Topic: UA-5 Wmod and Pmod?

[markgarrigan]

Reading through the numerous threads about the Edirol UA-5 and the oade brother mods i haven't seen anyone ask this.  It could be considered a noob question...as that's what i am....

I bought the UA-5 unmoded last year.  Now after learning of this site and of the various mods that can be made on the unit I have a question.

Disclaimer:  Any generalizations or what some may think are misconceptions are just that.  I don't want to one day wake up and find my home MD player smashed to pieces on the floor because it records in a compressed format.  I digress.

From what i've read "Taping", as "we" know it, is something "we" do to Re-create an environment for others to listen to that weren't there or to re-live an experience which we had.  It is my understanding that we attempt to recreate the sound from that environment as closely as we can to what it actually sounded like in that certain environment.  That said.  The Warm mod and Presence mod done to the UA-5 would actually contradict what is trying to be done.

"The frist version or Warm MOD © gives the UA5 a warmer sound, with better depth and high frequency character. A second "flavor" is available as a Presence MOD,© chosen by ear for a maximum clarity and detail. This mod gives the UA5 a more "up front" sound, with better presence and high frequency detail. Both MODs disable the 1/4" inputs on the front panel, leaving the front panel XLR's and rear panel RCA inputs intact."

Questions:  Whose ears are choosing what sounds clear and detailed or deeper?  What environment do they listen to those sounds in?  What type of music is going into the UA-5 for the testing?  Do they use microphones and if so which?  Cables?  Do these mods actually change how your taping environment sounded?  Should things like this be done in post production?

Thanks for any answers or info.  And thanks again for the site!

[dnsacks]

As I see it, EVERYTHING we do or use for taping colors the sound that’s being captured in some way, from microphone choice, to microphone placement, configuration, shock mounts, cables, on down through preamps, a>d converters and recording decisions.  Folks decide what works for them based on how the final tape sounds and it’s the coloration that the gear they select provides that influences this sound. 

I don’t think that Doug Oade chose to mod the ua5 in order to take a natural-sounding device and make it artificially warm or “present” – instead, he took a good consumer product and sought to upgrade the components in its analog stage to take advantage of the knowledge and experience he’s gained through taping and creating taping gear since the mid-80s – my understanding of Doug’s mods (and general philosophy) is that he’s looking to both a) decrease distortion, accomplished by both cutting extraneous “stuff” out of the signal path and by replacing and upgrading components such as capacitors and b) increase the switching “speed” of the op-amps used to increase/adjust the signal level by replacing these with better, more expensive, faster versions.  Thus, Doug’s modifications are more “shades of grey” that would subtly manifest themselves when compared to the original or one-another rather than dramatic, overpowering differences. 

[nexus6]

To make it even MORE confusing. Mark, you got a T-mod commin up from the Oades.

ANDY

[markgarrigan]

dnsnacks....thank you.....

looking at it as an upgrade to the components makes much more sense to me than the wording used in the actual description....although i know they do explain the upgraded components.....what i most took from the explanation was that the two mods give different results in the end sound...meaning some sort of artificial enhancement of the sound you are capturing......i love the fact that the mods replace parts in the analog domain with much more high end components....

i also understand that it is ultimately the taper who decides on the sound he/she wants to acheive from their recordings and that is how it should be....but, could the mods have just been that on not something to warm the sound or make it more present?....the 2 different mods are what is confusing me....and yes i guess it goes back to the taper deciding on what kind of sound they want...but in my situation a newbie with a fresh unmodded UA-5 i'd rather play with the sound after i capture the recording.....but if there was a UA-5 that had these upgraded components to reduce things such as distortion, signal noise, etc. without changing the EQ(maybe not the correct word...what is the correct word?) this would be very appealing to me....

now again i may be taking everything out of context.  the mods could just be upgraded components which will give you a more "natural" sound because of all the extraneous "stuff" out of the signal path.....

i'm just babbling now........i'll think more on my drive to the show tonight...

tweak:  T-mod...whats the word on that?

[markgarrigan]

sorry...i see there is already a lil discussion about the T-mod....aaaannnd..mmmmm....it sounds quite like what i was describing...

http://www.taperssection.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=20026.0

[Brian Skalinder]

what i most took from the explanation was that the two mods give different results in the end sound...meaning some sort of artificial enhancement of the sound you are capturing......

Any modification to the analog components is an "artificial" enhancement to the sound we are capturing because it is not the sound itself.  As Darren said, all of our gear colors the sound.  We use words like "warm" and "presence" and "transparent" with respect to the UA5 mods in an attempt to convey in a simple phrase the complex - both obvious and subtle - sonic characteristics of the upgraded components.  Th descriptors "warm", "presence", "transparent" are just that - descriptors, labels that provide a meaningful talking point because they generalize on some level the complex sonic characteristics in a very brief, concise fashion.

i also understand that it is ultimately the taper who decides on the sound he/she wants to acheive from their recordings and that is how it should be....but, could the mods have just been that on not something to warm the sound or make it more present?

Could the mods have just been that...meaning an attempt to maintain the UA5's stock sonic characteristics but improve it by removing distortion, etc.?  Sure.  But who's to say the stock sonic characteristics are desirable?  The stock sonic characteristics may be desirable to some people's ears using a particular combination of recording gear played back on a specific playback system within a given listening space.  And so we're back to the "warm", "presence", and "transparent" descriptors again as simply reference points for identifying at a high level the differences in sonic characteristics across the different modifications so that people may identify on some level how these mods may impact the sound they achieve with their recording gear.

now again i may be taking everything out of context.  the mods could just be upgraded components which will give you a more "natural" sound because of all the extraneous "stuff" out of the signal path.....

If I understand your goal correctly - maintain the stock sonic characteristics but improve it by using higher quality components that reduce distortion, for example, absolutely:  one could achieve this goal simply by replacing the analog components with higher quality components that share similar sonic characteristics to the stock analog components.  And I'm guessing one of the mods available - warm, presence, or transparent - is closer to the original stock sound than the others.  But none of them will sound the same as the stock because the analog components are different, and no two, different analog components will sound identical.

but in my situation a newbie with a fresh unmodded UA-5 i'd rather play with the sound after i capture the recording.....but if there was a UA-5 that had these upgraded components to reduce things such as distortion, signal noise, etc. without changing the EQ(maybe not the correct word...what is the correct word?) this would be very appealing to me....

Ahhhh...and this is the crux of the issue, I think.  In my opinion and experience (though perhaps because I don't have enough experience), EQ-ing each of my recordings in post-production is a HUGE PITA.  So what I've done is select my recording and playback gear based on the combination of sonic characteristics that most closely represent what my ears like (or have learned to like, or I've trained to like).  And, of course, my preferences may change over time.  For the moment, I'm close enough to achieving a sound I like that I don't bother with EQ-ing individual recordings.

In your case, one of the UA5 mods may get you very close to the sound for which you're seeking.  Then again, one of them may not - it may require a different piece (or combination) of gear entirely.  Or, you may not be satisifed with the sonic characteristics of any combination of gear, in which case you'll spend an awful lot of time tweaking your recordings in post-production. 

If you're talking strictly hypothetically, disregard the questions below, but I suspect there's some practical issue behind the discussion - hence the questions:

[1] What gear are you using to record currently?
[2] What sonic characteristics of your current recording/playback gear do you enjoy
[3] What sonic characteristics of your current recording/playback gear would you like to change?

[markgarrigan]

[1] What gear are you using to record currently?
The only live recordings i've made have been with
EV 267s > UA5 > Sony MD
or
SBD > UA5 > Sony MD

A JB3 is on its way as we speak and i'm currently looking for mics.  So I guess this discussion roots from my fear of getting a mic that produces a "bad" sound.

[2] What sonic characteristics of your current recording/playback gear do you enjoy?
As far as recording likes, I don't have many to think about because i really haven't thought about it.  I know I like the UA5.  It was simple enough to use right out of the box for someone with some knowledge about sound.  I've never really liked recording with MD except for the ease.
What i like about "good" recordings i hear is "Fullness" (another descriptor)
Bass:  I don't like heavy deep bass.  I like clean crisp low end.(If that makes sense)  I want the low end represented but i don't want to be distracted by it.
Mids:  "Loud" but not "Up Front". Not in your face loud but where i don't have to turn my volume dial to 5 just to hear lyrics.
Highs:  Soft but Present.  Sometimes i hear symbols that just sound like a high pitched tssssssssss tsssssssssss.  It sounds to me that the recording captured a high frequeancy but lost detail.  Or did it lose detail because it couldn't capture the high frecquencies.

[3] What sonic characteristics of your current recording/playback gear would you like to change?
I like my playback gear.  Although I have always been looking for a reasonably priced set of studio monitors.  Hopefully monitors that can connect to my comp or playback through the edirol.


Thanks Brian!
Just another example of why this site kicks some ass.

[dklein]

Mark - how were you connecting the UA-5 to the md recorder - analog or optical?
edit - dumb question - I see it's an unmodded UA-5

[markgarrigan]

anymore input on this topic??

my JB3 arrives Thursday..
I'm thinking about trying the Studio Projects C4 for mics.  From what i've been reading here they seem to be a nice mic for the price.  Perfect for my situation.  The last thing remaining for me would be to keep the unmod edirol or go with a mod?

[dklein]

anymore input on this topic??

my JB3 arrives Thursday..
I'm thinking about trying the Studio Projects C4 for mics.  From what i've been reading here they seem to be a nice mic for the price.  Perfect for my situation.  The last thing remaining for me would be to keep the unmod edirol or go with a mod?

If it's a matter of where to spend the money, go for the straight UA-5 (digimod only) and spend the money on mics.