|
|
tube mikes
Feb 27, 2015 20:05:26 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 27, 2015 20:05:26 GMT -6
Question. do the sonics of a tube mike improve the longer it is left on or how long does it take the mike to optimize ?
I have been switching between my fiy c12 and mk-u47 and just left them both on for 3-4 hours.
The c12 sounds noticably improved now fuller clearer.
Are my ears playing tricks or tube mikes like burning off electrons ?
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Feb 27, 2015 20:18:08 GMT -6
beyond all tube gear performing better after a solid 1/2 hour or more of warm up.
all electronics have a burn in period from new, tubes also have a burn in period, the RCA tubes i put in JK's MKU47 were really noisy when i first put them in, they are dead quiet now, Ithink after a solid week of use gear is going to be close to where it'll stay...after warm ups of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Feb 27, 2015 21:49:47 GMT -6
I hear improvement when warming up my mic after around 45 minutes, so I always warm up my mic when using it for a main vocal take.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Feb 27, 2015 21:53:14 GMT -6
The older the tube gear, the longer I let it warm up before I use it. At least 30 minutes for vintage tube comps.
R
|
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Feb 27, 2015 22:33:41 GMT -6
I always go by the 30 min warm up. That goes for all my gear. It needs to reach and maintain operating temp. While we are on Tube warm up, please do your guitar amp a favor and not leave it on standby for more than 30 sec. Your heaters will thank you!
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Feb 28, 2015 8:54:50 GMT -6
In my experience, tube mics will sound more grainy when first turned on without the warm up. After they warm up for about 30 minutes, they all smooth out and get more clear and quite.
Let me throw this idea out there. As I like to say, there's no right or wrong way to do anything, it's always what fits a particular song. Now 9 times out of 10, I'll let mics warm completely up before tracking. However there have been times I've tracked something, say for a scratch, and thought, damn that sounds good. It just fit with the sonic canvas of the rest of the song. Actually better than the real take after the mic warmed up. So what did I do? Turned the mic off and waited. Then did all my takes with the mic cold (over a period of time) to maintain that gritty-ness.
As always, use your ears.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Feb 28, 2015 9:13:46 GMT -6
EVERYTHING posted above is completely accurate!!
Also remember that your 1176s, LA3s and LA4s also need at least a 1/2 hour warm-up before they sound right and perform properly!!
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 28, 2015 14:04:28 GMT -6
I like that cowboy;learn the craft;rules and then learn how to break them too.
I was just telling Cat5 with my new d4 pre and my c12 /47, I spent 3 hours yesterday turning the Mikes slightly hearing all the differences and playing with the polar patterns; said I am either going crazy or learning: I'll go with learning.
I know you guys have heard it all before but I am really digging this dizengoff D4 , it and the 47 are like magic (and the c12 is none too shabby neither !)
ps Ward seems to know shit about my gear, I dont know , so I am looking in my basement for those other comps I didn't even know I had: thanks dude !! I am getting warmer !!
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Feb 28, 2015 16:54:06 GMT -6
Part of my recording technique includes not giving a $hit sometimes. I just want to sing, so wherever the hell the preamp was, that's where it stays, and I hit record. Sometimes it's better to get the moment than waste time tweaking. Obviously, It's a good idea to have your go to settings worked out, but I'm still working on that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Feb 28, 2015 19:54:51 GMT -6
In a traditional tube studio the gear was almost never shut off. Everything got new tubes at least once a year too.
|
|
|
|
Post by mobeach on Mar 1, 2015 6:57:31 GMT -6
Can a decent tube preamp give you the characteristics of a tube mic?
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Mar 1, 2015 7:59:34 GMT -6
well i think you are talking about two similiar but different things: electrical power and tube distortion characteristics ? When a tube distorts it add harmonic content which is pleasing to the ear ( arguably:)) in a microphone this could easily overdrive tbe circuit probably not so pleasing ? But a tube mike will have that warmer sound vs a FET but the tube mike will also have a transformer contributing to that tibe mike sound if you plug a fet 47 into a tube pre i don't think it will sound like the original tube 47. There are more knowledgable people here who can explain this more technically  |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 1, 2015 8:59:00 GMT -6
The tube softens the sound ever so slightly, which in general, is pleasing. I have a lovely integrated amp made by Peachtree Audio in my home stereo system, you can click the tube on or off, and it's very easy to hear the difference.
The truth is, it's subtle, but, getting things right is an important part of the artist's adventure, and if it ain't right, it bugs the shit out of you, uhh.. forever. No wonder we struggle to find a mic that's perfect for us. I cringe every time I hear my vocal, even though intellectually, I know my mic is superb. I just want to have one of these MK47's to try, just in case it suits me better. The thing with my mic, is it somehow translates emotion and meaning better than other mics I've tried, so even a "better" sounding mic might not be as effective.
I watched a mic shootout on Pensado's place the other day, they compared a U47, a Telefunken AK47 mkII, and their Copperhead. Then they compared the AK47 and the Telefunken 251, and the AK47 won again. My mic began as a handmade in Kentucky Blackspade/Oliver Archut design UM17, basically identical to the AK47 mk II, which Mr. Archut designed. Then I was lucky enough that both Oliver Archut and Mike from Blackspade recommended the Thiersch Blueline capsule upgrade, and Sinsay installed it, securing the mount with a little customization. So now this wonderful MK47 comes along and threatens to overthrow my UM17 Blueline from the go to mic throne. (Nice way of saying I can only afford one good mic right now). I'm looking forward to hearing one of these things for myself one day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Mar 1, 2015 10:57:28 GMT -6
I don't buy that tubes automagically improve sound. The main advantage is that the best designs have a wider dynamic range between unacceptable noise and unacceptable distortion. They can also present a higher input impedance that is a less taxing load to other gear. The power supply requirements make them much more expensive than what can be gotten away with using transistors and too often cheap carries the day in gear design.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 1, 2015 13:07:18 GMT -6
I used a U87 every day for a decade, and not once did I feel like I needed a tube. But once I did a live recording with an original mint condition C12, I would definitely take the C12 over the U87.
Now that I'm trying more new and different things, I find I like tube mics, especially this MK47 and the Tim Campbell C12 that was in another shootout.
I liked the sound of the Lauten Atlantis, which reminded me of a U47 FET, very very good, but missing something for vocals IMO. I did a shootout with my UM17 Blueline a year back through a restored Neve console with no effects at all. My mic sounded thinner in comparison, but when I put it in the track, voila`, it fit in much better than the Lauten, and had more life energy. I guess I'm a tube mic guy now, for vocals at least.
Now, when it comes to guitar amps, to my ears, there's no contest, tubes all the way.
|
|
