home studio build!

[marqueemoon]

Having a cheap klark and a Fethead they certainly sound different even in my cheap setup. The klark just sounds like the preamp, Fethead clarifies the ribbons and dynamics due to the higher impedance. Other changes maybe noise, but that depends what its going to in either case.

Thanks for letting me know!

I think less noise on Fethead. Except it was picking up weird phantom power whines from my cheap tube pre. Given that the pre was £40 its probably the pres fault but the Klark didnt!
Anyway, i use for stereo ribbon on piano...unmatched models.
I think they may even do a low impedance model by fethead (i.e. standard youd find on a mixer, for condensers----that would be more like the Klark i suppose except it doesnt pass phantom power so you cant use with condensers without an extra power box!)

Has anyone tried any of the other inline mic boosters out there?

I’m looking for a little coloration along with the gain boost, but don’t want crispy/sibilant. Will mainly be used with an RE-20 and maybe a ribbon down the road.

[NBarnes21]

Fethead works great, haven't directly a/b'd with a cloud lifter but I went with the fethead on a well respected producer's recommendation and have been really happy with it and my m160 for vox and acoustic guitar

[marqueemoon]

Fethead works great, haven't directly a/b'd with a cloud lifter but I went with the fethead on a well respected producer's recommendation and have been really happy with it and my m160 for vox and acoustic guitar

Thanks. I’m intrigued by the germanium Fethead and may go that route.

[øøøøøøø]

I use FEThead and Cloudlifter interchangeably

They both work and do what’s advertised on the tin.

[marqueemoon]

Decided to join Team Cloudlifter as my local GC had a used one. Picking it up in a few weeks.

[mcatano]

If you're handy with stripboard and a soldering iron, the fethead is a very very simple circuit:

[caples]

temporary image upload

What's the story behind that mustang? It looks awesome

[øøøøøøø]

Decided to join Team Cloudlifter as my local GC had a used one. Picking it up in a few weeks.

I've gone down a bit of a rabbit hole the past few days.

Short version: the FEThead and Cloudlifter are a bit more different in function than I'd given them credit for. The Cloudlifter is a more-complex device; perhaps a bit nicer of a design overall. However, it shows a 3k input impedance to the mic, which--while about 2x as high as a typical mic preamp, is considerably lower than the 22k shown by the FEThead.

Cloud has said they made this decision based on "listening tests" and I will give them credit--the Cloudlifter does work well and sounds good.

However, theoretically there should be no penalty (and substantial advantage) to going a bit higher. 22k is probably bordering on overkill, but to avoid loading effects of the mic, that's a good place to be.

The thing is... the mics may have been designed with a certain amount of loading in mind, and that's essentially Cloud's position.

A colleague over on GroupDIY has their own circuit that's quite a bit different than either, and substantially more-complex. In addition to two matched pairs of FETs, it also has a pair of matched BJTs at the output. This should ensure that the output impedance of the device is lower, which should lead to more consistent results with a range of mic preamps.

So now I'm going to build a couple of those. It's not as cheap a build as you might imagine!


People who think Cloudlifters etc. are "overpriced for what they are" will be interested to know that a matched pair of extremely-low-noise FETS like LSK389A are quite expensive. One pair (in a single 6-pin package) cost me $14.35 from DigiKey today... and there are two pair in each device.

Even at the 1,000 piece price, they're over $9 per pair. So manufacturing in quantity could potentially make it profitable, but it's certainly not a cash grab.

[marqueemoon]

Very interesting!

Looking forward to your nerding out on this topic in a new thread.

[øøøøøøø]

Very interesting!

Looking forward to your nerding out on this topic in a new thread.

Ha!

I may not for a few reasons. One is that this is a thing that really merits careful testing with equipment I don't have (an Audio Precision analyzer, essentially).

The other is that, while the circuit I'm building is quite different from the Cloudlifter, I for some reason sense the person who designed it might want to stay under the radar a bit, as the Cloudlifter is a patented device.

[DeathJag]

I got a pair of the adjustable Cloudlifters and I did prefer the 3k setting! I messed around a bit with the overhead Coles. I should mess around more. This is pretty deep but fascinating turf!

[øøøøøøø]

I got a pair of the adjustable Cloudlifters and I did prefer the 3k setting! I messed around a bit with the overhead Coles. I should mess around more. This is pretty deep but fascinating turf!

Interesting!

You didn't happen to make recordings at the various settings, did you? Can you describe what you heard at 3k that you liked?

[DeathJag]

I didn't record at different settings, it was just a quick jam. And now I'm out of town for two weeks. Next year I've only got work for a week and then I'm off for who knows how long, and then I'll be deep diving those Cloudlift boxes.

To answer the question, I'd say it was the clearest without noise. Turning the resistance down made it kinda "over equed" sounding, noisy and tinny. Turning it up made it muddy. It wasn't a long test because I just wanted to jam. But I will do more tests! Perhaps on a quieter source the lower resistance would sound good? I also used them at 3k for guitar, but I didn't really mess with the impedance.