Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's  (Read 4270 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CorFit Chris

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
  • Gender: Male
    • InsideOut Recording & Promotions
Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« on: January 20, 2017, 02:31:47 PM »
Anyone have favorite preamp pairing with AKG 463 or 461?  I have both, well ck63's will be here in a week, and will be running both pairs together in most recordings (open).  I'll be getting active setups for both eventually using PFA's.  Soon thereafter, I will be looking towards getting a preamp to add to the mix and wonder if there is any consensus on best pairings?  Of course, I have already listened to several examples on the LMA, but all the variance in setup, location, venue, inline equipment, etc. has muddied the waters.  The Lunatec's are expensive and seldom available.  I like the price of the used mini-me's, but am also thinking along lines of Aerco mp2, SD USBpre 2.  Any thoughts?
LMA: https://archive.org/details/@corfit
SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/orithris
Mics: AKG 460 (ck61 & ck63) | Studio Projects C4 (cards & omni's) | CA-14 cards | SP-SPSM-9
Recorders: Tascam DR-70d  |  Tascam DR-60d  |  Tascam DR-2D
Preamp: CA Ugly
Camera: GoPro Hero 4 Silver

Offline Jhurlbs81

  • Trade Count: (18)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2214
  • Gender: Male
  • Reinvented, redefined, rearranged but not refined
    • My LMA collection
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2017, 02:48:27 PM »
I'd give it a try with your 680 by itself and see what you're missing. Good luck!

Offline rocksuitcase

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3434
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2017, 02:49:45 PM »
I would have chimed in with V3, but you ruled that out. IMO, after 29 years with the 460's the V3 is the best sounding outboard Pre-Amp I've ever heard in conjunction with AKG sound. Some think this combo is a bit "bright", but not to my ears.
I have almost zero experience with your other two choices but have heard many recordings with the USBpre2 and it seems quality.
I think the 680 could be modded by Oade's even if you didn't buy from them?
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG461/CK8|Beyer M 201E
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI

Offline CorFit Chris

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
  • Gender: Male
    • InsideOut Recording & Promotions
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2017, 03:05:34 PM »
I'd give it a try with your 680 by itself and see what you're missing. Good luck!

I definitely will, especially since I won't have the extra $ for a preamp for awhile.  Also, I will have the PFA setup and don't know how that will change the sound without the c460 amps.
LMA: https://archive.org/details/@corfit
SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/orithris
Mics: AKG 460 (ck61 & ck63) | Studio Projects C4 (cards & omni's) | CA-14 cards | SP-SPSM-9
Recorders: Tascam DR-70d  |  Tascam DR-60d  |  Tascam DR-2D
Preamp: CA Ugly
Camera: GoPro Hero 4 Silver

Offline CorFit Chris

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
  • Gender: Male
    • InsideOut Recording & Promotions
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2017, 03:07:40 PM »
I would have chimed in with V3, but you ruled that out. IMO, after 29 years with the 460's the V3 is the best sounding outboard Pre-Amp I've ever heard in conjunction with AKG sound. Some think this combo is a bit "bright", but not to my ears.
I have almost zero experience with your other two choices but have heard many recordings with the USBpre2 and it seems quality.
I think the 680 could be modded by Oade's even if you didn't buy from them?

I just listened to Bean's post on LMA with ck63's and the V3.  They sound really nice together, but I don't know if I'll have the $$ to get one if/when it comes available.  They don't stay in the Yard Sale long, and I can't finance an new one. So...
LMA: https://archive.org/details/@corfit
SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/orithris
Mics: AKG 460 (ck61 & ck63) | Studio Projects C4 (cards & omni's) | CA-14 cards | SP-SPSM-9
Recorders: Tascam DR-70d  |  Tascam DR-60d  |  Tascam DR-2D
Preamp: CA Ugly
Camera: GoPro Hero 4 Silver

Offline rocksuitcase

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3434
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2017, 03:18:34 PM »
Chris, one more example for you:
https://archive.org/details/breakfast2006-07-19.akg481.flac16

Source AKG 481s (DIN FOB OTS) > Lunatec V3 @ 48kHz > Sony PCM-M1
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG461/CK8|Beyer M 201E
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI

Offline vanark

  • TDS
  • Trade Count: (28)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • If you ain't right, you better get right!
    • The Mudboy Grotto - North Mississippi Allstar fan site
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2017, 05:43:14 PM »
I always liked the AKGs paired with  an Oade Warm mod UA-5. Sort of a dinosaur now, but still around and not too expensive if you can find one.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 05:46:11 PM by vanark »
If you have a problem relating to the Live Music Archive (http://www.archive.org/details/etree) please send an e-mail to us admins at etree(AT)archive(DOT)org or post in the LMA thread here and we'll get on it.

Link to LMA Recordings

Link to Team Dirty South Recordings on the LMA

Mics: AKG C480B/CK61, CK63 | Church Audio CA-11 (cards) (with CA UBB)
Pres: <empty>
Recorders: Tascam DR-60D | Sony PCM-M10

Offline jbell

  • TDS
  • Trade Count: (127)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3736
  • Gender: Male
  • Spreadicated
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2017, 06:28:15 PM »
I ran ck63's for a while with a few different pres and I liked them best with an Aerco MP-2.  I didn't like them with the V3, but only my opinion.  The Aerco is under rated and a great preamp.
Schoeps MK4's, MK41's> KCY 250/5 Ig> Schoeps VMS 5U> Sony PCM-M10

Offline obaaron

  • Trade Count: (39)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 995
  • Gender: Male
  • Wide Awake in San Diego!
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2017, 08:31:11 PM »
well if you dont have 750+ to drop on a V3 I'd look at a SD MP-2, and as mentiined above an Edirol UA5 with a Busman mod or one of the Oade mods which you can get on the real cheap these days, and also has a digital coax output to run into the dr680.

edit: And to be frank ive been running my mics right into my 680 lately and have been absolutely satisfied with he results...
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 08:35:34 PM by obaaron »
Mics:  Gefell M20,M21/sms2000/nbob | Schoeps MK4V/nbob | AKG c460b/c480b/a60/Naiant actives - ck61,62,63;ck1,3,8;ck1x,2x,3x | AT853, AT933 | CA-14, CA-11o
Pres:  Littlebox x 2 | Tinybox | SD MP-2 | Shure FP24 | BMod Edirol UA-5 | Church ST-9200
Recorders: Tascam DR-680 | Tascam DR-60D | Sony PCM-M10
Video: Canon VIXIA HF R42

**ISO** -  ????

Offline vanark

  • TDS
  • Trade Count: (28)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • If you ain't right, you better get right!
    • The Mudboy Grotto - North Mississippi Allstar fan site
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2017, 08:58:50 PM »
As you can see, I don't have any preamps. Run straight into the 60D. Very happy with the results and one less piece of gear in my bag.
If you have a problem relating to the Live Music Archive (http://www.archive.org/details/etree) please send an e-mail to us admins at etree(AT)archive(DOT)org or post in the LMA thread here and we'll get on it.

Link to LMA Recordings

Link to Team Dirty South Recordings on the LMA

Mics: AKG C480B/CK61, CK63 | Church Audio CA-11 (cards) (with CA UBB)
Pres: <empty>
Recorders: Tascam DR-60D | Sony PCM-M10

Offline darby

  • Trade Count: (58)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1216
  • Support artists and venues that allow recording
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2017, 09:59:44 PM »
I have ran several preamps with the 460 bodies:

SD MP-2 and Shure FP-24 (same)
Aerco MP-2
Lunatec V2 and 3
Littlebox
SD USBPre2

I feel that having a warm box like the SD Mp-2 and Aerco MP-2 works very well in a lot of situations where the sound is bright
like bluegrass and some rooms I have found the FOH runs a lot of high end

I feel that some situations though like in boomy sounding rooms, you need a cleaner box like the Lunatecs or the USBPre2 or even the Littlebox

I currently own both types of boxes and switch out for the type of music or room sound
I still think that having an external pre gives me more control of the sound of the recording and is easier to dial in the levels than running straight into a recorder
I mostly run Sony M-10s now so I obviously need an external preamp
The MiniMe is a box I've never ran, but hear it is on the warm side

Offline CorFit Chris

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
  • Gender: Male
    • InsideOut Recording & Promotions
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2017, 08:01:26 PM »
Lots of good feedback here.  Many options to consider (coloration, size, output, price, venues, etc.).  I do like the performance of my DR 680 alone, but I want that smooth, powerful sound that I only recognize from recordings with external preamps.  After listening to lots of shows, I admit I have really taken to the V3 influence.  The Aerco shows I heard rip too, and that creates a smaller package when paired with my DR2D or DR-60.  Both are $$$, but may be worth the wait.  Not sure if the more affordable ones add much to my pulls except weight in the bag.
LMA: https://archive.org/details/@corfit
SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/orithris
Mics: AKG 460 (ck61 & ck63) | Studio Projects C4 (cards & omni's) | CA-14 cards | SP-SPSM-9
Recorders: Tascam DR-70d  |  Tascam DR-60d  |  Tascam DR-2D
Preamp: CA Ugly
Camera: GoPro Hero 4 Silver

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11042
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2017, 05:12:39 PM »
Good advice above.  It really depends on your goals. 

If interested in different preamp sonic colorations and/or subtle detail and imaging differences (which are certainly audible, but relatively minor compared to the microphones, microphone setup, and position in the venue), I suggest borrowing a few different preamps to get a feel for how their inclusion in the signal chain differs from going direct into the recorder.  The exception is the DR2d which will require an external preamp in more cases.  The internal preamps of the DR-680mkii are on the "clean and mostly character-free" end of the flavor range, and most of the preamps you list are somewhat similar in flavor.   Of those listed, I imagine you'll probably hear the biggest tone-color difference using a transformer based preamp such as the Areco.

I'm satisfied going direct into the DR-680mkii, so these days I mostly reserve the V3 for when I need to leverage it's digital output to record an additional 2 channels if I already have 6 going in analog directly.

Strictly sound-wise, I do prefer using the V3, but not enough so to justify it very often except as a way to get those extra channels recorded.  That's mostly for practical reasons- it requires significant bag space itself, requires separate powering (and bag space for that), generates sometimes problematic waste heat, and requires additional interconnects which represent potential points of failure.  I have enough to deal with recording 6 channels, and the simplification of eliminating all that extra stuff trumps the sonic advantages in most situations for me.   So I mostly choose to it when I need it's phantom power or digital output (practical reasons).

I have no problem manipulating the sound afterwards, so I also prefer "clean and clear" to "warm and goeey" in the raw recording because it limits my options less.  I can make it warm and gooey after the fact, but can't easily do the reverse, if at all.  But if you are searching for a particular flavor in the raw recordings without further manipulation, an appropriate preamp can provide the most appropriate icing on that mics/setup/location layer cake.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Online kindms

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4051
    • The Breakfast
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2017, 07:35:01 PM »
Lots of good feedback here.  Many options to consider (coloration, size, output, price, venues, etc.).  I do like the performance of my DR 680 alone, but I want that smooth, powerful sound that I only recognize from recordings with external preamps.  After listening to lots of shows, I admit I have really taken to the V3 influence.  The Aerco shows I heard rip too, and that creates a smaller package when paired with my DR2D or DR-60.  Both are $$$, but may be worth the wait.  Not sure if the more affordable ones add much to my pulls except weight in the bag.

I have run them with a UA5, DMIC20, v3, oade t-mod hdp2 and the 680 of rocksuitcases.

i loved the dmic20, v3 etc but dmic20 is a 16*bit pre/ad and the v3 + my 414s ATE batteries. but v3 was choice but for bag and battery considerations i go straight modded hdp2 now. i dont think ive given up much ditching the v3.

Given the opportunity and state of bit buckets now i might pounce on a V3 if one comes up again. just a really versatile piece of EQ
AKG414 XLS/ST> TCM-Mod Tascam HDP2
Musichall Mambo > VR-2's

Offline MakersMarc

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Gender: Male
  • Dust of long dead stars is what we are.
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2017, 07:36:05 PM »
Funny how peeps hear differently, I can't think of a combo I dislike more than akg cards or hypers into a v3. Thin and brittle, the same thing I thought of 4022>v3 when I owned that combo. When I had the AKGs I really really liked the SD MP2 nice and warm but very detailed. Aerco should be the same. I'd imagine an Oade warm mod 661 might do the trick as well, it's nice and warm but fairly detailed. Or an Oade warm mod FR2LE both of which can be had for 300-350.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2017, 07:38:14 PM by MakersMarc »
Mk4v/41v>Nbob kcy x2>nbox platinum/Naiant PFA/Naiant IPA>Oade warm mod Marantz 661 x2/Sony pcm m10x2

Offline CorFit Chris

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
  • Gender: Male
    • InsideOut Recording & Promotions
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2017, 12:50:08 PM »
I definitely hear a stronger, cleaner sound when a preamp is present.  Maybe the coloration isn't that important if I can learn how to better use post processing software. 

Interestingly, I am seeing used Sound Devices 302 is similar in price to the MixPre-D and USBpre 2.  Also, a used SD Mixpre is around $500.  Pros or cons to the SD 302 or Mixpre?
LMA: https://archive.org/details/@corfit
SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/orithris
Mics: AKG 460 (ck61 & ck63) | Studio Projects C4 (cards & omni's) | CA-14 cards | SP-SPSM-9
Recorders: Tascam DR-70d  |  Tascam DR-60d  |  Tascam DR-2D
Preamp: CA Ugly
Camera: GoPro Hero 4 Silver

Offline Jhurlbs81

  • Trade Count: (18)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2214
  • Gender: Male
  • Reinvented, redefined, rearranged but not refined
    • My LMA collection
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2017, 02:27:43 PM »
If you really like the V3 sound but don't want to pay 700-800, look for a V2 as they can be had for $500.  The AD in your 680 is probably better than the one in the V3 anyway, IMO.

Offline rocksuitcase

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3434
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2017, 02:38:41 PM »
If you really like the V3 sound but don't want to pay 700-800, look for a V2 as they can be had for $500.  The AD in your 680 is probably better than the one in the V3 anyway, IMO.
kindms and I have been having this convo. I've been coveting the V2's which come up for sale infrequently; but he accurately contends the reason to have the V3 is for the digi out.
If you don't need/desire digi out, the electronics in the V3 are similar although I do think Grace used a different op amp between the two.
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG461/CK8|Beyer M 201E
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI

Offline darby

  • Trade Count: (58)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1216
  • Support artists and venues that allow recording
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2017, 02:53:42 PM »
If you really like the V3 sound but don't want to pay 700-800, look for a V2 as they can be had for $500.  The AD in your 680 is probably better than the one in the V3 anyway, IMO.
kindms and I have been having this convo. I've been coveting the V2's which come up for sale infrequently; but he accurately contends the reason to have the V3 is for the digi out.
If you don't need/desire digi out, the electronics in the V3 are similar although I do think Grace used a different op amp between the two.

I believe Mike at one time said they were "identical"
the main benefit to the V3 over the V2 is the metering besides the digital out
I did like having an RCA out on the V2 though

the USBPre 2 in my opinion sounded very similar to the Lunatecs (maybe a touch warmer) with many different outputs
I sold mine because I am doing alot less shows now and it was a preamp I knew would sell easily

EDIT:
from the archives
http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=90060.0
« Last Edit: January 24, 2017, 09:00:47 PM by darby »

Offline ~Jon Stoppable

  • Trade Count: (46)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
  • Gender: Male
    • Naiant Studio
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2017, 03:34:29 PM »
If you really like the V3 sound but don't want to pay 700-800, look for a V2 as they can be had for $500.  The AD in your 680 is probably better than the one in the V3 anyway, IMO.

I would doubt that.  DR680mkII spec for ADA dynamic range is 100dB; V3 (AD only) is 110dB.  It's likely that Tascam used a codec (ADC + DAC), usually the DAC spec on those is slightly better than the ADC, so I'd guess the ADC only is no better than 103dBA.  This is ignoring factors such as clock jitter, but dynamic range is usually a pretty good proxy for overall quality of conversion.

Offline MakersMarc

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Gender: Male
  • Dust of long dead stars is what we are.
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2017, 04:16:18 PM »
If you really like the V3 sound but don't want to pay 700-800, look for a V2 as they can be had for $500.  The AD in your 680 is probably better than the one in the V3 anyway, IMO.

I would doubt that.  DR680mkII spec for ADA dynamic range is 100dB; V3 (AD only) is 110dB.  It's likely that Tascam used a codec (ADC + DAC), usually the DAC spec on those is slightly better than the ADC, so I'd guess the ADC only is no better than 103dBA.  This is ignoring factors such as clock jitter, but dynamic range is usually a pretty good proxy for overall quality of conversion.

Or you can trust your ears and not specs.
Mk4v/41v>Nbob kcy x2>nbox platinum/Naiant PFA/Naiant IPA>Oade warm mod Marantz 661 x2/Sony pcm m10x2

Offline ~Jon Stoppable

  • Trade Count: (46)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
  • Gender: Male
    • Naiant Studio
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #21 on: January 24, 2017, 07:39:13 PM »
Or you can trust your ears and not specs.

Or you can know something about circuit design and how the parts in question behave, and combine that with familiarity of the design philosophy of Grace and Tascam (nothing against them, I have had several of their bits over the years).

And quite honestly I have seen or heard so few even somewhat well controlled listening tests over the years that I would rely much more heavily on (reputable) specifications than any given person's ears.  These two bits of kit would be pretty easy to compare just in terms of ADC, because you can run the V3 both analog and digital into the 680.  But if you do so, please use a source with a very wide dynamic range; maybe a symphony orchestra.

I would just do a bench test though.  So I would be willing to wager a Jackson that the Grace will measure 7-10dB better dynamic range and probably less jitter as well.  If you prefer less dynamic range or more jitter, that is easy to do in post-processing if you know how.

And if you prefer very little dynamic range and lots of jitter, just record directly to cassette!

But if it were me, I'd probably record direct to the Tascam for convenience, and because its conversion is probably good enough--even though it's barely better than 17 bit, that is more than most sources can manage.

Offline MakersMarc

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Gender: Male
  • Dust of long dead stars is what we are.
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #22 on: January 24, 2017, 08:28:10 PM »
I'm sure the v3 has killer specs, far more impressive than say an Oade M148. I owned it for four shows I think, I wanted to toss it out the window on the way home from the last one,just horrible, thin, brittle sounding, awful. In my opinion you cannot choose gear for what we do on specs. If you could, the Sonic AD2k+  would be a revered piece of gear in the taping community.
Mk4v/41v>Nbob kcy x2>nbox platinum/Naiant PFA/Naiant IPA>Oade warm mod Marantz 661 x2/Sony pcm m10x2

Offline ~Jon Stoppable

  • Trade Count: (46)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
  • Gender: Male
    • Naiant Studio
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #23 on: January 24, 2017, 08:51:41 PM »
Is that distortion or noise or is it accuracy?  That's trivial to discern on a bench test.  And if it so happens that you do not favor accuracy, that's fine, but that is not at issue.  The statement was that the ADC in a 680 is "probably better than" a V3.  Objectively, I highly doubt that is so, because Tascam and Grace agree that it is not.

Offline Walstib62

  • Trade Count: (25)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2247
  • Gender: Male
  • Archivist-Virginia Key Grassroots Festival
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #24 on: January 25, 2017, 12:33:55 AM »
Yes, but what do you hear???
Thanks Ben!!!

Offline DATBRAD

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #25 on: January 25, 2017, 07:13:36 AM »
Having run 460s arguably as long or longer than any active member on this forum, I'll add my .02 about preamps used with them. Warm preamps tend to bring out the best qualities in these mics "to my ears" over those more transparent sounding. Now, my ears are by no means a benchmark for objective comparisons, I'm just stating how things sound to me. I felt that way in 1994 when I first started using 460s, and after experiments with other front ends over the years since has only reinforced the opinion I initially developed of these mics. So, to the OP, seek ways to try different preamps, and running directly into recorders as well. Let your own preference decide. And don't forget that music recording in particular has an aspect unique to audio recording in general. Timbre is that quality of human brain sound processing that allows some of us with the ability to easily tell the difference between instruments without seeing them. By mathematical specs alone, a note played by a trumpet at the same amplitude and pitch as a French horn should sound identical. Same for a note played by a violin versus a cello. Using the measurement tools that report specs, there would be no difference between any two instruments of the same type (strings/strings or woodwinds/woodwinds) playing the same note at the same pitch and amplitude. It's easy to dismiss the opinions of someone's ears, which explains why contestants in singing reality shows that cannot hear that they are singing off key are so pissed when they are told the truth.
AKG C460B w/CK61/CK63 or Beyerdynamic M201TG>Luminous Monarch XLRs>SD MP-1(x2)>Luminous Monarch XLRs>PMD661(Oade WMOD)

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11042
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #26 on: January 25, 2017, 09:37:41 AM »
Having run 460s arguably as long or longer than any active member on this forum, I'll add my .02 about preamps used with them. Warm preamps tend to bring out the best qualities in these mics "to my ears" over those more transparent sounding. Now, my ears are by no means a benchmark for objective comparisons, I'm just stating how things sound to me. I felt that way in 1994 when I first started using 460s, and after experiments with other front ends over the years since has only reinforced the opinion I initially developed of these mics. So, to the OP, seek ways to try different preamps, and running directly into recorders as well. Let your own preference decide.[snip]

I started off reading the post above thinking this was a totally reasonable conclusion of the thread.. that was until I got to the part below. 

Quote
By mathematical specs alone, a note played by a trumpet at the same amplitude and pitch as a French horn should sound identical. Same for a note played by a violin versus a cello. Using the measurement tools that report specs, there would be no difference between any two instruments of the same type (strings/strings or woodwinds/woodwinds) playing the same note at the same pitch and amplitude. It's easy to dismiss the opinions of someone's ears, which explains why contestants in singing reality shows that cannot hear that they are singing off key are so pissed when they are told the truth.

No offence, but this totally incorrect and completely off base.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Offline MakersMarc

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Gender: Male
  • Dust of long dead stars is what we are.
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #27 on: January 25, 2017, 11:30:16 AM »
Is that distortion or noise or is it accuracy?  That's trivial to discern on a bench test.  And if it so happens that you do not favor accuracy, that's fine, but that is not at issue.  The statement was that the ADC in a 680 is "probably better than" a V3.  Objectively, I highly doubt that is so, because Tascam and Grace agree that it is not.


We can agree to disagree on what constitutes accuracy; to me it's a euphonically pleasing recording that sounds very close to what it sounded like live. my 4011>v2>2k or v3 recordings are just about unlistenable....brittle, strident, thin, all recorded with proper technique up front. Put 4022s paired with an aeta psp2 or m148 and an apogee ad1000 or sbm1 in the same location and venue, everything changes. For me. Another set of ears might love the former combo, but it's not due to the specs alone. The best advice I ever received was to forget specs and let my ears decide. Doug Oade.  :headphones:
Mk4v/41v>Nbob kcy x2>nbox platinum/Naiant PFA/Naiant IPA>Oade warm mod Marantz 661 x2/Sony pcm m10x2

Online nolamule

  • Trade Count: (18)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
  • where's my mule?
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #28 on: January 25, 2017, 11:54:47 AM »
The best advice I ever received was to forget specs and let my ears decide. Doug Oade.  :headphones:

Bingo!  :cheers:

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11042
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #29 on: January 25, 2017, 01:19:17 PM »
We're in big trouble if we can't agree on a definition of accuracy.

It's true that the most appropriate goal for live music reproduction is the creation of an euphonically pleasing recording, in part because that is a goal which is actually achievable.  An truly accurate reproduction of the live event is simply and demonstrably not possible.  We know that because we can define such accuracy in specific, objective terms (upon which one quickly realizes that achieving it outright is impossible by all practical measures), whereas we cannot fully and objectively define what makes for a euphonically pleasing, emotionally convening audio playback experience.  Instead we "know it when we hear it" and become willing participants in deceiving ourselves that it sounds "just like it did live", when by truly objective measures of accuracy it both does not and cannot.  Yet in the end that short coming is inconsequential.  All that maters is that the listener enjoy the result to the fullest extent possible, that they can easily, willingly, and unconsciously suspend disbelief so as to experience playback as if the live experience is actually being recreated in a way that feels accurate to them in a totally convincing way.

How to get to that appropriate subjective goal is the more useful and pragmatic question.  There is more than one road to Rome.  Some do it by developing a method and signal chain which produces a recording which maximized those qualities without further manipulation, or with minimal further manipulation.  If one part of the signal chain is less than accurate in one way, introducing something else in the chain which is less than accurate but in an inverse way to the other part does reduce the inaccuracy.  In this case, a wrong + an inverse wrong = something closer to right.  Some do it by striving for increased accuracy over euphony throughout the capture phase to the extent that such is practically achievable, with the intent of making the most effective appropriate euphonious manipulations afterwards. 

Neither method is correct nor incorrect.  That mastering engineers are valued for things other than simply converting and packaging content for release (and that great ones are well compensated for their ability to make subjective euphonious manipulations) is acknowledgement of such.  Those guys both know and trust objective specifications, and also know and trust their subjective intuitions.  They know how to handle both and are more aware of the appropriate intersection of those realms than most.

This is similar to alternate uses of the word truth.  Sometimes that world is used to refer to factual truth (objective "agreed upon" truths), sometimes emotional/poetic truths ("it's true to me").  Conveying meaning accurately depends on agreement on the definition of the terms used, by both the speaker and audience.  Funny ha ha or funny weird?

What we have here is a failure to communicate.  What we have here is, on the face of things, an argument about method (which road to Rome), with and a deeper disconnect concerning agreement of which Rome we're referring to - for some it might be one of the 21 different communities named Rome in the USA, for others its the big one in Italy.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Offline CorFit Chris

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
  • Gender: Male
    • InsideOut Recording & Promotions
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #30 on: January 25, 2017, 02:10:36 PM »
With all of you here, I would pose the question as to what is considered "warmth" in recording sound.  It seems typical for you all to mention it when talking about specific equipment and combinations (preamps, mics, etc.).  But I have read several contradicting statements to such.  Without mentioning names or instances, I've heard the V2 & V3 described as warm or transparent.  The same for several other popular preamps.  Maybe this is also a "my ear vs your ear" concept, but do we know if there is any real consensus on this site with the descriptor words used for preamp sound qualities?  I would like to see a post, if not already out there, that has links to a handful of recordings which exhibit clear examples of warmth, transparency, accuracy, etc.  That would be a nice starting  point for developing subjective agreement on sound. 
LMA: https://archive.org/details/@corfit
SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/orithris
Mics: AKG 460 (ck61 & ck63) | Studio Projects C4 (cards & omni's) | CA-14 cards | SP-SPSM-9
Recorders: Tascam DR-70d  |  Tascam DR-60d  |  Tascam DR-2D
Preamp: CA Ugly
Camera: GoPro Hero 4 Silver

Offline ~Jon Stoppable

  • Trade Count: (46)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
  • Gender: Male
    • Naiant Studio
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #31 on: January 25, 2017, 03:08:10 PM »
It's totally impossible to measure equipment by your subjective evaluation that any particular recording chain is a more accurate representation of something you heard hours or days or years earlier.  You simply can't evaluate sound on playback in reference to live sounds that occurred in the past.  Your brain can't do that.  Try mixing a record sometime and see how you make EQ adjustments every day you sit down and work on it.  Why does your brain do that?  I dunno, but it does.  It just doesn't really remember exactly how it sounded yesterday when you "finished" it, so it wants you to make more changes.  Or maybe you heard something you "didn't hear yesterday".  Sure you heard it yesterday; your brain just didn't pay attention because it was focusing on something else.  Your audio gear remembers just fine though and will play it back the exact same way, unless you change the gear or move the furniture around or something.

I reject the entire concept that "what we do" is somehow different from what everybody else does with audio equipment.  It's the same, other than some interesting problems in microphone selection and placement.  But to an amplifier, it's exactly the same.

In fact, you are handicapped in that you can't effectively monitor your recordings because you can't isolate yourself from the acoustic source to a sufficient degree.  An engineer in a studio control room can monitor a direct feed or send that same signal through any given chain (compression, ADA, etc.) and get an immediate A/B comparison.  You can't do that at a concert (unless you have a remote truck), but you can pretend that your subjective impressive of playback at a later time is a closer representation to what you heard, when the reality is it's what you would like to remember that you heard.

Further, it is easily demonstrable that if you want an accurate reproduction of what you heard you should always use binaural omnis and the flattest pair of reference headphones you can find.  But you don't want to do that, because you want to pretend that wook next to you wasn't yelling "Freebird" the whole concert, so you use hypercardioids that minimize that crap.

But your ears didn't minimize the wook, they heard him just fine.  It's just that the extremely powerful DSP that is your brain conditioned itself to ignore him (or the AC noise or the PA hum or whatever), but on playback your brain just can't quite manage the same trick because it lacks the same spatial cues.  So you use a hypercardioid and pretend it's more "accurate".  No it's not, it's more "euphonic".

Which is fine, I would do the same thing.  I wouldn't pretend that accuracy was my goal though, because it's not.  I want to make a recording where I like to listen to the finished product.  So I'll use any tool that gets that job done; EQ, compression (maybe multiband), reverb, multiple channels, etc. and I won't care if it's "accurate" or not.  But I do know the difference.

But we aren't even talking about microphones, we are talking about amplifiers and converters, which have the dumbest job in the world:  signal out equals signal in, maybe with some amplification, and with necessary bandwidth-limiting in the converters and supplying some DC power to your microphones by the amplifier.  That's it.  That's all.  If you want your amplifiers to do something else, well now you have an effects box inside your amplifier.  Which is also fine, but let's not pretend that is accuracy either.

And why "trust your ears"?  Odds are that your ears suck.  We are a bunch of middle-aged men who have been to too many loud concerts.  I would trust a seven year old girl's ears before I would trust anybody here, because they can hear lots of things that we simply can't anymore.

Online kindms

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4051
    • The Breakfast
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #32 on: January 25, 2017, 06:35:44 PM »
And why "trust your ears"?  Odds are that your ears suck.  We are a bunch of middle-aged men who have been to too many loud concerts.  I would trust a seven year old girl's ears before I would trust anybody here, because they can hear lots of things that we simply can't anymore.


this! Above needed some love. too true which is why i tend to ask my wife for critiques. classically trained musician with ears that are actually still good. and she pulls no punches

AKG414 XLS/ST> TCM-Mod Tascam HDP2
Musichall Mambo > VR-2's

Offline DATBRAD

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #33 on: January 25, 2017, 06:47:06 PM »
Having run 460s arguably as long or longer than any active member on this forum, I'll add my .02 about preamps used with them. Warm preamps tend to bring out the best qualities in these mics "to my ears" over those more transparent sounding. Now, my ears are by no means a benchmark for objective comparisons, I'm just stating how things sound to me. I felt that way in 1994 when I first started using 460s, and after experiments with other front ends over the years since has only reinforced the opinion I initially developed of these mics. So, to the OP, seek ways to try different preamps, and running directly into recorders as well. Let your own preference decide.[snip]

I started off reading the post above thinking this was a totally reasonable conclusion of the thread.. that was until I got to the part below. 

Quote
By mathematical specs alone, a note played by a trumpet at the same amplitude and pitch as a French horn should sound identical. Same for a note played by a violin versus a cello. Using the measurement tools that report specs, there would be no difference between any two instruments of the same type (strings/strings or woodwinds/woodwinds) playing the same note at the same pitch and amplitude. It's easy to dismiss the opinions of someone's ears, which explains why contestants in singing reality shows that cannot hear that they are singing off key are so pissed when they are told the truth.

No offence, buta this totally incorrect and completely off base.

Really? Please explain why you say that. Would you consider results of test recordings using the mathematical technique called the Fourier Transform as getting to the meat of what the brain processes from sounds hitting the inner ear? Since this depth of measurement isn't on gear specs, wouldn't you agree that currently published specs are limited in what they can describe?
AKG C460B w/CK61/CK63 or Beyerdynamic M201TG>Luminous Monarch XLRs>SD MP-1(x2)>Luminous Monarch XLRs>PMD661(Oade WMOD)

Offline ~Jon Stoppable

  • Trade Count: (46)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
  • Gender: Male
    • Naiant Studio
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #34 on: January 25, 2017, 07:48:18 PM »
A Fourier transform on the sustain of any instrument would reveal its unique series of overtones, which is a big part of the timbral difference of instruments.  Added to that are the AD and R portions of the ADSR curve, together with sustained inharmonic sounds like breath noise, mechanical noises from things like keywork, bow scrape, etc., etc.  But even if you analyze only the sustain you'll be able to place a natural sound within its family of instruments, if not the instrument itself, simply by the order and relative strength of its overtones.

This doesn't have much to do with specs, but if you consider that a series of overtones is always a multiple of a fundamental, then you can simply study the behavior of a simulated fundamental (a sine wave) in considering how distortion will impact amplifier accuracy.

You can then study intermodulation distortion if you like (it tends to be pretty well correlated with THD, if the circuit is working properly), but on a single note from a single instrument you won't get much, because the IMD products will all be in the harmonic series (they are sum-and-difference tones, so for example 1+2=3 and 3-1=2, all in the harmonic series of 1).  If you have two or more notes (or inharmonic tones), then the IMD will appear as a new tone.  Again, you can study this simply with two sine waves and the result can be directly extrapolated to more complex series of tones (which you can also model if you like).

And then you can apply Fourier theory to learn that even sources like noise (bow scrape, breath, etc.) are all really just very complex series of individual sine waves, and you'll understand that also directly correlates to the distortion performance of the amplifier.

There are a few other things you can study like bandwidth, noise, transient response, jitter in an ADC; all have a directly understandable impact on amplifier performance with more complex series.  You don't always (or ever) see those in specs, but you can measure them in a bench test without much fuss.

Does anybody really think the DR680 is going to beat a V3 in those parameters?  As I said, based on my personal experience in component selection and circuit design, ADC dynamic range tends to be a good proxy for overall performance.  That is because not too many people will spend a lot of money on an expensive ADC chip only to pair it with a terrible PLL circuit, noisy power supply, or dreadful analog buffer stage.  That would be penny and pound foolish.  There may be some exceptions to that rule-of-thumb, but I highly doubt Mike Grace is one of them.

Offline rocksuitcase

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3434
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #35 on: January 25, 2017, 08:54:49 PM »
And why "trust your ears"?  Odds are that your ears suck.  We are a bunch of middle-aged men who have been to too many loud concerts.  I would trust a seven year old girl's ears before I would trust anybody here, because they can hear lots of things that we simply can't anymore.


this! Above needed some love. too true which is why i tend to ask my wife for critiques. classically trained musician with ears that are actually still good. and she pulls no punches
QFt to both of you. I've been to an audiologist and know how much hearing loss I have, and after close to 2,000 loud rock concerts I'm not surprised.

Perfectly stated Jon. Both the short quote above and really your entire synopsis of "what we do" and how it gets listened to and what we are going for anyway. We are not reproducing reality, we are capturing a digital representation of an electro-acoustical (mechanical) event and then reproducing it electronically, which can introduce more sonic changes,  then presenting an illusion of the event for human ears to process via a playback system which can further introduce more sonic changes.

I'm totally with you on binaural. I wish we had never stopped bringing our Sennheiser binaural's (MKE2002) to GD shows after we bought "better" microphones. Each and every one of the binaural shows has more spatial accuracy than any 20 of the C422 recordings. Of course, as you say, we aren't seeking spatial accuracy as much as something we can playback on our car stereos.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2017, 07:32:44 AM by rocksuitcase »
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG461/CK8|Beyer M 201E
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI

Offline rocksuitcase

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3434
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #36 on: January 25, 2017, 09:34:17 PM »
With all of you here, I would pose the question as to what is considered "warmth" in recording sound.  It seems typical for you all to mention it when talking about specific equipment and combinations (preamps, mics, etc.).  But I have read several contradicting statements to such.  Without mentioning names or instances, I've heard the V2 & V3 described as warm or transparent.  The same for several other popular preamps.  Maybe this is also a "my ear vs your ear" concept, but do we know if there is any real consensus on this site with the descriptor words used for preamp sound qualities?  I would like to see a post, if not already out there, that has links to a handful of recordings which exhibit clear examples of warmth, transparency, accuracy, etc.  That would be a nice starting  point for developing subjective agreement on sound.
Chris, I think your original idea and questions have been pulled way out of where you asked from. For the part I played in the mini thread jack I apologize.
Then to provide some answer to your concept:
Warmth and Transparency are tough to describe audiologically, as that is all individual experience. As mentioned upthread, from a pre-amp design pov, Doug Oade does a good job explaining it in terms of the circuit modifications they do:
http://www.oade.com/
Quote
The Marantz PMD 661MKII Concert MOD upgrade rebuilds the XLR inputs using high speed, low noise and very low distortion op amps that dramatically improve fine detail and clarity. The result is a very detailed, open 3D soundstage. Components are selected by ear to optimize detail and imaging for recording all types of music where transparency is needed. (Edit- i.e transparent)

The Marantz PMD 661MKII Warm MOD upgrade rebuilds the XLR inputs using high speed, low noise and very low distortion FET op amps that dramatically improve fine detail and clarity. the Warm MODs preamp chips use FETs so they sound very much like a tube preamp with the warm sound that offers a fat rounded bass tone, a sweet silky high end and the expansive soundstage found in high end tube circuits. Components are selected by ear to optimize detail and imaging for recording all types of music when a warm tone is needed.
I bolded the parts which are relevant to your questions.
Hopefully others can link to some good examples.
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG461/CK8|Beyer M 201E
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI

Offline CorFit Chris

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
  • Gender: Male
    • InsideOut Recording & Promotions
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #37 on: January 25, 2017, 11:49:09 PM »
With all of you here, I would pose the question as to what is considered "warmth" in recording sound.  It seems typical for you all to mention it when talking about specific equipment and combinations (preamps, mics, etc.).  But I have read several contradicting statements to such.  Without mentioning names or instances, I've heard the V2 & V3 described as warm or transparent.  The same for several other popular preamps.  Maybe this is also a "my ear vs your ear" concept, but do we know if there is any real consensus on this site with the descriptor words used for preamp sound qualities?  I would like to see a post, if not already out there, that has links to a handful of recordings which exhibit clear examples of warmth, transparency, accuracy, etc.  That would be a nice starting  point for developing subjective agreement on sound.
Chris, I think your original idea and questions have been pulled way out of where you asked from. For the part I played in the mini thread jack I apologize.
Then to provide some answer to your concept:
Warmth and Transparency are tough to describe audiologically, as that is all individual experience. As mentioned upthread, from a pre-amp design pov, Doug Oade does a good job explaining it in terms of the circuit modifications they do:
http://www.oade.com/
Quote
The Marantz PMD 661MKII Concert MOD upgrade rebuilds the XLR inputs using high speed, low noise and very low distortion op amps that dramatically improve fine detail and clarity. The result is a very detailed, open 3D soundstage. Components are selected by ear to optimize detail and imaging for recording all types of music where transparency is needed. (Edit- i.e transparent)

The Marantz PMD 661MKII Warm MOD upgrade rebuilds the XLR inputs using high speed, low noise and very low distortion FET op amps that dramatically improve fine detail and clarity. the Warm MODs preamp chips use FETs so they sound very much like a tube preamp with the warm sound that offers a fat rounded bass tone, a sweet silky high end and the expansive soundstage found in high end tube circuits. Components are selected by ear to optimize detail and imaging for recording all types of music when a warm tone is needed.
I bolded the parts which are relevant to your questions.
Hopefully others can link to some good examples.

Thanks.  I don't mind the hijack because I am typically learning from it, and I'm just happy to see others taking their time and energy to help out.  But, I'm glad you came back to my questions.  I will look up some shows using these two different MOD recorders and hopefully be able to identify the differences.  I would still love to get a few glaring examples from some of you.
LMA: https://archive.org/details/@corfit
SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/orithris
Mics: AKG 460 (ck61 & ck63) | Studio Projects C4 (cards & omni's) | CA-14 cards | SP-SPSM-9
Recorders: Tascam DR-70d  |  Tascam DR-60d  |  Tascam DR-2D
Preamp: CA Ugly
Camera: GoPro Hero 4 Silver

Offline MakersMarc

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Gender: Male
  • Dust of long dead stars is what we are.
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #38 on: January 26, 2017, 10:38:34 AM »
Apologize as well, I way hijacked this thread.  :facepalm:

The above snippet from Doug Oade really does a nice job of describing the sound it seems you are looking for. As I may have mentioned, a used warm mod (or new) is a great way to start figuring out what sound you like...i find it plenty warm but also detailed enough. Best of luck!
Mk4v/41v>Nbob kcy x2>nbox platinum/Naiant PFA/Naiant IPA>Oade warm mod Marantz 661 x2/Sony pcm m10x2

Offline Wiggler

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1263
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #39 on: January 26, 2017, 11:02:20 AM »
Apologize as well, I way hijacked this thread.  :facepalm:

The above snippet from Doug Oade really does a nice job of describing the sound it seems you are looking for. As I may have mentioned, a used warm mod (or new) is a great way to start figuring out what sound you like...i find it plenty warm but also detailed enough. Best of luck!

I thought it was great to see a glimpse of the old MakersMarc the one that would say things like the AD2K sounds like a wire.  You used to be a real firecracker in your younger years.  ;D

Offline MakersMarc

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Gender: Male
  • Dust of long dead stars is what we are.
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #40 on: January 26, 2017, 11:34:33 AM »
 8)
Mk4v/41v>Nbob kcy x2>nbox platinum/Naiant PFA/Naiant IPA>Oade warm mod Marantz 661 x2/Sony pcm m10x2

Offline ~Jon Stoppable

  • Trade Count: (46)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
  • Gender: Male
    • Naiant Studio
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #41 on: January 26, 2017, 12:03:53 PM »
If you are looking at modifications that involve, say, swapping opamps, you should find the following to be true: assuming that the new devices are appropriate for the circuit in which they are installed (this is a fairly broad brush here), then in a valid comparison (that is, not two completely different shows, or the same shows with different mics, or the same show same mics but different locations, etc., but same mic same stand same show split to different recorders) the differences should be small.

That's not to say that the difference is zero or undetectable (although it could be), but if you are looking to correct some perceived deficiency in a microphone, a good EQ is a much better tool for that as it can make several orders of magnitude more change than only a preamp.  And that's significant, because differences between microphones can be quite large.  So if you for some reason feel like you should have used Schoeps vs. AKG (or vice versa), an EQ will get a *lot* closer to the other brand than a change in a preamp circuit.

That won't help you get from one polar pattern to the other though. That can only be done by using one of several multi-coincident microphone techniques that let you attain multiple polar patterns in post-processing.

And the good news is that good EQs are free these days--but if your hobby is spending money that will probably not appeal.

Offline CorFit Chris

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
  • Gender: Male
    • InsideOut Recording & Promotions
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #42 on: January 26, 2017, 12:26:37 PM »
After spending some time listening to several recordings of various MODs, I definitely understand what is considered "warm" sound.  It is with I was thinking it was.  I enjoy it, but likely as a change of pace from time to time, or when mixing with a 2nd pair of mics.  While it is smoother and may be easier on the ears, I definitely feel it isn't necessarily as "accurate" as the sound in the venue.  That can be a pro or a con.  Some easy ways to hear the differentiation is to listen to shows with the UA-5 Oade warm mod vs concert mod.  I think I would pick up a UA-5 Oade warm mod if one came available.  Wouldn't be a large investment and would allow for experimentation in my typical venues and genre.  I wouldn't want to mod my dr680 because I would be stuck with that characteristic whether I wanted it or not.  Regardless of the type of external preamp, I do feel that most all of them add a certain power and drive to recordings that otherwise aren't there with the recorder alone.  That is something I desire.  Maybe I just need to learn how to better post process and create a set of EQ standards for different sound.
LMA: https://archive.org/details/@corfit
SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/orithris
Mics: AKG 460 (ck61 & ck63) | Studio Projects C4 (cards & omni's) | CA-14 cards | SP-SPSM-9
Recorders: Tascam DR-70d  |  Tascam DR-60d  |  Tascam DR-2D
Preamp: CA Ugly
Camera: GoPro Hero 4 Silver

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11042
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #43 on: January 26, 2017, 06:42:42 PM »
The other route to pursue is to see how close you can get to the characteristic sound of using the device by manipulation of the resulting file (be that characteristic "warm" or otherwise).  EQ is so powerful because it can, as Jon mentions, do more to modify the sound in a specifically directed and powerful way to make one mic sound more like another than a preamp swap would, but also because it can specifically target problems such as minimizing problematic resonances and tailor problematic frequency ranges.  Say you find the stereotypical AKG "sizzle" to be a nuisance (perhaps somewhat aggravated by the signal chain you are using).  Find the frequencies contributing to the sensation of "too much sizzle" and carefully adjust them so they aren't quite as prominent, but with care so as to avoid introducing unwanted perceptual changes affecting the general frequency range which surrounds the resonance.  The even somewhat more artistic side has some parallels with visual complementary color theory in that one can also learn to adjust complementary frequency ranges in entirely different regions of the spectrum which perceptively affect the original area of interest.  This takes listening skill and lots of playing around time to develop, but all powerful tools require skill before they can be used responsibly.

Thinking about what "warm" means in terms of sound, or what "transparent" or "brittle" or "muddy" or "spitty" means, can help in developing a sort of wordless mental assessment for describing these kinds of timbre aspects.  Especially in combination with playing around with EQ.  Does "warm" just mean strong bass and less emphasized treble?  Does a carefully sculpted lower treble have anything to do with it?  Does mid-range manipulation have more of an effect on "clarity" than chopping off bass and boosting treble?

What I'm suggesting here is this- If you find a Oade warm-mod UA5 (or whatever) and use it and hear a difference in comparison with another preamp, you are presented with a great potential learning opportunity.  Try to manipulate each file afterwards so that it sounds like the other.  Try to get close as possible.  In doing that you will hone your EQ application and other skills.  You'll also begin to get a feel for what is more easily manipulated to sound similar and what is not easy or even impossible.  Some of that is tied to the knowledge of what can be done and how to go about doing it, but a lot of it will come from trial and error playing around, learning the tools, learning to understand what you are hearing, what to listen for, and finding trends, basic relationships, and the like.
EQ is only one aspect, albeit the most powerful and easily learned.  Compression perceptually affects tone as well as dynamics.  Transient modification is fancy targeted compression.  Tube emulation is an easy route to make things sound "warm", "transformer-ish", "phat", etc.  Exiters or other harmonic generators  "air" and "sparkle".  All technically introduce distortions- good sounding euphonious distortions if tastefully applied.  Technically the original sound has already been distorted by simply recording it.  Don't worry too much about trashing some sort of magical signal purity. Gear specifications help determine the measurable accuracy of throughput and are the way to gauge signal purity, and the appropriate place for that is in initial selection of the gear (which is not to say ears should be excluded from that process).  But by contrast, this is the point where the maxim "Use your ears" applies fully!  At this point it we are fully in the realm of artful manipulation in pursuit of good sound.

Regardless if you want to do that kind of thing on a regular basis or not, if at all (I already hear the counter argument- "I don't want to have to do any of that stuff to my recordings"), that kind of knowledge provides a deeper awareness of the nuts and bolts of how sound and hearing works, what can and cannot be manipulated easily, and dispels much of the mystery surrounding the "sound of gear itself".  I may not choose to not invest the time to do that kind of stuff on a particular recording, but I have a better idea of what I can do, how much effort it takes, and can make an informed decision on what is appropriate.. and I won't hesitate to EQ it.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11042
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #44 on: January 26, 2017, 08:34:54 PM »
My apologies for further derail, but with respect to DATBRAD I'd like to further clarify the bits below.  Jon's post above explains much of this in a technical sense, but I'll try to do so from a somewhat less technical perspective-

[snip] By mathematical specs alone, a note played by a trumpet at the same amplitude and pitch as a French horn should sound identical. Same for a note played by a violin versus a cello. Using the measurement tools that report specs, there would be no difference between any two instruments of the same type (strings/strings or woodwinds/woodwinds) playing the same note at the same pitch and amplitude. It's easy to dismiss the opinions of someone's ears, which explains why contestants in singing reality shows that cannot hear that they are singing off key are so pissed when they are told the truth.

No offence, but this totally incorrect and completely off base.

Really? Please explain why you say that.

We all know from experience that the same note played by a trumpet, French horn, violin and cello do not sound identical.  But it can also be explained why that is so, in a mathematical sense, quite precisely. Accurately enough in fact, that we can go on to fully synthesize versions of those sounds which can be convincing emulations the real thing.  If you can't accept that, you must at least acknowledge that we can get close. Close enough that most would people would agree on what instrument is being simulated.  I'm not talking about sampling.  That's recording and playback manipulation of recorded sounds and can be completely convincing when done well.  I'm talking about fully synthesizing a sound, and to be able to do that (or rather to design the machine which does it) a mathematical understanding of the characteristics of the sound to be emulated is required.  Jon mentioned a number of those characteristics including the time-envelope aspects of a sound commonly simplified into Attack, Decay, Sustain, and Release components, as well as noise components such as resinous bow scratching, plucking noise, fingering noises, and other mechanical noises, but the primary characteristics of the timbre of a sound are described by the relationship of the harmonics above the fundamental.  If not for the harmonics, a snippet of sustained sound cut out of an imaginary recording of all those instruments (cutting out a snippet mid-note avoids time envelope and most of the noise variables) would sound like a characterless sine wave as you suggest.  And a characterless sine wave or some other basic wave shape is the typical starting point of synthesis (additive synthesis anyway) onto which various harmonics can be added with various levels relationships until the timbre of the sound is close to that of the original instrument.

Check out this video- https://youtu.be/yYf9ij7S5Zs?t=5m.  It's simply the first that came up in a search, but the link starts at the point where the narrator shows plots of the different harmonic makeup of the sound produced by several instruments playing the same note.  These plots represent mathematical measurements which correlate directly with the characteristic timbre of each instrument.  Rephrasing your first line I was disagreeing with, these are mathematical specs alone, which when plotted, visually describe why a note played by a trumpet at the same amplitude and pitch as a French horn do not sound identical.  Using the measurement tools that report specs, there is an obvious, quantifiable difference between any two instruments, even two of the same type (strings/strings or woodwinds/woodwinds) playing the same note at the same pitch and amplitude.

To dive deep, consider that digital recording and reproduction is at it's most basic mathematical core based upon the decomposition of sound into a vast number of numeric values, and reconstruction of the original analog waveform by a huge number of overlapping sine waves-  a sufficient amount of them that the result is indistinguishable from the analog input waveform within the bandwidth limits of the system.


Quote
Would you consider results of test recordings using the mathematical technique called the Fourier Transform as getting to the meat of what the brain processes from sounds hitting the inner ear?

No. Yet the scope of that question greatly exceeds what were talking about here (and I think hints at the disconnect). We're no where near what happens in brains and ears here, we're just talking about a signal passing through an amplifier in a recording chain. And once the problem is broken down to that level we have excellent mathematical measures of the accuracy of how well a components output reflects what is fed into it.  What happens once the sound leaves the speaker is a whole 'nother ball of wax and way more complex, both before it reaches the eardrum and far far more so afterwards.


Quote
Since this depth of measurement isn't on gear specs, wouldn't you agree that currently published specs are limited in what they can describe?

The capability for measuring far far beyond the capability of all human senses exists.  There is some problem in correlating human perception with the appropriate measurements, but that problem is rapidly disappearing.  Unfortunately, the practical problem is that for the perceptual qualities which we can match closely to the appropriate measurement,  manufacturers don't have much motivation to provide truly meaningful specs which can be compared in a straightforward way.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Offline admkrk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1569
  • I'm an idiot
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #45 on: January 26, 2017, 11:58:51 PM »
I think I would pick up a UA-5 Oade warm mod if one came available.

While I have never owned AKGs, I did run a warm mod UA-5 for several years. If I could go back in time I would choose a transparent mod instead. That could be due to me mostly flying KM140s, but I came to feel that that the warm mod "muddied" up my recordings, although I enjoyed them originally.

Quote from: Gutbucket
Tube emulation is an easy route to make things sound "warm", "transformer-ish", "phat", etc.
I think you should have left the bold part out. Transformer-ish and tubes are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The warm/fat sound of tubes is primarily due to distortion that transformers do not normally/easily reproduce. 
"the faster you go ahead, the behinder you get"

"If you can drink ram's piss, fuck, you can drink anything"

Offline Limit35

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #46 on: January 27, 2017, 12:44:39 AM »

I wonder how much of this conversation is on based legacy information, that preamp "color" makes up for a hardware EQ system that would have been needed in the past.  It is really easy to have great audio editing software for a low price or even free.  Depending on the situation, 10-30 years ago, editing your tapes audio was a time issue or economically unfeasible.  Maybe it didn't matter that much what the end result was as an audiophile probably had equipment to color the playback anyways.  If one wants to buy/mod a pre to fit mics, which fits the recorder for that sound, great.  Building a tool is cool.  But, is it needed now or just a historical carry over of taping traditions? It's probably not needed in the current era as Gutbucket and Jon have pointed to above. I have so many free audio tools I couldn't possibly learn all of them, I think 80% of my software is totally ignored. That's a huge difference from audio editing even 10 years ago.

Offline ~Jon Stoppable

  • Trade Count: (46)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
  • Gender: Male
    • Naiant Studio
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #47 on: January 27, 2017, 01:03:12 AM »
I think you should have left the bold part out. Transformer-ish and tubes are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The warm/fat sound of tubes is primarily due to distortion that transformers do not normally/easily reproduce.

That's not really true.  First, there isn't really a single "tube sound", because the circuit configuration makes a lot of difference.  A push-pull circuit will have a very different harmonic series than a single-ended circuit; transformers can yield a similar sound to the former.  Second, you generally don't get tubes without transformers (except for hybrid tube/solid state circuits), so the sound of the two are intertwined.

Offline admkrk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1569
  • I'm an idiot
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #48 on: January 27, 2017, 03:24:49 AM »
That is my bad, I mixed up transformer with transistor. The guy at the electronic shop gets pissed at me all the time for mixing up terminology. 
"the faster you go ahead, the behinder you get"

"If you can drink ram's piss, fuck, you can drink anything"

Offline CorFit Chris

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
  • Gender: Male
    • InsideOut Recording & Promotions
RE: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #49 on: January 27, 2017, 10:33:00 AM »

Regardless if you want to do that kind of thing on a regular basis or not, if at all (I already hear the counter argument- "I don't want to have to do any of that stuff to my recordings"), that kind of knowledge provides a deeper awareness of the nuts and bolts of how sound and hearing works, what can and cannot be manipulated easily, and dispels much of the mystery surrounding the "sound of gear itself".  I may not choose to not invest the time to do that kind of stuff on a particular recording, but I have a better idea of what I can do, how much effort it takes, and can make an informed decision on what is appropriate.. and I won't hesitate to EQ it.

This is good to hear, because I have had an internal battle going on regarding EQ.  Though most show details don't include the term "EQ" in their processing comments, I always figure they do some sort of EQ before posting.  So, I wondered, do they leave out the "EQ" intentionally?  If so, is it because its not considered appropriate to mess with the captured recording by introducing your own personal tweeks to the sound.  Maybe that is a carryover from the arrogant few with higher quality (expensive) gear, allowing them to maintain their taping dominance over the recording peasants.  Just kidding, obviously no one does that...

I have spent lots of time on trial periods of various software working the EQ and other processing features.  Without any formal training or experience, I have slowely learned a few things.  The first was to NOT post my show after the initial processing attempt.  I found that I grossly overprocessed my recordings.  Returning later to revise the recordings has allowed me pull back some of the processing input.  But, as we all know, the learning curve takes a shit ton of time!  Its probably this part of the taping addition that puts more strain on our outside relationships (women, work, sleep) than the actual concerts themselves.  So, to end this I will say the I am glad to get some support in the notion of investing time and energy into the post processing.  It would be MOST EXCELLENT to see a group of you start to put together a series of short video tutorials of various processing essentials and how they affect the recordings specific to what we do.  Maybe some standards with Audacity, Audition, Izotope, etc.  Just a thougt from someone who seems to be alone on an island in this big ocean of taping.  Except for this forum of course.  LOL
LMA: https://archive.org/details/@corfit
SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/orithris
Mics: AKG 460 (ck61 & ck63) | Studio Projects C4 (cards & omni's) | CA-14 cards | SP-SPSM-9
Recorders: Tascam DR-70d  |  Tascam DR-60d  |  Tascam DR-2D
Preamp: CA Ugly
Camera: GoPro Hero 4 Silver

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11042
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #50 on: January 27, 2017, 11:51:19 AM »
I think what is noted in the recording notes is in large part legacy based and defacto standardized, a direct descendant of historical trading modes, sort of another extension of the angle Limit35 mentions above, and with which I agree.  The most basic info I find commonly lacking in the recording notes which I always look for is mention of the microphone setup configuration, as that makes a larger contribution to the sound of the resulting recording (and is important to know if trying to make a judgement as a taper) than other inconsequential stuff commonly listed in far more detail in the transfer lineage.  I'd just like to see general spacing and angle info, or note of DIN or NOS or ORTF or whatever in addition to the model and make of the microphones.  Many tapers do note that, but many others don't.

There are two three good counter arguments for EQing and other post manipulation other than straight normalizing, tracking and fading that I can think of:
1) Don't want additional post work burden.
2) Obscures the "as it sounds raw" output of the microphones. 
3) Don't want to unintentionally do more harm than good.

We've covered one, and each taper can make their own choice there, depending on their own mindset and the value they attach to the recording.  Argument two only matters to other tapers trying to make generalized gear comparisons by listening to a number of recordings made with the same microphones, and with the caveat of realizing there are many other variables which may make such comparisons useless- room, band, pa, soundguy, mic config, etc.  It's argument three which I think is the strongest counter argument, relates directly into what you just mentioned, and the most problematic.

It's relatively easy to determine that the recording sounds better to you after your post manipulations, but is it really better in an objective sense, for everyone else? And although some aspects are better, have I made other things worse? Have I limited the options for what someone else can do to it later if they so choose?  The potential problem I see is not so much that the changes introduced are personal tweaks that other folks may not agree with which, because it's accepted as okay to personally tweak everything else- deciding to record or not, what gear to use, what configuration to use, where to setup, how to manage levels, even tracking and fading decisions. Rather it's trying to make sure you aren't fooling yourself, or correcting for something specific only to your own hearing or the deficiencies of your monitoring setup.  Those are very real and difficult to assess potential problems, but using a less that optimal setup configuration or recording from a less than optimal location is also a real problem which strongly effects the resulting recording, and although some may ask why you chose to record using a particular microphone configuration rather than the one they think would be best, none would suggest that the choice of whichever microphone setup you use isn't something you should be deciding for yourself.

Listen again later to confirm you're on the right track, check things on a few different systems to develop a sense of what you need to work around in your own preferences and the deficiencies of your monitoring system used for the editing. And when in doubt, it may be a good safe bet to dial back your corrections and euphonious tweaks a bit.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11042
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #51 on: January 27, 2017, 12:29:01 PM »
OT-

Along those lines I've dreamed of an alternative universe where its easy to save/distribute the raw unedited recording along with a companion configuration file.  That configuration file would contain all ancillary information, set information, recording notes, all editing decisions from track points and fades to EQ, compression, spectral edits etc, mixdown information if the recording is more than two channels or mid/side or whatever.  That way you could produce multiple configuration files for the same source (want a dynamics limited binarual head-phone version suitable for jogging as well as a wide-dynamics version for speaker playback?, want a 4-channel quad mix version?) and anyone else could go back and modify the original source material however they like.  That would provide an escape hatch against argument three- you can always make a new updated configuration file as your skill set and monitoring improve, or as better and more powerful software tools become available.  And so can anyone else, without harm to the raw original or access to the same tools you used.

If we were to try and make that a reality, it would be difficult in the real world to arrive at a universal open-source metadata format which specifies many of those things accurately.  Tracking, fades, notes, photos, and that kind of thing isn't hard, we already have cue sheets and such, it's the EQ, compression, mixing and other audio edits which is the problem there.  But even that problem easily avoided by including a WAV in the configuration file which is the same length as the raw source file and contains all those changes in differential form.  You wouldn't want to listen to that on its own, it would be like listening to the inverse of the EQ curve and everything else applied.  Instead the player would simply read both files and mix them together to output the appropriately edited version, in addition to following the tracking and fade information located elsewhere in the config file.  Other users could start from scratch with their own edits and produce an entirely new differential WAV, or start from your differential file and tweak it more to their liking without needing to have the exact plugins you used.  Either way the original is always goes untouched.

[/dream]
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Offline morst

  • Archivist: Camper Van Beethoven & Cracker
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2236
  • Get in touch if you wanna record Cracker or CVB!
    • Soundscape Preservation Society
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #52 on: January 27, 2017, 05:02:23 PM »
Neat idea, I've long contemplated a system where the end user got to mix their own recordings or could pick from mixes from famous engineers and producers?!

In your system the WAVs could be compressed losslessly, so they don't quite have to be full size.  However, you'll still have to have one such file for each track in the original, thus approximately doubling file size for two-tracks, or any number of tracks!

By coincidence  :shrug:  this is about the same amount of space that it would require to record at double the sample rate, but this gives us so much more value than the vaunted 22,000-44,000 Hz range!?!   :wink2:

OT-

Along those lines I've dreamed of an alternative universe where its easy to save/distribute the raw unedited recording along with a companion configuration file.
(SNIP away a whole bunch of your awesome idea for my response)

 But even that problem easily avoided by including a WAV in the configuration file which is the same length as the raw source file and contains all those changes in differential form
[/dream]
Teams: Neumann, Bay Area Tapers, Multitrack, Pioneertown Tapers, Mac Geeks, Cassette Masters, Poster Collectors, Alumni of teams St Louis, Upper Midwest & Milwaukee / Southern Wisco

Offline admkrk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1569
  • I'm an idiot
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #53 on: January 27, 2017, 11:39:14 PM »
"IF" everyone used the same software, it might be possible. The effort to write plugins for different configurations would probably need NASA's budget though, assuming that would be enough.
"the faster you go ahead, the behinder you get"

"If you can drink ram's piss, fuck, you can drink anything"

Offline ~Jon Stoppable

  • Trade Count: (46)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
  • Gender: Male
    • Naiant Studio
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #54 on: January 28, 2017, 08:57:31 AM »
It's possible to just specify an IIR or FIR filter with a series of coefficients (a handful for IIR, a whole lot more for FIR, but most people use IIR filters for most purposes when mixing).  Dynamics controls or other nonlinear processes (such as exciting, saturation, etc.) are a lot more complicated, but if all you want to do is EQ, and provided you left enough headroom before the EQ process, you could provide the processed file plus the set of IIR coefficients, which could then be exactly reversed.  And if you provide the processed file in 32 bit float, you don't have to worry about the headroom issue.

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11042
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #55 on: January 30, 2017, 09:21:01 AM »
"IF" everyone used the same software, it might be possible. The effort to write plugins for different configurations would probably need NASA's budget though, assuming that would be enough.

Nah, the whole point of using a differential file or impulse response correction filter is the avoidance of that problem.   The method Jon just outlined achieves the lion's share of it in a lightweight way with minimal excess file size burden.  That's basically a front end equivalent to what room correction routines are currently doing on on the back end, except in this case the correction filters are specific to each audio file and would be stored and retrieved along with them, instead of being specific to the playback room and stored in the correction device. 

The differential sum method I proposed above requires more storage overhead as it doubles the file size for each different correction file, although I suspect the differential correction file might be able to have a bit depth of less than the target file, correlated with the depth of correction being done.  That approach would include the ability to manage dynamics though, important for adapting to various target listening uses for commercially mastered material.  Loudness war inverted.  But even more important for application to our raw amateur live concert recordings which have no dynamic management applied yet.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Offline admkrk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1569
  • I'm an idiot
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #56 on: January 30, 2017, 06:44:29 PM »
I guess I am just not understanding the process of something like that.
"the faster you go ahead, the behinder you get"

"If you can drink ram's piss, fuck, you can drink anything"

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11042
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #57 on: January 31, 2017, 08:44:20 AM »
Let's break this OT conversation out to another thread.  I'll do that and link it here..
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Offline ~Jon Stoppable

  • Trade Count: (46)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
  • Gender: Male
    • Naiant Studio
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #58 on: January 31, 2017, 11:41:42 AM »
I'm not seeing the utility of the differential file, unless it actually could have reduced bit depth.  If not, it would be the same file size as pre- and post-files.  But even with reduced bit depth, you'd need a calculation to restore the original bit depth because you'd be throwing out MSBs, not LSBs.

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11042
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #59 on: January 31, 2017, 12:10:46 PM »
Yeah, that's what I realized upon thinking about it more.  Bundling a differential file would effectively take the same storage space as including a new edited mix along with the original raw file.  Other angles though, and it's an interesting enough topic to continue elsewhere.  I may not get to that today though..
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Offline Jhurlbs81

  • Trade Count: (18)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2214
  • Gender: Male
  • Reinvented, redefined, rearranged but not refined
    • My LMA collection
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #60 on: January 31, 2017, 02:33:28 PM »

Regardless if you want to do that kind of thing on a regular basis or not, if at all (I already hear the counter argument- "I don't want to have to do any of that stuff to my recordings"), that kind of knowledge provides a deeper awareness of the nuts and bolts of how sound and hearing works, what can and cannot be manipulated easily, and dispels much of the mystery surrounding the "sound of gear itself".  I may not choose to not invest the time to do that kind of stuff on a particular recording, but I have a better idea of what I can do, how much effort it takes, and can make an informed decision on what is appropriate.. and I won't hesitate to EQ it.

This is good to hear, because I have had an internal battle going on regarding EQ.  Though most show details don't include the term "EQ" in their processing comments, I always figure they do some sort of EQ before posting.  So, I wondered, do they leave out the "EQ" intentionally?  If so, is it because its not considered appropriate to mess with the captured recording by introducing your own personal tweeks to the sound.  Maybe that is a carryover from the arrogant few with higher quality (expensive) gear, allowing them to maintain their taping dominance over the recording peasants.  Just kidding, obviously no one does that...

I have spent lots of time on trial periods of various software working the EQ and other processing features.  Without any formal training or experience, I have slowely learned a few things.  The first was to NOT post my show after the initial processing attempt.  I found that I grossly overprocessed my recordings.  Returning later to revise the recordings has allowed me pull back some of the processing input.  But, as we all know, the learning curve takes a shit ton of time!  Its probably this part of the taping addition that puts more strain on our outside relationships (women, work, sleep) than the actual concerts themselves.  So, to end this I will say the I am glad to get some support in the notion of investing time and energy into the post processing.  It would be MOST EXCELLENT to see a group of you start to put together a series of short video tutorials of various processing essentials and how they affect the recordings specific to what we do.  Maybe some standards with Audacity, Audition, Izotope, etc.  Just a thougt from someone who seems to be alone on an island in this big ocean of taping.  Except for this forum of course.  LOL

My thoughts on EQ:

I typically only reduce pesky resonant frequencies of the room.  This one group I tape has a notorious boom around the 140-160hz range when they play less than ideal venues.  I start by pulling up a 30 band EQ and try to find the offensive frequency and pull it down just a touch.  Honestly, I might bring down the band(s) adjacent to the main culprit, but for most shows I EQ it is one or two bands that get brought down a few db.  My 2 cents.  I am of the less is better mindset.

Online Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11042
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #61 on: January 31, 2017, 03:20:47 PM »
Less is better.. as long as it is enough.  If not a bit more is better.

Half the challenge is figuring the right amount.. the other half is of what exactly.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -Günther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Online noahbickart

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (23)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • *
  • Posts: 1352
  • Gender: Male
  • Nobody's finished, we ain't even begun
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #62 on: February 01, 2017, 10:19:04 AM »
I haven't been using EQ on files I post for another simple reason:  Each of my playback systems (home stereo, home headphone, office headphone, car stereo, portable earbuds) requires different processing.

I use playback software (Fidelia or Audirvana+) which allows for real time processing from AU (or VST) plugins.

In the car I can do more dynamic range compression, at home I do more EQ, and on headphones I play with M/S and HRTF....

-Noah
Recording:
Capsules: Schoeps mk41v, mk4v, mk22, mk3 & mk8
Cables: 2x nbob KCY, Darktrain 2 and 4 channel KCY extensions:
Preamps:    Naiant Littlebox, Naiant IPA, Naiant PFA
Recorders: Tascam Dr-70d, Sony PCM m10
Home Playback: Mytek Stereo96> Adcom SLC 505> Marantz Ma500 (x2)> Eminent Tech LFT-16; Musical Fidelity xCan v2> Hifiman HE-400
Office Playback: Grace m903> AKG k701

Offline acidjack

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (34)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 5714
  • Gender: Male
Re: RE: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #63 on: February 03, 2017, 10:36:42 AM »

Regardless if you want to do that kind of thing on a regular basis or not, if at all (I already hear the counter argument- "I don't want to have to do any of that stuff to my recordings"), that kind of knowledge provides a deeper awareness of the nuts and bolts of how sound and hearing works, what can and cannot be manipulated easily, and dispels much of the mystery surrounding the "sound of gear itself".  I may not choose to not invest the time to do that kind of stuff on a particular recording, but I have a better idea of what I can do, how much effort it takes, and can make an informed decision on what is appropriate.. and I won't hesitate to EQ it.

This is good to hear, because I have had an internal battle going on regarding EQ.  Though most show details don't include the term "EQ" in their processing comments, I always figure they do some sort of EQ before posting.  So, I wondered, do they leave out the "EQ" intentionally?  If so, is it because its not considered appropriate to mess with the captured recording by introducing your own personal tweeks to the sound.  Maybe that is a carryover from the arrogant few with higher quality (expensive) gear, allowing them to maintain their taping dominance over the recording peasants.  Just kidding, obviously no one does that...

I have spent lots of time on trial periods of various software working the EQ and other processing features.  Without any formal training or experience, I have slowely learned a few things.  The first was to NOT post my show after the initial processing attempt.  I found that I grossly overprocessed my recordings.  Returning later to revise the recordings has allowed me pull back some of the processing input.  But, as we all know, the learning curve takes a shit ton of time!  Its probably this part of the taping addition that puts more strain on our outside relationships (women, work, sleep) than the actual concerts themselves.  So, to end this I will say the I am glad to get some support in the notion of investing time and energy into the post processing.  It would be MOST EXCELLENT to see a group of you start to put together a series of short video tutorials of various processing essentials and how they affect the recordings specific to what we do.  Maybe some standards with Audacity, Audition, Izotope, etc.  Just a thougt from someone who seems to be alone on an island in this big ocean of taping.  Except for this forum of course.  LOL

Every professional recording is EQ'd, compressed, and a number of other things by a trained professional. A large part of why they sound vastly better is that. (Even using the same source material -- I've had my stuff mastered and released... there's a difference when a real mastering engineer works it over).

Recording a PA system from the audience sounds, quite frankly, awful most of the time. It sounds "good" to us because that's what we're used to, but it really isn't good. Without EQ, compression, etc it's even worse. I continue to fall solidly in the camp that the notion of the "pure sound" of a concert compressed through a PA system is a totally hilarious concept. There is no such thing, until a microphone exists that perfectly replicates the human ear and the brain's ability to emphasize, de-emphasize certain sounds. And even if there were such a microphone, I don't know why anybody would want the 'pure sound' of a PA system, particularly one used indoors. Even those who record optimal-quality sounds in a live environment (classical at Carnegie Hall, onstage jazz trio, etc.) use EQ and other tools, I am fairly certain.

That said, it is true that over-EQing stuff, particularly over-cutting bass and over-boosting treble, becomes fatiguing over time and is something you end up being sorry you did if you did it wrong. Once you've done it dozens of times, you get to know what you like and what you'll like 2-3 years from now.

The videos you seek are already out there, on YouTube. I've used several to get better at Audition and Ozone. I still know about 5% of what a trained professional knows, but that 5% has helped a lot.
Mics: Schoeps MK4V, MK41V, MK5, MK22> CMC6, KCY 250/5, KC5, NBob; MBHO MBP603/KA200N, AT 3031, DPA 4061, Naiant X-X, AT 853c, shotgun
Installed: AT 4051
Pres/Power: Aeta PSP3, tinybox v2  [KCY], CA-UBB
Decks: Zoom F8, R-26, M10, D50

My recordings on nyctaper.com: http://www.nyctaper.com/?tag=acidjack | LMA: http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/acidjack | twitter: http://www.twitter.com/acidjacknyc | Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/acidjacknyc

Offline grayp

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1837
  • Gender: Male
  • If I was a cactus I wouldn't need so much water
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #64 on: February 11, 2017, 10:38:02 PM »
I'm a 480 guy but I agree with the all less is better talk.    I've had them since 98 and have tried a bunch of different things.   
Started with a beyer mv100 which worked but I didn't think was a great fit.   
Some of my favorite tapes were made with no preamp.   480->ps2->modsbm
Traded that for an Oade m148 which I think is wonderful for the AKG sound but these days, i typically just plug right into the 722 and use the internal pre's b/c I don't want to carry the 148 (or fix my batteries)
Akg 480/ck61/ck62/ck63 (a61 swivels if fob)->m148->722

Offline Justy Gyee

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #65 on: February 16, 2017, 12:43:50 PM »
i typically just plug right into the 722 and use the internal pre's b/c I don't want to carry the 148(or fix my batteries)
this is pretty much my story.
i mostly like the 480>v3 sound, but the v3 sits at home most the time due to the extra weight.

Offline CorFit Chris

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
  • Gender: Male
    • InsideOut Recording & Promotions
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #66 on: February 19, 2017, 06:56:17 PM »
i typically just plug right into the 722 and use the internal pre's b/c I don't want to carry the 148(or fix my batteries)
this is pretty much my story.
i mostly like the 480>v3 sound, but the v3 sits at home most the time due to the extra weight.

All you guys talking about your sweet pre's sitting at home due to extra weight kills me!  I can't afford any new additions for the foreseeable future and your stuff is collecting dust.  Oh well.  I guess you must go to big shows and have long walks from the parking lot.  Most of the shows I go to I'm parked right across the street and can run out between songs for a quick nip if necessary.  LOL 
LMA: https://archive.org/details/@corfit
SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/orithris
Mics: AKG 460 (ck61 & ck63) | Studio Projects C4 (cards & omni's) | CA-14 cards | SP-SPSM-9
Recorders: Tascam DR-70d  |  Tascam DR-60d  |  Tascam DR-2D
Preamp: CA Ugly
Camera: GoPro Hero 4 Silver

Offline admkrk

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1569
  • I'm an idiot
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #67 on: February 20, 2017, 12:17:17 AM »
It is not just extra weight. These days, it really is not needed, as the old pre-amps do not add as much to the chain as they used to. That is especially true when you consider that most rigs were just pre>bitbucket before the 722 came out, unless it was a stealth rig.  Now the "bitbuckets" have good enough pre-amps built in that it is simply not practical. That does not even take into consideration recording more than just a stereo track.
"the faster you go ahead, the behinder you get"

"If you can drink ram's piss, fuck, you can drink anything"

Offline Jhurlbs81

  • Trade Count: (18)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2214
  • Gender: Male
  • Reinvented, redefined, rearranged but not refined
    • My LMA collection
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #68 on: February 22, 2017, 10:18:54 AM »
i typically just plug right into the 722 and use the internal pre's b/c I don't want to carry the 148(or fix my batteries)
this is pretty much my story.
i mostly like the 480>v3 sound, but the v3 sits at home most the time due to the extra weight.

All you guys talking about your sweet pre's sitting at home due to extra weight kills me!  I can't afford any new additions for the foreseeable future and your stuff is collecting dust.  Oh well.  I guess you must go to big shows and have long walks from the parking lot.  Most of the shows I go to I'm parked right across the street and can run out between songs for a quick nip if necessary.  LOL

Where abouts do you live, Chris?

Offline Sloan Simpson

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3212
  • Gender: Male
    • Southern Shelter
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #69 on: February 22, 2017, 04:16:53 PM »
I just sold my V2, running straight into the 680 now. Can't hear a difference and the lower weight means leaving my car at home more often and walking a few blocks to the venue.
Neumann KM-184> Tascam DR-680

Offline Justy Gyee

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #70 on: February 23, 2017, 02:25:49 PM »
i typically just plug right into the 722 and use the internal pre's b/c I don't want to carry the 148(or fix my batteries)
this is pretty much my story.
i mostly like the 480>v3 sound, but the v3 sits at home most the time due to the extra weight.

All you guys talking about your sweet pre's sitting at home due to extra weight kills me!  I can't afford any new additions for the foreseeable future and your stuff is collecting dust.  Oh well.  I guess you must go to big shows and have long walks from the parking lot.  Most of the shows I go to I'm parked right across the street and can run out between songs for a quick nip if necessary.  LOL
most of the time im taking the bus to/from shows, but often has 1-2miles of walking involved.
i have had the v3 for 10yrs, i keep holding onto it in the hopes somebody releases a relieable, tiny recorder with spif in...

Offline CorFit Chris

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
  • Gender: Male
    • InsideOut Recording & Promotions
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #71 on: February 25, 2017, 11:30:39 PM »

Where abouts do you live, Chris?

Dallas, TX
LMA: https://archive.org/details/@corfit
SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/orithris
Mics: AKG 460 (ck61 & ck63) | Studio Projects C4 (cards & omni's) | CA-14 cards | SP-SPSM-9
Recorders: Tascam DR-70d  |  Tascam DR-60d  |  Tascam DR-2D
Preamp: CA Ugly
Camera: GoPro Hero 4 Silver

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.563 seconds with 94 queries.
© 2002-2017 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF
Website Design by Foxtrot Media, Inc., a Baltimore Website Company