Recording - October 2016 - 8

Note to faithful writers: When sending your letters by email,
please remember to include your name and where you hail from.
Using outboard preamps with Universal Audio interfaces
Hi Paul Vnuk: In your review of the Universal Audio Neve
1073N plug-in (May 2015), you mentioned listening to them
alongside a Great River Electronics MP-500NV, but you don't
say anything about what the comparison sounded like in the
review. I use Great River hardware (not the MP-500NV) and
since I'm getting a Universal Audio Apollo Twin, I was curious as to how sending a vocal track through my Great River
preamp into the Apollo Twin, and then adding the Neve plugin, would compare with the preamps on the Apollo Twin.
Which is better, any thoughts?

Hi Paul, I was reading your SM57 impedance modification article online, and I was wondering if the Sescom
XLR Female-1/4" Male Low-Z to Switchable Lo/Hi-Z
Impedance Matching Transformer did the same thing?
If not, can you help me understand better where to
put the resistor between pins 2 and 3? Do I open the
cable up or solder the pins at their base? Does using an
XLR-to-1/4" cable have the same effect? Doesn't that
lower the impedance? Thanks,

Sean Tatalovich

Hi Tony: The Sescom device doesn't really do
what the Gizmo does. It presents selectable impedances to the following device, but the Gizmo modifies the impedance that the microphone sees.
For a few cents, you can do it yourself with a
681Ω resistor. The easiest way to do this is to buy a
short cable made with Switchcraft connectors,
which have a bit of room inside the male connector.
(An XLR-to-1/4" adaptor cable just connects the
wires, with no impedance change at all.) Open it
and solder the resistor across the base of pins 2 and
3, taking care that the wires don't come loose. Don't
forget to label the cable when you're done.-PJS

Hey Sean, thanks for writing. One reason I did not
write up a side-by-side comparison is that the Great
River, while Neve-inspired, is still not a 1073. They have
similarities in feel and tone, but the 1073 still offers a bit
more weight and color. As I said in the review, I used the
MP-500NV and a Chandler TG2 to just get a feel for "the
Neve sound."
As for the Unison mic preamps in the Apollo Twin, I
have those in my editing suite and use them every week
for demo tracking, voiceover work, and remote recording
gigs. 90% of the time, I use the 1073 plug-in; it is my
favorite of the Unison-enabled plug-ins, and UA has done
a great job of capturing the Neve feel and sound.
Although the Apollo uses a mic preamp model, it is still a
hardware preamp, but it has internal impedance switching that matches that of the original 1073, or a UA610,
API, etc., when the corresponding model is used.
If you like the Great River, which is a great mic preamp, than there is no reason not to use it. It will sound
great with the Apollo Twin, as long as you switch the
Apollo to line input.
My point is that both are hardware mic preamps, both
sound great and both sound different. In comparison, the
Great River will be a bit more out of the way with less of
a sonic signature than the UAD-2 1073 emulation, but
the Apollo gives the flexibility of also offering an ultratransparent mic pre if you use it stock without any plugins. Bottom line: I can't say which is better, as they are
both great tools and will get the job done well.-PV
Return of the Gizmo
We were recently privy to this dialogue between reader Tony Sandoval and contributing writer (and First
Steps author) Paul J. Stamler, on the subject of the
Gizmo, an impedance-adjustment modification that Paul
developed for the Shure SM57 and which is explained in
detail in a free article on the Recording website, at
https://is.gd/RECMicGizmo.-MM

Tony Sandoval

I found a 680Ω resistor, which I was a tad bit skeptical about, but built a Gizmo cable anyway. On my
Electro-Voice 635a, the Gizmo made only a slight difference, if any, but on my Sennheiser MD421-II, it was
almost night and day!
With the regular XLR cable it was thin and crispy,
but with the Gizmo'd cable the signal had a body and
midrange that it had lacked before. Mind you, I had the
highpass switch all the way to its highest setting when
I tested it, but the Gizmo'd cable definitely had a beneficial effect on the MD421-II.-TS
That's really great to hear, because the "thin and
crispy" sound of the MKII is precisely what I didn't like;
I prefer the originals. Your 680Ω resistor is just fine;
your tolerances on those will be ±5% or maybe ±1%, so
getting anywhere in the ballpark will be fine.
We have some MD421-II mics at the university where
I teach. After reading your letter, I tried them in my
class, and I can confirm your findings 100%. All of the
students in the class could hear the difference, and so
could I; we all liked the lower-impedance load better.
It would seem that a Gizmo cable can be useful well
beyond the original SM57 application, and can alter the
tonal response of many different dynamic mics. For
that reason, there's no reason not to have one in any
studio, just for experimentation. Peace-PJS

Write to us at: Talkback, Recording Magazine, 5408 Idylwild Trail, Boulder, CO 80301
Or save stamps and send email to talkback@recordingmag.com
8

RECORDING OCTOBER 2016

https://www.is.gd/RECMicGizmo.-MM

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Recording - October 2016