Tube Mic, or Mic thenTube pre? Voice
 

This seems to be one of those questions that there may not be a definitive answer for.

As an example, let us use the Soyuz 017 tube microphone at $3999
Verses the Soyuz 017 Fet at half the price of $1999.

The have the exact same capsule and body design, the difference is in the internal tube preamp verses FET electronics.

The Tube version is smoother and has a warmth to it that is particularly nice for voice.

So my question is, can the same characteristics be achieved by running the Soyuz Fet through a Tube Mic pre?
I think you can plainly see where I am going with this. Going FET first allows me to spend $2000 on a Tube mic pre. Thus, I get a piece of gear that allows me to use it on other mics as well.

I actually asked this question on Gearsluzt last year...and surprisingly got no scientific answers. Most of the replies just said something of the sort " There is no easy answer" or "It is not as simple as that"

I also asked one of the Tech Engineers of Mojave audio Microphones at the NAMM booth back in 2018. Comparing their MA-300 tube to their MA-300 FET. He had a good answer he said something of the sort " You are going through less electronics with the tube in microphone, which gives it a different sound."

And even more so, Would I get even more options going FET into Tube Pre, as I would get the extra benefit of using it in the FET format for a crisper - faster sound on other sources.

Or, is there something that a Tube microphone can give, that no tube mic pre can emulate?

I doubt you get the same results for half the price - nobody would buy the $4000 one.

As they say, "If it's too good to be true ..."

Totally agree Tico,
But that is not what I am actually asking...

Would a $1999 microphone plus a $2000 Tube Mic pre = give you nearly the same results as the one $4000 tube microphone?

After all, the capsule is the same, the housing is the same.
And it would seem that you could build a more discrete, a more polished Tube amplifier in a bigger box, as opposed to a microphone housing.

Maybe even a better sound because of the higher end Mic tube pre? Obviously, there would still be differences, there has to be. However possibly differences that would be to my advantage? And again, I wind up with a Mic pre that can be used with other microphones.

It's pretty speculative and is the goal to record a voice or a guitar alone? You might post a recording of
yours you are particularly happy with so others can hear where you're at currently.

First, eather a FET or tube housed within the mic body are put there to accomplish the same purpose. The FET (or tube) works to boost the signal level of the capsule, but more importantly eliminate the effects of running the capsule output down a long length of cable. Manufacturers have long known the closer to the capsule the FET (or tube) is, the better the sound.

The problem with what you're proposing is you are essentially figuring you can do the same thing to the FET mic output and get the same sound, which you won't. The tube pre is far away, plus the FET has already done what it does within the mic.

The tube pre will certainly affect the mic signal, but what it does would be a pretty expensive gamble. It could end up being much worse than simply using the FET mic signal.

I speculate from my background with electronics, but as often said, YMMV.

I think it's reasonable to assume any change in a signal path will sound different. How different? Better or worse? Hard to know until you try.

I would point out that we recorded you, Victor, using both my Schoeps and my tube Brauners, and I got the impression you didn't care for the Brauners. That was on guitar, tho, so if this is for voice, it might be a different story.

This is really just more of a fun question. One that I have always been curious about.

It is not about so much as what I need or want to accomplish, but more about what are the possibilities. As I first mentioned, there is probably not a definitive answer.

However, the question is pointed directly at voice recordings. There are certainly lots of Tube Mic pre companies touting the warmth their units will provide for Vocal recordings. I would guess these companies are pointed to people who have a favorite mic...but wish to add a bit of that tube warmth-harmonics.

If there was not a valuable asset to use a Tube mic pre then everyone would only use Tube microphones. The big question is what is that asset? Is that asset to help those with fet mics sound a little bit more like a tube Mic? Is this strictly a monetary advantage? In many cases it is certainly a lot cheaper to buy a high end tube mic pre, than to purchase a high tube mic.

The Question is really only about theory. In real life...theories often prove to have loopholes. And I only further find this question of fun interest, as I have not ever heard exacting answers on the subject. And that in itself is probably the answer. There is no exacting answer. It most likely differs for every microphone, every tube mic pre, and for every application.

While this question was directed at Voice, in another example would be if one liked a microphone companies sound that did not make a Tube mic counterpart.
While Soyuz and Mojave have their counterparts, other mic companies, such as Schopes, does not. That is the reason for the existence of both. And Hey, I know examples of people using a Tube mic, through a tube pre.

You know, the biggest areas where a the presence of a tube in a tube microphone in voice and in orchestra. I can describe it a bit scientifically and anecdotally.

1) The difference in tube verses solid state lies in interaction between the preamp and the capsule. The tube preamp has a characteristic combination of dynamic impedance response and capsule loading that contributes to the production of a certain sound. The solid state preamp has a different dynamic impedance response and thus generates a different response within the capsule. Once the signal goes through the preamp within the mic it is isolated, to a degree, from the dynamic effects of an input preamp's impedance, be that input preamp either tube or solid state.

2) Anecdotally, the biggest differences I've seen have been on solo human voice and en masse orchestra. Get a good baritone voice with a one-pack-a-day habit rasp and the best way to get that rip in the sound is a tube mic. We acquired a Neumann U-47 in 1983 and one of our voice talent's mics just cam alive. He had lived through a two-pack-a-day habit and cut down before he quit entirely. I was recording him through a Neve 8024 with 1073 preamps. That mic and an AKG "The Tube" mic just brought his voice alive completely differently from all the solid state mics. Also, I've worked with a lot of mics to record orchestras. The very best results I've had were with Neumann M-49 tube mics. In both cases, solid state mics just don't have the same sound. The tube Neumanns sound "pretty," a solid state AKG C414 sounds "clinical." When you are looking for a pretty sound, you want to reach for a tube mic.

I hope that helps.

Bob

You entered something that I had not thought about = how the Capsule itself will work differently with Tube vs Fet because of how it is being...Loaded?
Many microphone enthusiast praise the capsule design and build quality first, then the design of the microphone's internal preamps. It makes good sense in what you are saying, that the mic preamp can make the capsule react - perform differently.

I was only looking at it from and External point of view, how the electronics might effect the sound. Instead of how the electronics might effect the capsule. Excellent explanation.

Well Bob, you really did it, you satisfied this age old question I had burning inside! Great answer.

Just for fun, what are your thoughts Bob, about running a Tube microphone through a Tube pre, verses a non tube pre? You are already getting the tube benefits, what more does running through a tube pre add?

And what are your thoughts about running a Non tube mic, through a tube pre?...Taming transients and adding harmonics is what others have said.?

No, you'll get something different that you may or may not prefer over the sound of the FET through a solid state preamp, but you won't get the sound of the tube version. It more complicated than simply adding a piece of tube gear to the chain.

In case it needs to be said, for any given person, the right mic might be a tube or FET. It's not true that a tube mic is always better, nor is it true that a tube version of FET mic will be better on any given source. If you're looking for a mic for some specific purpose, don't fall in love with the mic, fall in love with the results you get from the mic.

You'd get different options, not more options. If you own a FET mic and two mic pres, one tube and one solid state, You have two options for your FET mic. If you own a tube mic and two mic pres, one tube and one solid state, You have two options for your tube mic. Same number of options.

And in case it comes up, that canard about not using a tube mic with a tube pre is nonsense. It's the audio equivalent of an old wives' tale.

Yes. But not every tube mic is going to be to your liking. Tube isn't always better but sometimes it is. You seem to be looking for some kind of scientific quantification but you're not going to find any. Choosing a mic is an entirely subjective thing. You're not going to land on the right mic choice through pencil and paper analysis. You have to use your ears.

What you are talking about is a purely aesthetic choice. Examples: A Neumann TLM170 large diaphragm, solid state, transformerless mic through a tube Avalon VT737 with no EQ has a wonderful, smooth high-end but can be a little "cardboard-y," meaning I typically have to reduce a little resonance in the 400hz region. Put it on a Neve Portico 5015 and the resonance shifts down an octave and the top-end sounds more blocky. Run the tube U-47 through the Avalon and it sounds smooth, sort of like the Avalon. Put it through the Portico and the mic's rasp comes back out.

You really have to choose mic and preamp for the desired final sound. There isn't a bad combination, just desired or not.

Bob

You did not mention what pre you would be running the tube mic into But I don't think it really matters much.
I don't know for certain BUT honestly I think (like others have suggested) you will get a somewhat different sound from a FET and Tube mic into the same pre .And no I don't think you will simulate a tube mic by running an FET mic into a tube mic pre



Personally (If it were me) and if you are considering the price of the Soyuz Tube mic, Having experienced how great my ADK Z Mod 251 tube mic is, I would take a long hard look at the Z mod line About $2500 street and hard to beat at all close to the price point .

I happen to have an A Designs MP2A tube mic pre and for years I ran my Brauner Phantom V (FET) into it and like the sound . But I finally had the opportunity to add a tube mic and after lots of auditions, settled on the ADK

Both give great results and I could live with either but tend to use the ADK now most of the time

I have heard nice things about ADK...but you don't see that many comparison videos, or reviews on them.

I looked them up and it seems like they use many quality components. But who makes their capsule, do you know?

I am reasonably familiar with the sounds of a 67, 47 & 49....but for some reason I have not experienced the famed 251 tone. Can you describe what it is about this mic that you like.

I was hoping to go to Vintage King and demo their large collection of LDC for Voice. They have a nice room with mics all in a row so you can go right down the line and hear them. But of course, that is not possible now, Until Covid -19 lifts.

In truth, I was willing to invest in a great pair of Schoeps. It seems nothing else satisfied me for my guitar. Would prefer not to invest in a expensive vocal mic. That is why the possibility of a tube mic pre has some interest. A much less expensive way to go. However, as it is with all things...there are some things that just can not be truly duplicated. Actually with most all things. No substitutes for the real deal.

When I set out to look into a tube mic. (about a 4 year process) I had had the opportunity to sing into and watch an extensive shootout in a Java Jive Studio outside Nashville, which included a vintage U47 and was very impressed with its sound. So I had assumed I would be getting a modern (i.e. less expensive) either U47 or U67 based mic.

I don't remember exact details but during that search became aware of ADK through an article where famed Producer Chuck Ainlay said something to the effect that he could not hear any difference between an ADK Z Mod 251 and a vintage Telefunken ELAM 251 he was auditioning.

I did not think much about it at the time. Couple years later I found out my local independent and favorite Pro Audio store/recording studio (from which I have purchased most of my gear) had become an ADK dealer .

When I did and in studio shootout of my Brauner and the ADK's 47-67and the 251 it became clear that on my voice the 251 (upper baritone lower tenor) had a slight bit more presence in the high end and was a tad bit more flattering overall IMO. The 47 was a bit darker, the 67 was a bit smoother, but the 251 just had that tiny little bit, something extra. I have some files of that shootout of the Brauner and ADK 251 and 67 (Lost the 47 file somehow and I dont remember the pre ) BUT I will post some clips later today or tomorrow

I will look forward to that.