Fet versus Tube

[AcousticDreams]

A new microphone from Lewitt called the 1040. It can switch from FET to Tube, to warm, dark, and saturated modes.
Expensive mic for sure.

I found their comparison samples to be very enlightening. They used all of modes with Female singer. On the female voice..I could instantly hear the...BIG tube sound people are always talking about.

Don't know if I ever really knew what people were talking about in how Tube add's this Biggness to voice. And it might just be that is where Tubes really shine is on vox. In their examples....a seemingly big difference. From sharp and pronounced with FET, to big and creamy with Tube. The voice seemingly stood out more.

They also have other examples using Acoustic Guitar and Piano. But I do not think they used the best sounding guitars or pianos. So that made it a little harder to evaluate.
https://www.lewitt-audio.com/microph...tent=Gearspace

[KevWind]

It is an interesting idea.
I am not quite clear is it in fact and actual two complete different Tube circuit and FET circuit ? They don't mention a tube or type in the specs And it seems as if some software is also at play also with the tube standard, and tube warm, etc.

Here is a couple of samples of straight up analog, FET Neumann U87ai and a Tube ADK Z Mod 251

Understanding of course they are different performances at different places with different pre's etc. And the levels are a bit off with a little bit higher on the 87ai sample (I think) , so not an A/B per.se. at all.. but none the less kinda of interesting for tonality.??

I don't know about "bigness" But there is a noticeable difference of "tonal characteristic" on my voice and neither is bad I don't think , just fairly different

The U87 ai is actually recorded in a control room of a Mid Town Manhattan high end Post Production studio

The 251 is in my home studio

I recommend hopscotching back and forth in 3-5 second intervals to really get the tonal difference on the sam phrases ...YMMV

[AcousticDreams]

Great comparison Kevwind!

The U87 has more...forwardness to begin with than most other FET LDC mics that I have heard. The 87 gives that fullness of a tube in some ways.

Yet the Tube ADKZ had even more fullness and roundness than the 87. I could hear the hard edges disappear into smoothness. That might be the biggest difference I heard in your examples. With the Lewitt I heard that and more presence of some sort.

The Lewitt is interesting, only because I can hear the difference so easily. I am not considering this mic in any way. But kudos to them for making a mic where you can hear differences so easily.
The term, Big and or 3D, is something that I have heard over and over when people describe a great tube Mic, and or a great tube preamp.. I am now beginning to see why. It does add something.

Now do you have any examples of the 87 into a Tube pre?

[jim1960]

That's an interesting idea if it's doing all those things very well because at that price point anyone has a right to expect a truly excellent microphone. I like the idea of it; I just wonder if compromises had to be made in order to make it happen. What I mean by that is was a better mic circuit, either tube or fet, discarded in order to create that mic. That's not a criticism of that microphone; it's just me wondering aloud (through my fingers).

My thinking is this... at $3500, it's not a mic that will find it's way into very many hobbyist studios. The price makes it a serious piece of gear and I think the majority of people who will spend that kind of money on a mic are likely to have other high end mics. I don't see this as a mic that will serve double duty simply because the buyer cannot afford other microphones in addition to this one. So this mic has to really shine in at least one of its circuits because I think the target consumer for this mic can afford two mics that do an excellent job and wouldn't have to settle for one mic that that has two circuits but only does a good job. And just to be clear, I'm not saying this mic only does a good job. Those clips are not enough for me to make that kind of evaluation. I'd need to hear more from other sources.

I do like the idea though and Lewitt has a very good reputation so this may very well turn out to be a great buy. I'm looking forward to hearing more about this one.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

Great comparison Kevwind!

The U87 has more...forwardness to begin with than most other FET LDC mics that I have heard. The 87 gives that fullness of a tube in some ways.

Yet the Tube ADKZ had even more fullness and roundness than the 87. I could hear the hard edges disappear into smoothness. That might be the biggest difference I heard in your examples. With the Lewitt I heard that and more presence of some sort.

The Lewitt is interesting, only because I can hear the difference so easily. I am not considering this mic in any way. But kudos to them for making a mic where you can hear differences so easily.
The term, Big and or 3D, is something that I have heard over and over when people describe a great tube Mic, and or a great tube preamp.. I am now beginning to see why. It does add something.

Now do you have any examples of the 87 into a Tube pre?

No that studio recording is the only one I have of an 87 and it was into a LaFont mic pre which is SS.

I do however have some examples of my Brauner Phantom V FET into my A-Designs tube pre.... I'll try to post them.

[Glennwillow]

I am no expert, just a home studio recording person, but I do have a decent tube LDC mic, a Warm Audio WA-47, and I also have a pair of Audio Technica AT4050 FET LDC mics.

These days I mostly use the WA-47 tube mic because I like the warmer tone on my own voice and most others that I have used it on. The warm vocal tone works well for uncluttered recordings, such as only one guitar and one voice. Something like the recording below:



I don't think the bass emphasis is huge; to me it's fairly subtle.

However, that tube "thickness" character does not always work as well in a very cluttered or dense recording with a complete band, especially with drums and bass guitar and vocal harmonies. I have been doing some Beatles covers lately, just to see if I can do them and how they work out, and I've found that the lead vocal does not stand out as well with the natural character of the tube mic, at least with my voice. To make my voice stand out a little more, I used a program from Izotope called Nectar, which analyzed my voice, applied some subtractive EQ as well as other things like compression and de-essing. Nectar gives a person a choice between vintage and modern processing and among those choices there are three levels of aggressiveness to apply to the processing. For the Beatles recordings using my voice, I ended up deciding on the Modern setting with medium aggressiveness and that made my voice jump out in a way that was closer to the Beatles' sound. An example is below:



I have found the Izotope Nectar program to be useful in many situations. I was doing a lot of church recording during the pandemic and was working with a female singer with an extremely hard-edge voice. For her voice, Nectar was perfect to mellow out her voice and take out the nasty edges. Nectar tends to thin my voice out, and many times I don't want that, but it was just what was needed for a Beatles cover, I thought.

I guess my point is that a good LDC microphone, like the 87 type microphones that Jim discussed in the recent shootout thread, probably provides most people with the kind of quality sound a person needs for most vocal recordings. For variations on that theme, however, a program like Nectar can give a person a lot of options based on the song and the singer.

As Jim points out $3500 is a lot of money for an LDC microphone. I listened to the sound samples for this Lewitt mic and I found them interesting, and I thought the quality was very good. I'm sure many recording engineers would prefer to get the quality of sound they want up front without resorting to programs like Nectar to modify them after the fact. So this mic may have appeal.

From my viewpoint, I'm happy with the choices I currently have. There are many ways to get good results with quality equipment for less money. So much depends on what kind of resources people have for home studio investments. I'm retired and am not going to be able to replace any money I spend on equipment these days, so I have become much more cautious and conservative than I was 6 years ago before I retired.

I hope this adds to the discussion.

- Glenn

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I do however have some examples of my Brauner Phantom V FET into my A-Designs tube pre.... I'll try to post them.

That would be nice. I will look forward to hearing that.

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

However, that tube "thickness" character does not always work as well in a very cluttered or dense recording with a complete band, especially with drums and bass guitar and vocal harmonies. I have been doing some Beatles covers lately, just to see if I can do them and how they work out, and I've found that the lead vocal does not stand out as well with the natural character of the tube mic, at least with my voice.

I guess my point is that a good LDC microphone, like the 87 type microphones that Jim discussed in the recent shootout thread, probably provides most people with the kind of quality sound a person needs for most vocal recordings. appeal.

So much depends on what kind of resources people have for home studio investments. I'm retired and am not going to be able to replace any money I spend on equipment these days, so I have become much more cautious and conservative than I was 6 years ago before I retired.

I hope this adds to the discussion.

- Glenn

Glenn you always add to the discussion with your great insights and observations.

Like yourself...I have to be cautious with with my spending. That is why the AGF recording has been of such great value. At least I can see, hear what might be the best possibility and make a good choices.

Regardless of how much I try to evaluated through these discussions, I know I will not always make the correct choice for myself. As Aloha Chris always says, "you have to try it for yourself in your own environment".

I believe you gave a key bit of information to me, in that the Tube sound Isn't always the best choice. That possibly the slightly harder edge of a FET might break through in a dense mix better. And I have to admit that makes some good sense.

I tend to think of in "Best" terms. That Best should mean it will work best for everything. However, as you have pointed out...there are some very real reasons why one mic might work well for one person, or one type of song, and not for another.

For the last several years I have been trying to figure out what is the real difference between using a Tube mic, or a FET mic through a tube amplifier.
Examples of mics that use the same capsule in both tube and non tube are plentiful. FET 47 versus U47. Soyuz Fet 17, and Soyuz Tube 17, Mojave Fet 301 and the Mojave tube 300.

I actually asked this question to a Mojave engineer at a NAMM show several years ago. He did not have an answer as to what the sound difference would be, however he did say this: With a tube microphone you are bypassing all the electronics of a FET mic and going into a Tube first."

So now I am wondering if possibly there are advantages to a FET going into a tube pre.. Possibly you can retain some of the harder edges and control the exact amount of roundness with a tube pre. As where vice versa...you have already eliminated the hardness with a tube mic and can not get any of it back. Hmmm? Food for thought?

Again Glenn, I am always so, so impressed with your recording, singing, playing accomplishments. As I have said before, Please consider me one of your biggest fans.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

So now I am wondering if possibly there are advantages to a FET going into a tube pre.. Possibly you can retain some of the harder edges and control the exact amount of roundness with a tube pre. As where vice versa...you have already eliminated the hardness with a tube mic and can not get any of it back. Hmmm? Food for thought?

I know people subscribe to some loose generalizations on this but my own experience is that it’s best to evaluate every combination on its own. For example, for a long time, I’d heard people say going tube mic into tube pre should be avoided. I’ve owned a lot of mics and preamps over the years and there’s just no truth to that kind of thinking. Every piece of gear, whether they share tubes or not, brings something different to the table. Sometimes those differences are slight and sometimes they’re quite stark. Sometimes a piece of gear compliments another, sometimes the results are less than stellar.

As I've said before, the Demeter VTMP-2b & VTMP-2c are good examples of that. That preamp has been wonderful with every FET mic I’ve ever heard run through it. Doesn’t mean the magic will be there every time but so far it has. Yet, I’ve never liked it with a tube mic. But I own a couple of other tube pres that have been stellar with tube mics. There’s no rhyme nor reason to it. Sometimes a combo works, sometimes not as well. I’m not saying I’ve come across a combo that’s terrible, just that some really do shine in a special way.

[KevWind]

OK finally got around to getting back to this

So here are three samples --- all are raw/dry no processing

The Phan V is My Brauner FET Phantom V into my A Designs tube pre at my home studio

Then the other two are ADK Z Mods tube mics I auditioned at Wind Over The Earth Studio (don't remember the pre)

So the song is the same song my original "The Question". BUT they are three different performances at two different locations ,and the Phan V performance is a year or more earlier . The two ADK are back to back performances at the WOTE studio







I already owned the Brauner and was keeping it,,, so my choice was between the ADKs which was a tough choice.. I chose the 251 but could not have gone wrong with the 67

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by jim1960

There’s no rhyme nor reason to it. Sometimes a combo works, sometimes not as well. I’m not saying I’ve come across a combo that’s terrible, just that some really do shine in a special way.

Originally Posted by KevWind

OK finally got around to getting back to this

So here are three samples --- all are raw/dry no processing

I already owned the Brauner and was keeping it,,, so my choice was between the ADKs which was a tough choice.. I chose the 251 but could not have gone wrong with the 67

Thanks for the Demo KevWind. Great comparison soundclips.

All of them sound excellent, but That 251 has a little bit of that extra Smoothness. I can see why you like it so much.

Surprisingly, the 67 tube, has a little more edge and quickness than the Phant V into tube pre.

A question for Jim1960,

What would you say is the difference in sound between your Flea 47 and the Lauten Atlantis through the Demeter? I know you have previously stated that they are very close.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

A question for Jim1960,

What would you say is the difference in sound between your Flea 47 and the Lauten Atlantis through the Demeter? I know you have previously stated that they are very close.

It's a hard thing to put into words. My buddy Vin uses "3-D" to describe what the Flea 47 brings to the table. To me, it almost feels like there's an additional sonic variable with the Flea ...a depth of sound that the Atlantis or lesser clones usually don't have.

So that's the difference.

However, the Atlantis does a great job with the lower frequencies. They have clarity and there's no smearing. The mids are solid and the highs are very reminiscent of my Flea. Not quite as much polish but close.

Here's a cool Atlantis story...
My buddy Jack is an uber talented studio engineer and mixer. He owns an Atlantis because I had loaned him mine at some point and it blew him away. Jack was doing a session with Gloria Gaynor (Never Can Say Goodbye, I Will Survive, etc) a few weeks back and he had her singing into the Atlantis. She liked that mic so much that she bought one to make sure she had that option no matter what studio she was recording in.

As I've said many times, if someone wants a 47-ish mic that doesn't break the bank, the Atlantis is a monster of a buy.

[Sasquatchian]

I don't have the Atlantis but I have two of the tube version L/A Eden LT-386, which are spectacular mics, a littles pricey in comparison to the Atlantis, but worth every penny in my estimation. Good enough for David Crosby and Nicki Minaj, good enough for me.