|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Sept 9, 2023 13:02:43 GMT -6
I really like the Neve 1073 sound, but only on bass. At home, I preferred different preamps. In studios, the Neve's sound amazing, so perhaps it was the console EQ's that added some special sauce.
I use the Dizengoff D4, ( Abbey Road clone) as my main preamp. It adds a slight glassy tone, but there's a lovely smooth energy to the high end that cumulatively adds a sparkle and pro finish to my tracks I like a lot. I'm sure the Chandler version sounds great too, but it's way too pricey for me.
Kcat's Daking pre sounds really good.
|
|
|
|
Post by plinker on Sept 9, 2023 15:22:25 GMT -6
Are these the ones that sound similar to John Hardy M1's? Or am I simply mistakening the fact that you can order them with John Hardy opamps? The J99 is based on the Jensen Twin Servo which uses two 990 type opamps which Hardy makes under his own name. The main difference between the J99 and the Jensen Twin Servo are the transformers. The J99 uses a Lundhal LL1538XL mic input transformer and a Cinemag output transformer (high nickel). The Lundal LL1538 is also used in the several Rupert Neve designed Focusrite preamps and the Cinemag has very similar specs to the Jensen version. When I built my J99’s I intended to use the Hardy 990 opamps but getting any was another thing altogether. In the end I ordered some Sonic Imagery 990 opamps and they have been excellent although I expect there’s not a huge difference between most properly designed 990 opamps especially in the case of the Twin Servo where two 990’s share the gain so are not worked as hard as a single opamp at higher gains. I've always considered the J99 the best value clone in the SCA bunch. The twin servo is really expensive and, while Hardy does do something slightly different (based on his posts) in his version of the circuit, there's a lot to love in the SCA at a fraction of the price. How many other implementations of the Jensen Twin Servo are there anyway?? I believe the early Presonus M80 versions implemented it with Jensen traffos and IC opamps. |
|
|
|
Post by copperx on Sept 9, 2023 15:33:31 GMT -6
The J99 is based on the Jensen Twin Servo which uses two 990 type opamps which Hardy makes under his own name. The main difference between the J99 and the Jensen Twin Servo are the transformers. The J99 uses a Lundhal LL1538XL mic input transformer and a Cinemag output transformer (high nickel). The Lundal LL1538 is also used in the several Rupert Neve designed Focusrite preamps and the Cinemag has very similar specs to the Jensen version. When I built my J99’s I intended to use the Hardy 990 opamps but getting any was another thing altogether. In the end I ordered some Sonic Imagery 990 opamps and they have been excellent although I expect there’s not a huge difference between most properly designed 990 opamps especially in the case of the Twin Servo where two 990’s share the gain so are not worked as hard as a single opamp at higher gains. I've always considered the J99 the best value clone in the SCA bunch. The twin servo is really expensive and, while Hardy does do something slightly different (based on his posts) in his version of the circuit, there's a lot to love in the SCA at a fraction of the price. How many other implementations of the Jensen Twin Servo are there anyway?? I believe the early Presonus M80 versions implemented it with Jensen traffos and IC opamps. I agree completely. I believe Radial also implemented the twin servo in a 500 series. The J99 is where it's at with SCA. There's nothing like a bass through a J99. It's just so ... euphonic. |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Sept 9, 2023 16:19:11 GMT -6
Well "the best match" is what we're looking for. Pick one of your favorite mics and tell us what you think is your best match for it, please. I'd love to hear some opinions on that. Sincerely! The best match changes session type to session type. Well then, there you have it. Identifiable different tonal contributions from different preamps. Can you elaborate on your findings? |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,099 
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Sept 9, 2023 17:02:12 GMT -6
I've always considered the J99 the best value clone in the SCA bunch. The twin servo is really expensive and, while Hardy does do something slightly different (based on his posts) in his version of the circuit, there's a lot to love in the SCA at a fraction of the price. How many other implementations of the Jensen Twin Servo are there anyway?? I believe the early Presonus M80 versions implemented it with Jensen traffos and IC opamps. I agree completely. I believe Radial also implemented the twin servo in a 500 series. The J99 is where it's at with SCA. There's nothing like a bass through a J99. It's just so ... euphonic. Radial has, after they purchased Jensen they have all the documentation of the original design. The story goes that Dean Jensen originally licensed the design to Boulder, as they evolved from a Pro Audio company into a high end consumer manufacturer they quit producing the 990 Twin Servo, though they did continue to use 990’s for years in there products. Jensen then asked John Hardy if he would take over production. |
|
|
|
Post by plinker on Sept 9, 2023 19:10:16 GMT -6
Deane Jensen was a smart MF. For those who don't know, in order to help sell his transformers he produced a series of reference implementations for different applications of his transformers: www.jensen-transformers.com/schematics/...including mic, line, tube, and the "famous" twin servo. I'm really happy that Radial continues to publish these schematics! I would love to see a map of popular implementations that were derived from his designs. |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Sept 10, 2023 8:39:06 GMT -6
The best match changes session type to session type. Well then, there you have it. Identifiable different tonal contributions from different preamps. Can you elaborate on your findings? You’re asking to describe the wind as if it never changes, or how a painter’s palate might be defined and branded whilst wet and mixed by eye. It’s rarely tonal, but sometimes. It’s more frequently about how i want the headroom to behave for the type of session. Whether the noise floor matters, or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Sept 10, 2023 9:04:52 GMT -6
Well then, there you have it. Identifiable different tonal contributions from different preamps. Can you elaborate on your findings? You’re asking to describe the wind as if it never changes, or how a painter’s palate might be defined and branded whilst wet and mixed by eye. It’s rarely tonal, but sometimes. It’s more frequently about how i want the headroom to behave for the type of session. Whether the noise floor matters, or not. Dude, I'm sure you know your stuff. I'm not challenging your competence . . . I'm just asking for (or challenging you to provide) some of your findings. I'm genuinely interested! We haven't even discussed Slew RatesLet me see if I can paraphrase . . . The slew rate for the output of an amplifier circuit specifically guarantees that the speed of the output transition will be at the least the guaranteed minimum and not exceed the guaranteed maximum. This affects transients and overall frequency output performance. We haven't even fully discussed input impedances yet either! a 600Ω input impedance will make most ribbons muddy, a 2400Ω input will make it open up but still be a little vanilla . . . but if you crank it to 5000Ω - 30,000Ω it opens up like it's catching fire. Just food for thought! |
|
|
|
Post by Omicron9 on Sept 10, 2023 9:09:59 GMT -6
Grace Preamp (model designations only refer to format, not electronic architecture)Extremely low THD, IMD, noise, RFI etc.... Extremely wide bandwidth, high headroom, has little effect on dynamic and condenser (all variation thereof) microphones. Has a robust bottom end, very clean and slightly lifted high-mid to hairband representation. Does not accentuate odd order harmonics. In 'Ribbon Mode' impedance is increased to make the ribbon mic work harder and thus produce better tone... which benefits are not available to active ribbons as the engaging of the ribbon mode shuts down phantom power than active ribbon mics require. Fantastic transient response. Ideal for maintaining the sound of the microphone. Claims are made that the Neumann V402 mic preamp is very similar. In short, the Grace M101/201/801/501 and 103 strip is one of the best examples of a preamp that imparts little to no sound, distortion, interference or negative coloration on the signal making the preamp type ideal for acoustic instrument and voice recording. My findings for the Grace are consistent with Ward's. I'd add the m108 8-channel model to his list. -09 |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Sept 10, 2023 12:49:42 GMT -6
Slew rate only matters at really high output levels. Volts per sec is the same as saying maximum voltage at a certain frequency (1/sec). I think the whole “fast slew rate” thing is mostly an audio myth. I do think that higher slew rates probably reduce some distortion from stuff over the audible range that comes down into the audible range at higher output levels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2023 13:20:33 GMT -6
Well "the best match" is what we're looking for. Pick one of your favorite mics and tell us what you think is your best match for it, please. I'd love to hear some opinions on that. Sincerely! The best match changes session type to session type. Also different perceived sounds sound different with different pres and the stack up is huge. The “money channel” rarely matters unless the other channels are garbage or it’s pushed into distortion that may or may not sound like distortion. A Millenia pre can sound like an overdrive, plastic, clean, realer than real, or veiled depending on what is being recorded. Higher order harmonics from older opamps at the limits of their power rails and pushed discrete transistors can wipe out or enhance subtleties in the sound even -100 db down. But then random classical people will poopoo some tube stuff that is cleaner with only lower order harmonics -80 db down from the fundamental or so on some sources even if this sounds cleaner and has a higher meaningless thd+n measurement. |
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Sept 10, 2023 13:28:54 GMT -6
FWIW Craig Anderton, along with a noted Classical AE...
Really dug the lowly $$ Aphex 107 Toob Mic Pre("smooth").
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by plinker on Sept 10, 2023 18:55:07 GMT -6
The best match changes session type to session type. A Millenia pre can sound like an overdrive, plastic, clean, realer than real, or veiled depending on what is being recorded. I appreciate your insights, Dan. I'm curious, however, how a Cohen Double-Balanced Circuit, like the Millennia, can go through all those characteristic since it's designed to be unforgivingly clean, until it hard clips. |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Sept 10, 2023 19:07:55 GMT -6
FWIW Craig Anderton, along with a noted Classical AE... Really dug the lowly $$ Aphex 107 Toob Mic Pre("smooth"). Chris They're really not that lowly. I have three of them (6 channels) and they work just fine on a number of applications. They pair well with many dynamics. |
|
|
|
Post by plinker on Sept 10, 2023 19:19:34 GMT -6
I'm delinquent in adding something that, I hope, the more experienced peeps on this forum will chime-in on.
I remember reading a post by Fletcher, a long long time ago, where he describe really good preamps as being able to isolate/pinpoint the signal in the stereo mix. That's always been in the back of my mind when I read about some preamps making a signal "larger than life".
There's only so much sonic real estate to work with in the stereo spread and , while I get wanted big tracks when you're dealing with only 4-6, when dealing with 10+ instruments, does this idea come into play?
I've recently done a panning test on my MH ULN8 preamps vs Phoenix Audio DRS preamps. The DRS are pinpoint in the stereo field and still sound robot. The ULN are perfectly flat, and low noise, but take up significantly more space when panning. I think this may be a product of the signal EQ'ing that the DRS does when amping -- thus, sculpting the lower mids.
Any thoughts on this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2023 20:59:09 GMT -6
A Millenia pre can sound like an overdrive, plastic, clean, realer than real, or veiled depending on what is being recorded. I appreciate your insights, Dan. I'm curious, however, how a Cohen Double-Balanced Circuit, like the Millennia, can go through all those characteristic since it's designed to be unforgivingly clean, until it hard clips. Millenia’s designer who wasn’t the Millenia owner chose an opamp with higher order harmonics and runs it at its insane +/- 24 voltage limits along with some separate discrete transistors. They just sound like that until they clip or break down from pushing their electrical components to the limit by design. Dan |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2023 21:09:34 GMT -6
Slew rate only matters at really high output levels. Volts per sec is the same as saying maximum voltage at a certain frequency (1/sec). I think the whole “fast slew rate” thing is mostly an audio myth. I do think that higher slew rates probably reduce some distortion from stuff over the audible range that comes down into the audible range at higher output levels. yeah nobody ever called a daking pre a dirt box until they push the gain and turn down the output fader. Or a spectraSonics / spectra 1964 thing. I’m sure they don’t have great slew rate but they’re closer to Millenia or Grace than they are to Neve or API despite the transformers and possibilities to push them into doing stupid things to the sound. |
|
|
|
Post by christophert on Sept 11, 2023 2:43:02 GMT -6
Whats interesting is now we have a selection of various (excellent) preamps, we miss out on the cohesive glue of everything being tracked through mainly one type of great sounding preamp.
I remember many decades ago recording on amazing vintage Neves, and being blown away how it sounded close to an amazing sounding finished record, then mixing through the same console was a battle that I never really won - it turned to shit.
Mixing these recordings on an SSL or API was a great outcome - and an easy task.
Yet I did some sessions on vintage API's and QuadEight Coronado's, and could both track and mix on them and it just sounded more amazing.
Now I have a cluster of great recording preamps, and battle for the cohesive glue means a lot more sonic massaging work.
Putting hardware on the mix bus gets partially there - but not the same.
Lately I have been running the main upfront tracks back through Coil CA70 preamps on line in, and getting closer.
I miss spending every day in front of a great sounding console - everything came together so fast, it was all about the balance and a little EQ and compression.
|
|
|
|
Post by enlav on Sept 11, 2023 5:59:05 GMT -6
Whats interesting is now we have a selection of various (excellent) preamps, we miss out on the cohesive glue of everything being tracked through mainly one type of great sounding preamp. [...] This might be a product of the day and age we're in. When I was just dipping my toes into this business (gofer, intern, assistant) it wasn't uncommon for a room to have only a few outboard pre's so most stuff was going straight to a console. This was the US midwest though, so I'm not sure if the this trend fit studios elsewhere with larger budgets or greater needs.
The increased accessibility to not only the technology to record but the ease of purchase and competitive pricing for quality products has brought us to the audio equivalent of Baskin Robbins... for those unfamiliar, it's an ice cream shoppe with 31 flavors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Sept 11, 2023 10:55:44 GMT -6
I don't remember any recording I did back in the day using outboard preamps. They simply used the pres in the API, Trident, or Neve console. Nothing ever sounded better in my experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by copperx on Sept 11, 2023 11:26:10 GMT -6
I don't remember any recording I did back in the day using outboard preamps. They simply used the pres in the API, Trident, or Neve console. Nothing ever sounded better in my experience. Do you mean that no outboard preamp ever matched those? |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Sept 11, 2023 12:24:28 GMT -6
I don't remember any recording I did back in the day using outboard preamps. They simply used the pres in the API, Trident, or Neve console. Nothing ever sounded better in my experience. Do you mean that no outboard preamp ever matched those? IMO, BITD, nothing topped recording on a console using the same preamps for everything so you have a cohesive sound. Now we're chasing millimeters of difference and may be creating recordings that sound so separated they don't have a cohesive sound. Well, maybe not as cohesive as recording everything through a great console. JMHO |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2023 13:01:44 GMT -6
Whats interesting is now we have a selection of various (excellent) preamps, we miss out on the cohesive glue of everything being tracked through mainly one type of great sounding preamp. I remember many decades ago recording on amazing vintage Neves, and being blown away how it sounded close to an amazing sounding finished record, then mixing through the same console was a battle that I never really won - it turned to shit. Mixing these recordings on an SSL or API was a great outcome - and an easy task. Yet I did some sessions on vintage API's and QuadEight Coronado's, and could both track and mix on them and it just sounded more amazing. Now I have a cluster of great recording preamps, and battle for the cohesive glue means a lot more sonic massaging work. Putting hardware on the mix bus gets partially there - but not the same. Lately I have been running the main upfront tracks back through Coil CA70 preamps on line in, and getting closer. I miss spending every day in front of a great sounding console - everything came together so fast, it was all about the balance and a little EQ and compression. That mega dirt build up. Too much color is a thing. Your mixes will just get worse and a lot of hardware has too much color. Also old Neve and ssl g ish eqs aren’t as good of problem fixing tools as api and ssl e. |
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on Sept 11, 2023 13:30:28 GMT -6
Do you mean that no outboard preamp ever matched those? IMO, BITD, nothing topped recording on a console using the same preamps for everything so you have a cohesive sound. Now we're chasing millimeters of difference and may be creating recordings that sound so separated they don't have a cohesive sound. Well, maybe not as cohesive as recording everything through a great console. JMHO I agree, though I think for some modern styles, that separation is needed, or at least it has become part of the general sound. I've worked with some guys who do super modern synth and beat heavy pop productions and they are actually looking for that separation, I remember one guy trying out a fat bustard and actually hating what it did to his production, too much glue and transient smoothing. I do mostly "vintage sounding "music and there's no beating a console vibe. That's why I settled on one preamp brand and the only thing that I'll use another preamp is on vocals when I want them to sit on top of the instrumental mix. |
|
|
|
Post by plinker on Sept 11, 2023 13:43:01 GMT -6
Do you mean that no outboard preamp ever matched those? IMO, BITD, nothing topped recording on a console using the same preamps for everything so you have a cohesive sound. Now we're chasing millimeters of difference and may be creating recordings that sound so separated they don't have a cohesive sound. Well, maybe not as cohesive as recording everything through a great console. JMHO I read a magazine interview from about 15-20 years ago that had all the big outboard preamp makes (Daking, Kennedy, etc). The final question to each was along the lines of "what do you think is an important thing that needs to be addressed right now?" Two answer that stuck out: - Dan Kennedy: "people need to rediscover the sound of working through a single console"
- Geoff Daking: "using multiple preamps is given audio a schizophrenic vibe"
- note: I think he meant "multiple-personality disorder", but at that time in history people tended to conflated the two disorders.
|
|
