The Future of Microsound?

[geezer]

I agree totally with the concept that the operator is the key.

I have never like PT/digidesign much, period, but I thought the tracks I recorded at NPR (PT HD) sounded pretty good there, though maybe a little more suspect when I got home. Being HD, I could never use their session data (totally encrypted), but, also being HD, I can walk away with Broadcast Wave files wish plop down just fine in almost any other system.

Earlier (TDM) PT sessions can be readily translated by some EDL software I have, so there really is no longer a big compatability issue unless you are locked into plugins and mixes on an HD session that noone is willing to translate backwards for you (which is obviously what Avid/Digidesign is hoping for).

People do say that HD sounds better than TDM, and I usually was able to hear problems with TDM mixes I heard.....However, one of my longest friends and musical colleagues who mixed his last couple of albums at home (stellar sounding) and mixed his daughter's hit album in Canada (she's like no. 2 there) makes his TDM system sound just fine. Really sweet, really pro......It should be noted, however, that he is not using the mix buss in PT world, but bringing stems out to a Mackie D8b. That still seems to be the key: summing it externally......Anyway, the Canadian branch of Universal that his daughter is on was pretty freaked out by how good it sounded. I was thoroughly impressed myself.

Soundcraft: That mixer (a 600B I bought in 1985) probably only has a market value of $500. or most likely less. Amazing. I sold it with all the patchbays and direct out mods for $1,100. around 1999 or 2000, then bought all the patchbays, cabling and external direct out amps back for something like $500-$600........I have an open search function on ebay for Soundcraft stuff, and am always anguishing about whether I should buy one of the boards that comes up, but haven't gotten the courage to do it yet.....Listening to that old Stanley Turrentine album of mine that I was talking about in the earlier post has really gotten me thinking.....plus I did a little acoustic, non digital sound job about a month ago that reawakened something in me......I don't know........I can't give up the automation, and my DM2000 sounds great and is capable of a bigger sound than that 600B, but I am definitely thinking things through yet again...

My fond remembrances are always chastened by the looming maintenance issues with analogue consoles....aargh!

[Gary Boggess]

Without going into here too deep... I was utterly shocked at what happened to my old TASCAM Model 5A mixing console here. Mixing... err... I use it more for monitoring... although the keyboards and mics go through it to the MicroSound via a APHEX 124A -10 to +4 box.

Yeah I know... your probably saying TEAC??? GEESH!!!!

Well... I was in a decision last year to replace it or improve it. After reading... studying and really tearing into what mods could do, I chose to mod it.
I rebuilt the power supply, better caps, all new regulators, external transformer... and better grounding internally... w/12ga stranded throughout.

Then I removed all of the op-amps, and used a mix of 5532's, TLO72's and Burr Brown 2604's. Why three types? Sound. They all have a sound.
It's not an EQ difference in sound... it's more how they handle complex
waveforms. Tones all passed the same way... but with music, each chip
responded differently. My thought was, since they all do have a sound, it doesn't makes good sense to USE ALL OF THE SAME op-amps.
I figured, if I had a lense filter that was very slightly pink, 15 of them
would be RED! And so, I thought mixing op-amps was similar. I chose these
three chips because I took consenus on the web by designers... about which
chips they preferred. The TLO72's were chosen because they had a overall
brittle sound... and were easy on the power supply. The 5532's were popular peformers, stable, handle wide variety of input impedences and sounded tube like and low noise footprints. The OP2604's for their high output peak safety, low noise, and warm low end friendly sound. Together... they sound awesome!
For the short story, I tested each... and ended up putting the 5532's on the inputs, the TLO72's in the middle ciruits and the 2604's on all of the outputs.
I also replaces all of the signal path caps with Panasonic FC series audio caps.
And then replaced all of the audio path resistors with metal film resistors.

The end result? Incredible. It was like a veil dropped. It was a lot of work, but a fraction of the cost of replacing the board, and rewiring the harness and patchbays. Noise dropped significantly, and the sound is (to my ears) very warm, defined and clean.

Yup... I've used Neve consoles, SSL, Euphonix... and Soundcraft... but after this experience... I wonder why most boards use all of the same op-amps???
They clearly HAVE a sound... and if you pass your audio through 30 of the SAME op-amps... you've got a very COLORED end result. I would same my approach appears to blend and balance it all out some. At least, it makes some logical sense.

[Gary Boggess]

Without going into this too deep here... I was utterly shocked at the improvement mods made to my old TASCAM Model 5A mixing console. Mixing... err... I use it more for monitoring... although the keyboards and mics go through it to the MicroSound via a APHEX 124A -10 to +4 box.

Yeah I know... your probably saying TEAC??? GEESH!!!!

Well... I was in a decision last year to replace it or improve it. After reading... studying and really tearing into what mods could do, I chose to mod it. I rebuilt the power supply, better caps, all new regulators, external transformer... and better grounding internally... w/12ga stranded throughout.

Then I removed all of the op-amps, installed sockets, and used a mix of 5532's, TLO72's and Burr Brown 2604's. Why three types? Sound. They all have a sound. It's not an EQ difference in sound... it's more how they handle complex waveforms. Tones all passed the same way... but with music, each chip responded differently. My thought was, since they all do have a sound, it doesn't makes good sense to USE ALL OF THE SAME op-amps.

I figured, if I had a lense filter that was very slightly pink, 15 of them would be RED! And so, I thought mixing op-amps was similar. I chose these three chips because I took consensus on the web by designers... about which chips they preferred. The TLO72's were chosen because they had a overall brittle or digital/edgy sound... and were easy on the power supply. The 5532's were popular performers, stable, handle a wide variety of input impedances and sounded warm or tube like and had a low noise footprint. The OP2604's for their high output peak headroom, low noise, and warm low end friendly sound. Together... they sound awesome!

For the short story, I tested each... and ended up putting the 5532's on the inputs, the TLO72's in the middle circuits and the 2604's on all of the outputs. (I did use two 2604's on two inputs for variety). I also replaced all of the signal path caps with Panasonic FC series audio caps. And then replaced all of the audio path resistors with metal film resistors.

The end result? Incredible. It was like a veil dropped. It was a lot of work, but a fraction of the cost of replacing the board, and rewiring the harness and patchbays. Noise dropped significantly, and the sound is (to my ears) very warm, defined and clean.

Yup... I've used Neve consoles, SSL, Euphonix... and Soundcraft... but after this experience... I wonder why most boards use all of the same op-amps??? They clearly HAVE a sound... and if you pass your audio through 30 of the SAME op-amps... you've got a very COLORED end result. I would say my approach appears to blend and balance it all out some. At least, it makes some logical sense. Would I like to own a Neve or similar console? Sure.
But mine has paid for itself over and over again since 1977!!!!!!!

[Rich LePage]

You're right of course about the op amps and the rest.

Amazed though you'd mod a Tascam Model 5 in terms
of the cost of the mods versus the rest of the parts, like
faders, switches, and so much else. But if it works for you,
that's great.

Your logic about diff coloration seems sound to me.
I know several folks who have done diff channels of
a board set up completely diff. in terms of channel
strips, op amps, EQs, pres, and so on. One guy managed
to build a board with Neve, Trident, API and several other
modules in the thing- in blocks of 8 channels I think.

I still have a real ancient Model 5 somewhere in storage, from
way back when I used it sometimes with a Teac 1/2" 8 track
and DBX. I did some location jazz albums in clubs that way, but
the stuff wasn't exactly built for the road and could get pretty dodgy.

I viewed that stuff mostly as "acquisition devices" for work like that.
You could do those jobs taking up only one or two tables in a jazz
club-- which was a big deal to the club owner too...

Big studio boards suffered from the same "go through so much stuff"
you mention. Examples include MCI boards (and mult passes through
the VCAs especially), and Audio Designs, which were real popular
around NYC for a while. With Audio Designs you were also going
through a zillion transformers. Every stage of the board was
boosted up to +4 or +8 and balanced- then passed on to the next
stage and done all over again, whether it was needed or not.

Result was a TON of coloration. I'm sure not against
transformers (many folks were/are)-- but that many-- geez-
between that and the early op amps it was a battle every time.
Phase shift, and the slewing problems of the early op amps--
you could def. hear all that stuff big time- not to mention
noise buildup from all those gain stages.

Luckily that vintage usually had a lot of patching and so you
could bypass some stages of the board if you had a zillion
patchcords and got there plenty early before the session start!
I used to carry around a bag of extra patch cords back then...

With the MCI's (later Sony) a lot of people modded them,
I know a few who still use 'em. One in particular is still used
for a lot of high-profile acoustic jazz work and sounds very
good -- but HEAVY mods.

Neve did things differently. You sure can't say Rupert's
stuff didn't color things, but a lot of folks still prize that
partic. coloration. A lot of those boards were parted out
because the modules etc became worth more $ individually
than as an entire console.

Cleanest (in terms of coloration) preamp we have is an
early one by John La Grou (Millennia) who was an Medit
user as you likely know. Probably a result of his extensive
classical recording work.

I like the old Soundcraft, we still run it in one mostly analog
production/mix room which also has 2 old Medit systems
with Microsync (486 CPUs, m/boards with an ISA slot!!-gosh..)
At some point that room will get repurposed probably,
but we still do some restore-from-tape work and other things
that it's useful for, though less every year. Oh yeah, a convection
OVEN is also a feature of that room! (for shake and bake that tape!)

And like Geezer noted, every time you use that stuff, you are
SO reminded of all the alignment and tweaking issues that used
to be part of every day work. Often hard to just sit down and mix
without first having to put on the tech hat for a while.

[Gary Boggess]

Originally Posted by Rich LePage

You're right of course about the op amps and the rest.

Amazed though you'd mod a Tascam Model 5 in terms
of the cost of the mods versus the rest of the parts, like
faders, switches, and so much else. But if it works for you,
that's great.
.

Well... the faders, pots and switches aren't causing issues.
BTW... I've got the 12 channel Expander, for 20 channels total.
Since I don't actually mix or eq very with it very often, it's
mostly a monitoring mixer, sub mixer for MIDI, and 90% of the
time, I use one channel with an AKG 414 for the vocal booth.
I have a couple tube mic pre's but since using the OP2604's,
op-amps I have found the modified mixer to be cleaner!

I will admit that I chose to mod the Model 5 instead of buy
a new board... due to cost and time. Remaking 20 or more
channels of harness to the patchday, with inserts, direct outs,
tape in, monitoring outs, effects returns and all... I was looking
at spending approx $5500 in closts plus a month or so down time,
verses piece meal caps, IC's and metal film resistors,
one channel at a time.

The upgrade costs total approx. $245. And since I don't use the
board to MIX, (doing that on the MicroEditor) it was the easier
road to improvement. And fortunately, the improvement was
stellar. Along with a religiously implemented start grounding scheme,
I have no noise, hum, or buz.

When I worked at Electric Melody Studios, on the 2nd floor of
the Lantana Center in Santa Monica overtop Lucas' Skywalker Sound...
we had a 48 channel Neve with flying faders in our main mixing stage.

In the pre-lay room where I was set up, I had a 32 channel
Soundcraft board that maybe needed overhauled.
It was noisier than my TEAC Model 5B BEFORE my recent mods!
It really had some major hiss. I was amazed how our $$$ Neve console
was so under used! We barely had time to employ the flying faders.
I remember we rarely bother to use to EQ. With two to three session
per day, for movie trailers, TV commercials and general voice overs,
we didn't have time to LOG eq's and etc. Even with flying faders,
we hardly had time tap the Neve's offerings. There was always
the fear that today's project may come back for a change,
and if we had used eq, we wouldn't be able to match.
We used a 32 track Mitsubishi, a 24 track MCI, and a 16 track Post Pro.

Paying for all of this stuff was also a major burden...
pushing us to take on as much work as possible.
We had nearly $3M in leased audio gear! So although we were
well equipt, we really didn't use it to the fullest benefit.
However, it looked impressive as heck!!

So, when I look at my modified TEAC Model 5 mixer, I see a tool
that does what I need it to do, and it's paid for. And since the mods...
I wonder if this piece of crap thing isn't BETTER than some of the newer
stuff. I get plenty of tracks in here from other studios. Tracks recorded
through Mackies, SSL's, Yamaha's and others... and just recently, drum tracks
recorded into PT HD3. All I can say is, track to track,
I'm recording tracks CLEANER with my old antique.

[Rich LePage]

Yep to all of it-- it works for you and you're getting the
results you want, and to me that's always what it's been
all about.

My Model 5 days usually involved the expander too,
though for some of those live-in-a-club gigs there
wasn't room for it. In some jazz clubs how much space you
were gonna take up was a big deal to the club owners,
and could make or break whether they would allow
the artists to record live in their place, despite the
publicity etc it would generate for them.

I still use a few diff analog boards here, like you mostly
for monitoring, though one style of working I've done
a lot of is to build in Medit using a 4 channel system,
then mix down analog. Big thing for me with that style is
the ability to use various vintage things like LA2s and Pultecs
on the mixdown w/o locking them in using Medit.
Then back to a 2nd Medit system, going back to digital
via a TC Finalizer or other stuff.

Lately I seem to do that less, though I will also do
it at times when using Audition as a multi-track, often
after pre-editing elements in Medit first. But with Audition
2, it functions much more intuitively in the multi-track
mode, more like a board with sends, bussing etc. And the
UA emulations of the LA2, 1176, Pultec and some other
stuff are good, so I'll use them.

It can max out a Pent 4 2.5 gig machine quickly though,
even though the UA stuff runs on its own card.

[Gary Boggess]

How did you get through my previous post with all the typos?
I just read it again... all I can say is...
I must have been more worried about the Cleveland Indians losing to the
Boston Red Sox than I thought!

[Gary Boggess]

A final note concerning my heavily modified
"antique" TEAC TASCAM MODEL 5:

Socketed IC's are a wonderful thing.
(As long as you use the gold plated ones
to ensure optimum contact.)

Having looked over many of the newer mixing
boards at various audio retailers... I see
a maintenance issue I don't have with my
old module based Model 5:
the larger scale circuit boards used currently
make repairs a major ordeal.

When I have a problem, I have two choices:
a) Remove two skrews, pop the front panel, remove one *****
I meant skrew, *geesh Dave*
and PULL the channel module, pop in a few new op-amps,
and re-install. The process takes less than 15 minutes.

b) Change out a module... but how could I improve on (a) ?

I stock at least 50 spares of each chip type thanks to Ebay.
A while ago, I bought a 3rd Model 5 board as a spare
and for remote use. So, I've always got SOMETHING
to get through the moment.

If I had a newer mixing board... repairs would THEN mean...
UNPLUGGING THE ENTIRE CHASSIS and unscrewing a
major portion of the casing, just to replace an op-amp!

And in my case, where I've harnessed the entire board's rear
I/O's to the PATCH BAY, it just looks like a newer mixer would be
the more trouble than it's worth!

RE: screws, ***** or skrew...
(Pitty to the forum if Dave or "the web meister" get their
hands on a Thesarus of Rap and Heavy Metal words!!!!)