ear pres into a pair of atr-102 1" - 2 tracks would be amazing for classical
classical loves tape. classical loves vinyl. imho.


be well


- jack

[staudio]

Originally Posted by themaidsroom

two ear pres into a pair of atr-102 1" - 2 tracks would be amazing for classical
classical loves tape. classical loves vinyl. imho.


be well


- jack

Strings on tape give me eargasms.

[boojum]

One of the propeller heads at a leading mic manufacturer holds to the idea of recording the flattest, least distorted, least "warmed or mellowed" tracks possible and working the magic for color in the post. This has some merit as each time you are recording you are starting at a fixed known point: flat or nearly so. It is reproducable/repeatable which strikes me as better than embarking with a different starting point each time.

I understand the merits of some mics making a performance better. Pavorotti seemed wedded to Schoeps. But I also like the "start from known" principle. But I have almost no experience compared to you guys.

Cheers

[mrsteaks]

Originally Posted by fifthcircle

Many (including myself) see modern technology being so clean that the life is sucked out of the music. It is almost too perfect and as a result, boring.

--Ben

I have to agree, Ben. I've heard many "houses" releases that could be termed clinical. That term could apply to the performance, as well. Another discussion, that!

Can I chime in on the ADL 600? I've owned and used one since they came out. It has a similar character to the DAV pre, only cleaner, and is certainly suitable for classical work (Plush knows of what he speaks). It is phat and round, but not overly so. Does it sound vintage? Well, it does, but in a modern sort of way. That is to say that it's not gritty. It's a versatile piece, what, with the high voltage supply rails, the rock guys can drive it into all sorts of (nice) distortion. However, it's clean as a whistle if not over driven, and has enough clean gain for a ribbon mic. I like mine, a lot, and use it often for the mains (I figured that one out for myself - and you guys verified it!) with very satisfying results.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by fifthcircle

They certainly did a long time ago (think RCA living stereo era...).

These are the recordings that many folks have put on a pedestal for being an example of great recording technique. My reference was more commenting on the old technology versus new. Many (including myself) see modern technology being so clean that the life is sucked out of the music. It is almost too perfect and as a result, boring.

--Ben

Hi Ben, they might have during the Living Stereo era, but you are not suggesting that as recordings these hold up to anything current? Great as they were for their time, if you or I turned in a master with that sound quality to a client they wouldn't book us again.

regards


Roland

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by fifthcircle

....
Many (including myself) see modern technology being so clean that the life is sucked out of the music. It is almost too perfect and as a result, boring.

--Ben

While I do in general agree with your observation, I don't agree with ascribing it to 'perfection'.

The idea that the microphones (& speakers!) are 'too perfect' & therefore boring is an idea that doesn't hold a drop of water.

As usual I advocate direct comparison to the source.

If you can put a pair of mics & pair of speakers in the room with the orchestra, compare the two and say that the recording is so perfect that it is boring, then you are also saying that the sound of the orchestra in the room is boring.

If the microphones & speakers are causing boring sound, it is because they are very far from perfect (which of course they are).

I spent last week with a recording situation where the recording was monitored live in the room with the orchestra - on the same scale (SPL, width, etc).

In another thread I invited any interested gearslutz to attend the session but sadly the offer was not taken up.

In any case, the result (of running the whole session at +20dB acoustic impedance) was very close to the actual sound of the orchestra and was very far from boring.

Andy

[Plush]

I agree with another poster here who describes a "journey" in recording and tells of turning now to something that will provide more character in his recordings.


When I first started out with digital recording, it was very important (it seemed to me at the time) to use the cleanest most accurate recording chain for classical music recording. It was important to seek out lowest distortion mics, mic amps, recorders and everything else. Also, one would receive scorn if your signal ever left the digital domain.

I continued for some years along this path until I was introduced to tube mics by Bill Bradley. At this time, here in Chicago, Universal Studios was in full production and we used to have fun hooking up various tube chains to record, for example, really wild arrangements used in Japanese cigarette advertisements. I was infected by the tube mic bug.

About 10 years ago I became bored with the clean sound and started on a path to try to enliven the sound and get more organic sound and more drama in the recordings.
Often, of course, this took the form of urging the musicians to play with more intensity and more fire---more wildly and with exaggerated dynamics. It also meant using tube mics and tube mic amps.

Sure the sound was sometimes too wooly, but it was interesting to listen to.

Now, I find that I mostly use tube mic amps and solid state mics and it strikes a happy medium. Differently than before, now I will freely record digitally and mix out of the box through an analog console even employing some EQ and dynamic range control.
The old ways of strict slavishness to staying digital are found wanting here.

I suppose my point here is that I have to remain interested in the sound of the sound.
I have to be satisfied with it in order to find the work enjoyable.

I have been integrating more and more tube gear into my set-ups so that I can remain interested in the work. More sparkle, more character=more excitement and recordings different than clean run of the mill gear can provide. I also find that the tube gear blends the sound better and that I work harder on the sessions to make sure that I will enjoy the sound.

[fifthcircle]

Originally Posted by Roland

Hi Ben, they might have during the Living Stereo era, but you are not suggesting that as recordings these hold up to anything current? Great as they were for their time, if you or I turned in a master with that sound quality to a client they wouldn't book us again.

regards


Roland

I'm not, but a number of my clients do... They listen to these recordings on vinyl and consider that to be the apex of recorded sound. Dogma and a lack of listening runs strong with these groups of people.

I'll say one more thing and then I'll stop (since the conversation has move radically from what Silas originally asked). I consider the recording and the performance to be two completely different things. In most cases, there isn't anybody listening to a recording that was in the space for the performance so how perfectly it matches really doesn't matter. For that matter, the folks that are have their own unique experience of the performance that they remember, but you aren't comparing the recording in real time. A recording must be able to stand on its own.

IMO, using some gear that hides some of the perfection and gives a visceral impact to the sound allows people to feel the music as it was in the room. It doesn't necessarily sound unlike the performance, but it also doesn't sound perfectly clinical. As a result, you capture and show the audience of your recording the excitement of a performance... and isn't that what music is about? The recording should be about the music and not about us (how perfect *we* can make it)

--Ben