different combinations and possibilities for the dual 99v

Support for JLM Audio Kits

Moderator: Joe Malone

retractablezing
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:37 am

different combinations and possibilities for the dual 99v

Post by retractablezing »

greetings everyone,

i'm seriously considering a pair of JLM dual 99v as my main dual pre, but i reckon i need some help, especially regarding different combinations and what those will yield in the end.

i heard some BA samples (1:4 transformer, 1:1:1 output transformer and 99 amp combination) from some users, and there's something i don't quite like in the freq. response of these pres in terms of my main applications, which are vocals and old acoustic guitars.

for lack of better terms, i sometimes hear a hole in the mid freqs. when i listen to acoustic tracks done with these. too much low end, not enough high end and the hole in the middle.

however, this was only real aparent on one of the user's samples i heard. despite the tone being the same, on the other samples this was not nearly as problematic for me. but if in fact i'm building this, might as well get it right from the start i suppose.

i'll add that i didn't like the OEP sound samples either, again, for my given applications. a lot more high end than the others, but the same weird feel on the mids.

basically, i would like to know what transformer combinations would you folks recomend to obtain that saturated tone from the 60s and 70s EMI and Columbia recordings. I am aware that this a big equation, with lots of variables, but i am trying to put together most of them. already have a U47 clone coming up, a coles style modded ribbon and record to a tascam 388.

i am, by no means, looking for a bright/clear preamp, despite my main applications being vocals and acoustic guitars. i want it to be extremely saturated, with a considerable amount of hair, but still remaining extremely big/in your face, have lots of body/meat to the tone, and having over 70db of gain.

i also know that wanting is easy, hence me trying to post this and hear some thoughts.

either and anyway, thanks a lot in advance.

chrisp
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:46 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by chrisp »

Why not go for the 1272 kit instead? It sounds more like what you are after.
Chris P
---------------------------------------------------------
I do lots of things. I believe eclectic skills are best.

retractablezing
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:37 am

Post by retractablezing »

chrisp wrote:Why not go for the 1272 kit instead? It sounds more like what you are after.
hey thanks for the sugestion.

i thought this was simply an upgrade kit though, is it not?

http://www.jlmaudio.com/JLM%201272%20Switch%20kit.htm

or is the 1290 exactly it...

chrisp
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:46 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by chrisp »

Sorry - I meant 1290 indeed

http://jlmaudio.com/JLMMicro1290.htm
Chris P
---------------------------------------------------------
I do lots of things. I believe eclectic skills are best.

retractablezing
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:37 am

Post by retractablezing »

chrisp wrote:Sorry - I meant 1290 indeed

http://jlmaudio.com/JLMMicro1290.htm
thanks Chris.

btw, do you have it? can you tell me a bit about it?

chrisp
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:46 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by chrisp »

Hi again

Do I have it? Sadly, no. I've maxed out my preamp options with 1:4 99V BAs (and FWIW I don't find any missing mids) and some other vintage gear. But that's more based on what I record, which is not particularly 70s saturation.

Do my friends have it, and do they swear by it for that vintage 70s sound? Oh yes. BUT part of that sound is a great tape machine and some nice vintage outboard compression as well, so don't expect the preamp to do it all for you. But it that's the era you want, the 1290 is exactly the sort of preamp they were using.

Good luck with it.
Chris P
---------------------------------------------------------
I do lots of things. I believe eclectic skills are best.

User avatar
Godders
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:15 pm
Location: Bath, UK

Post by Godders »

I find audio samples are of very limited use.

Mic used, mic positioning, source, room sound, sound of your listening environment, monitoring etc. will all have a huge impact on the sound of the clip. MP3 encoding doesn't do any favours either. You're not really just hearing a preamp are you? If the mic doesn't suit the source then the preamp isn't going to be able to do much about it. Crap sounding instrument, same thing; crappy sounding room, same thing.

I own a 4 channel BA and the characteristics you describe don't apply to mine at all.

User avatar
Moogus
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:02 am
Location: Diego Garcia

Post by Moogus »

Id agree that its impossible to judge a preamp just from sound samples, especially from just one or two. Id also agree that MOST of the sound of those recordings you mentioned probably came from the multiple generations of tape recording they all would have been through.

The amount of electronics you go through to get in and out of a machine like an Ampex 440 or Studer A80 is equivilant to running your signal through another 2 mic pres, 2 equalisers and a limiter (each with more 'sound' than even a 99V). And those songs would have been through a minimum of 3 such machines by the time you play them back off a record. Thats a LOT of processing, each stage adding significant color(distortion).

So while your mic pre is always important, theres nothing that will make your mics sound like that in one box. At the very least youll have to go to tape with a machine like the ones they used back then, and they arent easy things to keep in working order.

Any 99V based pre will be a great place to start though. I very much doubt it will ever dissapoint you, as long as you remember its just a mic pre.


M@
Permission to buzz the tower DENIED!!

retractablezing
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:37 am

Post by retractablezing »

chrisp wrote:Hi again

Do I have it? Sadly, no. I've maxed out my preamp options with 1:4 99V BAs (and FWIW I don't find any missing mids) and some other vintage gear. But that's more based on what I record, which is not particularly 70s saturation.

Do my friends have it, and do they swear by it for that vintage 70s sound? Oh yes. BUT part of that sound is a great tape machine and some nice vintage outboard compression as well, so don't expect the preamp to do it all for you. But it that's the era you want, the 1290 is exactly the sort of preamp they were using.

Good luck with it.
thanks again Chris, i'm tempted. Seems like the hardest one to build too sadly..i'm very new to this, and don't know if i can manage such task as a first project.

retractablezing
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:37 am

Post by retractablezing »

Godders wrote:I find audio samples are of very limited use.

Mic used, mic positioning, source, room sound, sound of your listening environment, monitoring etc. will all have a huge impact on the sound of the clip. MP3 encoding doesn't do any favours either. You're not really just hearing a preamp are you? If the mic doesn't suit the source then the preamp isn't going to be able to do much about it. Crap sounding instrument, same thing; crappy sounding room, same thing.

I own a 4 channel BA and the characteristics you describe don't apply to mine at all.
Godders, i hear you. By all means, of course samples are limited. And by no means am i taking a stab at the BAs, i'm considering them! I really think JLM is the best deal out there by far, and i don't intend to pay for "brands" anymore, probably ever again.

Fact of the matter is, despite what i heard on this particular clip being something very strange indeed, more likely to a particularly bad instrument than anything else, i'm not too keen on a neve clone so to speak. I have a bassy voice, and i don't think the bottom i generally hear on this pre will handle that very well (funny samples and the others).

Again, some other clips were perfectly normal, but i don't think i'm looking for this particular tone. I itend to use the dual 99s though, due to the high gain, but more likely than not, i think i'm looking for a different set of transformers altogether.

retractablezing
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:37 am

Post by retractablezing »

Moogus wrote:Id agree that its impossible to judge a preamp just from sound samples, especially from just one or two. Id also agree that MOST of the sound of those recordings you mentioned probably came from the multiple generations of tape recording they all would have been through.

The amount of electronics you go through to get in and out of a machine like an Ampex 440 or Studer A80 is equivilant to running your signal through another 2 mic pres, 2 equalisers and a limiter (each with more 'sound' than even a 99V). And those songs would have been through a minimum of 3 such machines by the time you play them back off a record. Thats a LOT of processing, each stage adding significant color(distortion).

So while your mic pre is always important, theres nothing that will make your mics sound like that in one box. At the very least youll have to go to tape with a machine like the ones they used back then, and they arent easy things to keep in working order.

Any 99V based pre will be a great place to start though. I very much doubt it will ever dissapoint you, as long as you remember its just a mic pre.


M@
Moogus, thanks for the perspective. I am aware of the signal chain and its importance as a whole for the final outcome to the tone i'm after . However, i do want to get as close as i can to those era's designs in terms of preamps, especially transformer wise.

The rest is taken care of, to the dimension that i can afford obviosuly (tascam 388, etc), but everything is well on its way. I just have to figure out what i need in terms of pres.

Again, i'm not taking a stab at the BAs, that's the platform i want, but i was not at all happy with the general tone of the BAs i heard, taking in consideration that samples are just that of course. While i found that, in my very humble opinion, it's an extremely balsy and rich preamp, where the bass stands out, i found it somewhat lacking in terms of midrange...again, this is only my personal opinion and taste.

taking the BA configuration i heard as a base, i want something richer in the mids (richer, not punchier :wink: ), with tighter bass response and just a hint of sparkle, and i really want to hear more "hair" so to speak, a more pronounced fingerprint, but more balance as well, while retaining that bigger than life feel.

again, i know wanting is easy...but i suppose i have to start describing this somehow...

thanks for the help so far folks.

chrisp
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:46 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by chrisp »

Hi Retract

I've not done it, but I suspect the 1290 project is an easier build than the BA - most of it comes pre-assembled and there are just a few added components to do on the main board.

FWIW, I still believe its what you're after - the BA to my ear is much more modern sounding than a "neve clone", whereas the 1290 gets much more of that vibe.

If I could add to what has gone before, I'd also say that it can be hard to mix something where every track has been saturated. The bottom end gets less definition and the mids become muddled. Even if you're going for that sound, you may be better off targetting some key tracks for the 70's treatment (main vox, lead, kick and snare maybe) and using cleaner amps for the rest. Enough from me though. Good luck with the search.
Chris P
---------------------------------------------------------
I do lots of things. I believe eclectic skills are best.

User avatar
Moogus
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:02 am
Location: Diego Garcia

Post by Moogus »

retractablezing wrote:taking the BA configuration i heard as a base, i want something richer in the mids (richer, not punchier :wink: ), with tighter bass response and just a hint of sparkle, and i really want to hear more "hair" so to speak, a more pronounced fingerprint, but more balance as well, while retaining that bigger than life feel.

Seriously, its impossible to know what a preamp sounds like to that level of detail simply by hearing samples recorded by others, where you dont know the instrument, player, mic, room, A-D convertor etc etc. I think for any pre, to really know what its like down to that detail you have to record an album with it, and judge it after mixing+mastering. Its then that you get the best idea of the real differences between pres, no matter what the instrument or recording medium is.


BTW the BA is probably a little easier/quicker to build than the 1290 but not by much, as the amp modules on the 1290 are pre-assembed.


M@
Permission to buzz the tower DENIED!!

retractablezing
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:37 am

Post by retractablezing »

chrisp wrote:Hi Retract

I've not done it, but I suspect the 1290 project is an easier build than the BA - most of it comes pre-assembled and there are just a few added components to do on the main board.

FWIW, I still believe its what you're after - the BA to my ear is much more modern sounding than a "neve clone", whereas the 1290 gets much more of that vibe.

If I could add to what has gone before, I'd also say that it can be hard to mix something where every track has been saturated. The bottom end gets less definition and the mids become muddled. Even if you're going for that sound, you may be better off targetting some key tracks for the 70's treatment (main vox, lead, kick and snare maybe) and using cleaner amps for the rest. Enough from me though. Good luck with the search.
thanks for the wise words Chris. i hear you on stacking tracks. i don't go past 8/9 that many times, so it should be fine, but yeah, i intend to have some diversity, no doubt about it.

retractablezing
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:37 am

Post by retractablezing »

Moogus wrote:Seriously, its impossible to know what a preamp sounds like to that level of detail simply by hearing samples recorded by others, where you dont know the instrument, player, mic, room, A-D convertor etc etc. I think for any pre, to really know what its like down to that detail you have to record an album with it, and judge it after mixing+mastering. Its then that you get the best idea of the real differences between pres, no matter what the instrument or recording medium is.


BTW the BA is probably a little easier/quicker to build than the 1290 but not by much, as the amp modules on the 1290 are pre-assembed.


M@
Moogus, i hear you. but that's totally why i've come here and posted my thoughts and impressions on the BA - cause i didn't think that sample was right. on the other hand, there seems to be some tonal characteristics that are common to all the sound samples i've heard, and that must mean something...

again, i don't think the tone of the BA is what i'm looking for, but i welcome the gain and impendance possibilities on the dual 99. now, transformer wise, is where i feel i must really make the right decisions here...it's either that or the 1290 i suppose.

Post Reply