The A clips all sound brighter and more lively to me. Regardless of what that one is, I'd want that one.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Although I have got an idea which one of the three candidates in question was the LF442CN preamp version, yet I'd wish to listen to the original sound files.
Unfortunately youtube-stream will in general cause (any time) noticeable/audible data compression to any uploaded sound files, thus youtube stream sucks quality of sound versus original sound files.
It may be a good idea to upload the soundfiles to soundcloud as well and make them free for download.
I'm pretty sure there will be some more of audible difference available (versus stream) with the original files downloaded.
Unfortunately youtube-stream will in general cause (any time) noticeable/audible data compression to any uploaded sound files, thus youtube stream sucks quality of sound versus original sound files.
It may be a good idea to upload the soundfiles to soundcloud as well and make them free for download.
I'm pretty sure there will be some more of audible difference available (versus stream) with the original files downloaded.
Last edited:
That's the actual reason why I always preferred the stock TL072 over the "standard" LF442 for my NS2-O bass (see my avatar).
More lively and more airy, that's how she sounds with TL072. Once there was a LF442 chip in it, as a result the noticeable lively and more airy sound was gone.
- Apr 14, 2022
- 371
- 2,082
- Disclosures
- Owner of LRWMedia, manufacturer of LHZ vintage bass preamps.
I will be doing that when I post the reveal, as well as doing a subtractive comparison to show the actual differences between the opamps.
Regarding the 072, I never liked the sound of it. For me, it clipped too hard at the really low frequencies (I play a 5 string), and the top end felt a little fizzy to me. But this is why we all love different things!
Ironically enough, I've tried buying LF442CN from over 30 resellers (2 large global companies and a ton of small eBay and Amazon shops), and you know what they all test as? 072 chips, despite being marked as LF442CN chips!
Last edited:
I'm curious how much of sound difference will turn out with the original files available.
For me, I rarely turn Bass and Treble control knobs to its maximum capacity of boost. If any kinds of quite highish boost then I had the bass knob at something about ~50% and the Treble around 30% at most.
Some time ago there happened a "to me special" situation in rehearsal room (with the band) when I had to max out Bass control of the (Korean)Haz electronic quite close to 100% and Treble at about 50% (as far as I correctly do remember on both controls).
I had to it just to get enough juice out of a smallish active 12" PA-Top for rehearsal with the band.
There was some clipping artifacts noticeable but, these artifacts were mainly produced by the smallish PA-Top rather than the bass guitar.
Despite of some noticeable distortion artifacts, all in all the total sound was not so bad. Personally I think the basic sound of my Spector NS2-O may be more forgiving in regards of a slight overloaded sound then many other instruments may do such as my 1989 Warwick Streamer Stage I or my 1989 Warwick Thumb NT
Long time ago I tried to figure headroom capability of the 9V (K)Haz powered electronic while monitoring the Sound with my Sennheiser head phone. When digging in really really really hard and with all the knobs all the way up then yes, the electronic may exhibit some amount of audible distortion. Most part of it at E-string and A-string, while little to no audible artifacts on D-string respectively G-string.
Even with some distortion "in it" and TL072 chip the sound stays quite "well balanced". I think this may have something to do with the basic sound characteristic of the NS2-O which, hard to tell in words but, probably does produce kind of a more forgiving slightly "mellow" balanced sound timbre at its upper range of frequency bandwidth.
I ain't a player who was digging in that"hard" all along the line. I think I'm a more average player, and if ever could dig in that hard for no longer than 1 Minute at best.
Its a couple of years ago when I tried the LF442. In total the sound that came out the instrument seemed to be "tamed", to my taste a little bit to much tamed to cut still well trough the mix. I think I played about two or three rehearsals with LF442 chip and then went back to the TL072.
Yet I have to state that I did not check headroom capability for the LF442. Due to the basic (slightly more mellow) sound of the LF442 at least I'd assume that its saturation characteristic might be noticed as little bit softer sounding and "musical" versus "more open" sounding OP-Amp chips.
At the other hand side the LF442 might be a "well balanced" choice for my Spector NS4CRFM and its quite "bitey" basic sound characteristic. This "bitey" sound can already be noticed when playing the instrument only unplugged.
Unfortunately its an SMD based electronic thus there is no way to "drop in" any DIP-8 format chip.
Either way, I'm quite happy with the TL062 that is in it "as is".
Different op-Amps may sound different, different strings and pickups may sound different, different instruments may sound different even when played unplugged.
I think its not so bad of an idea to give "chip-rolling" a chance, similar like tube-rolling on tube amps, it may contribute to the total sound and also may help to realize personal sound goals and preference.
If these really do sound close to TL072 chip by reduced current consumption such as LF442, then it might be a good match at least for "my personal taste" when placed into the electronic of my NS2-O.
.
Soundcloud is no better idea than Youtube. Both are compressed, but Soundcloud‘s worse if you’re on a free plan. Easiest way would be to upload the uncompressed files to Google Workspace, 15 GB space and no traffic limits.
frankly I don’t get the continous rant and arguments. It just seems you’re not the right group of players for the preamp as you stated yourself that you’re using your bass‘ eq flat.
No I didn't nothing at all.
You may please reread my posting above that clearly states that, and like many other players as well, I use the EQ knobs.
For the record, I don't think that really EVRERY player who was interest in this preamp may share YOUR personal fashion in question and taste which consequently means, just turn always all the knobs all the way up.
To the contrary, even in flat mode for the EQ setting there are already noticeable deviations audible with different op amp chips placed on the PCB.
That's quite similar kind of behavior as it is well known for tubes. If different tubes do sound different each other, then those tubes in question do sound different on both, this means the sound may be different WHEN saturated AND as well different for clean sound where there was no saturation (audible) nothing at all.
As long as you don't allow the download for uploaded sound files, then you are right.
You may carefully reread my posting that clearly states that it's (almost always) a good idea to ALLOW the download for those files that shall demonstrate sound deviations.
It's long time ago when I uploaded some files to soundcloud with the intention to demonstrate deviations of slightly saturated sounds.
I was then asked by a TalkBass member to provide download option to these files, by the intend to obtain best sound quality as possible for evaluation.
Last edited:
Correct!
Some players may prefer the knobs turned all the way up, while others may go this route "half way" at most. And there are likewise players out there who may use even less of "half way", or just even flat?
Some may prefer bass and treble evenly boosted, others may prefer more of bass over treble and vice versa.
There is nor wrong or right in this field, except there are different personal tastes and sound goals existing, with an attempt to discuss one and the same thing!
Last edited:
Passinwind
I know nothing.
- Dec 3, 2003
- 23,044
- 45,901
- Disclosures
- Designer/Toaster Tech @ Passinwind Electronics
That may have been me, I used to ask for that fairly often. I think SC only allows something like 100 downloads per file these days unless you pay for the "Pro" upgrade.
for me B and C are more similar, A is a bit different, brighter, but probably it would be possible to achieve similar tones with any of the 3 preamps and a bit of eq.
So my guess is A is LF442CN, which sounds like what I would expect for the haz lab, and my second choice would be C then B.
So my guess is A is LF442CN, which sounds like what I would expect for the haz lab, and my second choice would be C then B.
Hello all! This is my guess:
I would say B > A > C, with B being the LF442CN. B has the least amount of sparkle, but I don't think sparkle when I think of the Haz anyway. With the Haz, my ears tell me that there's something magical happening in between the sub lows and the sparkle highs. During the hard picking and hard fingerstyle examples, B is the one I would want because I feel like it's adding a little something in the midrange. A has more sparkle but a little less going on in the midrange, and C seems to have some extra content in the deeper lows but just isn't my personal fave. Either way, I love this test and can't wait to hear which was which!
I would say B > A > C, with B being the LF442CN. B has the least amount of sparkle, but I don't think sparkle when I think of the Haz anyway. With the Haz, my ears tell me that there's something magical happening in between the sub lows and the sparkle highs. During the hard picking and hard fingerstyle examples, B is the one I would want because I feel like it's adding a little something in the midrange. A has more sparkle but a little less going on in the midrange, and C seems to have some extra content in the deeper lows but just isn't my personal fave. Either way, I love this test and can't wait to hear which was which!
Excellent post and testing!
I'm not sure which is which, but I like A the best and play fingerstyle 90% of the time
Lonnie, can chips be swapped in a built pedal or do other components change?
Nice to here you Charlie
It's right it was you who was asking me for the download enabling.
I didn't know they did set a limit for downloads at soundcloud in the meanwhile?
And that's sad to hear cause rather smallish sound deviations and also "some decent details" may be lost in "noise floor" of data compression caused by stream data transfer algorithm.
Last edited:
HAZard LAMPS pedal is in my hands. Great build quality, Great packing and presentation box..
I'm off to bass heaven for the rest of the day X
I'm off to bass heaven for the rest of the day X
Although only stream quality of sound available for the sound file, I try to do my very best to do some evaluation.
(A) provides a strong forward "straight on" sound that cuts well through the mix. Fingerstyle picking provides every detail in sound how the fingers does pick the string, thus does emphasis peak transient sound very well.
(B) can well benefit from its "mellow" basic timbre at hard picking. Some added sparkle at top range of bandwidth, which is pretty natural at hard picking playing style, seems to be "smoothed out" and well balanced.
In total there is no saturation audible. If any present, there was at most saturation involved for some range of a couple of msec. (if any?).
(C) provides a broad solid and consistent sound that benefits also from good dynamic characteristic. If I was not told better then I'd call smallish group delay (good damping) the reason for this noticeable solid dynamic and balanced characteristic, especially in combination with "transient noise" at subharmonics.
In total the sound stays pretty solid and well balanced without any emphasis somewhere in range of bandwidth.
In descending order:
For my NS2-O
C > A
for my NS4CRFM
C > B
I'm pretty sure B to be LF442
(A) provides a strong forward "straight on" sound that cuts well through the mix. Fingerstyle picking provides every detail in sound how the fingers does pick the string, thus does emphasis peak transient sound very well.
(B) can well benefit from its "mellow" basic timbre at hard picking. Some added sparkle at top range of bandwidth, which is pretty natural at hard picking playing style, seems to be "smoothed out" and well balanced.
In total there is no saturation audible. If any present, there was at most saturation involved for some range of a couple of msec. (if any?).
(C) provides a broad solid and consistent sound that benefits also from good dynamic characteristic. If I was not told better then I'd call smallish group delay (good damping) the reason for this noticeable solid dynamic and balanced characteristic, especially in combination with "transient noise" at subharmonics.
In total the sound stays pretty solid and well balanced without any emphasis somewhere in range of bandwidth.
In descending order:
For my NS2-O
C > A
for my NS4CRFM
C > B
I'm pretty sure B to be LF442
Last edited:
- Apr 14, 2022
- 371
- 2,082
- Disclosures
- Owner of LRWMedia, manufacturer of LHZ vintage bass preamps.
