Taperssection.com

Gear / Technical Help => Battery Boxes, Preamps, Mixers, ADCs, and Processors => Topic started by: jmz93 on October 21, 2008, 12:38:50 PM

Title: CA UGLY VS ST9100?
Post by: jmz93 on October 21, 2008, 12:38:50 PM
Hi folks. For those who have already upgraded to the "ugly" preamp from Church Audio, what have you noticed in terms of audio performance, between it and the ST9100?
Just waiting for mine to arrive :) The size difference and separate l/r pots are already definite plusses. I'm just wondering what people have noticed about the sound, noise floor etc.
Title: Re: CA UGLY VS ST9100?
Post by: taylordb on October 21, 2008, 01:20:22 PM
Is the Ugly actually an upgrade?
Title: Re: CA UGLY VS ST9100?
Post by: Church-Audio on October 21, 2008, 01:26:14 PM
Hi folks. For those who have already upgraded to the "ugly" preamp from Church Audio, what have you noticed in terms of audio performance, between it and the ST9100?
Just waiting for mine to arrive :) The size difference and separate l/r pots are already definite plusses. I'm just wondering what people have noticed about the sound, noise floor etc.


They have the exact same signal path except one has a built in HPF *9100* and one does not. They both use the same caps and the same exact parts in the signal path except the 9100 has a single dual pot for gain and the ugly has two separate gain controls.

Chris
Title: Re: CA UGLY VS ST9100?
Post by: surf1div1 on October 28, 2008, 02:44:54 PM
Well, while I can't comment the contrast between the two, I can attest that this thing is super small and am really happy with getting this unit after having all the problems with Core Sounds MIC 2496. Not only is it smaller then the battery box by Core, but it does the powering and pre-amp needs that I have for my DPA mics. Thanks Chris for delivering a superior product in the smallest form factor. Possibly those of you considering a pre-amp for your DPA's or Core Sound's HEB should check this out- you will not be unhappy.

Hi folks. For those who have already upgraded to the "ugly" preamp from Church Audio, what have you noticed in terms of audio performance, between it and the ST9100?
Just waiting for mine to arrive :) The size difference and separate l/r pots are already definite plusses. I'm just wondering what people have noticed about the sound, noise floor etc.

Title: Re: CA UGLY VS ST9100?
Post by: Church-Audio on October 28, 2008, 05:12:39 PM
Is the Ugly actually an upgrade?

Its not an upgrade its just smaller they both have the same specs.
Title: Re: CA UGLY VS ST9100?
Post by: taylordb on October 28, 2008, 10:05:10 PM
Is the Ugly actually an upgrade?

Its not an upgrade its just smaller they both have the same specs.

That's what I thought.  Pretty amazing when you think of how small the UGLY is.
Title: Re: CA UGLY VS ST9100?
Post by: Church-Audio on October 28, 2008, 10:09:29 PM
Is the Ugly actually an upgrade?

Its not an upgrade its just smaller they both have the same specs.

That's what I thought.  Pretty amazing when you think of how small the UGLY is.


Its small because I don't have the distortion circuit * clip light * and the Bass roll off on the preamp... And I am using a set of very small pots for gain. That's how I save the space the coupling caps are all the same and so are the ic chips I am using and all of the other parts and values are the same. We are now working on a preamp that will fit on a postage stamp in the next year ( late ) we will have it done.
Title: Re: CA UGLY VS ST9100?
Post by: hypnotoad on October 29, 2008, 12:03:31 AM
We are now working on a preamp that will fit on a postage stamp in the next year ( late ) we will have it done.

*ears perk up*

Holy smokes, now that one sounds interesting!
Title: Re: CA UGLY VS ST9100?
Post by: surf1div1 on October 29, 2008, 01:27:48 PM
Chris, count me in on the pre-order- I know, I just got the CA UGLY, but a postage stamp sized Pre? I will be all over that one ;-))

  We are now working on a preamp that will fit on a postage stamp in the next year ( late ) we will have it done.
Title: Re: CA UGLY VS ST9100?
Post by: jmz93 on November 07, 2008, 07:47:03 AM
Chris, count me in on the pre-order- I know, I just got the CA UGLY, but a postage stamp sized Pre? I will be all over that one ;-))

  We are now working on a preamp that will fit on a postage stamp in the next year ( late ) we will have it done.

*LOL* Why not just build it into a short cable and be done with it? :)

Anyway, just got my CA Ugly ... very very impressed! Of course, like the ST9100, don't try it with rechargeable 9v's. Just for fun I tried a NiMH, fully charged, and it ran for less than two minutes powering my DPA 4061's.

I assume regular alkalines from the Dollar Store or similar will do me fine? I'm guessing I can pick up half a dozen or so and be good for maybe 250 hours?
Title: Re: CA UGLY VS ST9100?
Post by: Church-Audio on November 07, 2008, 09:33:40 AM
Chris, count me in on the pre-order- I know, I just got the CA UGLY, but a postage stamp sized Pre? I will be all over that one ;-))

  We are now working on a preamp that will fit on a postage stamp in the next year ( late ) we will have it done.

*LOL* Why not just build it into a short cable and be done with it? :)

Anyway, just got my CA Ugly ... very very impressed! Of course, like the ST9100, don't try it with rechargeable 9v's. Just for fun I tried a NiMH, fully charged, and it ran for less than two minutes powering my DPA 4061's.

I assume regular alkalines from the Dollar Store or similar will do me fine? I'm guessing I can pick up half a dozen or so and be good for maybe 250 hours?


That seems rather strange I would suspect you have a bad battery. There was a really good 9 volt out there that was 9.6 volts if someone knows what brand it was maybe that would be a better candidate then the one you have. I run rechargeables all the time in my preamps to test them as well as regular alkaline. Do not use DOLLAR STORE batteries.... in anything...
Title: Re: CA UGLY VS ST9100?
Post by: fmaderjr on November 09, 2008, 06:13:41 AM
The one  Chris Church liked was the MAHA Powerex 9.6 volt which can be purchased here:
http://www.thomas-distributing.com/mh-96v230.htm
Title: Re: CA UGLY VS ST9100?
Post by: manitouman on November 09, 2008, 12:33:52 PM
Postage size pre!  :o Sign me up Chris, for the pre-order. I've been using CA pre and mics now for about a year(?) and absolutely love the combination with the MTII. I'd love to downsize a bit for better  >:D but damn if this doesn't pull great tapes.

Keep up the great work, Chris!  ;D
Title: Re: CA UGLY VS ST9100?
Post by: su6oxone on November 12, 2008, 10:27:18 AM
The one  Chris Church liked was the MAHA Powerex 9.6 volt which can be purchased here:
http://www.thomas-distributing.com/mh-96v230.htm

I have those Mahas 9.6v rechargeables and they do work great.  They power my Neumann km184 with 48V phantom using a denecke ps-2 for over 4 hours, so they should run a 9100/ugly for a much longer time. 
Title: Re: CA UGLY VS ST9100?
Post by: Church-Audio on November 12, 2008, 10:54:20 AM
Postage size pre!  :o Sign me up Chris, for the pre-order. I've been using CA pre and mics now for about a year(?) and absolutely love the combination with the MTII. I'd love to downsize a bit for better  >:D but damn if this doesn't pull great tapes.

Keep up the great work, Chris!  ;D

What input are you using on the MT2 and if you are using the 1/4 inputs are you running them unbalanced by shorting out the ring to ground?

Thanks for the kind words about my products.

Chris
Title: Re: CA UGLY VS ST9100?
Post by: taperwheeler on November 14, 2008, 12:48:36 PM
Postage size pre!  :o Sign me up Chris, for the pre-order. I've been using CA pre and mics now for about a year(?) and absolutely love the combination with the MTII. I'd love to downsize a bit for better  >:D but damn if this doesn't pull great tapes.

Keep up the great work, Chris!  ;D

What input are you using on the MT2 and if you are using the 1/4 inputs are you running them unbalanced by shorting out the ring to ground?

Thanks for the kind words about my products.

Chris


Hey Chris.  I have been researching info on 1/4 cabling that will work 9100>MT2 as that will be part of my setup in the near future  :)

I have come across a variety of answers.  Here's a recent thread that I started on the subject:
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,112659.0.html

There has been other talk on the mt2 discussion thread about modding cables to use.  I picked up a Hosa 3.5mm to dual mono TS cable that I will be testing out once the 9100 arrives.  I expect it will be fine as long as I keep the mt2's levels all the way down.  Will let you know what I find out.