Preamp characteristics

Welease

Ok putting up the n00b flag on this one , but it has been something that has been interesting me for a while (and re-ignited i suppose by someone asking about the Phonic firewire desk which I have, and me re-reading some reviews of it)..

I'm not even sure what my actual question is (and I have a few pints in me) , but I am interested in input..

I would have assumed for a preamp, you would be looking for a transparent (or as much as possible) way of boosting the signal so it can be recorded..You want clarity and lack of distortion, and I would have assumed signal integrity would have been primary concern. Most reviews will mention how clear the pre-amp is etc.. In essence, it should allow me to record exactly (or as close as possible) the sound that I am hearing..

But when I read or hear input on various expensive preamps, a lot of the comments are about warm sounding, compressed sounding, sounds like a Neve etc etc etc. Which points to the preamps imparting their own characteristics...

So do you guys use preamps like mics.. and have several depending on application?
Do you think clarity is more important? or is it not really possible and the reviews are generally BS?

Just interested in opinion.. what makes a 2K preamp worth more than a clean 200 Euro preamp..

DamagedTrax

like anything else you flavour to taste.

some like ultra clean. i prefer a touch of character (ala neve 9098).

but it all depends on the source and context.

Seziertisch

Impedance matches and mismatches between mics and pres also play a role in how they work together.

Otherwise, in terms of colour and character, transformers (more so than tubes) are the key. A Pultec EQ, for example, has three massive UTC transformers in there. There is a long interview with Chris Lord Alge on Recordproduction.com where he talks about having a Pultec as the very last thing on his mixbus, not even engaged, just passing audio through it for the sound. Traditionally, recordings would have involved every signal being passed through a number of high-quality transfomers from tracking to mixing. It is this build up which gives the sound.

A lot of times recording is about producing something better than reality. You might want to add something that isn't there necessarily in the first place.

Welease

Seziertisch wrote: »

A lot of times recording is about producing something better than reality. You might want to add something that isn't there necessarily in the first place.

I suppose that's what i was getting at ...

It makes sense obviously.. the whole signal chain is about adding extra dynamics or attributes to the original sound... from a guitarist point of view, i don't want my sound to sound like a electic guitar being played acoustically, I want tube distortion, I want added distortion, i want delay, i want a touch of reverb, i want compression, i want certain frequencies eq'd etc etc etc...

So I suppose hence my original interest.. is the clarity of a preamp that important.. the expensive ones seem to have a characteristic sound, but the reviews of the average equipment seem to stress clarity or transparancy..

I understand it can be horses for courses, and personal tastes, exactly like the multitude of distortion pedals available..

I swap in and out effects as I need them.. but on a large expensive desk, you are stuck with possible a single preamp characteristic choice.. do you find that restricting, or is the characteristic minimal enough to not be a big factor?

(and to put it in perspective.. i get asked what the preamps are like on the desk i have... they ummm record like it sounds (to my awful ears anyway).. is that good/bad/indifferent... i dunno how to answer the question, hence my interest)

PaulBrewer

Welease wrote: »

Ok putting up the n00b flag on this one , but it has been something that has been interesting me for a while (and re-ignited i suppose by someone asking about the Phonic firewire desk which I have, and me re-reading some reviews of it)..

I'm not even sure what my actual question is (and I have a few pints in me) , but I am interested in input..

I would have assumed for a preamp, you would be looking for a transparent (or as much as possible) way of boosting the signal so it can be recorded..You want clarity and lack of distortion, and I would have assumed signal integrity would have been primary concern. Most reviews will mention how clear the pre-amp is etc.. In essence, it should allow me to record exactly (or as close as possible) the sound that I am hearing..

But when I read or hear input on various expensive preamps, a lot of the comments are about warm sounding, compressed sounding, sounds like a Neve etc etc etc. Which points to the preamps imparting their own characteristics...

So do you guys use preamps like mics.. and have several depending on application?
Do you think clarity is more important? or is it not really possible and the reviews are generally BS?

Just interested in opinion.. what makes a 2K preamp worth more than a clean 200 Euro preamp..

Very Good Question !

You can be sure that all pre-amps impart character.

There are (at least) 2 ways to look at it.

One is, as you say the search for clarity - this is often the goal of the classical boys - 'capture as is'.

The other goal can be colouration or musicality.

I was reading an interview with a designer who described a Neve type circuit as 'slowed down' (referring to it's 'slew rate' or 'attack') part of what makes a 'fat' or 'warm' sound that I associate with older recordings.

An example of that 'sound' I've mentioned here before is Elton John's recent-ish hit 'Are You Ready for Love' that some of the younger guys may have heard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4ZuaVnKmsw

Another is the like of Tom Petty's drum sound , Jim Keltner is the drummer I believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8L9WSJi4hc

It has the classic Neve/API/ Transformer/Tape Compression sound that can be described in one word - Distortion !



However everything that has 'distortion' isn't necessarily good !

Preamps are one of the tone forming tools of a track. A good one sucks in much music and life of the instrument and space it's in - a bad one leaves the sound lifeless and flat.

PaulBrewer

DamagedTrax wrote: »

like anything else you flavour to taste.

some like ultra clean. i prefer a touch of character (ala neve 9098).

but it all depends on the source and context.

An AMEK 9098 ?

DamagedTrax

ill meet you half way then?

a rupert 9098

studiorat

In my experience I've found the 9098 a very different animal to something like a Neve. I would have put the Amek in the fast and clean bracket and the Neve in the slower and more distorted end of things.

It really depends on what you want to use it for, I remember sticking acoustic guitars through a Neve, big mistake! Should have used something with a faster attack, (slew). I've also found that naturally it depends on what microphone you use it with. A dynamic mic will have a slower attack anyway.

Seziertisch

Welease wrote: »

I suppose that's what i was getting at ...

It makes sense obviously.. the whole signal chain is about adding extra dynamics or attributes to the original sound... from a guitarist point of view, i don't want my sound to sound like a electic guitar being played acoustically, I want tube distortion, I want added distortion, i want delay, i want a touch of reverb, i want compression, i want certain frequencies eq'd etc etc etc...

So I suppose hence my original interest.. is the clarity of a preamp that important.. the expensive ones seem to have a characteristic sound, but the reviews of the average equipment seem to stress clarity or transparancy..

I understand it can be horses for courses, and personal tastes, exactly like the multitude of distortion pedals available..

I swap in and out effects as I need them.. but on a large expensive desk, you are stuck with possible a single preamp characteristic choice.. do you find that restricting, or is the characteristic minimal enough to not be a big factor?

(and to put it in perspective.. i get asked what the preamps are like on the desk i have... they ummm record like it sounds (to my awful ears anyway).. is that good/bad/indifferent... i dunno how to answer the question, hence my interest)

In terms of doing a comparison, borrow some stuff and hear for yourself. That is the only way to do it.

Otherwise, in terms of preamps and what they do, I have used some nice stuff and the good stuff always sounds good (as opposed to usable), but you will inevitably have a preference in any given situation depending on what sound you are after. The other thing with a good pre is that it will always sound musical. You overdrive it and it will still be sonically pleasant (albeit overdriven). A cheaper pre will only go so far before it starts to sound ****.

Pop rock recording is about creating new sonic landscapes a lot of the time, or combining extraordinary elements with the sound of a bunch of people playing in a room. Its your call. Good gear allows you to get there faster and in a more satisfactory manner (both in terms of method and end result).

PaulBrewer

DamagedTrax wrote: »

ill meet you half way then?

a rupert 9098

Head, it's an AMEK :rolleyes:

DamagedTrax

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Head, it's an AMEK :rolleyes:

and it has the rubert neve name on the face plate.

its designed by rupert and branded by amek based on the designs of the original 9098

whats the differance.. still a lovely piece of kit.

Welease

Thanks for all the input appreciate it.. I suppose my final question is (for the moment ), all of you have basically said what i thought, good equipment is good for a reason (sounds, versatility etc), and the pre's you might want can differ depending on application (classic) or characteristic...

So in your average day would you emply multiple different pre's (like mic's in my original post), or do you tend to choose your favourite and stick with that, for better for worse, for richer for poorer

If you do swap, is that by changing an initial preamp into the desk, or do you sometimes use different desk depending on application?

Essentially, using the 9098 mentioned before.. would you use that for everything given the cost or do you have multiple preamps for different sounds/bands/applications.

ogy

what makes a 2K preamp worth more than a clean 200 Euro preamp.

a great analogy i've heard in relation to preamps is that they are like lenses, a good (expensive maybe?) preamp will give you a focused tight representation of the sound you are capturing, whereas a bad preamp/lens will certainly give you a recognizable image of what your recording, but it may be blurred. the sharper/more focused sound will be much easier to mix with, it will react much more obviously to panning, eqing, compression etc.

on top of this good preamps can also add desirable flavour/distortion/warmth, but this won't be at the cost of "image" if that makes sense:)

PaulBrewer

Welease wrote: »

Thanks for all the input appreciate it.. I suppose my final question is (for the moment ), all of you have basically said what i thought, good equipment is good for a reason (sounds, versatility etc), and the pre's you might want can differ depending on application (classic) or characteristic...

So in your average day would you emply multiple different pre's (like mic's in my original post), or do you tend to choose your favourite and stick with that, for better for worse, for richer for poorer

If you do swap, is that by changing an initial preamp into the desk, or do you sometimes use different desk depending on application?

Essentially, using the 9098 mentioned before.. would you use that for everything given the cost or do you have multiple preamps for different sounds/bands/applications.

In an ideal world you'd have lots of different pres and be aware of how they react in different circumstances and choose appropriately.

'Rat's Neve/Acoustic tale is a good example.
The differences can be subtle and also unsubtle ...

I fired up the URS URS Classic Console Strip Pro

http://www.ursplugins.com/

over last weekend and it has what are considered good recreations of classic pre-amps ( as well as EQ/Comps) .

They have a demo that you can try.

I found some differences very subtle but some differences were huge the classic 1980s SSL v 1970s Neve for example.

These differences will never write you a hit tune but, when skillfully applied raise a recording from good (of which there are many) to great, of which there aren't.

Do you sometimes use different desk depending on application?

Yes ! The old one was Track on a Neve ( Fat, Warm and Musical) and Mix on an SSL (Control, Precision and Accuracy)

Nice work if you can get it ...

Welease

ogy wrote: »

a great analogy i've heard in relation to preamps is that they are like lenses, a good (expensive maybe?) preamp will give you a focused tight representation of the sound you are capturing, whereas a bad preamp/lens will certainly give you a recognizable image of what your recording, but it may be blurred. the sharper/more focused sound will be much easier to mix with, it will react much more obviously to panning, eqing, compression etc.

on top of this good preamps can also add desirable flavour/distortion/warmth, but this won't be at the cost of "image" if that makes sense:)

Makes perfect sense..

Would the sharper image really react that much to panning, eq'ing though? (i get all the other bits and agree).. Maybe I have spend so long in the digital age (I wrote my first computer game in '81.. I am approaching Mr. Brewers fine vintage :P), but i would have assumed the captured "image" would have been equally pannable/compressable etc. as the less focussed version...

although having just typed that.. i can actually see now how you are probably correct... and more unfocussed image will be more difficult to place specifically within a sonic frame.... I assume it's not just the clarity of that sound, but also the ability to keep the clarity/focus of that sound out of the space of the other sounds?

Welease

PaulBrewer wrote: »

In an ideal world you'd have lots of different pres and be aware of how they react in different circumstances and choose appropriately.

'Rat's Neve/Acoustic tale is a good example.
The differences can be subtle and also unsubtle ...

I fired up the URS URS Classic Console Strip Pro

http://www.ursplugins.com/

over last weekend and it has what are considered good recreations of classic pre-amps ( as well as EQ/Comps) .

They have a demo that you can try.

I found some differences very subtle but some differences were huge the classic 1980s SSL v 1970s Neve for example.

These differences will never write you a hit tune but, when skillfully applied raise a recording from good (of which there are many) to great, of which there aren't.



Yes ! The old one was Track on a Neve ( Fat, Warm and Musical) and Mix on an SSL (Control, Precision and Accuracy)

Nice work if you can get it ...

Thanks Paul.. appreciate the links in the previous post also btw.. hearing the sound really helps understand the point being made..
I'll try out that demo.. I love the old Motown/Stax etc. and Northern Soul sounds, and would be interested in hearing how a recorded sound would vary across the preamps.

PaulBrewer

Welease wrote: »

Makes perfect sense..

Would the sharper image really react that much to panning, eq'ing though? (i get all the other bits and agree).. Maybe I have spend so long in the digital age (I wrote my first computer game in '81.. I am approaching Mr. Brewers fine vintage :P), but i would have assumed the captured "image" would have been equally pannable/compressable etc. as the less focussed version...

although having just typed that.. i can actually see now how you are probably correct... and more unfocussed image will be more difficult to place specifically within a sonic frame.... I assume it's not just the clarity of that sound, but also the ability to keep the clarity/focus of that sound out of the space of the other sounds?

One of the 'intangibles' I've tried to describe here many times (unsuccessfully!) is how everything gets easier and more musical the better the gear you use. (Gear includes studio acoustics)

That is the very thing that MAKES it better !

It never ceases to amuse me the naysayers are invariably the ones who don't have the privilege (and it is a privilege) to use such like and tie up their arguments in supposed 'ulterior' motives.

That string quartet date I was at in AIR a couple of weeks ago was a case in point - good and appropriate everything (score, musicians, instruments, room, mics, pres, console, monitors, amps ... even studio staff) makes for better, made more simply and more enjoyable music both for the creators AND the listeners.

PaulBrewer

Welease wrote: »

Thanks Paul.. appreciate the links in the previous post also btw.. hearing the sound really helps understand the point being made..
I'll try out that demo.. I love the old Motown/Stax etc. and Northern Soul sounds, and would be interested in hearing how a recorded sound would vary across the preamps.

The only issue is getting a 'good' sound to the plug-in !

dav nagle

Ok I hear ya. Here is the reality as opposed to fiction. I went from a digi 002 and a focusrite to a neve portico pre amp. I went on advise. Cheap pre amps give hisssssssssssssss and good pre amps give clarity and headroom. You are welcome to come to my studio and A/B the difference.

A) I just want to clarify I dont have the most amazing large studio
I have a basic studio
C) When you talk about pre amps the truth is that clarity and headroom are the deciding factors..


PM me for my contact details, it took me a while to apreciate what Neve do but after a few months I was glad to have bought it, I will never and I mean never buy anything less than Neve.

DamagedTrax

dav nagle wrote: »

Ok I hear ya. Here is the reality as opposed to fiction. I went from a digi 002 and a focusrite to a neve portico pre amp. I went on advise. Cheap pre amps give hisssssssssssssss and good pre amps give clarity and headroom. You are welcome to come to my studio and A/B the difference.

A) I just want to clarify I dont have the most amazing large studio
I have a basic studio
C) When you talk about pre amps the truth is that clarity and headroom are the deciding factors..


PM me for my contact details, it took me a while to apreciate what Neve do but after a few months I was glad to have bought it, I will never and I mean never buy anything less than Neve.

OH my god dav.. you CANT call it a neve.. its a portico!!!










... sorry paul :P

Bluebirdstudios

Hi Welease,
Another aspect of pre amp characters is that DAW have become so popular in comparison to tape . It has put a move in the market for more "colour" in pre amps to combat the sterile DAW sound. You'll have noticed a hugh increase of tube pre amps recreations of classic gear . Maybe clever marketing but the DAW has forced most engineers to try and find colour,weight,density.smoothness etc.. at their front end.

For my pennies worth I still prefer character over accurate representation especially in the DAW world. But as other posters have said its nice to have options of pre's and the ability to match mics and pres.

RealEstateKing

but, the importance of preamps is vastly, hugely over-inflated in this day and age, particularly (in this is when it annoys me) when giving advice to newbies, bedroom hobbyists and people on tight budgets.

Yes there are differences between preamps, but they are far less important than is made out by marketing literature. Preamps are NOT the audio equivalent of lenses - microphones are, a good or bad microphone pointing in the right direction in the right place, in a good room, will make a massive difference to your sound. A preamp simply turns up the gain on what comes out of the mike.

Nowadays Chinese manufacturers are easily able to make clean , noise-free pres with lots of headroom for around the hundred quid mark. The Thousands that people pay for fancy pres are not going towards cleanness and accuracy (that can be easily acheived by a 1st year Electrical Engineering student) , they are going towards pleasing types of innacuracy, distortion, extra harmonics, phase-smearing and all the rest.

Now far be it from me to say that the guys in the big studios are wasting their money: But this much I know: If you are recording in anything but a PERFECT acoustically designed space the small sonic difference between a 100 Euro pre and 1000 Euro pre will probably not be noticeable.

We should stop telling ordinary non-pro people that this matters at all. Get something by M-Audio or Joe Meek and spend your time learning how to mike things properly and acoustically insulate your room, it'll make far more difference than spending 1000 Euro on a different type of volume control.

Granted, once upon a time, if you wanted a clean noise-free pre you had to spend big money to get one: Consumer grade pres at the time like those on a Tascam 4 track or whatever were noisy and ****. That simply isn't the case anymore. Anybody can have very , very high quality audio now for one or two hundred quid (Of course the mic is another thing altogether, that, unlike a pre, is an extremely complicated and sensitive device for converting the movements of air into electrical impulses, a process which is gonna cost ya)

Amplifying the gain on a signal, cleanly and transparently on the other hand, is pretty easily and cheaply done in this day and age. Dont sweat it too much, at least not until you've converted your bedroom into Studio A at Westlake and The London Philharmonic are over to lay down some strings.

PaulBrewer

Real ,

The guys who succeed in music (or any other sector) never have a 'that's good
enough' attitude.

Their attitude is always to strive for better in everything.

If you have the choice between using something 'very good' or 'great' what do you pick ?

If they don't have that choice, the real winners in life keep going til they do.


THAT'S why great gear is used.

fitz

The one thing I would say Paul (and I agree about always striving for great results) is that striving for great over really good shouldn't be a reason to not get work done. There's a balance to be struck....at least for the home producers...

Seziertisch

RealEstateKing wrote: »

but, the importance of preamps is vastly, hugely over-inflated in this day and age, particularly (in this is when it annoys me) when giving advice to newbies, bedroom hobbyists and people on tight budgets.

Yes there are differences between preamps, but they are far less important than is made out by marketing literature. Preamps are NOT the audio equivalent of lenses - microphones are, a good or bad microphone pointing in the right direction in the right place, in a good room, will make a massive difference to your sound. A preamp simply turns up the gain on what comes out of the mike.

Nowadays Chinese manufacturers are easily able to make clean , noise-free pres with lots of headroom for around the hundred quid mark. The Thousands that people pay for fancy pres are not going towards cleanness and accuracy (that can be easily acheived by a 1st year Electrical Engineering student) , they are going towards pleasing types of innacuracy, distortion, extra harmonics, phase-smearing and all the rest.

Now far be it from me to say that the guys in the big studios are wasting their money: But this much I know: If you are recording in anything but a PERFECT acoustically designed space the small sonic difference between a 100 Euro pre and 1000 Euro pre will probably not be noticeable.

We should stop telling ordinary non-pro people that this matters at all. Get something by M-Audio or Joe Meek and spend your time learning how to mike things properly and acoustically insulate your room, it'll make far more difference than spending 1000 Euro on a different type of volume control.

Granted, once upon a time, if you wanted a clean noise-free pre you had to spend big money to get one: Consumer grade pres at the time like those on a Tascam 4 track or whatever were noisy and ****. That simply isn't the case anymore. Anybody can have very , very high quality audio now for one or two hundred quid (Of course the mic is another thing altogether, that, unlike a pre, is an extremely complicated and sensitive device for converting the movements of air into electrical impulses, a process which is gonna cost ya)

Amplifying the gain on a signal, cleanly and transparently on the other hand, is pretty easily and cheaply done in this day and age. Dont sweat it too much, at least not until you've converted your bedroom into Studio A at Westlake and The London Philharmonic are over to lay down some strings.

Real, what "high-end" pres have you used specifically? In my experience there is a very audible difference even in less than acoustically perfect circumstances.

fitz

I use a UA Solo 610, which cost abot €670 when I bought it. Have to say Real, it is far from a "small sonic difference" between it and a €100 pre.

There's a balance to be had between what you're saying and the likes of Brewer's way of doing things.

I don't believe you have to do everything in a top notch studio to get top-notch results, but I also believe you have to get some great gear to do that. There are lower ends of the price spectrum for great gear. If I wanted a decent 2 channel mic pre for a home studio that would give me solid, pro results, I'd look at an Audient Mico. It's not gonna give you Neve like results, but it's gonna give you noticeably better results than the pre's in you mbox or whatever.

Your point about getting on with things and learning how to mic properly and just getting the job done is a seperate issue, but really really important. Getting tracks down, at least as demos, should not wait on gear. Get it down, and if you think it needs do be redone with better gear to achieve it's potential, fine, but at least you've got it down.

RealEstateKing

Real ,

The guys who succeed in music (or any other sector) never have a 'that's good
enough' attitude.
Their attitude is always to strive for better in everything.
If you have the choice between using something 'very good' or 'great' what do you pick ?
If they don't have that choice, the real winners in life keep going til they do.
THAT'S why great gear is used.

There is truth in that, if you're already at the very top of your game, working in the greatest rooms, with the most amazing engineering skills and years of experience under your belt, then there may be (a very slight point) in using fancy pres.

What gets my goat is that ordinary folks are constantly being told by gear manufacturers/magazines/and top flight engineers that they NEED fancy pres to make good recordings, when it simply isn't the case. The advantage of a fancy pre, pales into insignificance compared to the room, the microphone, the instruments and the musician.

It is literally like giving beauty tips to girls on the basis that Kiera Knightley uses a certain shade of lipstick, while omitting to mention that Kiera Knightley is far prettier than most girls can ever hope to be, and would look fantastic with or without that brand of makeup. You'd be far better off telling those girls to join a gym, eat right, and so on, than getting them to obsess about lipstick shades. Of course lipstick shades are something we can sell to people, going to the gym and eating right is something you have to do on your own. No prizes for guessing why advertising stresses the former.

Nowadays any cheap or mid-priced pre will be more than up to the job of amplifying a signal up to line level with out adding anything of it's own. You're talking about fancy pres as if they actually provide 'better quality audio' than the cheap/mid-priced ones, but that's not actually true, in terms of all the measurements that matter: Frequency response, Noise, THD and so on, even cheap pres have specs that would have been unimaginable outside a fancy studio ten years ago. In effect what people are paying big money for is not transparency but, untransparency, in other words, slightly worse quality, but in a pleasing way.

Now, of course you're perfectly entitled to be attached to those little artefacts of sound, be it valves adding extra harmonics or whatever, but lets not pretend that we're actually getting more accurate , higher quality audio from spending more money.

The guys who succeed in music (or any other sector) never have a 'that's good
enough' attitude.
Their attitude is always to strive for better in everything.

Agreed, and my argument would be that anyone aspiring to be one of those guys, would do far better to worry about his skills as an engineer/musician/producer/recordist and focus only on those aspects of gear aquisition that make for quantum leaps of difference in quality: The difference between an Alesis Midiverb and a Lexicon 960L , for example or between a cheapo Chinese mic and a Neumann U87, or a Crate and a Fender Twin and so on.

ogy

a great article on pres, and where i nicked the lens analogy from:

To Pre or Not to Pre
Quality pres can focus sounds in your mix and give everything better definition
By Dan Richards


An important aspect of a quality microphone preamplifier is how much "space" in the soundfield a preamp takes up in order to have your ear accurately define a particular instrument or voice. People wonder how you can hear every instrument clearly on a well-recorded song — even if it's through a crappy little speaker. One of the secrets is in the mic pres.
Take the stereofield and within it place a sound — let's say an acoustic guitar. Now, how much space is that taking up? If it's an inexpensive preamp, it might "sound good" to you on that one track, but you have to add a lot more tracks in order to make a complete stereo mix of a song. Imagine the stereofield being the size of a dollar. That guitar through a cheap mic pre might take up the size of a quarter. So, how many quarters could you lay on a dollar before you started running out of room? Not even 18. Try it yourself.
On that same dollar, how many heads from a straightpin could you fit? Probably a couple of hundred.

The "dollar bill" metaphor and illustration in this article are still only two-dimensional. What keeps the "cheap" preamp from getting really big is that it's unfocused to start with so it never creates enough energy in a small enough space to allow it to be projected out into space with any real effectiveness. The metaphor is similar to a laser — in which a very strong light is achieved by continuously focusing and focusing finer and finer until it comes out into free space. An unfocused light — like a cheap pre — will have its energy dissipate quickly. When you listen to an individual acoustic guitar track that's well-miked running through a really high-quality preamp — the originating "focal point" of sound of the guitar will take up about as much space as the head on a pin.
We're currently testing quite a few of the mic pres available. There are newer mic pres coming into the market all the time offering stunning solutions well within reach of most project-studio budgets. Companies include API, Millennia, Speck Electronics, Great River, Sytek, John Hardy, FMR Audio, Grace, Vintech, Buzz Audio, Benchmark, A Designs, and Phoenix Audio. The great thing about many of these companies is that they are boutique operations. You will often receive superior service, a superior product, and it's not unheard of to have the actual designer of the mic pre answer the phone when you call.

A cheap lens, like a cheap mic preamp, doesn't focus the signal. The resulting image is unfocused and lacks definition.
The one thing all the higher-end mic pres have in common is that they focus the origin of a given sound in a very small and tightly-focused space within the soundstage. If you listen to a cheap-to-average mic pre and compare it to the higher-end mic pres, you'll hear the cheaper pres sounding as if they're swimming with a chorus effect. They are considerably less defined than their higher-end counterparts. And this starts to build up as you add tracks into the mix. All those parts take up so much space, and by the time you're ready to mix you wonder why you can't get a clear mix that sounds like it was professionally recorded.
On the other hand, with well-recorded tracks using good mic pres, you can often throw up the faders and the song is often 95% there.
Then comes something that in my book is often more important than EQ for making instruments sit in the right place in the mix — and that's panning. It's a lot easier to pan a specific sound if you can easily pinpoint in the stereo field just exactly where that sound is positioned. A great pre will show you, whereas a less-than-stellar pre will confuse your ears because the sound is literally taking up a less-defined area.

A quality lens, like a quality mic preamp, focuses the signal well. The resulting image is clear and defined.
In describing the qualities of a mic pre, Allen Burdick, President of Benchmark Media Systems, says, "Harmonic distortion and intermodulation distortion are both created by the same mechanism. This may be a narrowband amplifier, an amplifier that is slew rate limited, or an intrinsically flawed design element in the amplifier, such as the output stage. At low frequencies, the large amount of feedback in today's audio amplifier elements all but eliminates distortion products. However, at high frequencies the intrinsic gain of an amplifier element is significantly reduced and therefore the percentage of gain available for use in feedback becomes severely limited. Excellent high frequency performance requires a careful use of wide bandwidth, intrinsically clean circuit elements, and the proper amount of feedback. "
This is one of the many reasons you'll find for investing in the front-end rather than having the "DAW du jour". Almost any DAW made in the last few years will sound like any other DAW. There is surprisingly little difference sonically at the level of the digital medium itself — from very inexpensive DAW's to a full-blown Pro Tools rig. The real sonic difference is more in the choice of room, source, microphones, mic preamps, analog-to-digital converters — everything on the front-end before and at the point the signal is finally converted into ones and zeros in the digital domain.
Investing in the front-end is actually investing. Spending money on computer-based audio is the disposable trash of our age. There are $100,000 Sony digital multi-tracks made just a few years ago that are literally worth next to nothing now. I had someone offer me a Sony 3324 last year for free if I'd just take it from their studio. I said, "No thanks." I don't have room or the need for it.
People think nothing of spending thousands of dollars on the new DAW-in-a-box. Two years from now it won't be worth 25% of that. But if you invest in a high-end pre, it will still be worth nearly as much as you paid in five or even 10 years — and some of them will actually appreciate in value. Keeping that in mind makes a quality mic preamp not so expensive after all.
Sample rates are switching and rising a mile a minute. 96K today and 192K tomorrow. Hang on to your recording medium — whatever you use. Jumping to the next great DAW will not improve your sound nearly as much as a serious mic pre will add to your front-end and to your overall tool kit.

fitz

RealEstateKing wrote: »

There is truth in that, if you're already at the very top of your game, working in the greatest rooms, with the most amazing engineering skills and years of experience under your belt, then there may be (a very slight point) in using fancy pres.

What gets my goat is that ordinary folks are constantly being told by gear manufacturers/magazines/and top flight engineers that they NEED fancy pres to make good recordings, when it simply isn't the case. The advantage of a fancy pre, pales into insignificance compared to the room, the microphone, the instruments and the musician.

Slight point?
So if you had access to a really nice room, and were recording great musicians using great instruments, you think recording with an M-Audio is going to give you slightly less in terms of the tracks you capture to disk than using Neve/UA/Focusrite/SSL/Audient pre's into an Apogee or RME interface?

If you think that, frankly, you're deluded.

Now, do you need the high end stuff to get a good result, or will you get that with the M-Audio? That's a different question. I would say, no. You'll get a decent recording. Will you spend more time trying to get things sitting in the mix? Yes, most likely. Will you be able to take the mix to the same stage that you could with the high end gear? Probably not. Will most people notice? Maybe not.

Is any of this a reason for a home based guy, like myself, not to want to have that gear in order to get the best possible results? No.

I fit the example above. The next time I record, it'll be in an amazing room that Kila and others record in. It's a magic sounding room. I've good mics, I'll be using an Apogee or RME interface into Logic on a Mac. Drums will be tracked using my DW Collectors Edition kit and HH/HHX cymbals, and our drummer is incredible, she can make the kit sing. Guitars will be done using my custom built HiWatt head/Mesa Dual Recto/Vox AC30, and my Lowden acoustic. Bass will probably be a hand built Thompson 5 string. We're likely to track with the amps in the control room and drums in the live room, then overdub what we need to.

Now...I could just use the pre-amps in the interface, or I could get 4 channels of something like this: http://www.igsaudio.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13

A nice Neve clone pre, with maybe a dual 1176 clone (also from IGS) for the overheads...

I'll have those 4 channels for good. They're an investment in all future recording I will do. They'd be great for the kick, snare and overheads.

They'd be great when you go to re-track/overdub the guitars, the 1176 would be invaluable for vocals.

Now, looking at the prices, those 4 channels and the compressor would cost me €2670. Pricey? Maybe, but that's maybe 4 or 5 days of studio time somewhere that's going to have those kind of pres/compressors etc. And I get to keep the gear, re-using it again and again.

Why would I not aspire to do things that way, if I'm going to be doing things myself?

If you're looking to produce commercial quality recording that matches up to anything played on the radio, then you have to invest in the tools that'll help you achieve that level of quality, or go somewhere that has them. If you're looking to make a decent recording, you're not concerned about the time and effort it'll take to mix, and aren't aiming to compete with top notch industry recordings, then you're right. Pre's aren't that important.

Agreed, and my argument would be that anyone aspiring to be one of those guys, would do far better to worry about his skills as an engineer/musician/producer/recordist and focus only on those aspects of gear aquisition that make for quantum leaps of difference in quality: The difference between an Alesis Midiverb and a Lexicon 960L , for example or between a cheapo Chinese mic and a Neumann U87, or a Crate and a Fender Twin and so on.

Take the skills part of it as read. No-one is gonna argue with you on that. But it's not one or the other. You should develop your skills/knowledge along with the tools you use, in parallel.

Anyone saying that top quality can't be achieved unless you buy the U87 or the most expensive pre or compressors, etc. is probably selling something. But you don't have to go to U87 prices to see incredible improvement in results from gear.

Similarly, some cheap gear can yield great results too (see Studiorat's love for the Thomann ribbon mic, or my own love for an Audix i5 for recording vocals).

You seem to be militantly black and white about this. "The Man" trying to sell products doesn't necessarily mean that the products don't do what he's saying. Doesn't mean they will do what he says either, but they should only be discounted by experience with them, not by distaste for commercial agendas.

Seziertisch

fitz wrote: »

If you're looking to produce commercial quality recording that matches up to anything played on the radio, then you have to invest in the tools that'll help you achieve that level of quality, or go somewhere that has them. If you're looking to make a decent recording, you're not concerned about the time and effort it'll take to mix, and aren't aiming to compete with top notch industry recordings, then you're right. Pre's aren't that important.

+1

I am also still interested to hear what high-end pres RealEstateKing has used?

PaulBrewer

Seziertisch wrote: »

+1

I am also still interested to hear what high-end pres RealEstateKing has used?

I'm not ...

RealEstateKing

If you think that, frankly, you're deluded.

Well I guess Im deluded so!

Obviously I realise that nothing I say is gonna convince anyoine who believes otherwise, it's essentially a religious point. People need to beleive in certain totemic symbols to get them through, and it happens in every area. Scientific testing can help to weaken such irrational beliefs though.

But to the person above who conflated my arguement into saying something like "Good gear isnt important" let me clarify:

Good microphones, reverbs, mixing desks, outboard processors, plugins, guitars, amps, and so on, ARE important. In all of those areas I would happily spend every penny I have, and you should too, to get the quality I want. However as technology has moved on, there are some things that no longer have to cost the earth.

Microphone pres are of an exponential order of magnitude less complicated devices, and we have reached a point in technological history where clean, transparent mic pres can be made for between 100 and 200 quid, that is what I am saying, do you dispute this?

There are plenty of preamps out there in the sub 200 Euro range that have Flat frequency responses from 20-20,000 Hz and beyond in some cases, extremely low noise floors and very high dynamic range. And Yet, you consistently hear them dismissed as peices of junk, lacking the (insert marketing crap here) - "Buttery high end, shimmery mids, and bass frquencies that pour you a glass of champagne and give you a blow job."

I charge any of you who make these wild claims for the superiority of boutigue pres (For the burden of proof is on you, folks, as it is on the guy who beleives in ghosts, not on the sceptic) to either :

(a) Show me a technical reason why a fancy preamp is better than a good cheap one - using measurable, scientific things like Signal-to-noise ratio, Frequency response, and distortion etc. If you are of the belief that audio has some other qualities that escape these measurements, please provide some evidence of it. And don't use any words like 'buttery'.

(b) Be able to tell the difference between one pre and another blind. I have followed many such blind tests online and watched as not only could I not tell the difference, neither could anyone else, until (of course) they were told which clip was which, and then lo and behold - out comes the bull**** about the buttery highs and the creamy mids. I beleive most of this is to do with what is called 'expectation bias' , as well as Ethan Winer over on Gearslutz suggests, comb filtering in listening spaces.

And, to clarify, I am not saying either, that pres are not important, or that they do not have different sound to each other, but I am categorically stating that once you reach a certain level of transparancy, those differences are musically and artistically insignificant.

And even then , this stuff about preamps should be discussion only for the very fanciest and richest of us, it is irresponsible to pretend that it matters that much that Joe Schmoe should waste 1000 Euro on something that'll make almost no difference to his audio.

DamagedTrax

but what if we're not talking about transparent pre's?

i mean the focusrite octo doesnt exactly light my world.

but the amek (hey paul :pac:) 9098 does.

are you really going to claim that the 9098 imparts no more on a signal than an octo?

(forgive me if im reading into your arguement wrongly)

Seziertisch

Again I'll ask what pres have you used, Real? The way you haven't answered the question makes me think that you have never actually used any high-end stuff...

You give the impression of having had first hand experience A/Bing expensive stuff against cheap as chips and the difference being negligible.

madtheory

I think we've gone way off the point here, into imaginary land. It's not the nineties any more, big studios and the attendant bull**** are going the way of the dodo.

The essence of RealEstateKing's point I think, is this:

RealEstateKing wrote: »

the importance of preamps is vastly, hugely over-inflated in this day and age, particularly (in this is when it annoys me) when giving advice to newbies, bedroom hobbyists and people on tight budgets.

Discussing the relative merits of pre amps is "cool" on the interweb. In reality, it should be way down the list of priorities for most people. Chris Lord Alge didn't get to where he's at because of a Pultec.

It's true that most pre amps these days are very good. It's hard to go wrong really, even the built in pres on most audio interfaces are good these days. High end pres are only worth considering if everything else is in place- we all know what those things are. Or at least, we should.

The difference between pres is not as big as some folk imply. There's some budget stuff that's great and expensive stuff that's offensive.

I guess RealEstateKing doesn't toe the party line around here. And what's the party line? Buy more gear. Consumerism basically.

fitz

Hang on. So, you accept that an expensive guitar amp is worth the money you'd invest in it? But a guitar amp is just a pre-amp, tone stack and a power amp stuck together with a speaker cab. By your own logic, the pre-amp in Marshall Valvestate should be able to give you only slightly less quality than that of a Plexi.

This is just nonsense at this stage.
I converted an old 70s Sound City head with original Partridge transformers to a HiWatt DR103. It smokes even the brand new HiWatts. Components make a difference. If I was to replace those transformers with transformers of a quality/price level with those they use in a Marshall Valvestate, by your logic, I'd only hear a slight difference, or in a blind test, maybe none!?

No, you're not going to convince people that you're right about this, but not because of any other reason than the fact your extremist view of the topic is just wrong. As for people not quoting science, I haven't seen you quote one bit of any credible research to back up your point.

DamagedTrax

madtheory wrote: »

I guess RealEstateKing doesn't toe the party line around here. And what's the party line? Buy more gear. Consumerism basically.

i dont think ANYONE is saying we should all run out and spend silly money on a pre. what anyone decides to spend should surely be dictated by their situation, ie:
i've no intentions of splashing out on an expensive pre for my room at home. firstly i havent got the budget to allow it and secondly (at the moment) absolutely no need for it for the calibre and type of work i do here but that doesnt mean that i dont recognise and appreciate the differance between a high end and budget pre. my situation might change in the future and then i will redress the issue.

if i was in a studio situation and it came down to the choice between a behringer or a *insert high end name here* i have no doubts which i'd go for and anyone trying to claim that the sound differance is negligible should really have a good long think about what they are trying to achieve. it only takes a quick look at the parts under the bonnet to realise that you wont get the same results with the two.

and more importantly.. (and i think this is a point that paul tries to make and gets a little bit of stick for).. as audio pros/amateurs/afficinados we should strive for the best possible sound, no? most of us may not have the cash to splash but surely that deosnt mean that we settle for less without realising that we actually are settling?

if i really really need a cheap pre and i buy an m-audio then thats fine, im paying for a product thats priced to match its performance (sometimes the price/performance ratio can be very appealing, sometimes not). but to try and kid myself that my m-audio can stand up to something like an avalon 737 is kinda bordering on stupidity.

fitz

madtheory wrote: »

I think we've gone way off the point here, into imaginary land. It's not the nineties any more, big studios and the attendant bull**** are going the way of the dodo.

The essence of RealEstateKing's point I think, is this:

Discussing the relative merits of pre amps is "cool" on the interweb. In reality, it should be way down the list of priorities for most people. Chris Lord Alge didn't get to where he's at because of a Pultec.

It's true that most pre amps these days are very good. It's hard to go wrong really, even the built in pres on most audio interfaces are good these days. High end pres are only worth considering if everything else is in place- we all know what those things are. Or at least, we should.

The difference between pres is not as big as some folk imply. There's some budget stuff that's great and expensive stuff that's offensive.

I guess RealEstateKing doesn't toe the party line around here. And what's the party line? Buy more gear. Consumerism basically.

I agree with you MT, as I said above, there's plenty of inexpensive gear that will get you results.
You'll get results at home without this stuff if you put in the time and effort.
But for guys like me, who are willing to invest in the production of their music, to bring it up to pro studio quality without hitting a pro studio every time they want to track, buying some high end gear is going to give noticeable improvements. Tracking through some Neve channels is going to give far more than a "slight" improvement over the inbuilt pre's in my audio interface. That's where I would take issue with Real's position.

Edit: DT said it better than I did.

madtheory

Yes those are good points, I have to agree.

But I think it's worth bearing in mind that expensive is not necessarily better. A listening test I did a few years ago showed three of us that a (new) Neve mic pre sounded offensive against Millenia, Chilton, Massenburg and Siemens mic pres. There was another SSM based pre that's not expensive who's name eludes me, that was better than the Neve also. The guy who owned it sold it immediately!

fitz

Neve was just an example, you could substitute any high-end name there.

As for expensive not being better, I think it's a case of which one is right for the job, or sounds best, as your example illustrates. The most expensive/well-known of the high-end kit isn't always the best. Boutique builders are putting out serious kit at lower prices. There's a lot more high-end value to be had these days, but that's a seperate topic altogether!

DamagedTrax

i think when it gets up in the silly numbers its all subjective and an increase in price doesnt always mean an increase in quality. (fitz beat me to it)

but comparing low end budget to high end boutique (as RealEstate seems to be doing) is inexplicable to me.

Rockshamrover

Being as I am, a hobbyist, I have only ever used two audio interfaces. An M-Audio fastrack pro and a Apogee duet.

The difference between the two to my untrained ears was vast. The duet was just better (no science or charts).

So while I would agree that differences at the upper end of the price spectrum might be small in sound quality. I would side with the argument that there is a definite big difference between entry level and just above. The price difference at this level wasn't that big either.

Seziertisch

Once you get to a certain level, impedance matches and mismatches between mics and pres nearly become more important.

madtheory

Actually, we don't really "match" impedances in audio any more. That was only ever done in analogue telephony and older valve gear. These days the source is low and the input is high. Mics with no buffering will vary in tone depending on input impedance. This won't happen with a decent condenser or active ribbon, but it will happen noticeably with dynamics that don't have transformers, and less so with ribbons and dynamics that do. It can be interesting to play with the impedance that the mic sees, so that you can use it outside of manufacturer's specs. All you need to to is put a potentiometer in the chain and make up the gain when necessary.

Seziertisch

http://ronansrecordingshow.com/

Check out the latest episode.