A video on testing the audibility of recording preamps

[TK_IIVI]

The video creator was clearly speaking generally about standard, clean modern tracking workflows—not tracking for deliberate saturation.

No, that's absolutely not correct. He was very clear about it:

(Premise) "Mathematically, objectively, every single time in the past, present or future that an engineer has ever tracked through a Neve with no converters clipping and faders at unity it is not possible for there to ever be or have ever been Neve distortion." (and now conclusion) "That means that distortion cannot be an ingredient in the Neve sound".

It would maybe have been as you say, and arguably more correctly, that "as long as you track without pushing a pre to distortion they don't really have 'a sound'", more or less. That would be a nuanced take that would see more reasonable to me.

If you want to debate the actual data and listening tests presented in the video, we can do that. But you have to actually watch the video first or read at least the whole summary of it.

We can talk about what we have seen, which up to this point was the silly presumption that effectively nobody tracks with distorted preamps. Finally someone (you) addressed that by dismissing it as really meaning something else, which at best means it's hyperbole.

 

[thewas]

No, that's absolutely not correct. He was very clear about it:

(Premise) "Mathematically, objectively, every single time in the past, present or future that an engineer has ever tracked through a Neve with no converters clipping and faders at unity it is not possible for there to ever be or have ever been Neve distortion." (and now conclusion) "That means that distortion cannot be an ingredient in the Neve sound".

It would maybe have been as you say, and arguably more correctly, that "as long as you track without pushing a pre to distortion they don't really have 'a sound'", more or less. That would be a nuanced take that would see more reasonable to me.



We can talk about what we have seen, which up to this point was the silly presumption that effectively nobody tracks with distorted preamps. Finally someone (you) addressed that by dismissing it as really meaning something else, which at best means it's hyperbole.

Fair enough. If you want to take his statement as a literal, absolute claim about every engineer in history, then yes, his phrasing was hyperbolic and overreaching. Engineers absolutely push preamps for deliberate saturation sometimes.

But throwing out the entire video because of a clumsy rhetorical statement completely misses the objective data it actually delivered.

The core of the video—and the reason it was posted here on ASR—is the level-matched comparison and the null tests. When operated within normal, clean tracking parameters (which is how they are used the vast majority of the time), the electrical differences between a high-end Neve and a standard interface preamp null down to total inaudibility.

That is the actual data being discussed. If you want to argue that pushed preamps sound different due to distortion, no one is disagreeing with you—that's basic engineering. But if we are talking about standard, clean tracking, the video's objective conclusion holds up perfectly, whether the YouTuber's phrasing was clumsy or not.

 

[Redacted]

Jim Lill makes his case more clearly and elegantly than most people on ASR!

 

[Ricardus]

I think what he's trying to say is that just because the engineers who made your record used some technique that doesn't mean it's applicable to home stereo usage.

Yeah, the drums might sound "better" if you record them hot on analog tape to get the tape saturation compression/distortion that was common for a lot of classic rock, but that doesn't mean that you should have a reel to reel tape machine at home and run your CDs through it to get the same effect.

Why would anyone assume or believe they need to do what we do in studio to listen at home? That's just silly.

I mean, sure, buy studio monitors if you like, you'll probably be very happy with them. But once it's been mixed and mastered MY belief is that you listen to it as close to as/is as possible to honor the band's and producer's vision.

 

[Mr. Swordfish]

Why would anyone assume or believe they need to do what we do in studio to listen at home? That's just silly.

Yes. Exactly.
Yet some people do.
Go figure...

 

[dfuller]

So, I have some takes on this.

Of course it's going to sound the same if not driven into distortion. That's pretty well accepted. That said...

1. Preamps often have output trim controls for a reason. Driving preamps into some level of distortion for color is quite common, even if it isn't full-on clipping.

2. Tracking on a console is almost always more amplifier stages than "preamp to output". Any sort of bus matrix has summing amps, which can add a different sound. There are often multiple transformers, which I think anybody with reasonable knowledge of what they do would reasonably expect some change just by virtue of having a transformer in the signal path. This doesn't apply to all consoles (SSL conspicuously avoids both electrolytic capacitors and transformers in their modern consoles).

3. Any minor changes that a preamp, summing amp, etc does doesn't sound like much on one track - but if you have an entire multi track with those minor changes it starts to add up to something more audible.

4. Preamps don't distort the same way from one another - overloading a Neve doesn't sound like overloading an API doesn't sound like overloading a Grace etc etc, I'm speaking from experience on this one. I'm sure this depends on the particular circuit topology used and how feedback loops recover.

5. In spite of all that, all those classic records don't sound amazing from whatever mic preamp they had on hand - they sound amazing because the engineers were very good and they had time to work. IOW, great records require great resources.

 

[Mr. Swordfish]

There are often multiple transformers...

Really? What gear still uses transformers in the signal path, other than tube equipment or purpose built transformer isolators?

 

[EERecordist]

In my experience it is not a bad video.

A lot of audio evolved from telephony. It was all tubes. Capacitors and transformers were AC-DC isolation and gain circuit elements.

Your typical recording chain had a transformer in the microphone, several in each pass through the console, the tape machine, noise reduction, outboard gear, monitor speakers, and all the mastering.

Then there was a trend to minimize capacitors and transformers in the signal chain. From personal experience, Neve, API and many other transformer heavy consoles were common for clean classical and jazz recording in the 70s and 80s. But they were found in pop too where drums, electric bass, electric guitar, and other instruments were overdriven in the console. That will generate harmonics which engineers and producers liked.

I would also guess that close micing is going to cause distortion in the microphone. It is common to find microphones spaced at 1% distortion from memory at about 110-140dBA SPL. DPA upgraded their lavaliers with their branded CORE technology which as I understand it is a wider biasing for the FET to improve dynamic range.

I doubt the transformer business is large enough today for a thorough study of transformer design with an Audio Precision. There certainly are many proprietary transformer designs today varying the conductor, windings, and core. And equipment makers market on the brand of transformers they use.

And once you put the track or the bus through a compressor it may make it hard to hear something subtle the preamp did.

Today there are all kinds of distortion plugins and outboard gear. I think people can learn to cause distortion in their preamp by their gain staging if they like. I think today, plugins would be easier. Maybe Lill will look at harmonics verses overload?

 

[Mr. Swordfish]

A lot of audio evolved from telephony. When it was all tubes, capacitors and transformers were AC-DC isolation and gain circuit elements.

Your typical recording chain had a transformer in the microphone, several in each pass through the console, the tape machine, noise reduction, outboard gear, monitor speakers, and all the mastering.

Then there was a trend to minimize capacitors and transformers in the signal chain.

When I started out in the 70s, transformers were everywhere. By the time I left the pro audio business, the trend to remove them had successfully run to near completion. Is there a comeback for the audio transformer that I'm unaware of? Sort of like the vinyl resurgence?

Curious...

 

[dfuller]

Really? What gear still uses transformers in the signal path, other than tube equipment or purpose built transformer isolators?

Plenty of equipment is transformer coupled. Most dynamic and ribbon mics, I would say a large proportion of large diaphragm condensers all have OPTs. Input TXs are not uncommon on mic preamps, usually based on older designs. Some consoles use a not inconsiderable number for balancing or unbalancing signals. Plenty of outboard has them on inputs and/or outputs.

When I started out in the 70s, transformers were everywhere. By the time I left the pro audio business, the trend to remove them had successfully run to near completion. Is there a comeback for the audio transformer that I'm unaware of? Sort of like the vinyl resurgence?

Curious...

Yeah, people figured out they like what transformers do (or what they think they do). Transformers do all kinds of wacky stuff to a signal, as I'm sure you're aware, but sometimes it's things people like (or think they like). "Clean" gear is almost always transformerless (see: Grace, SSL, etc etc) but "vibey" stuff (API, Neve, UA, Great River, etc) often does have some iron somewhere. On the plus side, transformers do a fair amount of good things - DC blocking, galvanic isolation, etc - that is hard or just plain annoying to do with op-amps.

 

[Ricardus]

2. Tracking on a console is almost always more amplifier stages than "preamp to output".

This is true, but to be honest I always avoided that if possible with direct outs.

 

[Ricardus]

Really? What gear still uses transformers in the signal path, other than tube equipment or purpose built transformer isolators?

You're not going to find transformer coupled stages in modern solid state consoles like SSL, but API consoles have transformers everywhere.

There are also lots of boutique companies doing things the Neve way, like Wunder Audio.

 

[Chrispy]

I see the thread title pop up regularly and keep thinking "a video on audibility" as simply a non-starter.

 

[Redacted]

I see the thread title pop up regularly and keep thinking "a video on audibility" as simply a non-starter.

"A video on testing the audibility"....

 

[TK_IIVI]

Jim Lill makes his case more clearly and elegantly than most people on ASR!

I'd say that's in the eyes of the beholder. It's a nice, shiny package, complete with a smiling humble-bragging attractive guy making quick cuts of quips to make the case for his thesis. Very contemporary. It's "here's the myth, I'm the only one who's debunking it!" at its best, complete with appeals to get you to pay him for his efforts (that literally nobody else is undertaking, trust me bro).

More clear and elegant than most? Possibly. Also more annoying.

Really? What gear still uses transformers in the signal path, other than tube equipment or purpose built transformer isolators?

Well, to stick to the video in question the Neve 1073 does, which is the brand he uses to disprove the myth and prove his thesis. Though curiously enough, it's my understanding that he used a class-A/B design Neve pre rather than the class-A 1073. Funny that, seeing that people who know preamps and claim they want "Neve" for the sound pretty much always want the class-A versions (i.e. 1073, 1084 or 1290, if I remember correctly).

 

[TK_IIVI]

That video might be interesting as a rebuttal to the video in the OP.

EDIT: the person in the video goes through some of the various claims Lill makes in his video and does his own testing to see if the claims seem reasonable. He points out that;

- Lill used a 31105 class-A/B preamp rather than a class-A 1073, claiming that the 1073 can color a signal more because of that different design.

- He then shows results from two of his Neve preamps. He gives a time-domain plot showing the response differing based on input and output levels.

- He shows how impedance changes the tonal balance.

- He shows that even just enabling the EQ circuit in the 1073 affects the signal even with the individual bands at unity.

- He reiterates that engineers overdrive circuits and make that added gain up by lowering the output "all the time", and that just because Lill says he's not experienced output at unity and input brought up without distortion so as to not clip converters does not mean that what others do is 'not a thing'.

 

[MAB]

That video might be interesting as a rebuttal to the video in the OP.

You should summarize what the video actually demonstrates. OP was asked to do the same. It's forum policy, and a courtesy to members who don't want to go on rando YouTube scavenger hunts.

 

[EERecordist]

Is there a comeback for the audio transformer that I'm unaware of? Sort of like the vinyl resurgence?

Curious...

They are found in boutique outboard gear and plugins. Some will have switchable transformer options, variable overdriving controls, and a wet/dry variable mix. Manley is big on transformers, others use them, especially in vintage recreations. Inductors are used in some vintage EQ recreations. I really wonder what the unit volumes are of these boutique equipment and transformer manufacturers.

 

[TK_IIVI]

You should summarize what the video actually demonstrates. OP was asked to do the same. It's forum policy, and a courtesy to members who don't want to go on rando YouTube scavenger hunts.

Ok, the person in the video goes through some of the various claims Lill makes in his video and does his own testing to see if the claims seem reasonable. He points out that;

- Lill used a 31105 class-A/B preamp rather than a class-A 1073, claiming that the 1073 can color a signal more because of that different design.

- He then shows results from two of his Neve preamps. He gives a time-domain plot showing the response differing based on input and output levels.

- He shows how impedance changes the tonal balance.

- He shows that even just enabling the EQ circuit in the 1073 affects the signal even with the individual bands at unity.

- He reiterates that engineers overdrive circuits and make that added gain up by lowering the output "all the time", and that just because Lill says he's not experienced output at unity and input brought up without distortion so as to not clip converters does not mean that what others do is 'not a thing'.

 

[Bruce Morgen]

I haven't watched this refutation video, but I've found other videos from this guy to be pretty sensible: