That sound didnt come cheap, either.
I'm intrigued when I read something like a studio's engineer would put the signal through one and not even use compression. So, take away the speedy sidechain amp. Then you have a couple of transformers with a set of tubes in between, at a fixed bias, for each channel. Whatever that does, it's in the master recording and the producer agrees it sounds good.
So you actually get double the effects for the money; one is always on, the other your choice to use it or leave it off.
Now, could
be used in a compressor circuit - and sound better than the op-amp that it can - apparently - drop into the circuit this guy shows in his ebay listing? Sound better than, in terms of what the transformers do for the sound going through that Fairchild device?
I'm intrigued when I read something like a studio's engineer would put the signal through one and not even use compression. So, take away the speedy sidechain amp. Then you have a couple of transformers with a set of tubes in between, at a fixed bias, for each channel. Whatever that does, it's in the master recording and the producer agrees it sounds good.
So you actually get double the effects for the money; one is always on, the other your choice to use it or leave it off.
Now, could
be used in a compressor circuit - and sound better than the op-amp that it can - apparently - drop into the circuit this guy shows in his ebay listing? Sound better than, in terms of what the transformers do for the sound going through that Fairchild device?
Hi,
It's no secrets some transformers have a sound of their own. 'Sound is in the iron'.
Most sought after 'vintage' desks ( read analog) use them for good technical reason ( galvanic isolation, impedance matching), the euphonic sound is a side effect.
Neve, Api, SSL, Sphere, Mci, Focusrite, Amek, Urei, Harrisson,.... they all used some at one place or another most often more than one in signal path.
The most simple architecture design (API) got their signature from the number of transformers used in signal path which induce phase rotation and harmonic generation at each stage. To the point you got to use the same number you would find in a typical signal path if you want to come close to the sound signature of original ( for classic Api consoles it means mic input, direct ouput ( to tape machine), summing amp ( output transformers), bus amplifier ( output transformers). All in all it's one input transfo and three output ones, 4 total.
Same thing for older 'classic' Neve designs... ( 1073 (one in/out), 1272 ( one in/out), master out ( half a ba283 so one output transfo). And this is without counting the one before the desk ( mic output, outboard gear,...)
That said it depend of what you are looking for: what works for classic rock sound doesn't for other styles.
If you want neutral then better use fewer (or none) in signal path: this is the main difference between recording/mixing studio and mastering facilities.
In mastering where you usually try to be 'harmless' wrt original sound yo'll find less transformers used or option to bypass them for electronically dedicated receiver or drivers.
It really depend what you are looking for. And why 670 is not something sought after in modern styles/genre.
It's no secrets some transformers have a sound of their own. 'Sound is in the iron'.
Most sought after 'vintage' desks ( read analog) use them for good technical reason ( galvanic isolation, impedance matching), the euphonic sound is a side effect.
Neve, Api, SSL, Sphere, Mci, Focusrite, Amek, Urei, Harrisson,.... they all used some at one place or another most often more than one in signal path.
The most simple architecture design (API) got their signature from the number of transformers used in signal path which induce phase rotation and harmonic generation at each stage. To the point you got to use the same number you would find in a typical signal path if you want to come close to the sound signature of original ( for classic Api consoles it means mic input, direct ouput ( to tape machine), summing amp ( output transformers), bus amplifier ( output transformers). All in all it's one input transfo and three output ones, 4 total.
Same thing for older 'classic' Neve designs... ( 1073 (one in/out), 1272 ( one in/out), master out ( half a ba283 so one output transfo). And this is without counting the one before the desk ( mic output, outboard gear,...)
That said it depend of what you are looking for: what works for classic rock sound doesn't for other styles.
If you want neutral then better use fewer (or none) in signal path: this is the main difference between recording/mixing studio and mastering facilities.
In mastering where you usually try to be 'harmless' wrt original sound yo'll find less transformers used or option to bypass them for electronically dedicated receiver or drivers.
It really depend what you are looking for. And why 670 is not something sought after in modern styles/genre.
I don't think that Fairchild transformers come anywhere near saturation that would cause noticble distortion but... the tubes most certainly do. It's a balanced system that produces up to about 1% hyperbolic Tangent distortion based on various design limits that prevent it from overloading too much. This produces almost exclusively odd harmonics if done well and the Fairchild does it well.
And yes, this can be a cool effect. It's all over 60s and 70s recordings and if you want to hear a blantant Hyperbolic Tangent overload listen to Mick's voice on Wild Horses. That's a UA tube preamp overloading in the Muscle Shoals studio. If saturating transformers were audible in this case the preamp would be quite the engineering failure and it was not. That is the classic sound of a balanced tube stage logarithmically overloading. There's no "clipping" going on here. It's an infinite logarithmic overload and that's what makes it what it is.
And yes, this can be a cool effect. It's all over 60s and 70s recordings and if you want to hear a blantant Hyperbolic Tangent overload listen to Mick's voice on Wild Horses. That's a UA tube preamp overloading in the Muscle Shoals studio. If saturating transformers were audible in this case the preamp would be quite the engineering failure and it was not. That is the classic sound of a balanced tube stage logarithmically overloading. There's no "clipping" going on here. It's an infinite logarithmic overload and that's what makes it what it is.
I understand every generation wants their own representative style, versus what may be perceived as "elevator music". And if Mr 670 is a tool that shaped the sound of a particular generation, I can understand how a subsequent one might hear what it does and respond "No, just no" regarding how they might be looking to differentiate themselves from "Grandpa's music".
Generational differentiation in music lost me during Rap's evolution. OK, talk instead of sing - at least there's still a very discernible beat to it. Then I noticed the next target not yet explored was rhythm itself. Let's take any discernible "swing" and replace it with temporal white noise. No melody, no meter - you lost me as a customer, but understandable to not want me or deliberately repulse me as a customer of a younger generation's material. I wonder how the 670 would do processing that stuff.
Between 10 - 20 years ago, I used to attend these dances. Never had as much fun in all of life. About 7 years ago, I took my now wife to one, remembering the good time. Whoever the DJ was, was able to play selection after selection of what I call this temporal white noise stuff. Not possible to move your body to, not possible to predict when in time the next footstep should land. OK, rhythms gone; maybe there's a soaring melody I can get under my wings. Nothing in that dimension to lock onto, either. "Well, it wasnt like this before!" It truly was an evening ruined by a particular DJ, who made sure to play only a-temporal stuff... Never been back - they got rid of me for good. FWIW, these are supposed to be adult, all ages welcome creative dance evenings. There were people older than me, when I first attended, in my early 50s!.
I can understand how a tool that, say, made the Beatles sound a particular way on playback would be useless waaay out on the fringes of musical dimension differentiation.
I searched for a bipolar log amp, as I used to have a schematic for one made out of a transistor array chip. This came up instead, as they used one to try and quantify input signal levels coming into mixing consoles. Interesting read about the harmonics and all as a recorded signal drives the amplifiers toward clipping. So I imagine a compressor is actually working in amplitude envelope modification and harmonic spectrum envelope modofication. Here it is; relevant for pop recording anyway.
Hi JJ,
Well i didn't write previous message in order to make a generation fight.
In no way i think music from the past is 'elevator music' or that newer=better.
It's just the way things evolve, music evolve.
From a pure technical pov, a 670 isn't able to catch transients in the same way a Cranesong Stc8 will ever do. Likewise when the 670 was conceived low bass content in music was almost inexistent.
Just take a look at any Drake's track and you'll get where the difference is.
Does it make a 670 obsolete? Absolutely not. It's just a tool better aimed at some kind of music rather than another.
It's true for any tool from any period in time.
How would had sounded Amy Whinehouse if Mark Ronson didn't had the skills and access to vintage gear to produce Back to Black? How John White ( from Whitestripes) could have produced some out of time classics without access to original vintage gear and know how to use it?
None of them would have used the same gear Drake used as they would not have had THAT sound.
Time constant on 660/670 as well as architecture used makes it what it is. It works wonder for classic rock, r&b, classical you name them. In mono version it's a killer tool for bass or voices, can make huge snare, makes room mics on drums impressive if slammed, it can glue busses like nothing else.
Send it a synthesiser sub line and it just sucks.
You seems to think younger just want to differenciate from the past. Well every singer who ever used a U47 tube, M49, U67, Elam251 or C800g (choose the one better assorted to source voice) will crave for more whatever his age...
About dj, well you got close encounter with Glitch style it seems. It can't please everyone. But atonal and arythmical is not something which have been invented by recent generation. Youngers got it popularised and widespread into popular genres( in contrast to 'sacred' music from which it emerged during last century).
Algorythmic music got pioneered through works of P.Boulez, J.Cage,... people like that. It was restricted in distribution and reserved to an 'elite' ( it was the last evolution of classical music...).
Freejazz in the 70's pushed the boundary even more from popular background. Then electronic music took place on it. People like Autechre, Oval. Then the Glitch scene took over...
Is it easily accessible music? Certainly not. You have to be educated about it. Like for P.Boulez work. Or any 'conceptual' work of art. Marcel Deschamps or Andy Wharol anyone?
Is it pleasurable, danceable? Is it mainstream? Probably not. As was Industrial music in the 80's... which is now standard background music on any 'dark' series you can find on Netflix. Time will tell if it was/is something which will last and put it's imprint on musical history. Is it a way to repulse customers, especially if older? No it's not. You just don't have the key to access it.
If it hurts your feelings then you probably won't dig to have those keys but don't put blame on someone or something trying to reject you.
It doesn't make sense. And if you dislike something then it's fine. At least you know it exist and doesn't please you: this is culture.
I think there is a quiproquo coming from the DJ term too: people not into DJ culture think it's only dance related. It's not anymore ( if it ever was as radio dj i've heard didn't try to make people dance most of the time), just a way to make music amongst other.
Hamm article is a classic. That said what was true about 1973 transitors have moved a bit as those were novelty at that time and not entirely managed.
Last edited:
Hi Krivium,
First off, let me apologize if it seemed I cast you as someone of a younger generation or even assume you're younger than me, as I really dont know / cant tell from your replies here. Motivation to reply was to postulate how "modern genres" could have evolved to where something like the 370 isnt a useful tool. Could be as simple as the tip of the screwdriver is too wide for the slot in the screw.
Admittedly, my range of musical appreciation is limited and I dont have / cant summon the keys for a lot of stuff. I'd fail the Frank Zappa test, of two record players playing two different recordings in the same room. Same recording, flanged to make a slight delay, yeah. But not two disparate pieces playing simultaneously.
Saw a John Cage performance in freshman year at uni. Pretty sure he had mics in his ears, a gain control on his belt. He walked about the stage, adjusting the gain so as to get feedbacks from the sound system at different positions. Though fascinating to watch him do the performance, being both atonal and atempo, I was kinda like "Meh".
An acquaintance I hung with for a short time in high school built studio equipment professionally. He had a 19" rackmount box, with an array of joysticks on the front. Told me John Cage contracted him to build it; he was going to have dancers assigned to follow their song about on stage wherever he panned it; L-R, F-B. I assume multiple dancers, multiple simultaneous musical pieces by how many joysticks there were. A performance probably unapproachable viewed through my more meat and potatoes limitations.
I like jazz, was a fan of jazzrock, but realize I'm limited in how far from melody toward dissonant cacophony of "free jazz" I can go. I assume "glitch" is a similar exploration along the temporal dimension. Though still pretty quick at the traffic light when it turns green, I just dont have the keys to get my body to respond to that arythmic style and have it be a fun experience. So, in dance I can hit a wall too.
Oh, I blame that particular DJ alright. What's "supposed" to happen at those particular dances is an energy buildup and down following what I could describe as a A-S-R envelope waveform stretched over, say a 1.5 hour dance. The DJ is free to set the length of each section, by placing songs with discernible energy levels along the course, with the highest energy stuff being roughly placed in the middle of the evening. This fellow was doing none of it, so there wasnt even a discernible flow to energy; song after song, it only seemed to me that a straight sequence of equally "impossible to move to" was the his theme for the evening.
I suppose one could follow such an energy envelope by starting with something a little slow and rythmic, then get more intense and glitchy in the middle, then bring it back down again into more predictable timing. Couldnt see that form / flow either. Anyway, it just so seemed that he was trying to be a repulsive as possible, by going as orthogonal as possible, as if that was a thing people attending a creative dance evening would somehow appreciate. Maybe some did.
First off, let me apologize if it seemed I cast you as someone of a younger generation or even assume you're younger than me, as I really dont know / cant tell from your replies here. Motivation to reply was to postulate how "modern genres" could have evolved to where something like the 370 isnt a useful tool. Could be as simple as the tip of the screwdriver is too wide for the slot in the screw.
Admittedly, my range of musical appreciation is limited and I dont have / cant summon the keys for a lot of stuff. I'd fail the Frank Zappa test, of two record players playing two different recordings in the same room. Same recording, flanged to make a slight delay, yeah. But not two disparate pieces playing simultaneously.
Saw a John Cage performance in freshman year at uni. Pretty sure he had mics in his ears, a gain control on his belt. He walked about the stage, adjusting the gain so as to get feedbacks from the sound system at different positions. Though fascinating to watch him do the performance, being both atonal and atempo, I was kinda like "Meh".
An acquaintance I hung with for a short time in high school built studio equipment professionally. He had a 19" rackmount box, with an array of joysticks on the front. Told me John Cage contracted him to build it; he was going to have dancers assigned to follow their song about on stage wherever he panned it; L-R, F-B. I assume multiple dancers, multiple simultaneous musical pieces by how many joysticks there were. A performance probably unapproachable viewed through my more meat and potatoes limitations.
I like jazz, was a fan of jazzrock, but realize I'm limited in how far from melody toward dissonant cacophony of "free jazz" I can go. I assume "glitch" is a similar exploration along the temporal dimension. Though still pretty quick at the traffic light when it turns green, I just dont have the keys to get my body to respond to that arythmic style and have it be a fun experience. So, in dance I can hit a wall too.
Oh, I blame that particular DJ alright. What's "supposed" to happen at those particular dances is an energy buildup and down following what I could describe as a A-S-R envelope waveform stretched over, say a 1.5 hour dance. The DJ is free to set the length of each section, by placing songs with discernible energy levels along the course, with the highest energy stuff being roughly placed in the middle of the evening. This fellow was doing none of it, so there wasnt even a discernible flow to energy; song after song, it only seemed to me that a straight sequence of equally "impossible to move to" was the his theme for the evening.
I suppose one could follow such an energy envelope by starting with something a little slow and rythmic, then get more intense and glitchy in the middle, then bring it back down again into more predictable timing. Couldnt see that form / flow either. Anyway, it just so seemed that he was trying to be a repulsive as possible, by going as orthogonal as possible, as if that was a thing people attending a creative dance evening would somehow appreciate. Maybe some did.
Last edited:
The gear plays a MAJOR role and interestingly I was exploring this last night as my my wife and I are getting our duo up and running again.
What I'm finding is rather shocking. We didn't perform regularly for 3 years and our sound is radically different as a result of our new and old gear working together. I can't get into specifics about some of it here becuase it's commercial.
I can tell you that my analog tube emulations are rocking my world. I developed a pedal based on my needs, not the market it ended up in, and it allows me to ride the dynamics of what I'm now thinking is better than a tube amp and certainly better than anything DSP I have played through which is most of it. My reference for that is Kemper but I don't find it very good and don't waste time on DSP or real tubes. I have no use for them.
But getting back to the concept of the influence of gear, our plan last night was to rehearse just a few songs to ease back into playing and see how much work we have ahead of us to get polished again. We ended up playing 25 songs and performed some better than ever. We were playing to the gear and better than I could have imagined.
The PA in my Lab/Studio is a Pioneer SX-580 with a couple of nice Pyle bookshelf speakers fed by a very modest Alesis MultiMix4 mixer that my circuits feed into. The combo sounds like a very produced performance in the room that isn't too loud or soft.
For these rehearsals the Pioneer can't handle the bass guitar and so it went through my guitar amp that I can show you because it's not on the market. The one pictured is a different color, but otherwise the same. My personal one is the only one we have now. The amp did a fine job putting the bass in the room through it's modest 8 inch Jensen and we had quite the good time playing. This amp is very unique and worthy if it's own thread at some point.
Now I'm very fired up about getting my latest compressor circuits going to complete a suitcase system I have in mind. It will feed into my rack mount power amp and Hi Fi tower speakers that we have been gigging with for years. Conventional powered PA speakers are generally horrible and have always used a more Hi Fi approached for my performances.
What I'm finding is rather shocking. We didn't perform regularly for 3 years and our sound is radically different as a result of our new and old gear working together. I can't get into specifics about some of it here becuase it's commercial.
I can tell you that my analog tube emulations are rocking my world. I developed a pedal based on my needs, not the market it ended up in, and it allows me to ride the dynamics of what I'm now thinking is better than a tube amp and certainly better than anything DSP I have played through which is most of it. My reference for that is Kemper but I don't find it very good and don't waste time on DSP or real tubes. I have no use for them.
But getting back to the concept of the influence of gear, our plan last night was to rehearse just a few songs to ease back into playing and see how much work we have ahead of us to get polished again. We ended up playing 25 songs and performed some better than ever. We were playing to the gear and better than I could have imagined.
The PA in my Lab/Studio is a Pioneer SX-580 with a couple of nice Pyle bookshelf speakers fed by a very modest Alesis MultiMix4 mixer that my circuits feed into. The combo sounds like a very produced performance in the room that isn't too loud or soft.
For these rehearsals the Pioneer can't handle the bass guitar and so it went through my guitar amp that I can show you because it's not on the market. The one pictured is a different color, but otherwise the same. My personal one is the only one we have now. The amp did a fine job putting the bass in the room through it's modest 8 inch Jensen and we had quite the good time playing. This amp is very unique and worthy if it's own thread at some point.
Now I'm very fired up about getting my latest compressor circuits going to complete a suitcase system I have in mind. It will feed into my rack mount power amp and Hi Fi tower speakers that we have been gigging with for years. Conventional powered PA speakers are generally horrible and have always used a more Hi Fi approached for my performances.
First I should say that Solid Tube Technology or STT is a potential problem here because it's commercial and related to productd that I have out there, but... The amplifier above that uses it is not currently on the market and I can avoid telling you the names of any active products that use STT. I'm walking a line with the rules and I don't want to violate them.
The short answer is that STT is based on designing BJT(Bipolar Junction Transistor) circuits to always operate within a range that is consistent with tube characteristics. Transistors have the ability to easily surpass the performance of tubes and it's an engineering challenge to hold them back to essentially be tubes. Part of this is simply due to the practical nature of using lots of transistors, but there's quite a bit more too it of course.
The "magic" is in the details of the parameters. Knowing exactly what theses parameters are and where to draw the line with them is pretty complex. The schematics in this case tell you very little. They look "conventional" and everyone I have showed them to immediately gravitates to their acedemic bias and as a result often have only a vague idea what's actually going on with the circuit. Don't get me wrong, I have spent WAY too much time in acedemia and industry myself and of course there's significant value to all of that. The point here is that some of is completely wrong and can seriously mislead you. Transistors are a perfect example of some widespread faleshoods that do lead to lots of bad design that has led to lots of reputation problems surrounding BJTs.
My early STT based efforts were related to balanced tube outputs which are often called push-pull but that's a slang that should be avoided in my opinion. These circuits proved to to be instrumental in getting VOX style overload and balanced tube mic preamp effects. Then I noticed that the exact sound was coming from Mick Jagger's vocal in Wild Horses and that lead to another very interesting device.
Then I worked out my version of the common cathode mode of the 12AX7. This led to cascading my emulated 12AX7s to get various tube guitar amp front end effects. This includes how the Dumble effect really works.
The work continues.
The short answer is that STT is based on designing BJT(Bipolar Junction Transistor) circuits to always operate within a range that is consistent with tube characteristics. Transistors have the ability to easily surpass the performance of tubes and it's an engineering challenge to hold them back to essentially be tubes. Part of this is simply due to the practical nature of using lots of transistors, but there's quite a bit more too it of course.
The "magic" is in the details of the parameters. Knowing exactly what theses parameters are and where to draw the line with them is pretty complex. The schematics in this case tell you very little. They look "conventional" and everyone I have showed them to immediately gravitates to their acedemic bias and as a result often have only a vague idea what's actually going on with the circuit. Don't get me wrong, I have spent WAY too much time in acedemia and industry myself and of course there's significant value to all of that. The point here is that some of is completely wrong and can seriously mislead you. Transistors are a perfect example of some widespread faleshoods that do lead to lots of bad design that has led to lots of reputation problems surrounding BJTs.
My early STT based efforts were related to balanced tube outputs which are often called push-pull but that's a slang that should be avoided in my opinion. These circuits proved to to be instrumental in getting VOX style overload and balanced tube mic preamp effects. Then I noticed that the exact sound was coming from Mick Jagger's vocal in Wild Horses and that lead to another very interesting device.
Then I worked out my version of the common cathode mode of the 12AX7. This led to cascading my emulated 12AX7s to get various tube guitar amp front end effects. This includes how the Dumble effect really works.
The work continues.
Last edited: