Soundcraft Spirit Folio Lite quality?

[dai h.]

anyone care to offer an opinion? Looking at a used one. Have done some websearching and there seems to be some positive regard for the mic preamps even on the lower end models. Thanks.

[Enzo]

In my experience they have always been really nice boards.

[dai h.]

thanks Enzo.

some of the points I'm gathering so far, reading impressions and an interview with (designer) Graham Blyth are that the "preamps" I'm using now (the mixer section of a Tascam 488mkII) don't handle overload well. Plus, it sounds like there is too much crosstalk and the EQ isn't very good. The Tascam only has two transistors at the XLR mic input (other schematics such as Amek, etc. show more) so it seems a lesser number do not help to provide gain enough to overcome noise when using low output dynamics (i.e. you end up with noiticable hiss). Overall maybe the design isn't very good (but possibly apt for the price?). So x4 decent(good?) preamps for about 100 bucks I guess is a good deal. Old and used so it'll have aged alu electros (but I can replace those) but a bit concerned about pots since they do wear out (and the designer talks about custom pots).

related link (interview with Graham Blyth) :

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1995...hamblythe.html

[Steve Conner]

I've owned the larger Spirit M12 for a good 7-8 years now. Never had any trouble, except a few of the 1/4" jack inputs have broken. The plugs jammed in them and the contacts bent when I tried to pull the plug out. I think the Folio has different jacks to the M12, though, and you can get spares from Harman International anyway, last time I checked. I never replaced them as I'm dreading trying to dismantle the thing: it's all one huge PCB.

I think the "custom taper" thing is funny. On my Spirit the mic gain knobs do practically nothing for most of their travel and then the gain leaps up massively in about the last 10%. It's almost like they were supposed to be antilog but they used log by mistake!

I recorded parts of our band's demo CD on the M12, and the guy who mixed it for us never complained. I'm guessing all the Spirit range share the same mic pre circuit. It doesn't sound nearly as sexy as the other mic pre I've used, a Focusrite Twintrak Pro, but I think the sex factor in this is basically a treble boost and more harmonic distortion.

The pots seem fine. The monitor level pot is usually the first to go, but mine is still going strong.

[dai h.]

thanks Steve. Crossing my fingers that it's still there when I go to check it out. The Focusrite looks pretty nice but at nearly $500 for the single channel I'll have to wait 'til I win the lottery.

veering a bit off topic but been reading a bits and pieces of re:the grounds in the mixer. I remembered reading from some famous Japanese trumpet player interview about how putting the recording through a big mixer ruins the sound, and finally (years later) it makes sense now. I guess it's to do with unbalanced circuits and large circuitry and grounds being extended and consequently ending up with (relatively) lots of R. And the other way around of anecdotal reports (besides noise) of improved imaging, etc. when star grounding. Probably from using substantially more copper (relative to typically thin PCB traces). So (trying to reduce or negate those effects) mixers using low-Z circuits and more balanced circuitry(not just inputs) makes more sense. Maybe it'd make sense to use up some leftover bus wire to beef up PCB grounds in some equipment.

http://www.clarkhuckaby.com/SdcftMod/scftmain.html

http://www.tangible-technology.com/articles/200b.html

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...cb4ac2989042d5

[Steve Conner]

I wouldn't believe any anecdotal reports of anything in the recording business as far as I could throw them. :P

I suspect big mixers just ruin the sound (if they actually do at all) because the noise and high-order distortion harmonics creep up on you as the signal goes through stage after stage.

Also, a mixer is a place where a lot of cables meet. The more wires you have coming together in one place, the more ground loops you get, to pick up hum, buzz and hash from your mains wiring, computer monitor, switched-mode supply in your PC, etc.

Since I got my Twintrak Pro with the ADC option card, I don't have to worry about any of that! Too bad Focusrite don't sell musical talent too

[dai h.]

I wouldn't believe any anecdotal reports of anything in the recording business as far as I could throw them. :P

I suspect big mixers just ruin the sound (if they actually do at all) because the noise and high-order distortion harmonics creep up on you as the signal goes through stage after stage.

Also, a mixer is a place where a lot of cables meet. The more wires you have coming together in one place, the more ground loops you get, to pick up hum, buzz and hash from your mains wiring, computer monitor, switched-mode supply in your PC, etc.

well, okay the effects might be more subtle but in general isn't it a good thing for the ground impedance to be low and closer to the ideal equipotential state? If you keep lowering the ground impedance if you have a ground loop, can't you get rid of it?

Since I got my Twintrak Pro with the ADC option card, I don't have to worry about any of that! Too bad Focusrite don't sell musical talent too

another thing I wonder if I'm thinking obsoletely in analog mode when the analog state of things may not matter as much if you can manipulate them extensively in digital (EQs, etc.). Maybe the end result sounds nothing like what you put in but perhaps as long as it's manipulated the way you want it's okay? (much more artistic than "accurate reproduction")

[Steve Conner]

Yes, low ground impedance is good. (I read your translation of that Japanese article on grounding, it was excellent and I agree 100% with it.) But you'll probably never get rid of ground loops entirely that way. Maybe within a single piece of equipment, but once you start filling a whole room with equipment, it's much more cost-effective to just use balanced interconnects, than superconducting grounding straps as thick as your thumb ;-)

"Accurate reproduction" is just an impossible myth, IMO. I gave up worrying about it long ago, and just think in terms of "Reproduction that I like" and "Reproduction that I don't." And of course "Reproduction that I think other people will like" when I'm working on projects for other people...

So when it comes to mic preamps, I look for the characteristics described in the famous Russell O. Hamm paper on tubes vs. transistors. IMO, an overload characteristic musical enough to be used for compression (which is what the paper describes) is the only thing worth paying extra for in a mic pre. And maybe low noise too, I guess.

And it's not like a Folio Lite will have a better overload characteristic than a Portastudio. All of these things share the same mic pre design, which is basically an op-amp with a long-tailed transistor pair strapped onto the front of it. So they all clip hard and have no duty cycle modulation, which makes them no good for compression, judged by the standards of the Hamm paper.

The Folio might be quieter, but if you're recording a speaker simulator direct onto cassette tape, you're probably not going to notice!

steve

[dai h.]

Yes, low ground impedance is good. (I read your translation of that Japanese article on grounding, it was excellent and I agree 100% with it.) But you'll probably never get rid of ground loops entirely that way. Maybe within a single piece of equipment, but once you start filling a whole room with equipment, it's much more cost-effective to just use balanced interconnects, than superconducting grounding straps as thick as your thumb ;-)

right, the author of that article seems to be into balanced circuits at the moment and he doesn't like the approach of using more metal (he is philosophically opposed to the sort of approach of using really expensive components like WE300Bs or "mojo"). At least it seems easy to see why a manf. doesn't add a bunch of huge copper wires for a "star grounding scheme" (esp. with rising copper prices these days).

"Accurate reproduction" is just an impossible myth, IMO. I gave up worrying about it long ago, and just think in terms of "Reproduction that I like" and "Reproduction that I don't." And of course "Reproduction that I think other people will like" when I'm working on projects for other people...

what I maybe should have said is that the analog part still matters since it's necessary for the sound to be listened to despite whatever convenience digital offers

So when it comes to mic preamps, I look for the characteristics described in the famous Russell O. Hamm paper on tubes vs. transistors. IMO, an overload characteristic musical enough to be used for compression (which is what the paper describes) is the only thing worth paying extra for in a mic pre. And maybe low noise too, I guess.

And it's not like a Folio Lite will have a better overload characteristic than a Portastudio. All of these things share the same mic pre design, which is basically an op-amp with a long-tailed transistor pair strapped onto the front of it. So they all clip hard and have no duty cycle modulation, which makes them no good for compression, judged by the standards of the Hamm paper.

that is interesting and something I will keep in mind but at the same time, people do still seem to have preferences (maybe I should attempt DIYing something with tubes...).

The Folio might be quieter, but if you're recording a speaker simulator direct onto cassette tape, you're probably not going to notice!

yes noise is not a problem (I have a slightly modified from stock grounding scheme in the amp and the most noticeable buzz is when not touching the bridge and bringing the pickup close to a noise source) but I also wanted to try mic'ing a spk. Mostly just looking for better sound quality since it seems I can still detect differences even with the annoying tinnitis pinging.

For the moment though the Soundcraft is kaput since someone has beat me to it. I'll have to keep my eyes peeled for another opportunity. Thanks Steve and Enzo for the advice.

[Steve Conner]

Have you seen this?

http://sound.westhost.com/project66.htm

It's basically a deluxe version of the kind of preamp you'd find in a console. Looks easy enough to DIY.

[dai h.]

thanks, yeah I've seen that one before. It'd be interesting but I think it's just way less hassle to buy something that's used. Basically what I think I want is:

-cheap (or at least not very expensive)-- so probably something used
-something that sounds better (less worse?) than what I have now
-something preferrably not built with surface mount components in case I feel like doing goofy things like change opamps, etc. to play with it

If I had the brains to do it I'd like to try this:

http://www2.famille.ne.jp/~teddy/1u/1u-mic-pre.htm

it's from the guy who wrote the tube amp grounding article (from a series of articles/projects on balanced circuits: )

http://www2.famille.ne.jp/~teddy/balanced/index.htm

[oc disorder]

I've got a Spirit Folio F1 (a slightly older model) here to have some pots replaced. It seems like a good unit the faders and pots are still available
the long throw faders being the most expensive at about $16ea.
The gain or trim pot was worn and tended to send the channel into oscillation
which was a bit disconcerting ....and some of the pan pots were also faulty
mind you it had been on the road so overall run of the mill repair.
The pots have multiple connections 5 or more for memory..

Also have you seen this :-

Microphone preamplifiers - can *YOU* hear the difference? (with audio)
Three mic preamps, one costing over $1500, another mid-price, another that cost just $5. Can *you* hear the difference? (challenge is now closed)

http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=3062
no cheating!
answer http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=3071
and schematic .....Giant-killing $5 mic preamp - its secrets revealed:-
http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=3080

spose better chuck those Neve pre's..................

[dai h.]

thanks. A1 sounds the best to my ear. Now I'll see if am really going deaf or not, lol...

[dai h.]

I chose the Behringer hahaha.

a1 and a2 seemed better out of the first three. All b1 to 3 sound bad.

well, after reading the article I'm not really sure how valid a test that was as a comparison.

this, for instance explains some of the difference:

so I stood a little further away. This accounts for the increase in room ambience, and for the lower LF content because of the reduced proximity effect.

i.e. less full and warm sounding. Maybe I'm being cynical but all the advertising makes it feel a bit fishy

[oc disorder]

Well I couldn't pick it either..not exactly the most stringent scientific test
procedure... this is also interesting although there is possibly a lot of commercial gain at stake
Pro Tools vs. Analog Console Mixing
http://www.digidesign.com/index.cfm?...0&itemid=25669

Some people prefer the sound when you mix digital audio through an analog console. Some people prefer the sound when all mixing and processing are done in Pro ToolsŪ with no analog gear whatsoever. So, we did an experiment to see how closely we could match some mixes done on a large-format analog console using Pro Tools and modeled console channel strip plug-ins, and have posted the resulting audio files for you to hear.

These files are a lot larger and you will need Quicktime

Hopefully am not wandering too much off topic........