The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
The real diff between cheap and pricey preamps? Condenser Microphones
Old 23rd March 2010
  #61
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Kuras View Post
I would love to see (or should I say hear) some tracks actually done that way. Not that I don't believe in nice gear (as I pointed out in my first post) but I really wonder how much of a difference you would hear.
I do own a old Mackie 2408 plus I have
Great River MP 2nv
La 610
Pacifica
Langevin Dual Mono
Maybe some day when I have HOURS to kill I will try recording a drum kit with the Mackie vs using the others.
rather than me post something why don't you just record drums on a mackie and then on an api and it will answer your own question?

I don't need 'scientific' evidence that an API can get great drum sounds I can pop on Van Halen II or whatever, that is the only proof I need. The bottom line w/ this mackie argument is, noone has ever posted a quality hard rock recording done on one. Until then? no need in debating over it. You cannot get the same quality drum sound on a mackie as you can API. It is not possible. It has never been done. There is no point in arguing about it. But then again 'quality' is subjective.............
Old 23rd March 2010
  #62
Lives for gear
 
Heartfelt's Avatar
My opinion is simply that and I certainly don't have the experience that many have.

From my perspective, after trying some cheaper pres and console pres
and moving to a $600 pre, the difference was instant and staggering. It
was as if I went from coloring with pastels to coloring with markers.
Things instantly became vivid, focused and articulate. Mixes recorded on
the older gear were distant in their feel and I could never get anything to
sound up front and in your face.

From ther perspective of being a GS member, I pay much attention to the
things recorded by other people. This is not an attempt to be mean or
insensitive but simply to make a point.

I remember Chris Lagos posts with his MPA pre. He posted tons of clips
with different mics. I have to admit that some of them sounded pretty
good to me, at the time. However, the day he posted a clip with the SSL
alpha pre, everything changed. Not only did he see the difference, but
many of us did as well. It was as if his sound jumped from the back seat
to the front seat.

I realize that beyond the focused nature of nice pres, there is the color
issue. People rave about the GAP pre. Of all the clips I heard on this
board, I never thought it to be close to it's intended target. There is a
harshness in the high mids that tends to suggest that the rise in the
upper end begins a little to early. That is true of the modded pres as well.

I can't agree with anyone's claims for it to be a high end pre.

Feel free to flame. Fine by me but my view remains. The reason is
because the clips that were the most profound were the ones from
someone trying to suggest it was a great tool and a bargain. I pay
attention to mfg and reps attempts to sell an item. They are not
meaningless. If in their best efforts, they can't convince me to buy
an item, why would I think my experience would be radically different?

The Arteur pre, of which I have owned, was the closest to a really great
sounding pre for under $500. The top end on that pre is really nice.



Isn't it kind of obvious to us that a bargain priced pre can't consist of
quality components and that some pres that are high end and expensive
have more costs in components than an entire bargain pre? Hello?

I may have missed it but it seems no one has suggested what constitutes
a nice pre. Would it be high quality components, a focused and detailed
(not bright, necessarily) and a balanced tone despite its leaning towards a
color?
Old 23rd March 2010
  #63
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
rather than me post something why don't you just record drums on a mackie and then on an api and it will answer your own question?

I don't need 'scientific' evidence that an API can get great drum sounds I can pop on Van Halen II or whatever, that is the only proof I need. The bottom line w/ this mackie argument is, noone has ever posted a quality hard rock recording done on one. Until then? no need in debating over it. You cannot get the same quality drum sound on a mackie as you can API. It is not possible. It has never been done. There is no point in arguing about it. But then again 'quality' is subjective.............
Oh from your post before it sounded like you have done the test. Sorry my bad. And yes like I said maybe some day I will try it, but needless to say I already have nice pres so no need to prove it to myself I guess. Just thought you had done it and would be nice to see how much of a difference there is or is not.
All good no need to start a 20 page "your wrong, I'm right" thread. heh
Old 23rd March 2010
  #64
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynn Fuston View Post
Geoff Daking gave the ultimate answer to this question as he said with a straight face....

"The difference is $900."
LOL, perfect. heh

Though even I can see the difference in build quality and headroom and reliability and attractiveness (and knob stability etc) between the really cheap stuff and the most expensive. It's the in-between models where things get gray.

--Ethan
Old 23rd March 2010
  #65
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
LOL, perfect. heh

Though even I can see the difference in build quality and headroom and reliability and attractiveness (and knob stability etc) between the really cheap stuff and the most expensive. It's the in-between models where things get gray.

--Ethan
Yep -- I'll gladly pay a premium for ruggedness and reliability. For me, a pissed off client or a missed deadline would be far more costly. But if I were just using the stuff for my own amusement a couple nights a week in my basement,* I don't think I'd feel the same way -- lots of prosumer gear is a little flimsy but sounds great for way less money.

* Nobody in LA actually has a basement.
Old 23rd March 2010
  #66
Gear Addict
 

I remember in a mass communications class I had in college, the instructor said that the difference between the generic product and the high dollar product is mostly marketing; that the actual difference would not usually exceed 5-10%. I think, in the end, that is probably the case with preamps. However, I think, especially with todays multi-multi-multi-tracked albums, that 5-10% adds up.

I noticed this when I got a Vintech preamp when I had been used to a presonus I'd used for so long. I immediately recorded some guitar with it when I got it. I couldn't tell that much of a difference. I was kind of shocked, but I didn't send it back right away. Then I tracked a full song with multiple instruments, tracks, etc. Then I could tell the difference. The whole 'moving from the back seat to front seat' analogy then made sense.
Old 23rd March 2010
  #67
Lives for gear
 
Sigma's Avatar
i can say this in all honesty

i was sick and got outta the biz for 3 years..a former assistant offered to teach me protools in exchange for me producing and engineering a band he believed in [this was around 2002]

a friend of his [who is now my good friend ] came in with some millennia preamps , the 8 pack..

i had thought that the rounded sound on the tracks i was working on was coming from the converters in the 192 because i was outta the biz and not up on stuff..i always worked on high end stuff and just assumed the"variable " was the converters

i said let's do a test and used his outboard avalon, joe meek ,presonus and onboard control 24 pres against the millennia by multing the signal

I WAS BLOWN AWAY..the transients were incredible on the millennia compared to the other pre's .the drums "snapped" [i was using a 3-10 ms attack on a compressor with a 125-250 release to put front end on the drums before and wondering why]AND OHH BY THE WAY ..for the waveform LOOKERS..there was a spike present on the front end that no other region "picture " had LOLZ
Old 23rd March 2010
  #68
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Kuras View Post
Oh from your post before it sounded like you have done the test. Sorry my bad. And yes like I said maybe some day I will try it, but needless to say I already have nice pres so no need to prove it to myself I guess. Just thought you had done it and would be nice to see how much of a difference there is or is not.
All good no need to start a 20 page "your wrong, I'm right" thread. heh
Hi Glenn,

I have recorded drums on a mackie 2408 and it made me sick. I have recorded drums on api pres, never (myslef) recorded on a real api console. But the outboard pres make me happy enough........

I have never recorded the same song on both mackie and api or the same band. I had a mackie 2408 that we used for live cover gigs back in the 90s. But upgraded that to midas after we got established and started made good money.

All I can say is mackie2408 is one of the worst sounding 8 buss consoles I have ever heard. If that's all I had to record with .... I would not record. I would rather quit playing and recording music all together. The 2408 is really is awful sounding board. The mackie onyx I would record with if I had no other choice but even then I may not depending on how depressed I was about other stuff that day.

this is not about wrong or right.... it is about good sound and not s good sound. Sure you can record on a 2408 but would it sound better under the same exact conditions using apis? I would bet my life it would

Let me ask you this....... Are there good acoustic materials and bad acoustic materials? Somehow it always comes down to all gear quality is irrelevant , but it never gets brought up that all acoustic panels may differ in quality.....
you guys can't have it both ways. There is good and bad in everything. I don't think you need anyone to tell you a mackie is not as good sounding as api any more than you need someone to tell you what is or is not a good (sounding or quality) acoustic panel. Simply 'Listen"

thanks
Old 23rd March 2010
  #69
nkf
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
+1

you can't get the same transient response from cheapos.
this is the **** ethan doesn't measure.
I want to support this view, because this is what I experienced too. It is clearly audible and obviously not visible on an analyzer. Everybody can do a simple experiment with a bunch of keys and rattle them in front of a good mic with a superb transient response (I have Schoeps for this) record this with a cheap preamp and with a good (expensive) one (in my case Grace Design) and listen to the playbacks, maybe over good headphones. If the difference isn't audible then, I don't know what to do anymore ...
Old 23rd March 2010
  #70
Lives for gear
 
TurboJets's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkf View Post
I want to support this view, because this is what I experienced too. It is clearly audible and obviously not visible on an analyzer. Everybody can do a simple experiment with a bunch of keys and rattle them in front of a good mic with a superb transient response (I have Schoeps for this) record this with a cheap preamp and with a good (expensive) one (in my case Grace Design) and listen to the playbacks, maybe over good headphones. If the difference isn't audible then, I don't know what to do anymore ...
I agree with you on that.

Also, at the risk of getting jumped on here I'd like to add something to this, or make an assertion, or whatever you call it. Analysis of a signal or signal's is depicted/illustrated 2 dimensionally. We hear (or perceive sound) 3 dimensionally. In fact, sound has 3 dimensional characteristics - and we hear it that way, our brain perceives it that way. So, how can there possibly be Truth in a 2 dimensional representation of sound?

Don't kill me, please.
Old 23rd March 2010
  #71
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
Hi Glenn,

I have recorded drums on a mackie 2408 and it made me sick. I have recorded drums on api pres, never (myslef) recorded on a real api console. But the outboard pres make me happy enough........

I have never recorded the same song on both mackie and api or the same band. I had a mackie 2408 that we used for live cover gigs back in the 90s. But upgraded that to midas after we got established and started made good money.

All I can say is mackie2408 is one of the worst sounding 8 buss consoles I have ever heard. If that's all I had to record with .... I would not record. I would rather quit playing and recording music all together. The 2408 is really is awful sounding board. The mackie onyx I would record with if I had no other choice but even then I may not depending on how depressed I was about other stuff that day.

this is not about wrong or right.... it is about good sound and not s good sound. Sure you can record on a 2408 but would it sound better under the same exact conditions using apis? I would bet my life it would

Let me ask you this....... Are there good acoustic materials and bad acoustic materials? Somehow it always comes down to all gear quality is irrelevant , but it never gets brought up that all acoustic panels may differ in quality.....
you guys can't have it both ways. There is good and bad in everything. I don't think you need anyone to tell you a mackie is not as good sounding as api any more than you need someone to tell you what is or is not a good (sounding or quality) acoustic panel. Simply 'Listen"

thanks
Chill my brother. Life is pretty short.
I think you are totally misunderstanding what I am saying. My only comment was wanting to know how much of a difference and thought you had samples. If the mackie made you sick I really hope you got better. lol lol lol.. I think your lumping me in with Ethan due to us being in the same industry, well don't. My only comment was based on wondering how much of a difference. Honestly my Mackie is in storage heh where it will stay. But with all of that said it would be fun to try it some day. When ever that day might come. Now that I think about it how the hell would I do that?? Split each mic to go to one of my outboard pres and one to the mackie??
Old 23rd March 2010
  #72
Lives for gear
 
Teddy Ray's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
this is not about wrong or right.... it is about good sound and not s good sound.


you are the king of the unfounded, unsupported claims.

"if I had to record on xxx i wouldnt record"

that says it all right there.

some people on this forum have a lot to learn.

and to the newer guys that lean on gear, put all the responsibility on metal boxes...see how far you get.

ive said this a lot, but ill say it again..if you cant get a fantastic result out of anything out there (barring the cheapest of the cheap chicomm mess)

you need to work harder and learn more about your craft.

i could list one of the hundreds of albums done on equipment that you guys scoff at, albums that were very successful and lauded...... but it has all been done before.

so let me ask... once you get this "high end" stuff and you still havent made anything that sounds up to par.. it is still the equipments fault, right?

no. it never was.
Old 23rd March 2010
  #73
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Kuras View Post
Chill my brother. Life is pretty short.
I think you are totally misunderstanding what I am saying. My only comment was wanting to know how much of a difference and thought you had samples. If the mackie made you sick I really hope you got better. lol lol lol.. I think your lumping me in with Ethan due to us being in the same industry, well don't. My only comment was based on wondering how much of a difference. Honestly my Mackie is in storage heh where it will stay. But with all of that said it would be fun to try it some day. When ever that day might come. Now that I think about it how the hell would I do that?? Split each mic to go to one of my outboard pres and one to the mackie??
I thought I was chilled...... yoo took me the wrong way. just conversation. I was just throwing out the acoustical comparison. food for thought. Many question converter and pres 'impact' but no one ever asks 'do acoustic panels differ in quality'? well do they? lol are some snake oil? I may do a 'acoustic panel myth' video. I will title it 'rockwool' or "owens 703" kidding......... I will unleash it at AES 2011. yeeeeeeah!

To someone who knows very little about acoustics (like me) I often question the 'quality' of acoustic products much like someone may question pres. The problem with mackie is simply cheap components. Who knows? maybe with better comps it might sound good? not sure? (doubt it) Are there 'cheap' acoustic panels?

I have used some 80s 90s 'home' studio boards like soundtracs, a&h saber, soundcraft ghost, trident 24 and they were not great but lightyears better than early 90s mackie for only slightly more money and you could make a decent home recording that could be called a 'record'

I just think these days if you are on a budget snag a midas you'll make a good sounding record with it, without breaking the bank. If you have a few bucks buy a lunchbox. You can buy some nice 500 series pres fro 300-400.
Api is a no brainer, $700 gets you the gear the pros use. It really makes a high difference.

Bottom line with pres is there is a difference. But I do draw the line. I do think a $700 api is as good as $3000 neve
so you don't have to break the bank. API vs Neve debate is preference.
Old 23rd March 2010
  #74
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
I thought I was chilled...... yoo took me the wrong way. just conversation. I was just throwing out the acoustical comparison.
food for thought.

To someone who knows very little about acoustics (like me) I often question the 'quality' of acoustic products much like someone may question pres. The problem with mackie is simply cheap components. Who knows? maybe with better comps it might sound good? not sure? (doubt it)

I have used some 80s 90s 'home' studio boards like soundtracs, a&h saber, soundcraft ghost, trident 24 and they were not great but lightyears better than early 90s mackie for only slightly more money
cool. thumbsup

OK that's it I am dragging out the Mackie, dusting her off and seeing how bad she really does sound. lol lol Honestly I have not used that board in maybe 5 years???? God maybe longer now that I think about it.
Old 23rd March 2010
  #75
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddy Ray View Post
you need to work harder and learn more about your craft.
how could you possibly know this? seriously?
no need to go there. I do not confuse highend (sound) with high price $$. I would be more than satisfied with a midas board or a bunch of rnp or grace pres. Mackie 1202? 2408? no thanks.... onyx? maybe? like I said earlier. Those decisions have nothing to do with skill or craft , just knowing what sounds good and what does NOT is what I use as a baseline. You don't need skill or knowledge of a craft to know what sounds good. Let your ears be the pilot.

If I say I don't like the feel or sound of a PRS would you take offense? what if I like playing korean schecter or Jackson? I wouldn't take offense if someone disliked a schecter? and liked a PRS? Somehow with pro audio people get defensive. There are cases where I would use a $100 sm57 over $2000 nuemann so again this has nothing to do with price. I actually like PRS and schecter and see many posts people bashing them. I also see 100s of pod bashing threads. I've made records with a pod. I know many you have also. So again, for me price has no factor in decision making when it comes to recording. Just sound.


no big deal.......
Old 23rd March 2010
  #76
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Kuras View Post
cool. thumbsup

OK that's it I am dragging out the Mackie, dusting her off and seeing how bad she really does sound. lol lol Honestly I have not used that board in maybe 5 years???? God maybe longer now that I think about it.
I have a 1202 I use for headphone cue mixes. I may record something with it . Do a little ABX on myself........
maybe I'll post a riff or two? Maybe Ill eat my hat and sell my lunchbox? somehow doubt it though.

good stuff
Old 24th March 2010
  #77
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
In fact, sound has 3 dimensional characteristics - and we hear it that way, our brain perceives it that way. So, how can there possibly be Truth in a 2 dimensional representation of sound?

Don't kill me, please.
whichever preamp you use, whichever audio storage format you use, you are only capturing amplitude against time. Two dimensions.

If ANY audio chain sounds 3 dimensional to you, it must be because your brain is decoding (or manufacturing!) other information coming from - room reflections, time delays between sources, etc etc. Of course having two ears is a big help!

a microphone (or your eardrum for that matter) can only go in or out. the subtle variations of this over time is enough to give us cues that tell us more about which sources are near or far, close to a wall, etc etc

it is like a shadow play. You only see the outline of the figures behind the screen but as they move around, you get to see that outline from different directions. Your brain puts together a more complete picture than what 'should' be obtained from just a instantaneous view of a shadow.

What makes one better than the other is the sharpness and detail of that edge. That's where all the extra information is hiding.
Old 24th March 2010
  #78
Lives for gear
 
fossaree's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post

What makes one better than the other is the sharpness and detail of that edge. That's where all the extra information is hiding.
makes sense
Old 24th March 2010
  #79
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
whichever preamp you use, whichever audio storage format you use, you are only capturing amplitude against time. Two dimensions.

If ANY audio chain sounds 3 dimensional to you, it must be because your brain is decoding (or manufacturing!) other information coming from - room reflections, time delays between sources, etc etc. Of course having two ears is a big help!

a microphone (or your eardrum for that matter) can only go in or out. the subtle variations of this over time is enough to give us cues that tell us more about which sources are near or far, close to a wall, etc etc

it is like a shadow play. You only see the outline of the figures behind the screen but as they move around, you get to see that outline from different directions. Your brain puts together a more complete picture than what 'should' be obtained from just a instantaneous view of a shadow.

What makes one better than the other is the sharpness and detail of that edge. That's where all the extra information is hiding.
maybe strictly speaking correct

but when you mic an instrument from 10 feet away, even as a mono point source, the listener PERCEIVES DEPTH

in any mono recording there is a feeling of depth. in fact, some would say more than in stereo, despite the lack of 'phase' cues.

watching TV or film is inherently 2-d as well. but many people feel film looks more 3-d and video more 'flat'.

can't always be a language purist (though god knows I try <g>)

and in any event, more relevant to the discussion at hand, some mic pres certainly give a FEELING of solidity or "3-D-ness" rather than FEELING transparent or 'thin' or 'flimsy'

any adjectives used to describe sound as an experience are inherently flawed and limited by our associations with the words.
But try we must, when TALKING about it.
Old 24th March 2010
  #80
Lives for gear
 
Teddy Ray's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
yoo took me the wrong way.
theres a lot of that going on with you. perhaps you need to alter your presentation.
Old 24th March 2010
  #81
Lives for gear
 
Teddy Ray's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
no need to go there. I do not confuse highend (sound) with high price $$.
I didn't say anything about price. What I did say was that a lot of things are bashed here by the elitist/profisnobfidelistas unfairly... the reality is MUCH different than their "theories".. and like I said, I could post a ton of examples that run counter to their claims..

it is plain old misinformation/propaganda...and no less damaging than any other propaganda.
Old 24th March 2010
  #82
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

One of my favorite recordings I ever did, both vibe wise and sonically, had a focusrite octopre amping a single coles 4038 on drums and a 441 on b3/leslie. Both of those instruments sounded great, I posted it here and got tons of questions/compliments on the drum sound.

That said, since I got up and running with an all-tube front end, the tracks I'm getting now are ridiculously fat and juicy. What I hear with the tube circuits is an energy, a vitality and electricity and harmonic density that lesser solid state gear utterly lacks, and I notice it most especially in the mids.

What the cheap stuff often lacks, aside from basic tone and phase coherence, is headroom. Headroom is essential if you want the recorded sound to move like something that's alive. If you want that uber-compressed sound that everyone and their uncle is doing these days, I don't know that it matters so much.

On the Coldplay knockoff that was posted earlier in this thread, I hear so much processing and compression and scooping that the question of nuances in tone and dynamic seem irrelevant, and indeed the music effectively conveys what it needs to convey without anything approaching dimensionality or realism.

It's a sound, it works, but I don't feel like I'm in the room with anyone, I get no intimacy out of it. Maybe I'm just gettin' old. Whatever, just use what ya got and make some great music.


Gregory Scott - ubk
Old 24th March 2010
  #83
Here for the gear
 

Microphone Preamplifier

This is a really old thread, but if anybody is interested, I actually wrote something about this on my blog:
www.EarsandGears.com
Look for the post called "The Microphone Preamplifier" There is a listing of all the posts on the right and it's second from bottom.

Hope somebody finds this useful, or at least educational ;-)
Old 24th March 2010
  #84
Lives for gear
I'm not reading this, just throwing in my two cents.

The difference? Hand wired vs machine plus quality parts.

hand wired will always be more expensive and sound better IMO.

Finding stuff that's not machined now is rough though.
Old 24th March 2010
  #85
Lives for gear
 
fossaree's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teddy Ray View Post
profisnobfidelistas
Where did you find this ? I liked it heh
Old 24th March 2010
  #86
Lives for gear
 
Teddy Ray's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fossaree View Post
Where did you find this ? I liked it heh

out of my corrupt, broken brain. heh
Old 24th March 2010
  #87
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nkf View Post
I want to support this view, because this is what I experienced too. It is clearly audible and obviously not visible on an analyzer.

An analyzer is used to look at spectrum. For time behaviour you use a scope.


/Peter
Old 24th March 2010
  #88
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
opamp speed is irrelevant.......... :-/
No it's not irrelevant. If the circuit (discrete or integrated) is to slow it will result in in band roll off and distortion which is audible.

Quote:
you can't get the same transient response from cheapos.
this is the **** ethan doesn't measure. Why do drums
sound amazing w/ api and 1073? and sound like shiat on mackie?
same room same mics same a/d same engineer same coffee boy
same air conditioning? circuitry

fast pres man you said it
A low cost IC has extension to many MHz, that is more than enough for audio transients.

So yes, "cheapos" can have excellent transient response just like overpriced boutiqe stuff can have poor performance (which is often the case).


/Peter
Old 24th March 2010
  #89
Lives for gear
 

The frequency response of an op-amp when simply given in MHz is almost meaningless. Often the bandwidth is the unity gain bandwidth - i.e. the gain - which should be a good approximation to infinite - has dropped all the way to one. This is really trying to define the metric that is useful - the gain bandwidth product. The issue is this. In order to operate usefully, an op-amp approximates an infinite gain amplifier. The presense of feedback around the op-amp defines the actual gain of the system. This gain is only correct when the gain of the op-amp at the frequency in question is vastly greater than the designed gain of the system. All op-amp's gain drops off with increasing frequency. You need to ensure that at the highest possible frequency that the op-amp is expected to operate that the gain is still that margin greater than the design gain. This operating frequency isn't just the audio that is fed into it. In order to be sure that the op-amp (and the rest of the preamp if that is what is being designed) operates correctly you need to ensure that the op-amp never runs out of gain when you also factor in any interference that may be present in the operating environment. A critical metric of the op-amp's quality is the common mode rejection ratio. (CMMR) This is the measure of goodness that amongst other things defines how well it operates rejecting common mode interference on the balanced inputs. If you have any sources present nearby that emit radio frequency interference (a computer, light dimmer, what ever) you are depending upon the op-amp to reject that interference - which requires it to still operate properly (with lots of gain) at the frequency of the interference. A good pre design will include proper RF filtering - but this only attenuates the interference - it can never remove it totally.

This is all a synergystic design issue. Older op-amps had much lower gain bandwidth products. Some old ones that were tried and quickly rejected as sounding terrible (like the uA741) have such a poor gain bandwidth (only 1MHz) that they have serious problems even in the audio band, let alone coping with any interference. Later ones solved these problems enough to be useful with audio, but needed care and feeding to work well. More modern ones can have astounding bandwidths. Many hundreds of MHz. The thing to remember is that this bandwidth can be needed even in audio frequency circuits.

It is issues like this that beget unfortunate comments like "such and such a device is as good as can ever possibly be needed for audio". The reality is much harsher, and harsher for well defined engineering reasons. A well designed pre will apply all possible efforts to manage these sorts of issues. Have a look at the quality of RF filtering on the input of a cheap pre versus a high end one. (Just depending blindly on a tranformer on the input may not be enough either. Wierd stuff happens at high frequencies)
Old 24th March 2010
  #90
Lives for gear
 
nosebleedaudio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wwittman View Post
maybe strictly speaking correct

but when you mic an instrument from 10 feet away, even as a mono point source, the listener PERCEIVES DEPTH

in any mono recording there is a feeling of depth. in fact, some would say more than in stereo, despite the lack of 'phase' cues.

watching TV or film is inherently 2-d as well. but many people feel film looks more 3-d and video more 'flat'.

can't always be a language purist (though god knows I try <g>)

and in any event, more relevant to the discussion at hand, some mic pres certainly give a FEELING of solidity or "3-D-ness" rather than FEELING transparent or 'thin' or 'flimsy'

any adjectives used to describe sound as an experience are inherently flawed and limited by our associations with the words.
But try we must, when TALKING about it.
Exacly..Sounds from a distance have a very distinct sound, reducing level is NOT even close...
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
analoghound / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
0
ISedlacek / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
33
baadc0de / Music Computers
3

Forum Jump
Forum Jump