|
Post by bowie on Jan 14, 2017 18:43:26 GMT -6
The compression characteristic isn't hard to get right if you have a decent T4 (thank you Bill at Kenetek). And, FWIW, I don't think LA2As are even great as compressors. They don't handle much GR without choking and offer little control. Most people I know use them because of the polish, the finished, "radio-ready" feel they add. That's where they're absolutely brilliant, IMO. It's common to use them with little to no gain reduction just for "that sound" of running through the circuit. That's my fascination with the LA2A, getting that sweetness and gloss to come through. It's hard to explain sound, but choking as I understand it sounds nothing like my UA LA-2A reissue. I often have 20 db of gain reduction and don't feel a choking sound at at all. What I hear on a vocal sounds like a rubber band stretching, but in a wonderfully pleasing way. It has a wonderful interplay with the dynamic range of the singer. The character starts to change past 6db GR. I've heard many describe it as being darker but to me it's something more. It's a bit "pinched" and smaller than if I were using an 1176, StaLevel, etc at something like 15dB GR. I get the impression that's why a lot of engineers use an 1176 and LA2A together. The 1176 to handle the heavy gain reduction and shave peaks, followed by an LA2A for the tonal enhancements, and to massage just a little more gain reduction onto the source. Not discrediting your opinions at all, just explaining my previous post.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jan 14, 2017 17:55:14 GMT -6
I think the important thing to consider is what one is looking for in an LA2A. As in, why are you reaching for this particular piece of gear? I've built several and have experimented quite a bit with various components, everything from all-original parts to some of the best modern offerings. The compression characteristic isn't hard to get right if you have a decent T4 (thank you Bill at Kenetek). And, FWIW, I don't think LA2As are even great as compressors. They don't handle much GR without choking and offer little control. Most people I know use them because of the polish, the finished, "radio-ready" feel they add. That's where they're absolutely brilliant, IMO. It's common to use them with little to no gain reduction just for "that sound" of running through the circuit. That's my fascination with the LA2A, getting that sweetness and gloss to come through.
Some build theirs to sound clean. Which is respectable, but I personally don't get much out of that as I think there are better clean sounding compressors out there. What I look for is what influence the components have on the tonal balance, dynamics, harmonic overtones, etc. I haven't found any modern options to sound a whole lot like the UTCs (relatively speaking), and even the UTCs vary from each other depending whether you're using the HA-100x (and which era), A10, older black-can versions of the A10, etc, etc. But, the Sowters are very nice in their own regard. Your output cap is another area of tonal influence (the original choice can be improved upon, IMO), amplifier section tubes, and so on. I'm always skeptical when things are claimed to be "just like the original", because they're usually not. However, that doesn't mean they can't be as good or better. I don't build mine to sound just like the originals because I feel there are positive ways to change the sound, in one direction or the other. Some of those old parts sound glorious, others not so much.
I think, what people should should be asking is not so much what the "best" ones is, because there are a lot of different, yet correct answers to that question. But rather, is this particular LA-2A version doing what I want an LA2A to do? Every time I've built one I've made it sound different from the last, yet I've liked them all in their own ways. I've talked to many people who have bought or even BUILT them without even knowing exactly what an LA-2A sounds like before hand. Find out which clone one does what you're looking for. I had a partner who LOVED it on snare because of the way it missed the transient and bloomed on the room reflections. Everyone has their own idea of what sounds good to them.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jan 11, 2017 11:29:24 GMT -6
Only listened briefly but found the WA2A to be far more kind on acoustic guitar. Thx for the comparison!
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jan 10, 2017 21:43:58 GMT -6
There's definitely a pleasant quality to the 90's Japanese Fenders I've played. I think the model I owned for a couple years was the 'Special', same as yours. I remember it getting "in the pocket" with less woof and thump. Probably shouldn't have let that one go but, I love trying new things and I can't keep em all.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jan 10, 2017 17:39:01 GMT -6
All of the independent agencies here were really expensive and after quoting me, they came back and said "we aren't able to do that policy after all", as it's an inland marine and they weren't allowed to do them. Much like my 12 passenger van insurance, they can't handle that either. That sucks ! Unfortunately 1/2 of the insurance thing is finding the right agent! Unfortunately my contacts at American Family and others are all gone otherwise I would make some calls ! AmFam treated me great on my classic car auto policy. Car was nearly totaled, then stolen a year later after being fully restored. Paid me far more than I ever paid them, without a fuss. They wouldn't insure my studio gear though. Don't know if my agent was just ill-prepared to handle that sort of thing or if he was tired of losing money on me. I have such a mix of DIY-builds, vintage, etc (not to mention thousands of tubes and other vintage parts) that I have a hard time finding any agent that's interested in taking the time to work with me to give a reasonably priced policy. I do have some coverage but decided that security has been the better investment for me.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jan 10, 2017 15:42:01 GMT -6
The MK47 tube mic? That's not phantom powered.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jan 9, 2017 22:22:40 GMT -6
Just yesterday, I was looking through old christmas photos I have on various hard drives and stumbled on many folders of gear I sold throughout the years. I'm told I have a sharp memory but there were items I barely remembered and a couple that I had no recollection of using. I often wonder how I got "this much" gear (which isn't a ton, but I'm still fortunate to have it). However, looking through old pics I can see how careful buying and selling has allowed steady upgrades over the years. There was no decadent splurging taking place, but slowly trading up, getting deals, repairing broken equipment, etc that allowed it to happen.
For the past few years I've put an emphasis on quality over quantity. Hasn't stopped these buggers from breeding though. Mic lockers seem to be a conducive environment for that.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jan 5, 2017 17:09:25 GMT -6
Everyone thinks it's cute to laugh about this stuff but some of us take it very seriously. Your SSD is nothing without input transformers.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jan 4, 2017 18:21:34 GMT -6
Tone-wise, those old Roland Space Echos are something special. I remember an engineer telling me "you didn't need to bring yours, I have the plug-in". A week later he was asking me if I wouldn't mind leaving it there just a bit longer. However, after years of maintenance and it seeming to find a new way to go wrong every year, I let mine go. If I used it enough I'd have kept it. But, for as little as I was using it, I couldn't justify keeping it with today's insane prices. If "that" tone is your ultimate goal, and you don't mind the noise and (potential) maintenance, go for it. That tone is so mysterious and satisfying.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jan 3, 2017 16:49:06 GMT -6
I am going to go for the AMI body. I am on the list for tskguy but I don't think it's happening. Ive got my 49 mostly built. I just need the spacers and stand offs and body. PSU is mostly built. Capsule in waiting... kind of a bummer. What a great tone that would be... Were you waiting on the body from the Riggler/Tskguy thread or was Eric making a capsule for you? If it was his K47 hybrid and you can't get the capsule, I have one, unused in original packaging with hardware. I originally got it for my M49 but decided to build a pair and I have a matched pair of Thiersch M7s, so I don't know if I'll be able to put the Heiserman capsule to use. Which is a shame because he builds great stuff.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jan 2, 2017 23:56:59 GMT -6
My experience is a bit different. I've found little to no difference between certain Telefunken EF86 and EF806s when the samples are well-selected. In fact, I've seen it referenced by a couple mic techs that Telefunken sometimes labeled EF86 tubes as EF806s. It's only info picked up online, but it wouldn't surprise me. The late, great Oliver A. said on the Neumann forum in regard to a Q about Telefunken EF86 vs EF806s; "The EF806s is pretty much the same than an EF86..." and .. ."The EF804/806s uses all the same mechanical parts like the EF86 only that the mica wafer were heat treaded and different cathode nickel was used. Soundwise EF86/804 and the 'S' are the same, were for the 'S' version a better noise figure is practical build in."I've pretty much experienced the same thing with the similar EF804 and EF804s used in the V72/V76. The 's' is more likely to be low noise, but not by a huge margin, and they sound the same when they are the same version (there are a couple different anode material versions of the Tele EF804(s) and EF86 tubes). When buying blind, it used to make sense to get the 806s because they were more likely to be mic-worthy. These days, it's such a gamble with either type because the market for Tele EF86/806s is a mess, and there's a increasingly high number of used/faked/B-stock EF806 out there. I tend to find good sources and buy in bulk but even I get burned sometimes and have to take the hit. The EF806s is getting so expensive that I recommend the standard Tele EF86 when people are shopping with me. I say all that with the disclaimer that I sell tubes. But, FWIW, that advice goes against my interests because I could profit more on the 806s. I just think a well-selected Tele EF86 is already expensive enough and, when well-selected, is an equal performer. So, I say, save the money. As far as your experience, I won't say it's wrong or anything like that but I'll add some food for thought; there are a couple versions of Telefunken EF86 that sound different, and the sound quality can vary quite a bit depending on condition. There are also Telefunkens that are Tele in name only, but were made by other companies and branded for Telefunken (sometimes legitimately, sometimes not). A lot of factors come into play. I don't want it to sound like I'm discrediting your personal opinion and experience though, I absolutely respect that. How odd, I could have sworn I bought my batches of EF86s and EF806s off you, Christian. Quite possibly, but I usually steer people off of the EF806s (in the last few years at least) simply because I think they're excessive in price when an equally good EF86 can be had for much less. I do keep both though so you may be right there. Hard to keep track sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jan 2, 2017 20:16:53 GMT -6
On every single case where I have had opportunity to compare the two, the EF806 blows the socks off the EF86 type. Whether it has been in a microphone or an old Vox AC30 or Dr. Z Stangray guitar amplifier. An EF806 just tingles the spine with its sparkly goodness We should hardly be surprised if there are differences in the sound of the Max Mod using an EF806 in place of an EF86 or a PF86. Anyone else have thoughts on this? My experience is a bit different. I've found little to no difference between certain Telefunken EF86 and EF806s when the samples are well-selected. In fact, I've seen it referenced by a couple mic techs that Telefunken sometimes labeled EF86 tubes as EF806s. It's only info picked up online, but it wouldn't surprise me. The late, great Oliver A. said on the Neumann forum in regard to a Q about Telefunken EF86 vs EF806s; "The EF806s is pretty much the same than an EF86..." and .. ."The EF804/806s uses all the same mechanical parts like the EF86 only that the mica wafer were heat treaded and different cathode nickel was used. Soundwise EF86/804 and the 'S' are the same, were for the 'S' version a better noise figure is practical build in."I've pretty much experienced the same thing with the similar EF804 and EF804s used in the V72/V76. The 's' is more likely to be low noise, but not by a huge margin, and they sound the same when they are the same version (there are a couple different anode material versions of the Tele EF804(s) and EF86 tubes). When buying blind, it used to make sense to get the 806s because they were more likely to be mic-worthy. These days, it's such a gamble with either type because the market for Tele EF86/806s is a mess, and there's a increasingly high number of used/faked/B-stock EF806 out there. I tend to find good sources and buy in bulk but even I get burned sometimes and have to take the hit. The EF806s is getting so expensive that I recommend the standard Tele EF86 when people are shopping with me. I say all that with the disclaimer that I sell tubes. But, FWIW, that advice goes against my interests because I could profit more on the 806s. I just think a well-selected Tele EF86 is already expensive enough and, when well-selected, is an equal performer. So, I say, save the money. As far as your experience, I won't say it's wrong or anything like that but I'll add some food for thought; there are a couple versions of Telefunken EF86 that sound different, and the sound quality can vary quite a bit depending on condition. There are also Telefunkens that are Tele in name only, but were made by other companies and branded for Telefunken (sometimes legitimately, sometimes not). A lot of factors come into play. I don't want it to sound like I'm discrediting your personal opinion and experience though, I absolutely respect that.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jan 1, 2017 15:30:16 GMT -6
I used cheap Wellers for years and couldn't see the point in upgrading. But, when I got the Hakko 888 is was one of those "where have you been all my life" moments. Super-reliable and just much easier to use. For de-soldering, I wouldn't bother with any of the Chinese jobs. A couple years ago, I was able to get a used Hakko 470 for $120 off ebay (you probably won't get one that cheap but just be patient and you'll find a good deal). It's an absolute game-changer being able to desolder so quickly, cleanly, and non-destructively. Literally has changed the way I work because I'm no longer worried about "what if I need to de-solder this later?" so I can make every solder joint ideal and if I need it undone, it's no issue. Constantly having to clean it is no fun but, other than that, it's a dream. Looks like it's been in service for 20 years and is built so well I'm sure it'll run for another 20.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jan 1, 2017 15:18:46 GMT -6
sorry to resurrect this thread - just wanted advice about cleaning PCB's. I bought a s/h comp, it's about 20 years old I think. Second channel had scratchy pots, switch cleaner pretty much sorted this. The top PCB was covered in 20 years of dust and grime getting through the vents (why don't people look after gear!!). I used a vac cleaner and very soft brush to get most of it off, but there is still a visual coating. Should I just leave it now as it's working, or should I clean it? If so is there a trick to get rid of all this crud? Thanks. Generally, you can leave it so long as it's not a thick enough coating to hold in moisture and such. If you are neurotic like me and want to get it thoroughly cleaned, I recommend scoring some of the 99% isoprop alcohol (that it seems you can only find online these days) and use Q-tips to give the board a cleaning. I simply dip the swab, rub a layer of the alcohol on the board, let it work as a solvent for few secs, and swab it off. You have to be be diligent when doing this because (depending how it was soldered and cleaned at the factory) you may have old solder resin loosen up and effectively become a sticky tar that just spreads and makes a bigger mess until you go over it a few times to get it all up. Before doing anything like that, be aware of the voltage hazards, know which caps to discharge, etc. Also, don't leave behind any bits of cotton swab (which like to get caught on clipped leads if you use them on the underside).
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jan 1, 2017 13:26:25 GMT -6
Hi Bowie, Thanks for that. I'm in the UK and the tubes available are very restircted. Can you recommend a modern tube that would be better than the stock tube in the NTV. Watford valves and Hotroxuk are the only places I have to buy something. This kink to Watford valves shows their 12AT7's - anything worth considering? www.watfordvalves.com/products.asp?search=12at7Thanks I've done a lot of experimenting in the NTV but I don't want to abuse the forum by getting into sales stuff here. You're welcome to email me at; ProAudioTubes -at- aol -dot- com and I'll give you a detailed response.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jan 1, 2017 12:58:13 GMT -6
The old NTV has a ring at the base which makes up the bottom of the mic. Unscrew the ring. Slide the circuitry out. Being that these are 20 year old mics now, you might get a little resistance at first. Be very careful when removing as the capsule is attached to the body and will be exposed when removed (don't let it hit anything, don't touch it). Do this at a desk or someplace where it won't have far to fall if you drop it.
The dampening mechanism for the tube is a bit clunky. Good luck getting it back in after removal. I recommend just putting it, and the hardware that holds it in place, in a ziplock and leaving it in the case. It is not needed unless you are using a microphonic tube, in which case it may help just a little.
BTW, people tend to dismiss the NTV because they associate it with the NTK. It's another class of mic. The old NTV from the 90's was made with high-end components (ones that you might not even see in $2k mics today) and is a bit of a hidden gem. Very nice mic to have.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Dec 30, 2016 17:31:24 GMT -6
Mixed feeling about today's sample. Not taking away from Tchad's abilities, what he was doing was highly layered and and he got it all work co-exist without sounding like mud. In fact, it managed to sound somewhat sparse and lean in the end product. Tremendous skill. I just didn't like the mix. Feels like it killed what should have been a more organic/raw sounding song. Anyhow, just an artistic criticism. As a piece for Mixing With the Masters, it works. He seemed to be a little too lost in the work to explain (or remember) what he was doing in parts but by rewinding here and there I picked up on a lot of interesting choices. Would love to see one where he was a little more focused and able to explain in greater detail what/why he was doing on each track. If the vids were that involved, I might subscribe.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Dec 28, 2016 15:59:58 GMT -6
Probably have but there's one little thing I'd like to add - How many people here have actually been in an anechoic chamber? If you have, then you're probably aware that a total absence of all sound produces a defionitely uneasy feeling in most, if not all people. we went into the studio that Massenburg used to be in... Is that the "wall of diffusion" room? (if it is, you'll know what I'm talking about) I have that as a background on my studio PC and people often ask me "is that real?". I've never had the privilege of being there myself.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Dec 28, 2016 14:46:39 GMT -6
The free link is on the home page (EDIT; actually, go to the "Register" page if you don't see it), in the form of a pop-up window (not a separate tab, but a small window overlaying the page). You may want to disable ad and pop-up blockers if you have them. Also, FWIW, I've had to load the home page a couple times before it showed.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Dec 28, 2016 11:07:40 GMT -6
The Andy Wallace video was primarily focused on the snare. He tweaked the EQ of the original snare and blended in his ambient snare. He explained why he liked ambient snares instead of room snares. I'm sure an entire series of his drum mixing process would be interesting. He talked about his using three reverbs -small mid and large- but didn't go into that or how he blends individual kit pieces with overheads. The guy truly is a master in what he does and is revered by many, but some would say they dislike his sound. So, if you're into that I think it would be useful. Did it seem informative? The CLA/Massey were just uneventful to me. I really like a lot of Wallace mixes, so it would have been cool to check out, but could easily have been disappointing. Looking forward to checking out the next one. If you've mixed sampled snares with tracked ones, then it was unlikely new territory. I didn't really see anything new in these videos, and I am not saying that in a boastful way at all. I liked Sylvia's video because you could observe the truly valuable part, the decision making process, as she swept through frequencies and evaluated things in the context of the mix. Andy really sliced, diced, and pureed that snare so those unfamiliar with the process will gain a lot. However, if you already know how to do that, he's working too fast for you to really absorb much of the context of why he's making the decisions (which is the important part, to me). I was left wondering if he was going through a habitual process (his snares have a signature sound) or if he was doing specific things to work with that song/mix.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Dec 28, 2016 10:49:39 GMT -6
Hhmmm..... I dunno - I sometimes find those "holes of black curtain" to be somewhat distracting. Not that I'm avocating in any way for an audible addition of noise for "effect, color, analog, quantum. etc." (which is utterly annoying) but the sudden absence of anything kinda draws attention to itself sometimes, y'know? In stagecraft the black curtain is supposed to be invisible... To me, its the most expensive part of sound... silence... and it is invisible. .... 8) Only from dark, can come the light that you expose by having sound... oooh a bit profound.... 8) I will have to post an audio example...(its no ones fault but mine for poor explanation) but no one is really catching my drift here... cheers Wiz I understand what you're saying. I've seen it referred to that way in hi-fi circles and it does sound more expensive because high-end gear often has lower noise. A "black" background is a goal in hifi. I also agree with John's points. I used to do the typical thing and remove all passages of non-musical content (because that's what people do) even though I personally found sudden and stark blackness to be distracting and unnatural feeling. I've talked with a few people about the psychology of recording and, in discussing "pleasing" types of distortion, some say that even noise has it's place. I am not entirely sure how I feel about that but I must say that knowing where the "background" is at is something my ears like. Have you ever been in a dark room and felt that you could "hear" the shape of the room? Small noises create reflections and give you a sense of the space that you're in. Definitely a more comfortable room to be in than a completely silent one. When I can get away with it, I like leaving certain mics "open" for that little bit of bleed, noise, room, etc. Not a lot, just a little. It might go against the rules but my instincts tell me it "feels" better. Anyhow, we've probably expanded on the black curtain subject far more than you ever intended to with this thread so sorry for the distraction.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Dec 27, 2016 23:52:02 GMT -6
They're generally well-liked. I personally had some complaints with the low end, in 3 different rooms I heard them in. And, the top was a little fatiguing at times. But, I think the mids translate fairly well and overall they're decent.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Dec 27, 2016 14:10:25 GMT -6
Watched the 3 so far. If anything, they reaffirmed 3 things for me. 1) They reaffirmed several of the techniques I use and encouraged me not question myself so much. 2) They reinforced the thing I find myself often telling beginners; which is to stop looking for "tricks", because there aren't any. You can watch vids like this to learn common methods used in professional mixing but the real talent is in the skill of listening and decision making. 3) The first two vids reinforce my sentiments as to why mixes often feel so processed and artificial these days. Those two guys are modern mix superheroes so my moaning might fall on deaf ears here but what constitutes "slick" today sounds unnatural and disconcerting to me. I'm very much drawn to music that feels like it's coming from humans who are expressing themselves (I sorta thought that's what this is all about anyway) be it or acoustic, electronic, or otherwise. Not something that has been over-processed much in the same way that food scientists start with wheat and beef and end up with something called McDonalds.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Dec 27, 2016 12:28:50 GMT -6
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing but when I've had dense mixes with drum and verb gates (particularly drum machines/samples), I find I sometimes need to consider the rhythm when adjusting the timing of the gate. Reverbed drum samples are a perfect example because they are predictable and you can time the gate to work with the rhythm. Where did you get your Revebed drum samples? I have been looking for what Andy Wallace calls ambient snares. I could make them myself, but it would be easier to buy them if the price is right. Just collecting them over the years. Some from old drum machines and keyboards, others from sample libraries, from software like BFD, snares I've tracked myself, etc. Andy makes it look real easy there but finding one that blends with the one you're mixing at the time (without sounding like two different pitches or two drums, not being phasey, etc) is the real challenge. If you're looking to pick some up, I recommend sample libraries.
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Dec 26, 2016 16:13:29 GMT -6
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing but when I've had dense mixes with drum and verb gates (particularly drum machines/samples), I find I sometimes need to consider the rhythm when adjusting the timing of the gate. Reverbed drum samples are a perfect example because they are predictable and you can time the gate to work with the rhythm.
|
|