|
Post by johneppstein on May 12, 2020 20:20:07 GMT -6
Ward et al. (avoiding quoting all the snippets): Fidelity, by definition, is about faithfulness to the source. Adding noise is not being faithful to the source. Noise has ramifications for my work/interests that might not matter to most -- but it matters to me. Noise has a direct affect on the spatial depth/soundstage of the resulting mix -- that's important to me. I also 'generally' don't close-mic acoustic instruments so am unable to take advantage of S/N -- again, noise is an issue for me. Yes -- I have a couple of mics that are noisy, that I love the sound of, regardless. However, I don't employ them in many applications because of it. My UM17 with HK47 capsule? Yep, noisy, but for vocals it sounds great and, because I'm close-micing the vox, I get the S/N advantage. While John may believe that "The notion that "modern" gear is capable of better noise performance that the gear of 50 years ago is more or less hogwash" I'd caution at the distinction between "capable of better noise performance" and "designed for better noise performance". Plenty of old designs didn't factor heavily on noise because the noise bottleneck was somewhere else in the chain (e.g., low-fidelity playback systems.) The digital age hasn't "raised [that] foolishness to an unprecedented level" -- rather, it changed where the noise/performance bottleneck appears. Now, that being said, YOU KIDS, GET OFF MY LAWN!!! :-} Ok, last things first - Kids, you're welcome on my lawn any time - as long as you MOW!
Second, you are not correct on a couple of very important points. To begin with you statement addressed to me simply tells me that you have probably never worked with quality vintage gear in good condition (a fair amount of what passes for "vintage" now was regarded as second rate back then).Also, much of what's around these days is not up to original snuff in one way or another. But given the toxic "collector" mentality that original components are always most desirable much of it doesn't get the servicing it needs because then it wouldn't be "original". And if the gear happens (as it often is) to be tube gear you may not ever be able to hear it at optimum performance because with the demise of the original tube manufacturers tube quality has taken a nosedive into the deep end of the pool wearing cement overshoes. Tubes produced today - even the so-called "premium" tubes - are garbage. And a huge percentage of the "NOS" tubes on the current market are factory seconds or rejects. Even back in the '70s when original tubes were still available a significant percentage were junk. Rejection rates were quite high - often 25%-50% for many common tubes such as 12AX7s. Those rejects were more often than not put into storage in the basement or a back room closet, and guess what? A lot of those rejected tubes are now being trotted out and sold as "NOS" - which I suppose is technically true, as they were never sold. When I was a service tech at some of the larger facilites in SF we often used to get our preamp tubes in "trays" of 100. It was not unusual to have 20 or 30 rejects left over, sometimes even more. And that was ordering top quality RCA tubes direct from Fender. And those tubes were 7025s, the "low noise" version of the 12AX7.
"Adding noise is not faithful to the source". Wrong. Unless you're at absolute zero you cannot eliminate noise. (Of course electronics can't work at absolute zero, anyway.) There is an absolute noise floor based on ambient temperature - you can't avoid it or eliminate it, because as long as there is thermal energy atoms, molecules, and subatomic particles move at random, and that random movement constitutes noise. It's a basic fact of physics. Whenever you have a resistance in an electronic circuit the movement of the particles in that resistance creates electronic noise.
Now digital technology is capable of figures that are way below the absolute figures for background noise - but that is, not too put to fine a point on it, total bullshit, because theoretical math inside a computer is not an actual audio signal. IIRC the absolute noise floor at nominal room temperature is around -125dBu, give or take a little bit - and that is actually unobtainable because materials and devices are not "perfect". So when your 64 bit processor running a 32 bit DAW program claims that it has 192 dB dynamic range, it's a lie when it comes to the actual noise level of the system* - because once those 1s and 0s are translated into sound those nasty old laws of physics come into play. In practice there is ALWAYS noise, but the human auditory system filters most of it out. The human audiotory system is very sensitive in some ways, but it's also quite lossy - we have evolved to not hear noise that evolution has been "programmed" to treat as unimportant.
Another point that most people don't understand is that people generally find a total absence of audible noise to be very unsettling. Have you ever spent any real length of time in an true anechoic chamber? Most people find it very uncomfortable after a very short time. "Oppressive" is a common description of the experience. I've been in real anechoic chambers on several occasions and I can testify to that. Spending time in one of those things is strange and unsettling.
Noise is part of the environment.
And the truth is that the noise specs given for audio equipment are generally just "salesman speak". Customers have been trained to expect a very low noise figure on a spec sheet, but very few actually undersand what any of this means - and those figures are frequently "cooked" to sound impressive to prospective buyers.
*- "lie" may not be exactly the right word. "Deliberately misleading" is probably better - it's usually presented as meaning the the gear in question is quieter, but that's often not the case, since you can't get more quiet than the nominal level set by the ambient temperature - HOWEVER you can most certainly get louder, but any dynamic range in excess of 140 dB is essentially meaninless for our purposes in audio, because the ear can't tolerate signal levels above 140 dBspl. And you can't hear signal levels below 0dBspl.
FWIW, I don't generally close mic acoustic instruments either, but generally do not find noise to be a significant problem.
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on May 12, 2020 20:30:36 GMT -6
As nice as your post above is, Ward, my biggest takeaway is "holy shit! I've never been able to figure out how to quote snippets from multiple people on RGO before! How the F did he do that?" It's really easy!! AS you're going through the thread, use the little thrill wheel icon across from the title and to down to "select post" for each post you wish to include in a multi quote post. Then when you click on reply, everything shows up! [/quote] It took me a while to figure that out.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on May 12, 2020 20:44:51 GMT -6
As nice as your post above is, Ward, my biggest takeaway is "holy shit! I've never been able to figure out how to quote snippets from multiple people on RGO before! How the F did he do that?" It's really easy!! AS you're going through the thread, use the little thrill wheel icon across from the title and to down to "select post" for each post you wish to include in a multi quote post. Then when you click on reply, everything shows up! It took me a while to figure that out. [/quote]
THANKS! I've neen trying to figure that out too!
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on May 13, 2020 13:15:47 GMT -6
The "Teenage Auditory System" filters out everything, especially when they're on cell phones... Chris
|
|
|
Post by hadaja on May 18, 2020 21:20:57 GMT -6
The .bomblet works really well with the Zod DI ID. Makes the mic sound “tube like”. Great tip from someone on this forum . Well worth it.
|
|
|
Post by hadaja on May 19, 2020 1:21:55 GMT -6
I am not going to bother you with updates as this will be the last one but just tried the Bomblet out with the WT-72 and the WT-Comp. I think it was a match made in heaven. It was an up close and even sound. Tried a few other combos out the km84 through the same units and 67fet and it sounded nothing like the Bomblet. IT was just this even smooth sound with clarity (no where in brittle territory like the 67fet) even the KM sounded a little brittle and I have never know my KM's to sound Shrill/brittle. But for whatever reason the Bomblet just sounded smooth and full. Would have to take some low end out but wow very nice. Okay over and out.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on May 19, 2020 9:31:11 GMT -6
Never a bother! I think Soyuz has a "hit" with the Bomblet. Chris
|
|
|
Post by plinker on May 23, 2020 13:15:32 GMT -6
Second, you are not correct on a couple of very important points. To begin with you statement addressed to me simply tells me that you have probably never worked with quality vintage gear in good condition (a fair amount of what passes for "vintage" now was regarded as second rate back then).Also, much of what's around these days is not up to original snuff in one way or another. But given the toxic "collector" mentality that original components are always most desirable much of it doesn't get the servicing it needs because then it wouldn't be "original"...<snipped> I'll take you at your word because I really don't care that much about vintage gear, how it used to sound, or trying to recreate the past. I never said anyone could eliminate noise, only that I prefer to not to add it and that adding it in the recording/playback chain reduces fidelity. You are either deliberately making a strawman argument or just ranting. I'm going to assume both. Dear God, help me... Yes; in fact I have been in anechoic chambers and have designed and built semi-anechoic chambers and currently lead research in binaural machine listening and noise reduction techniques for tactical radios. But, please tell me more. Fascinating! I actually do understand, but, again, please go on... Boy, I've really learned a lot today! I'm going to hang-up now and let you have the last word because, quite frankly, my 53 year old brain can't take any more.
|
|
|
Post by smashlord on Nov 23, 2023 8:40:35 GMT -6
Picked one of these up a couple of months back and have been getting to know it... figured I'd add another review to the thread for anyone that may be considering these.
Overall, this is an excellent mic. It has character and sounds like it is in a class above other mics in its price range, assuming you don't need the extra features. Build quality is excellent and there seems to be attention to detail with everything from the clip, to the shock mount, to the box its comes in. Nothing feels cheap.
I understand the history of the capsule and I would say while it doesn't sound quite like say a C414 EB, it does have that quality of be present without being harsh. The top on it is there, the detail is there, but it is not hyped. This makes it excellent on overheads. I find that it excellent on drums in general. It handles transients in a way that reminds me of a ribbon almost and I particularly love it on KICK OUT. I think its the first mic I have found that I like as much as a FET 47 in that position, albeit with a different sound.
Its great on acoustic guitar and works well for background vocals or even a lead vocal where you may want a more "vintage" sound. In general, a great mic if you want a darker sounding condenser.
Only dislike is the screw on pad. It's cumbersome for obvious reasons and you have to remove it to fit the mic in its case.
|
|
|
Post by jacobamerritt on Nov 23, 2023 12:35:58 GMT -6
Sheesh these got expensive. Wasn’t impossible to find them on sale for like $850
|
|
|
Post by andersmv on Nov 24, 2023 8:32:24 GMT -6
There's full session files in the link description. I'm singing pretty quietly in the verses, listen to those parts and decide if the noise floor is going to bother you. The bomblet aren't as quiet as my Gen2 Vanguard V44s, but I havn't had any issues so far. They're more than quiet enough to do a folk album with, they sound pretty damn good on acoustic guitar going into my Coil preamps.
|
|
|
Post by hadaja on Nov 24, 2023 15:21:34 GMT -6
Having owned the Soyuz 23 for a few years there is nothing that justifies the price hike. Its Cardioid only capsule is not magic, the torodial transformer is not magic. But it is well made and everything in it works like it should and it is reliable. But with many products like BN67/269, Serrano SA87, etc out there costing less then the Bomblet, I dont know who would buy the Bomblet? I didnt find it excelled in anything I had already had in the mic locker. So in the end I sold it. Happy that its working for the above poster.
|
|
|
Post by smashlord on Nov 24, 2023 17:49:09 GMT -6
But with many products like BN67/269, Serrano SA87, etc out there costing less then the Bomblet, I dont know who would buy the Bomblet? I did indeed get mine at a deal, but I also have at my disposal the original mics that those others you mentioned seek to emulate, and I find the Bomblet to do its own thing. It doesn't sound like a U67 or a U87 or even a brass capsule C414EB, despite all the marketing describing the shared heritage with the capsules. It has a cool low end punch, handles transients in a way that reminds me of a ribbon, and is detailed while sounding slightly rolled off in vibey way. I find it to be its own distinct flavor that is different enough to justify owning it.
|
|