Preamp characteristics

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.