|
|
Post by indiehouse on Sept 1, 2019 14:22:32 GMT -6
Hey, so I've been tracking acoustic guitar and multing my 67 on the patchbay into a Stam 1073EQ and a Coil CA-70S to compare the two preamps. Question: by doing this, are the preamps not seeing the impedance they want to see in order for them to function optimally?
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 1, 2019 14:41:25 GMT -6
Hey, so I've been tracking acoustic guitar and multing my 67 on the patchbay into a Stam 1073EQ and a Coil CA-70S to compare the two preamps. Question: by doing this, are the preamps not seeing the impedance they want to see in order for them to function optimally? I'd say it's more like the mic isn't seeing the impedance it expects to function optimally. |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Sept 1, 2019 15:03:14 GMT -6
That changes the scenario for all three devices, but no differently than any other passive mic splitter method.
|
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Sept 1, 2019 15:15:12 GMT -6
That changes the scenario for all three devices, but no differently than any other passive mic splitter method. Well, damn. I shoulda made a decision earlier. I’ve tracked the whole tune this way. What pre do you like for acoustics? The 1073 seems to have a mid bump (1k-ish?) compared to the Coil, which seems softer (more rounded, smoother up top?). Would splitting it this way make the track darker? |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Sept 1, 2019 15:33:02 GMT -6
You'd have to do a whole other set of tests to see how they affect each other. Like pink noise into the pre's for response, with and without each other in parallel, etc. They possibly force each other into a more smiley face EQ from joint loading, yet together load the mic more heavily. Not sure how the extra loading affects a 67, maybe not much.
|
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Sept 1, 2019 16:03:51 GMT -6
You'd have to do a whole other set of tests to see how they affect each other. Like pink noise into the pre's for response, with and without each other in parallel, etc. They possibly force each other into a more smiley face EQ from joint loading, yet together load the mic more heavily. Not sure how the extra loading affects a 67, maybe not much. Hmmm...I’ll just roll with it. Thought it’d be cool to compare a whole tune tracked through the 1073 vs the Coil. |
|
|
|
Post by damoongo on Sept 1, 2019 20:03:07 GMT -6
You'd have to do a whole other set of tests to see how they affect each other. Like pink noise into the pre's for response, with and without each other in parallel, etc. They possibly force each other into a more smiley face EQ from joint loading, yet together load the mic more heavily. Not sure how the extra loading affects a 67, maybe not much. Hmmm...I’ll just roll with it. Thought it’d be cool to compare a whole tune tracked through the 1073 vs the Coil. Yeah, but you’d need an isolated split for that... Radial makes a mic splitter. 1 into 3 I think? Two if them are transformer isolated, so you could use those 3 to compare. But still, it will sound different once you skip the splitter... Tough to do! |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Sept 1, 2019 20:25:48 GMT -6
Hmmm...I’ll just roll with it. Thought it’d be cool to compare a whole tune tracked through the 1073 vs the Coil. Yeah, but you’d need an isolated split for that... Radial makes a mic splitter. 1 into 3 I think? Two if them are transformer isolated, so you could use those 3 to compare. But still, it will sound different once you skip the splitter... Tough to do! It's only 'isolated' in the way that matters if it's an active splitter, and then it's a fail because the mic isn't seeing either preamp directly, so there's no interaction. It's more like a line test of preamps rather than a mic test of preamps. |
|
|
|
Post by donr on Sept 1, 2019 21:23:08 GMT -6
indiehouse, how do the tracks sound? I'd imagine you have two really good sounding tracks, even with the mult. Do you?
|
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Sept 1, 2019 21:28:23 GMT -6
indiehouse, how do the tracks sound? I'd imagine you have two really good sounding tracks, even with the mult. Do you? You can certainly get good sounds using Mults at tracking. I’ve done it. |
|
|
|
Post by hadaja on Sept 1, 2019 22:37:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by damoongo on Sept 2, 2019 0:24:14 GMT -6
indiehouse, how do the tracks sound? I'd imagine you have two really good sounding tracks, even with the mult. Do you? You can certainly get good sounds using Mults at tracking. I’ve done it. Are you talking about multing a mic into multiple preamps? Multing up to 3 times once the signal is up at line level results in almost no loss/change. But multing a microphone into multiple preamps definitely takes its toll on the signal because of the impedance/loading. That’s not to say that it can’t sound “good” for whatever you’re doing though! |
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Sept 2, 2019 9:07:35 GMT -6
You can certainly get good sounds using Mults at tracking. I’ve done it. Are you talking about multing a mic into multiple preamps? Multing up to 3 times once the signal is up at line level results in almost no loss/change. But multing a microphone into multiple preamps definitely takes its toll on the signal because of the impedance/loading. That’s not to say that it can’t sound “good” for whatever you’re doing though! Ah, forgive me. I am talking about multing line level outputs on the patch bay. In a tracking session I see no real use for multing one mic to two preamps, personally. I get that the op is trying to compare. |
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Sept 2, 2019 9:39:53 GMT -6
indiehouse, how do the tracks sound? I'd imagine you have two really good sounding tracks, even with the mult. Do you? They're ok. My room is shit, so I'm tracking to get as dead of a sound as I can, and add ambience in post with my Bricasti. As far as preamps, the Stam 1073EQ seems more forward, maybe in the 1k range. The transients seem a little sharper than the Coil. The Coil seems softer, rounder, darker, less forward. I'm betting it needs less compression, I'm guessing the transients are more rounded off. This tune is sparse, so the acoustic is more the featured instrument. Now I wonder what effect multing the mic is having. Maybe the sound of these preamps will change a lot? Unfortunately, comparing different takes makes it hard to tell. I've been loop recording myself, and comping different takes. It's crazy, because I am consciously not changing positions between takes yet each take sounds pretty different, some so much that I couldn't comp in a different take because it sounded too different. Goes to show just how much difference an inch makes. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 2, 2019 12:00:10 GMT -6
That changes the scenario for all three devices, but no differently than any other passive mic splitter method. That's not totally true - a resistive split comes closer to maintaining the proper load on the mic, and a transformer split keeps all the loads more or less matched. |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Sept 2, 2019 12:05:23 GMT -6
That changes the scenario for all three devices, but no differently than any other passive mic splitter method. That's not totally true - a resistive split comes closer to maintaining the proper load on the mic, and a transformer split keeps all the loads matched. Oh yes it is: the input transformers in parallel affect each other, never mind the source. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 2, 2019 12:23:07 GMT -6
That's not totally true - a resistive split comes closer to maintaining the proper load on the mic, and a transformer split keeps all the loads matched. Oh yes it is: the input transformers in parallel affect each other, never mind the source. Input transformers in parallel? A good transformer split uses one transformer per mic with one primary and two to four secondaries. A not so good transformer split uses one line straight through with a bridging transformer feeding one or two secondaries - this provides isolation but doesn't keep the feeds to all outputs the same. Most commercially available transformer splits are of the second type. When I was with FM we used in-house built splits of the first type.
Of course since a transformer split puts transformers in front of the preamps it's not the same as if the pre's were being fed directly.... There is no such thing as a free lunch.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Sept 2, 2019 12:31:12 GMT -6
Oh yes it is: the input transformers in parallel affect each other, never mind the source. Input transformers in parallel? A good transformer split uses one transformer per mic with one primary and two to four secondaries. A not so good transformer split uses one line straight through with a bridging transformer feeding one or two secondaries - this provides isolation but doesn't keep the feeds to all outputs the same. Most commercially available transformer splits are of the second type. When I was with FM we used in-house built splits of the first type.
Of course since a transformer split puts transformers in front of the preamps it's not the same as if the pre's were being fed directly.... There is no such thing as a free lunch.
The input transformer primaries are in parallel either way, think about it. All that reflected impedance interacts, direct 'Y' or passive transformer. The only way the aren't in parallel is with an active split. |
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Sept 2, 2019 13:03:28 GMT -6
I ran a quick test and recorded a part with the Coil without splitting it. It sounds...different. More honky mids, 700-800. Maybe more open sounding, not sure. Could be just positioning, I'll never know for sure. Probably a little of both. I'm not going to sweat it much, I'd EQ out those honky mids anyways.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Sept 2, 2019 13:16:05 GMT -6
A good transformer split uses one transformer per mic with one primary and two to four secondaries. A not so good transformer split uses one line straight through with a bridging transformer feeding one or two secondaries - this provides isolation but doesn't keep the feeds to all outputs the same. Most commercially available transformer splits are of the second type. When I was with FM we used in-house built splits of the first type. Did that first type you used (I'm reading it as NO direct through path) always use separate phantom supplies between split and mic, or did they use transformer center taps to distribute phantom over the transformer from a specific main secondary to the primary? Or maybe condensers were never used. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 2, 2019 13:58:04 GMT -6
A good transformer split uses one transformer per mic with one primary and two to four secondaries. A not so good transformer split uses one line straight through with a bridging transformer feeding one or two secondaries - this provides isolation but doesn't keep the feeds to all outputs the same. Most commercially available transformer splits are of the second type. When I was with FM we used in-house built splits of the first type. Did that first type you used (I'm reading it as NO direct through path) always use separate phantom supplies between split and mic, or did they use transformer center taps to distribute phantom over the transformer from a specific main secondary to the primary? Or maybe condensers were never used. Condensers were sometimes used, but not much. I do not remember how they were powered. Shortly before I left the old passive system was replaced with an active system designed (IIRC) by Chaos Audio. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Sept 3, 2019 6:32:10 GMT -6
indiehouse, how do the tracks sound? I'd imagine you have two really good sounding tracks, even with the mult. Do you? They're ok. My room is shit, so I'm tracking to get as dead of a sound as I can, and add ambience in post with my Bricasti. As far as preamps, the Stam 1073EQ seems more forward, maybe in the 1k range. The transients seem a little sharper than the Coil. The Coil seems softer, rounder, darker, less forward. I'm betting it needs less compression, I'm guessing the transients are more rounded off. This tune is sparse, so the acoustic is more the featured instrument. Now I wonder what effect multing the mic is having. Maybe the sound of these preamps will change a lot? Unfortunately, comparing different takes makes it hard to tell. I've been loop recording myself, and comping different takes. It's crazy, because I am consciously not changing positions between takes yet each take sounds pretty different, some so much that I couldn't comp in a different take because it sounded too different. Goes to show just how much difference an inch makes. Yes! You've found something that I also found and have mentioned time and time again to varying acceptance, that even tiny changes in positioning and performance can majorly affect the sound, and those differences can be much greater than the overall differences between different mics or preamps. Do you know if your 67 is strapped as 50 or 200 ohm outputs? |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Sept 3, 2019 6:33:38 GMT -6
That changes the scenario for all three devices, but no differently than any other passive mic splitter method. That's not totally true - a resistive split comes closer to maintaining the proper load on the mic, and a transformer split keeps all the loads more or less matched. True. Resistive splits are broadband flat too, but at the expense of increased signal loss. |
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Sept 3, 2019 13:11:40 GMT -6
They're ok. My room is shit, so I'm tracking to get as dead of a sound as I can, and add ambience in post with my Bricasti. As far as preamps, the Stam 1073EQ seems more forward, maybe in the 1k range. The transients seem a little sharper than the Coil. The Coil seems softer, rounder, darker, less forward. I'm betting it needs less compression, I'm guessing the transients are more rounded off. This tune is sparse, so the acoustic is more the featured instrument. Now I wonder what effect multing the mic is having. Maybe the sound of these preamps will change a lot? Unfortunately, comparing different takes makes it hard to tell. I've been loop recording myself, and comping different takes. It's crazy, because I am consciously not changing positions between takes yet each take sounds pretty different, some so much that I couldn't comp in a different take because it sounded too different. Goes to show just how much difference an inch makes. Yes! You've found something that I also found and have mentioned time and time again to varying acceptance, that even tiny changes in positioning and performance can majorly affect the sound, and those differences can be much greater than the overall differences between different mics or preamps. Do you know if your 67 is strapped as 50 or 200 ohm outputs? I’m not sure. After listening back more last night, the difference between split vs not split is no greater or less than the difference between two takes. I can’t even be sure to credit any difference to the split over the difference in takes. So, I guess my takeaway is, not a big deal, but cool to compare preamps that way. Though best practice is to make a decision upfront before serious tracking. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Sept 3, 2019 13:26:58 GMT -6
Yes! You've found something that I also found and have mentioned time and time again to varying acceptance, that even tiny changes in positioning and performance can majorly affect the sound, and those differences can be much greater than the overall differences between different mics or preamps. Do you know if your 67 is strapped as 50 or 200 ohm outputs? I’m not sure. After listening back more last night, the difference between split vs not split is no greater or less than the difference between two takes. I can’t even be sure to credit any difference to the split over the difference in takes. So, I guess my takeaway is, not a big deal, but cool to compare preamps that way. Though best practice is to make a decision upfront before serious tracking. After a significant hair-pulling-out session where I really fretted over all kinds of choices, I spent some time doing a very similar thing and really getting down and dirty with mics and preamps and all that.. But I had a crazy "come to jesus" moment when I lost track of which track was which and I could no longer pick out which setup was which.. Even though some of the tracks were vastly different in positioning or mic/pre choice, etc.. That's when I felt defeated, but also enlightened, that most of these A/B comparisons are little more that studies in futility, and that once you reach a point of "good enough" or you find a combination that "works", there is very little else to learn or try of any value and that most of these vast comparisons really just come down to mic positioning and I've personally been shooting myself in the foot all those years only caring about the gear and not even considering that anything else might matter MORE than the gear. Now I believe that once you reach a certain level of gear, nothing matters more than the application of the gear, rather than the gear itself. Mic positioning, singer positioning, amp settings, etc, all seem to make larger differences to me than which mic or preamp I use. |
|
