pre amp

alan kelly

hi guys,, recording vocals at d moment using logic..lookin 4a bit of info on preamps. wonderin are they worth gettin.. im on a buget of around 400/500 euro .just feel d vocal we recorded hadnt got enough "life" 2it.. using an akg mic.. pretty good mic but feel we are lacking somethin.. have also been told a pre amp with spdif outputs wud b better when transferring to digital..was told something like d m audio tampa cud b worth gettin.. what do u guys think. as u can tell im no genus when it comes 2this stuff.. cheers in advance

PaulBrewer

What's your exact recording chain at the moment Alan?

Seziertisch

http://www.focusrite.com/products/isa/isa_one/

This might be worth a look. I have only seen positive reviews of it. No reviews saying that it was the best thing ever, just saying that it was clean and clear and that it was great bang for the buck. A lot of detractors say the ISA series is kind of boring, but there are just as many guys that are fans and use it all the time praising its neutral qualities. In any case the chances are that it is a massive step up from what you are using. It also comes with a digital out option which is supposedly quite nice (which would also probably be a massive step up). I know trackmixstudio is using the eight channel version of this and that he has been singing its praises. I also know the guy who reviewed it for Tape Op used it with a U87 to track the Sugababes who were guesting on something he was engineering and he was very pleased with the results. So it wasn't just a case of somebody giving something a good review and then never actually using it in a real world situation themselves.

Another one to look at might be the Audient Black series. Also supposed to be good value for the beanage.

alan kelly

cheers 4d advice guys.. using an akg 420 mic going through a focusright saffire soundcard . using a mac computer with pro logic..lookin 4 something to improve d sound..

trackmixstudio

As previously mentioned the isa stuff is really good.
I have the isa828 and isa220 so I have 9 channels of them.
I also have an API A2D and the isa stuff sounds as good but different and the impedance options make them even more versatile.
The isa 1 gives you a preamp and di which are independent so you can use them both at the same time with separate outs so it is sort of 2 channel.
Brewer would probably lend you one to try it if you ask him.

RealEstateKing

just feel d vocal we recorded hadnt got enough "life" 2it.. using an akg mic.. pretty good mic but feel we are lacking somethin.. have also been told a pre amp with spdif outputs wud b better when transferring to digital..was told something like d m audio tampa cud b worth gettin.. what do u guys think. as u can tell im no genus when it comes 2this stuff.. cheers in advance

If you feel the vocal hasnt enough 'life' to it, chances are it's not the preamp.

The difference between one preamp and another is very slight, far slighter than many audio geeks would like to think.

If there is something in the sound that is bothering you, its far more likely the mic, the room, the mic position or (most probably), the singer. Many singers "clam up" or hold themselves back when in a studio situation, such that the vocal might sound "fine" - in tune, all frequencies are there, but its just "blahh". Give him a drink, pur some fairy lights on the walls, leave him to do vocals on his own, or whatever, but dont go spending cash on a preamp just yet: From what you say, you're not at the level of engineering skill where one preamp will make much of a difference to you.

This preamp stuff is about guys with years of experience, amazing engineering skills, and shedloads of gear arguing over how to get that extra 2 or 3 % of quality: It is nowhere near as important as one guitar amp vs another, or one guitar versus another.

It has simply been blown out of all proportion in the past 10 years as more studios have gone digital.

In the words of Public Enemy: "Dont Believe the Hype."

i57dwun4yb1pt8

err, i think you need to change that statement

the difference between HIGH END top range preamps is slight - yes
but the difference between mid and low levels to each other , and then to high ends are 99% of the time very apparent.

( 99% of the time the high ends are wayyy better, but you do get the odd cheapie thats very good )


high ends generally give you a much more present , real and 3d sound image .
they catch transients faster and way better , which adds to the present and real image
they tend not to need eq / or very little .
they tend to sit and stack in a mix clearly instead of smearing them selves into the overall image .


I learned this the hard and expensive way


you dont need to be an expert with experince to hear the difference bewteen a top pre and a mid to low per - its readily apparent even to my deaf lugs.
im not a pro enginner with much experience but ive upgraded all my gear from good to great and the diff is at least a total of 25 % better if not more
and alot of that is down to the pres.

but also yes . , take into account your mic / room and singer

thats where I would start.

Seziertisch

RealEstateKing wrote: »

If you feel the vocal hasnt enough 'life' to it, chances are it's not the preamp.

The difference between one preamp and another is very slight, far slighter than many audio geeks would like to think.

If there is something in the sound that is bothering you, its far more likely the mic, the room, the mic position or (most probably), the singer. Many singers "clam up" or hold themselves back when in a studio situation, such that the vocal might sound "fine" - in tune, all frequencies are there, but its just "blahh". Give him a drink, pur some fairy lights on the walls, leave him to do vocals on his own, or whatever, but dont go spending cash on a preamp just yet: From what you say, you're not at the level of engineering skill where one preamp will make much of a difference to you.

This preamp stuff is about guys with years of experience, amazing engineering skills, and shedloads of gear arguing over how to get that extra 2 or 3 % of quality: It is nowhere near as important as one guitar amp vs another, or one guitar versus another.

It has simply been blown out of all proportion in the past 10 years as more studios have gone digital.

In the words of Public Enemy: "Dont Believe the Hype."

Can you back this up? Are you saying that you have done A/B comparisons between a budget mic pre and one that would be considered to be "pro level" and found the difference to just be 2-3%? What pieces did you specifically compare? I would love to hear the soundfiles. Particularly if it is more than just 1 isolated track but a whole song with a number of tracks recorded through each piece.

If you haven't done this, and are basing this opinion on anything other than direct personal experience why are you sharing this with us? If it is the case, though, that it is based on personal experience, as I said above please do tell. I for one would be very interested in hearing.

RealEstateKing

but it is not a difference of "Oh holy **** this sounds like gold dust, and this one sounds like poo" (Like you might get comparing a cheapo guitar amp and an expensive one), its more:

"Yeah, I think that one maybe sounds better, but Im not really sure, suppose it does, really, but both would do the job fine."

Check over on Gearslutz and Home Recording Review - there's loads of people have done blind tests and even pro engineers get it wrong at about the same rate as normal people. Granted the difference is there, but its probably the last thing an amateur should be worried about. - and mostly the difference is in it's overload characteristics - if you record clean, the difference isnt gonna matter much. Most of this stuff is the pschological effect of looking at a shiny brushed steel fascia with winky lights on it (and remembering how much you paid for it)

I do everything through an M-Audio DMP3 - 150 Squids for 2 channels - quiet, clean, and plenty of headroom. Why would I want anything better for recording in my house?

I sold all the fancy ones I had when I was listening back to tracks I had recorded a few years and couldnt remember which pre I had used for which tracks. I thought, well I should be able to tell from listening which was the fancy pre and which was Behringer. (If it was a reverb unit or a Guitar Amp, I'd be able to tell instantly). But I couldnt tell which was which just from listening and thats the bottom line.

People shouldnt recommend that amateurs start worrying about this stuff.

Seziertisch

What fancy pre(s) in particular were you using specifically?

Also what kind of conversion were you using at the time? Were you using the same mics and the same chain otherwise?

i57dwun4yb1pt8

note to the OP

the akg 420 WILL NOT give you a good vocal sound

id say an sm58 would give you a better vocal sound than that yoke.

so start with getting a decent mic.


i record in my house and im getting wonderful sounds now that ive gone top notch gear.
previously the gear gave me good sounds - very acceptable ,
but the extra cost has supplied a very high quality polish to the sound.

but thats the path i choose - to do it myself at home and try to be as good as possible .
to me ( songs and talent aside - this may not be as good ;-) ) its the difference between being sounding good and sounding great.



if you want to record at home -
I accept that people telling me " you should really wait longer and buy top gear if you are serious about it " was damn good advice .
its all down to you in the end - are you serious about your music or are you just mucking about ?

if you want to sound the best you can - at home - you need great gear - no escaping that - trust me.
its the same as any top studio.

if you want to just scratch out demos at home - stick with the low level gear - and record and arrange until you have a demo you like
then record the track finally from scratch in a pro studio.


but either way - you will not sound your best unless you use great gear SOMEWHERE in your musical career.

fitz

RealEstateKing wrote: »

but it is not a difference of "Oh holy **** this sounds like gold dust, and this one sounds like poo" (Like you might get comparing a cheapo guitar amp and an expensive one), its more:

"Yeah, I think that one maybe sounds better, but Im not really sure, suppose it does, really, but both would do the job fine."

Check over on Gearslutz and Home Recording Review - there's loads of people have done blind tests and even pro engineers get it wrong at about the same rate as normal people. Granted the difference is there, but its probably the last thing an amateur should be worried about. - and mostly the difference is in it's overload characteristics - if you record clean, the difference isnt gonna matter much. Most of this stuff is the pschological effect of looking at a shiny brushed steel fascia with winky lights on it (and remembering how much you paid for it)

I do everything through an M-Audio DMP3 - 150 Squids for 2 channels - quiet, clean, and plenty of headroom. Why would I want anything better for recording in my house?

I sold all the fancy ones I had when I was listening back to tracks I had recorded a few years and couldnt remember which pre I had used for which tracks. I thought, well I should be able to tell from listening which was the fancy pre and which was Behringer. (If it was a reverb unit or a Guitar Amp, I'd be able to tell instantly). But I couldnt tell which was which just from listening and thats the bottom line.

People shouldnt recommend that amateurs start worrying about this stuff.

This kind of generalisation is nonsense.
Who's to say that you just can't hear the difference?
I can certainly hear the difference between my Mackie Onyx pre's and my Universal Audio Solo 610 pre. Neither would be considered top end. The UA, the Focusrite ISA as mentioned above, along with others, are the lower end of pro. And they make a considerable difference. Even if it's something you don't notice straight away, you find that tracking with a high-end pre makes things sit better in the mix with far less effort, in my experience.

I'd agree about the mic, its more likely to be the problem in this case. I don't like any AKG mic's I've heard for male vocals.

I've had great results from a Neumann TLM 103, but that's a little out of the price range. A Shure SM7 would be worth looking at, but you might get more use out of nice condensor. There's been good reports on here for the Blue Bluebird, which is right in the middle of your price-range. The sE mic's seem to be making a name for themselves too, Brewer might have a recommendation there?

progsound

Hmm i would rank my signal chain in order of importance as follows (Im excluding cables ect for simplicity)

1.Source
2.Mic positioning
3.Mic
4.Room
5.Pre-amp
6.Convertors

Great results can be had with average gear. Give Terry Date a firepod and some sm57's with a decent source/room and it will sound better than a lot of the guys who preach on gearslutz about using top quality gear. Better gear will of course improve the sonic quality of your recordings but it wont make you into a great engineer. Experimentation, time and a good set of ears will do that .......................some day ....................................... i hope:D

RealEstateKing

This kind of generalisation is nonsense.
Who's to say that you just can't hear the difference?

The hundreds of other people including professionals, who cant hear the difference.

They say "Oh x pre is miles better than y pre, when you plug it in God comes down from the skies and covers your music in butter." , but when you do blind tests, statistically their answers are the same as guesswork (Check out the tests on the sites I mentioned, I cant be arsed to go find em again).

When its pointed out that the difference is close to negligible, they'll start saying things about a "stacking theory" or "You only notice the difference when you use it on lots of tracks".

Its a scam: The emporer is wearing very few clothes. Once you've got a pre that is noiseless and has a decent bit of headroom, and a flat response, (i.e almost anything above 50 quid these days) get on with making music.

I bet even you cant really tell the difference between an ART pre and an API if the test was blind. But let you see the logos and see the winky lights and you'll go all gooey about "creamy highs" and "warm lows" - its the same impulse that has people in the audiophile world spending 500 Euros on speaker cables - Ethan Winer over on Gearslutz reckons a lot of it is to do with comb filtering issues - your ears are never in exactly the same position with regards to your monitors - and the resulting confusion makes you make up all sorts of stuff you cant really hear.

Now microphones, thats a different story. Any of us can hear a track recorded with an SM57 and one recorded with a U87 and instantly tell which is which. Or with other gear, bet you can tell a low-end Midiverb from a Lexicon in under a second, but with preamps you'll find you get the answer right about 50 per cent of the time.

fitz

You keep referring to tests, but refuse to provide links.
Your opinion on it is just as extremist and irrational as the far end of the spectrum that you're criticising.

Seziertisch

Come on RealEstateKing, you said you sold all your fancy pre's because the difference between them and your M-Audio was so negligible. What were those fancy pres?

If I am not mistaken this isn't the first time you have stated that mic pres make almost no difference. That is fair enough if it is based on something you have actually experienced yourself. Is it? I mean the lads who are disagreeing with you seem to have done comparisons and drawn their own conclusions. Can you say you have done the same thing?

As for the difference cable can make. Huge actually, to my ears at least. I have yet to meet anyone who has actually compared a really high quality (and a lot of times really expensive) cable with a cheap as chips one and not heard a noticeable difference. I was sceptical myself, but after doing some blind tests it was more clearcut than I could have believed. In fact, anyone with decent hearing would be able to tell the difference in AB tests.

trackmixstudio

As already stated, there IS a difference between cheap and expensive preamps but subtle differences between pro preamps.
I have API pres and to say there is a subtle difference to an ART pre is crazy.
It is not a placebo effect.
The way to really notice the quality of preamps is on transients. Recording a snare drum on an API will sound VERY different to a cheap preamp. The attack of the sound is where you will hear it.
Then again good converters really help. Plugging an API into a digi 002 rack will sound nothing like the API A2D's converters.
When recording drums with 12 channels you will really hear the difference when using quality pres, as you will when you start to layer (stack) tracks.
Generally when you get into PRO gear the price increases exponentially so you pay an extra 1000% to get that 20% increase in quality.
As for the isa preamps being "low end" pro, that is not true at all. They are cheaper than API etc because they are a UK company. In the states the isa stuff is right up there price wise. I find the isa pres equally as good as the APIs and more suitable on many sources where I don't want that API midrange presence and attack. I have said it here before, the isa828 with the converter card is probably the best value package available when it comes to mic pres.

trackmixstudio

Off topic slightly, but does anybody here have any great river pres ?.
I am thinking of getting one.

fitz

trackmixstudio wrote: »

As for the isa preamps being "low end" pro, that is not true at all.

I really meant that the likes of the ISA lunchbox or the UA Solo 610 are the lower end of the pro price spectrum. This is obviously cause it's just the pre. It's not a channel strip or tailored unit like a Manley Voxbox or something like that. I think they represent fantastic value for money and give home and project studio users an opportunity to get a top quality pre into their setup at the same price as a mid range interface. It's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned.

RealEstateKing

If I am not mistaken this isn't the first time you have stated that mic pres make almost no difference. That is fair enough if it is based on something you have actually experienced yourself. Is it? I mean the lads who are disagreeing with you seem to have done comparisons and drawn their own conclusions. Can you say you have done the same thing?

No, I havent personally sat down with a studio full of hundreds of fancy preamps and done blind tests on all of them, (and neither have you, Im guessing) but Ive seen enough done by people with more gear than me , and listened to enough shootouts, and seen that, though there are differences, they are not musically important differences. Usually what happens, is somebody does a blind test, and the engineers listen, and fail to tell which is which, and when this is revealed to them, they start talking about a "stacking theory". - Which is largely BS - see post below.

I have released two albums internationally, and had a track on a very well-known international compilation that was all over the radio in America. They were all recorded on Behringer stock desk pres (Eurorack) - and I have never heard anyone complain about the sound - in fact one over excited reviewer said that the record sounded so good it should be used as a stereo test record!

Ive never owned a super-duper expensive pre: Ive had the usual compliment of Joe Meeks, TL AUDIO, Focusrites, and the occassional borrrowed more expensive one. And just like you, I too, ooed and awed when I plugged them in for the first time. But when listened to later, I couldnt hear a "wow" factor in the sound itself - it was mostly the fun of plugging in something new and supposedly golden that did it.

All Im saying is, that though there are differences between cheapo pres and expensive ones, they are not differences that actually matter that much to the MUSIC. They are the thing you might think about upgrading when everything else is already gold - and I think it's gotten out of hand - look back at a music tech mag from the 80's - everybody will be talking about pres far less than they do now - this is because they had real sound quality issues to talk about: Noisy tapes, crosstalk on mixers, grainy reverbs and all the rest. For us lucky foks, seriously high quality audio and processing is now available to all of us in an Acer laptop and there are any number of Chinese factories churning out perfectly decent noise-free pres. So we spend our time searching for that extra 3 per cent.

So when a relative newb asks "What pre do I need to get that warm creamy tube saturation that every tells me I need?" I see him as a potential marketing victim, just the same as that skinny D4 chick sipping a bottle of water she just paid 2.50 for.

Now, this of course, is all just rhetoric, so you can ignore me if ya want. I realise I cant prove any of this (and neither can you) . Suffice it to say that the next time you spend 2 grand on a pre, Ill be using the money for a trip to Thailand.

But for what it's worth here's a few other folks take on the subject:

http://forum.recordingreview.com/f18/guitar-bass-preamp-shootout-results-191/ You might have to join to read this one.

Ethan Winer's take on the Stacking Theory:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/335553-stacking-theory.html

A blind mic preamp shootout in which a really cheap pre wins out over a 1500 one, for example:

http://www.audiomasterclass.com/arc.cfm?a=microphone-preamplifiers-can-you-hear-the-difference-with-audio

There are many more that Ive found, Ill have a look around more when I get a chance.











Heres a few links to get you started:



Not exactly preamp related, but proof of how hundreds of professionals can beleive something that isnt true:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/330874-digital-eq-fact-myth.html

Seziertisch

RealEstateKing wrote: »

I have released two albums internationally, and had a track on a very well-known international compilation that was all over the radio in America. They were all recorded on Behringer stock desk pres (Eurorack) - and I have never heard anyone complain about the sound - in fact one over excited reviewer said that the record sounded so good it should be used as a stereo test record!

Is there anywhere where these can be listened to? I'd be curious to hear them.

PaulBrewer

alan kelly wrote: »

cheers 4d advice guys.. using an akg 420 mic going through a focusright saffire soundcard . using a mac computer with pro logic..lookin 4 something to improve d sound..

Alan, I don't know if you're still reading your Thread but if you are .....

I always think of the chain of mic , pre-amp, converters as being 1 thing. Having any of those 'worse' than the other will lower the quality of the overall result.

Other posters have made the valid point that your mic may not be ideal for the job in hand. I agree.

If your budget is Euro 500 I'd be inclined to buy a ;
large diaphragm condenser. Even ones for a couple of hundred perform well these days.

I think this would give you a big improvement straight away.

If you wanted to continue on that road of improvement in the future a mic pre with integrated conversion will get you nicer results again.

However I do think that to make significant ground on this front one would have to invest more than the E300 left out of your E500.

Perhaps the thing to do is get a mic, see how it improves things for you and then in the future when funds allow go for a superior pre-amp.

Don't mind the rest of the girls on the Forum here .... they get a bit wound up around Christmas :rolleyes:

i57dwun4yb1pt8

i defo think his mic the issue - that appears to be a headset mic not a normal mic .



i think this is real estates recordings - its good stuff.

http://www.theunseenguest.com

Seziertisch

I had presumed that this was the 420 he was talking about.

http://www.akg.com/site/products/powerslave,id,1057,pid,1057,nodeid,2,_language,EN.html

fitz

Yeah, that's the one I figured it was too.
I still reckon its not the right mic for the application...

RealEstateKing

Hey DaDumTish, thanks fer outing me! Ill have no more fans now they know I recorded though a Behringer!

alan kelly

hi guys.. deffo still reading d thread,, lovin d answers.. sometimes when a fool stays quiet in d corner and just listens 2 everyone else he gets away without lookin like an idiot..checked with one of d guys.. exact mic we are using is an akg perception 420.. was under d impression this would b ok.. looks ok but they are often deceving..

PaulBrewer

alan kelly wrote: »

hi guys.. deffo still reading d thread,, lovin d answers.. sometimes when a fool stays quiet in d corner and just listens 2 everyone else he gets away without lookin like an idiot..checked with one of d guys.. exact mic we are using is an akg perception 420.. was under d impression this would b ok.. looks ok but they are often deceving..

Ah, I too was thinking C420 - I've not heard or heard anything about the Perception range. It may well be cool.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

sorry for the outing !

that mic should be ok though .

i got it confused with another .

Seziertisch

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Hey DaDumTish, thanks fer outing me! Ill have no more fans now they know I recorded though a Behringer!

They are good recordings alright, but they're not something I would come back to again for the sheer sonic pleasure. I have used my fair share of budget/prosumer gear in my time and they also have all the hallmarks of it. Nothing terribly offensive about the sound, nor was there anything that had me going this sounds amazing. By the sounds of it you were recording some fairly decent sounding instruments as well as having some decent sounding recording spaces presumably with alright mics as well.

Also, I think almost all budget level gear suffers to a greater or lesser extent from what Paul Frindle describes in post 89 on that Ethan Winer thread.

I dunno, I wouldn't be happy with the sound for my own recordings. I think too that we are probably recording very different stuff in terms of instrumentation etc. For example I have never had much in the way of joy recording electric guitars using budget level stuff. I guess we probably have different priorities. I want the stuff I record to be sonically pleasurable for myself as much as to be a representation of what it is I am recording. Different strokes for different folks.

RealEstateKing

I was not trying to put up my stuff as an example of amazing quality: Those recordings were done in India, largely with cheapish mics (except vocals) and engineers used to doing nothing fancy. And actually the quality of the instruments there is actually not that great at all: Humidity wrecks everything and there's bugger all money, so lots of workarounds had to be found: They had no compressors, no outboard at all, no guitar amps, no keyboards, no fancy mics.

But we got an ok sound out of it, and actually the stuff I do at home sounds thicker and punchier and better now: Largely becuase I have more time to spend putting the mics in the right place. I only mentioned that stuff because though it's not Dark Side of The Moon, it's gotten good review in a fair few places and no-one has griped about the sound quality.

My only point is that I genuinely beleive the amount of difference a pre makes is hugely ovestated by a lot of people these days, it seems to be the first thing people are thinking about changing, when it should be one of the last.

People should be asking more questions like "What are the best ways to get a take out of a performer?" , "What kind of lights do you use in your studio to set a mood?" or "What drinks are good for helping a person's voice." before they ask which pre is king. Das all's Im saying.

fitz

I think there's a balance to be struck between the two...
Have to agree...being in the right mood is key. A relaxed performer is a better performer.

PaulBrewer

I'd guess most people interpreted the comment 'hadnt got enough "life" 2it' to refer to the sound from a technical point of view as opposed to a performance observation. Perhaps Alan might clear that up?

My experience is that all 3 components of a signal chain are of equal importance .

alan kelly

hi guys,, did d vocal myself and am my own biggest critic. recorded it in a spare bedroom. have our own soundproofed rehearsal/recording room so will b recording vocals there from now on. vocal lacked balls and was flat. mostly my own fault. could deffo do better takes but also the sound was missing something. we didnt add any effects. **** in **** out factor. no point in cleaning up something that wasnt d best in d first place. also worried when we re record vocals dont wanna b left missin something.. was under d impression a decent preamp cud improve things.. even a 10% improvement cud make d investment worth getting. gonna put sort of insulation a few feet away from mic on d reverse side so it doesnt pick up extra unwanted sounds.. appreciate all d handy recording hints guys.. every day is a school day..

PaulBrewer

Alan, one thing you haven't mentioned is compression. Virtually every vocal you've ever heard on any rock/pop/electronic record will be compressed.

This could add the Balls you feel your vocal lacks.

Seziertisch

alan kelly wrote: »

hi guys,, did d vocal myself and am my own biggest critic. recorded it in a spare bedroom. have our own soundproofed rehearsal/recording room so will b recording vocals there from now on. vocal lacked balls and was flat. mostly my own fault. could deffo do better takes but also the sound was missing something. we didnt add any effects. **** in **** out factor. no point in cleaning up something that wasnt d best in d first place. also worried when we re record vocals dont wanna b left missin something.. was under d impression a decent preamp cud improve things.. even a 10% improvement cud make d investment worth getting. gonna put sort of insulation a few feet away from mic on d reverse side so it doesnt pick up extra unwanted sounds.. appreciate all d handy recording hints guys.. every day is a school day..

Sound proofing is not necessarily a guarantee of it being better. You possibly have some room in your house that sounds better that a soundproofed room. Sometimes killing a room using even proper audio insulation foam can result in weird resonances that are equally as undesirable as what might be present in an untreated room.

Find someplace that sounds good. I like to clap and then listen to the reverb present and see whether it sounds half ok. A room with a wooden floor or possibly a tiled bathroom could work well. It doesn't have to be perfect, just listen out for any weirdness that only gets worse when you compress it. Which brings us onto what Paul said. A tracking comp would be very useful but looking at your budget I would say maybe try a plugin on what you have recorded already and see what it does for you.

Otherwise save your pennies and invest in stuff that is considered "pro" level. Although there are some gems that can be found in the midrange the jump up to pro is always worth making in my experience for the bit extra it costs. If you are someone who wants their recordings to sound their very best and consider the cost of more expensive gear to be worth it (i.e the difference you hear) then hold off for the time being. And in the meantime get a better grip on what you have already. Consider trying recording in different spaces and listening back to see how these interact with the source you are recording. Experiment with reshaping rooms (using rugs or cushions or whatever to change the response) Sometimes you'd be amazed what difference hanging a sheet somewhere can make to the sound you are getting. Also when it comes to buying new stuff be sure and demo it under the conditions you are working in if at all possible. Also try and achieve specific results when demoing it, and don't just play with it.

alan kelly

cheers guys.. i always thought compression wud be put on via d software afterwards.. had previously been thinkin bout something in d focusrite range as a preamp but might hold off 4 a while.. everybody has a different view on d perfect recording and am almost back at square 1,, am thinkin d best thing as u guys are saying, is try 2 learn more about what we are currently using, the best way 2 improve ur sound is 2 record more and more , practice makes perfect..

madtheory

alan kelly wrote: »

practice makes perfect..

Yes, you're right . In your case, I think you'd be safer compressing afterwards as you say, so that you can take the time to set it right. Spend the money on a tasty mic first, not a compressor. I like the Audio Technica 4033, 4040 and 4050, they're a mic that you'll keep for life, well worth the investment. Recently I heard the Blue Baby Bottle, very coloured but seems nice on most male vocals. Might be worth a try, it's not expensive.

RealEstateKing

Although there are some gems that can be found in the midrange the jump up to pro is always worth making in my experience for the bit extra it costs.

I respectfully disagree. If this was 20 years ago, you'd be right. But anything mid-range in this day and age, is more than decent enough for home recording, especially for somebody like the OP who's only learning. The jump up to pro is a waste of money if you havent already outgrown the cheaper stuff.

I recommend the Studio Electronics Z220a as a good vocal mic, and one you can use on pretty much anything and will sound good. Any pre will do ya fine, but for 150 quid, the M-Audio DMP3 is the shiznit.

Put up Duvets/blankets behind you as you sing, try and stay away from the corners of the room if you can , but not right in the middle.

Then when you've got the vocal in Cubase/Logic, us a compressor with a vocal preset to start you off, and turn the threshold down till it begins to even off the vocal, somewhere around about 3 db on the Gain Reduction meter. Give it a little trebly sparkle, and roll of some of the bass. Give it a little of the same reverb as everything else.

If it doesnt already sound 90% of the way there, you might have to sing it again.

PaulBrewer

alan kelly wrote: »

ci always thought compression wud be put on via d software afterwards..

That was what I meant Alan. I just thought I'd bring it up as it hadn't been mentioned.

alan kelly

quality lads,, no one can agree on anything on this site. suppose thats what makes it,, guessin all u guys agree on not buying a pre amp yet,, also any other ideas 2 improve a sound proofed room.. has plaster board over brick and finished with 2 layers of carpet.. prob needs something 2 give it a bit of life.. we usually rehearse there as a band but as u guys know a good rehearsel room is different 2 a good recordin room..

Seziertisch

RealEstateKing wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. If this was 20 years ago, you'd be right. But anything mid-range in this day and age, is more than decent enough for home recording, especially for somebody like the OP who's only learning. The jump up to pro is a waste of money if you havent already outgrown the cheaper stuff.

Maybe. But sound does matter. It matters more to the listening public than they will ever be aware of. There is a reason why record companies still continue to pay quite substantial sums of money to mixers and in some cases star mixers for their services. I believe that the quality of the recording is as much a part of the appeal as anything else. Record companies too, obviously. This fact is however a double edged sword and does not necessarily guarantee quality; the loudness wars are also a product of this.

There are certain characteristics which certain pieces of gear have that no amount of plug-innery or DAW savvy can create. There are plenty of people that argue that mixing in the box can produce similar results to mixing outside of it, and indeed there are guys doing great mixes in both. However, I have never seen any of these guys who mix in the box ever say that hardware doesn't make a difference and that foregoing it at the time of tracking is fine.

I believe that the differences that quality gear can make are also apparent to the general listening public. They won't necessarily be able to say that there are certain frequencies grating, or that it lacks body or top or whatever but will react on a subconscious level by being less disposed to listening to it. I also believe that by neglecting this and saying that it is all about the performance is a naive attitude regardless of what your genre or audience is. You are essentially putting your music at a disadvantage from the start.

Also, on a more philosophical level a lot of high-end gear is the product of the passion of one individual. It is in many cases a labour of love on their part to produce something that they stand behind 100%. In many cases these products are the culmination of years of learning and honing their craft. This is something that all artists can appreciate. A great mic pre is not just a fancy box with indifferent insides. It is a design that was crafted and perfected by a craftsman (or woman). Budget gear, although it is a means to an end, a lot of times isn't. A lot of times it is a design that has been poached from elsewhere and changed enough to get around any patents that might exist on it (Behringer is a classic example of this kind of thing). Sure budget gear has had a democratising effect in terms of providing the tools of production to a greater number of people, but these budget manufacturers are not pushing the envelope in terms of advancing recording technology. The high-end manufacturers in a lot of cases are. The fruits of affordable recording technology find their seeds in (along with cheap labour and manufacturing costs abroad) innovations on the part of high-end companies. This is something that should not be forgotten.

You go out for dinner, you go to a restaurant and your meal costs a fiver, you go to another restaurant and your meal costs 5 or 6 or even many more times that. At the end of both meals you are no longer hungry. Is the more expensive meal worth it? It probaby tastes better and was hopefully made using better ingredients and displays a more advanced level of culinary skill on the part of whoever made it. It might even be healthier for you. Sure the meal for a fiver would have done the job, but if you enjoy your food (or your music in this case) then why not go all the way. If you can taste the difference and consider it worth paying for, then it is. If you can't afford the more expensive meal then fair enough go for the more affordable one (you still need to eat). If you don't think the more expensive one is worth the extra money to you, also fair enough.

However, music is very different insofar as you are not the end consumer of what you make. Just as the chef in the more expensive restaurant sourced and hopefully takes pride in using better ingredients (And I have met a share of professional chefs who do indeed value using the best possible ingredients available when financially possible), so you should in your music making. Just like the meal for a fiver, budget gear will get the job done fine, but if you really want to produce a meal to remember (not that its impossible in the case of the cheaper meal) the more expensive ingredients can really help. Sure, pine nuts can be considered to be way over priced, but if you want that flavour (or to offer that flavour) you have to pay for it. A more affordable substitute isn't going to get you there. Some other kind of nut might work ok in context but it sure ain't going to taste like a pine nut. Similarly, it would be stupid to say that your eating (or listening) public won't notice these differences, and what it more if you are in a competitive market and the competition use as standard the stuff you dismiss as not being worth it, then you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. My two cents.

PaulBrewer

Seziertisch wrote: »

Maybe. But sound does matter. It matters more to the listening public than they will ever be aware of. There is a reason why record companies still continue to pay quite substantial sums of money to mixers and in some cases star mixers for their services. I believe that the quality of the recording is as much a part of the appeal as anything else. Record companies too, obviously. This fact is however a double edged sword and does not necessarily guarantee quality; the loudness wars are also a product of this.

There are certain characteristics which certain pieces of gear have that no amount of plug-innery or DAW savvy can create. There are plenty of people that argue that mixing in the box can produce similar results to mixing outside of it, and indeed there are guys doing great mixes in both. However, I have never seen any of these guys who mix in the box ever say that hardware doesn't make a difference and that foregoing it at the time of tracking is fine.

I believe that the differences that quality gear can make are also apparent to the general listening public. They won't necessarily be able to say that there are certain frequencies grating, or that it lacks body or top or whatever but will react on a subconscious level by being less disposed to listening to it. I also believe that by neglecting this and saying that it is all about the performance is a naive attitude regardless of what your genre or audience is. You are essentially putting your music at a disadvantage from the start.

Also, on a more philosophical level a lot of high-end gear is the product of the passion of one individual. It is in many cases a labour of love on their part to produce something that they stand behind 100%. In many cases these products are the culmination of years of learning and honing their craft. This is something that all artists can appreciate. A great mic pre is not just a fancy box with indifferent insides. It is a design that was crafted and perfected by a craftsman (or woman). Budget gear, although it is a means to an end, a lot of times isn't. A lot of times it is a design that has been poached from elsewhere and changed enough to get around any patents that might exist on it (Behringer is a classic example of this kind of thing). Sure budget gear has had a democratising effect in terms of providing the tools of production to a greater number of people, but these budget manufacturers are not pushing the envelope in terms of advancing recording technology. The high-end manufacturers in a lot of cases are. The fruits of affordable recording technology find their seeds in (along with cheap labour and manufacturing costs abroad) innovations on the part of high-end companies. This is something that should not be forgotten.

You go out for dinner, you go to a restaurant and your meal costs a fiver, you go to another restaurant and your meal costs 5 or 6 or even many more times that. At the end of both meals you are no longer hungry. Is the more expensive meal worth it? It probaby tastes better and was hopefully made using better ingredients and displays a more advanced level of culinary skill on the part of whoever made it. It might even be healthier for you. Sure the meal for a fiver would have done the job, but if you enjoy your food (or your music in this case) then why not go all the way. If you can taste the difference and consider it worth paying for, then it is. If you can't afford the more expensive meal then fair enough go for the more affordable one (you still need to eat). If you don't think the more expensive one is worth the extra money to you, also fair enough.

However, music is very different insofar as you are not the end consumer of what you make. Just as the chef in the more expensive restaurant sourced and hopefully takes pride in using better ingredients (And I have met a share of professional chefs who do indeed value using the best possible ingredients available when financially possible), so you should in your music making. Just like the meal for a fiver, budget gear will get the job done fine, but if you really want to produce a meal to remember (not that its impossible in the case of the cheaper meal) the more expensive ingredients can really help. Sure, pine nuts can be considered to be way over priced, but if you want that flavour (or to offer that flavour) you have to pay for it. A more affordable substitute isn't going to get you there. Some other kind of nut might work ok in context but it sure ain't going to taste like a pine nut. Similarly, it would be stupid to say that your eating (or listening) public won't notice these differences, and what it more if you are in a competitive market and the competition use as standard the stuff you dismiss as not being worth it, then you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. My two cents.

More than 2 cents ... Good Post

madtheory

alan kelly wrote: »

2 layers of carpet

Ouch, that's probably your biggest problem right there. Generally, carpet will absorb top end, but not much else, so you end up with a dead, ugly boxy sound.

Sounds like you're into DIY, so here's something for you to study:
http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html

There's a lot in it, but it's the most accessible article on acoustics I've found, even compared to all the books, and, it's free!

madtheory

I have to say I agree with realestateking too. There's a lot of talk on the web about gear, simply because it's such a fun thing to talk about. But it doesn't mean that paying more means better. Unfortunately, it's not that simple! You have to use your noggin. Lots of sound engineers are prone to the snake oil that the hi fi crowd are so fond of. And there are plenty of companies that are charging more purely for a vintage looking box with some overheated tubes in it. Here's a good example- the Drawmer 1960. The pre amps are great, they're the SSM chip AFAIK. But the tube part used in the compressor actually sounds pretty crap, IMHO.

As an electronics technician, I've seen vast improvements in manufacturing and quality over the last 10 years. It's really an exciting time. Manufacturing technology is amazing these days, especially the innovations in China. Their combination of automation, education and sheer will is astounding.

M Audio can sell gear in large quantities, so they can sell at a lower price. So there's nothing to stop them making a great pre amp for €150. I haven't heard their pre, but their converters are excellent and punch way above their weight. I certainly wouldn't ignore it based on the price- you have to take the manufacturing costs into consideration.

IMHO more/ better gear is the wrong place to focus your energy, if you're trying to compete with other engineers. If you're speaking as a producer, it's an even bigger mistake. You're hired for who you are, not the gear.


Just to digress slightly:

Seziertisch wrote: »

There is a reason why record companies still continue to pay quite substantial sums of money to mixers and in some cases star mixers for their services.

You're making a big assumption here. Sometimes, a mix is handed over simply to have a "name" on the record, not because the person is any good. Actually, I've noticed that the more successful records of recent times have been on indie labels and the same dude who recorded them did the mix. IMO the "name mixer" thing is the domain of paranoid major label A&R folk.

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

I the Drawmer 1960.

They were dogs from day 1! I remember when they came out ...

madtheory

PaulBrewer wrote: »

They were dogs from day 1! I remember when they came out ...

Ya, and they still go for good money, and mercenary audio have put their stamp on them these days I believe. Pure marketing- they called it a 1960 after all!

Actually, this is off the point, but I never liked any Drawmer compressor. They sound ugly to my ears. The gates were cool, back in the day

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

Ya, and they still go for good money, and mercenary audio have put their stamp on them these days I believe. Pure marketing- they called it a 1960 after all!

Actually, this is off the point, but I never liked any Drawmer compressor. They sound ugly to my ears. The gates were cool, back in the day

That's why I like to let my ears make up my mind - science is there to explain it, not predict it.

RealEstateKing

Maybe. But sound does matter. It matters more to the listening public than they will ever be aware of.

Sure does, and pretty much any 200 quid preamp is more than good enough for this nowadays: Practically zero noise, flat frequency response, plenty of headroom, and no time smearing or distortion, can easily be had for this price: What you more high-end guys are rooting for is preamps that overload/distort in pleasing ways: In other words, you are looking for gear that does bad quality well, if you catch my drift.

There are certain characteristics which certain pieces of gear have that no amount of plug-innery or DAW savvy can create.

These are precisely the kind of minutae that nobody other than engineers cares about. To almost anyone else, the difference between Waves SSL and an actual SSL is negligible. Most of this analog worship is about recreating the pleasing inconsistencies of analog, in a way that is pleasing to rock music. Notice you dont see much discussion of this kind in classical or Jazz circles: All those guys went digital years ago, because they are interested in presenting a high quality musical photograph, and avoid noise/distortion/overloading wherever they can.

So it's not 'quality' you're focusing on when you go from mid-range to high end, its "bad quality in a nice way"

I also believe that by neglecting this and saying that it is all about the performance is a naive attitude regardless of what your genre or audience is. You are essentially putting your music at a disadvantage from the start.

We are now at a point where even Behringer/M-Audio gear can provide a home studio that has almost no unintentional noise/distortion/poor frequency response in it's signal path - something which even top recording studios couldnt boast about 20 years ago.

I am not arguing, as you seem to think I am, that we should just be happy with crappy quality, cause its the music that matters: I am arguing that due to quantum leaps in technology and manufacturing costs, none of us has to put up with crappy quality any more at any price point.

What we're left to argue about is, actually ever-decreasing circles of audio quality: Once Its gone into that 32/64 bit DAW, the quality is impeccable (arguements about the authenticity of plugins notwithstanding): So all that's left is the preamps and convertors: Its is very easy to make a noise free/flat/etc preamp for under 200 quid, especially as there is now a sizeable mass market to sell them to (where before only pro studios had any use for the them) , and that's what the Chinese and others are doing. And much the same is true for D/A convertors.

Thus, the chef analogy that you use doesnt really work as a result: There havent been any significant advances in culinary 'technology' over the past 20 years, unless you count nasty flavour enhancers. If you want good fresh oregano you've still gotta buy it fresh from a small farmer. And that's what a good chef does.

Similarly, it would be stupid to say that your eating (or listening) public won't notice these differences

That's precisely what I am saying: They will notice the difference between a crappy band tracked by a ****ty engineer in a crappy room and it's opposite.

But I am categorically saying that they will not notice the differences between an album recorded on an M-Audio pre and an API, if everything else is pro quality. Thats all. I never said "gear doesnt matter", I am saying that there is hardly any musically significant differences between 200 Euro Pres and 2000 Euro ones. The same does NOT go for more complicated devices like tape Machines, compressors, microphones, guitars, amps, drums or engineers!

Now of course, if you're running a recording studio as a business, you're probably going to have to have some APIs or whatever in your rack to impress your clients. But that doesnt mean we need to go recommending these esoteric devices to musicians on a tight budget. For their purposes let's tell it like it is: Get an M-Audio and a reasonable Chinese mic and learn how to use it properly!

I mean here, we are, at a point in music tech history when quality that our older brothers could only have dreamt about, is now well within our grasp for under a grand, and we want to argue about the 5% left over.

My (2 many) cents.

alan kelly

we seem 2 have almost come full circle on this guys but my mind has been opened big time.. some fantastic quotes and ideas. signed up 2 boards ages ago on a mates good review but always thought it wud b full of know it all guys and wouldnt b my scene..i cud not have been more wrong. am deffo gonna b on this a lot more..thanks 2 everyone who bothered 2 post a comment,, much appreciated,, hopefully keep in touch in d new year.. happy christmas guys,,

trackmixstudio

I was browsing ebay and found an isa220 going for £690 (buyitnow).
With the current exchange rate this is a steal!!
I have one and had to convince myself I don't need a second one.
It is a great pre with beatiful eq, compressor and desser.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/FOCUSRITE-ISA-220-ISA-220-Compressor-EQ-MicPre-De-es_W0QQitemZ290282819717QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Musical_Instruments_Outboards_Effects_MJ?hash=item290282819717&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1298%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318