I promise I will shut up about this now!

RealEstateKing

I was asked to take the pres thing to another thread, so didnt answer anyone that questioned me in the last one. So here goes.

I don't pretend to be an expert on mic pres and have not myself done scientific A/B testing on every pre on the market or anything like it. My experience with them would be about average for a non-pro engineer/musician.

I started out with a Spirit Folio by Soundcraft (as many people do) and was encouraged to upgrade my pres by every magazine article I read and bought a Joe Meek VC3Q and used that on everything (this is all untreated home studio stuff here obviously), and despite all the marketing literature didn't actually notice any leap in sound quality between them.

I borrowed other pres and used other pres in various situations without ever owning any of them: From the pres in a Soundcraft Ghost to the FMR Audio RNP, Focusrite Red 8s, various low to mid budget pres from ART to an SSL for an EP.

Sound quality wise, the highest quality of all the recordings Ive made of my own music was the ones made with the Soundcraft Ghost, which surprise, surprise , were also the ones recorded in a proper acoustically treated studio, though not a fancy one. One of the crappest recordings was done on the SSL - as it was done in a hurry with some free studio time that was left over from somebody else.

When I listen back to the home recordings Ive made over the years (4 albums worth to date in home studio) - I cannot remember which ones I recorded with which pre for the most part and what I notice most is that I cannot tell. I dont hear the weeks I borrowed the Focusrite sticking out over the weekend I used the RNP or whatever. It all sounds about as good as it does. I.e the sound of a guy with a limited space learning things as he goes.

Then on top of this, Ive always been interested in the topic and am always on the look out for blind tests online, and have consistently noted that I hear very , very little difference between clips in these sorts of tests and that normally, most other people can't tell them apart either, until they are told which pre is which and then magically, one clip is said to sound like junk and the other like fried gold. Or, theres always something wrong with the test, and the problem is that the difference between pres is only clear when tracks are 'stacked'.

Im not disputing that a 1000 dollar pre might sound better than a 100 dollar pre, I am merely concerned that this difference is supposed by many to be of a much greater magnitude than it actually is. Its is very subtle, and is probably the last thing any aspiring recordist ought to be worried about - especially now that technology/manufacturing has advanced to the stage where even the cheapest have more than respectable THD, Frequency response, noise and so on. I mean sure, if everything else is top notch, you might as well spend your extra cash on pres, but doesnt it seem a bit silly that there are endless threads all over the internet with people obsessing about this? There are far more threads about "Which Pre?" in a place like Gearslutz, than there are about more important things like mic placement and eq or whatever.

The other thing is that this only started in the past 20 years or so: Before that albums were recorded with whatever pre the studio had in it's console, which were usually as clean and as noiseless as it was possible to design them. Is it a coincidence that as more and more of the studio has been swallowed up by the DAW/plugins, that people have begun to obsess over "colour" and "transformers" and "Mojo"?

Now don't get me wrong, for those of you on here that are proffessional studio owners/engineers, these small differences may be important, I simply wish that people would stop advising ordinary home-recording folk to worry about this issue. It's like asking for fashion tips for Saturday night and being told that Kiera Knightley accessorises with a 100,000 Euro bag by Hermes and therefore you, as an ordinary Jlain Jane would do well to get one too if you want people to find you attractive - while conveniently ommitting to mention that Kiera Knightley is one of the most beautiful women in the world and would look stunning in a tracksuit.

Further to this, there is a slightly unscientific attitude that I see in the conversation. I now use an M-Audio DMP3 as my primary pre, having sold on anything fancier I had. Now many of you on here are snickering into your coffee as you read this, thinking what a cheap peice of junk the M-audio DMP3 is. My question to you is this if a preamp has specs like these:

66dB available gain
20Hz to 80kHz frequency response
Frequency response: 20Hz – 80kHz, +/-0.5dB @ max gain
SNR: -120dB, A-weighted, 20Hz to 20kHz
THD+N: 0.00035% (-109dB), 20Hz to 20kHz, @ +13.6dBu input
Max input: +14.6dBu
Max output: +27.5dBu
Input impedance: 3k Ohms balanced
EIN: -128dBm @ 600 Ohms, max gain
Gain range: 13.5dB to 46.5dB, low gain range 39.5dB to 72.5dB, high gain range
Low-cut filter: -3dB @ 72Hz (18dB/Octave)

By what criteria is it a peice of junk? Is there some extra measurement to audio that makes this a peice of crap that Im not aware of? I would have had to go to Windmill lane to find a pre with these specs in Ireland in 1987, but now, due to the massive boom in consumer audio, I can have one for 133 Euro. Why do we not acknowledge that this is progress, and keep insisting that low end=junk : Low-end was junk in 1987 and you had to go to Windmill Lane to find high quality electronics. But you don't anymore. Do you dispute this? If so, on what grounds?

PaulBrewer

Fair post Real .
Two things jump out at me -

1. Tech specs tell you very little, in fact one could argue ... nothing of practical use.
2. A mic pre is part of a chain - NEVER forget that. Unless a pre has the opportunity to perform, it won't.

Now let the waffle begin ....;)

trackmixstudio

Not this again.
You rightly say that in the 70s they used whatever pres where on the desk.
The desk would usually have been an API or Neve so there goes that argument.
These would be the 2 most popular rack pres today.
As Paul says tech specs mean nothing.
A great pre adds it's own character to the sound and actually enhances it.
You would not use an API to record an orchestra but on a drum kit or guitar amp it greatly enhances midrange attack when you saturate the input making the signal larger than life.
My Phoenix Audio pre is very different to my APIs. It makes the sound bigger and warmer with a smooth bottom end and crystal clear highs.
They sound very different to each other.
While it is true that a 200 quid mic pre will capture the source very well it will not sound anything like a top quality pre.
The difference becomes more apparent when you start stacking tracks and adding eq.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

well for one thing ,
those specs do not mention slew rate - which is basically where your transient response comes from - and transient response is what gives you the immediacy or naturalness on a source - ie its helps to stop the blurring of the source signal.

kinda crucial for a good preamp.

of course you may want this blurring in some cases - but mostly you want a resonably fast response.

so your m audio may process the signal on paper well, but may blurr or dull the signals clarity and naturalness.

http://www.recordingreview.com/articles/articles/31/1/Preamp-Fundamentals-I-Learned-At-Michael-Wageners/Page1.html

Seziertisch

trackmixstudio wrote: »

Not this again.
You rightly say that in the 70s they used whatever pres where on the desk.
The desk would usually have been an API or Neve so there goes that argument.
These would be the 2 most popular rack pres today.
As Paul says tech specs mean nothing.
A great pre adds it's own character to the sound and actually enhances it.
You would not use an API to record an orchestra but on a drum kit or guitar amp it greatly enhances midrange attack when you saturate the input making the signal larger than life.
My Phoenix Audio pre is very different to my APIs. It makes the sound bigger and warmer with a smooth bottom end and crystal clear highs.
They sound very different to each other.
While it is true that a 200 quid mic pre will capture the source very well it will not sound anything like a top quality pre.
The difference becomes more apparent when you start stacking tracks and adding eq.

+1

I have done many mic pre comparisons using a reamped guitar track with the levels matched in Protools. I have then had the tracks played back to me by someone else and have picked favourites. Is this scientific? Not really. Is it more scientific than comparing recordings of different tracks done on different days years apart from one another in completely different rooms (treated and untreated) and more than likely using different mics and instruments? Yeah, I reckon so. Seeing as you are into science, I don't understand why you haven't bothered to actually do some testing that could be described as remotely scientific. I'm sure Paul Brewer could hook you up with a demo of a "high-end" transformer coupled pre which you could put through its paces, and should you so wish you can post audio files and ask people to express a preference, and then when none of us can say which is which you can consider yourself vindicated.

As for transformer "mojo" being insignificant, I think that transformers are crucial to giving recordings weight and body. I have heard and done a lot of home recordings on cheaper gear where more stuff has been added to the arrangement to fill out the sound because parts aren't occupying the space they should or could. With a bunch of transformer gear chained up, a part can be an event in itself, occupying the entire stereo spectrum without their being any noticeable gaps.

Also regarding your experience with SSL, in my recording travels I have come across an SSL in Dublin which had a number of channels not working at all and a couple sounding kind of funny. The others seemed fine, but I'm sure that a visit from the maintenance man wouldn't have done any harm. In a situation like that, unless you know that something is practically new or is well-maintained, you can't really make a call.

PaulBrewer

DaDumTish wrote: »

well for one thing ,
those specs do not mention slew rate - which is basically where your transient response comes from - and transient response is what gives you the immediacy or naturalness on a source - ie its helps to stop the blurring of the source signal.

kinda crucial for a good preamp.

of course you may want this blurring in some cases - but mostly you want a resonably fast response.

so your m audio may process the signal on paper well, but may blurr or dull the signals clarity and naturalness.

http://www.recordingreview.com/articles/articles/31/1/Preamp-Fundamentals-I-Learned-At-Michael-Wageners/Page1.html

Seeing that Mindprint pre-amp Wagener liked in that article ? I've got one of those somewhere ...
Peter in Middlewalk has one of the GMLs.

RealEstateKing

While it is true that a 200 quid mic pre will capture the source very well it will not sound anything like a top quality pre.
The difference becomes more apparent when you start stacking tracks and adding eq.

Well firstly, the stacking theory is a myth: Any differences in frequency response that might be found in a preamp are not multiplied by it being used on multiple tracks. Here's a link on it:

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

where your transient response comes from - and transient response is what gives you the immediacy or naturalness on a source - ie its helps to stop the blurring of the source signal.

And this is another common peice of misunderstanding, that is often exploited by manufacturers: If, (assuming the measurements are true) a preamp has a flat frequency response from 20-20,000 Hz, (+/- 0.1 dB) then it is most certainly reproducing the transients faithfully - transients are simply high-frequency content like any other - if it is true that the preamp has the frequency response it says it does, then "Slew Rate" is not an issue.

Now sure, if a preamp had a bad slew rate, this would be a bad thing, but this bad slew rate would be reflected in the pre's frequency response, as its low slew rate would make it unable to respond fast enough to capture high frequencies. That's how it works.

1. Tech specs tell you very little, in fact one could argue ... nothing of practical use

Well, if you were talking about something complicated like a reverb unit that would be true: I could look at a reverb, see that it has 20-20,000 response, low THD and so on, and that would tell me nothing about whether it's a good reverb or not.

However with a microphone preamp that is not the case: All a microphone preamp has to do is turn up the gain on a microphone signal to line level as transparently as possible: If its does that within certain easily definable parameters (20-20,000 response, THD less than x amount and so on) than ergo, it is a good preamp. And to achieve this in this day and age is trivial, it can be done by any factory in China for cents on the dollar.

Now you may of course prefer preamps that have extra things: Valves that generate extra harmonics, pleasing saturation characteristics and all the rest, (in other words lower fidelity, but in a nice sounding way).

But do not take this to mean that good cheap preamps (such as the DMP3) are bad quality, when they measurably, provably, are not. This obsession with minute flavours of saturation and distortion is a modern thing: Once saturation and distortion were unavoidable and engineers minimised them as much as they could. Now we have clean audio, everybody is fetishising what they once tried to minimise. Kind of like the way we now live in a world of wonderful medicines for every ailment, but you still find people going to homeopaths and buying water!

Seziertisch

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Well firstly, the stacking theory is a myth: Any differences in frequency response that might be found in a preamp are not multiplied by it being used on multiple tracks. Here's a link on it:

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



And this is another common peice of misunderstanding, that is often exploited by manufacturers: If, (assuming the measurements are true) a preamp has a flat frequency response from 20-20,000 Hz, (+/- 0.1 dB) then it is most certainly reproducing the transients faithfully - transients are simply high-frequency content like any other - if it is true that the preamp has the frequency response it says it does, then "Slew Rate" is not an issue.

Now sure, if a preamp had a bad slew rate, this would be a bad thing, but this bad slew rate would be reflected in the pre's frequency response, as its low slew rate would make it unable to respond fast enough to capture high frequencies. That's how it works.



Well, if you were talking about something complicated like a reverb unit that would be true: I could look at a reverb, see that it has 20-20,000 response, low THD and so on, and that would tell me nothing about whether it's a good reverb or not.

However with a microphone preamp that is not the case: All a microphone preamp has to do is turn up the gain on a microphone signal to line level as transparently as possible: If its does that within certain easily definable parameters (20-20,000 response, THD less than x amount and so on) than ergo, it is a good preamp. And to achieve this in this day and age is trivial, it can be done by any factory in China for cents on the dollar.

Now you may of course prefer preamps that have extra things: Valves that generate extra harmonics, pleasing saturation characteristics and all the rest, (in other words lower fidelity, but in a nice sounding way).

But do not take this to mean that good cheap preamps (such as the DMP3) are bad quality, when they measurably, provably, are not. This obsession with minute flavours of saturation and distortion is a modern thing: Once saturation and distortion were unavoidable and engineers minimised them as much as they could. Now we have clean audio, everybody is fetishising what they once tried to minimise. Kind of like the way we now live in a world of wonderful medicines for every ailment, but you still find people going to homeopaths and buying water!

Offering links to stuff online etc. is all well and good, but there is nothing like getting your hands dirty yourself. There are a number of pro audio dealers in Dublin (including Mr. Brewer) who are more than happy to give the stuff out to demo at no cost. Where is the problem in you doing just that? Are you not even a bit curious to hear for yourself?

And also, that discussion you have linked on Gearslutz about stacking theory, Ethan Winer says that it doesn't exist, others (including Paul Frindle) disagree. How does that conclusively prove anything?

madtheory

RealEstateKing wrote: »

I am merely concerned that this difference is supposed by many to be of a much greater magnitude than it actually is.

+1. This is absolutely correct. Mic pre amps are over rated IMO also. This means that they are a factor to be considered, but not before room acoustics, instruments, decent grounding mic positioning and microphone quality, in that order.

It's mostly crap from marketing departments and gearslutz. I have been involved in a blind AB test where the Neve sounded far worse than an SSM based box which was a quarter of the price, and had two channels not one!

Maybe the point is over stated, but it is possible to get excellent mic pre amps for small money!

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Frequency response: 20Hz – 80kHz, +/-0.5dB @ max gain

You don't get a frequency response like this if the slew rate is poor. At line level, these days, slew rate is not an issue for the op amps commonly used. It is an issue with class A and class AB power amplifiers alright.

Finally, specs are not completely useless, but some manufacturers dress them up. You have to use your noggin. Those M Audio specs are actually quite honest. Easy to be honest when the specs are good!

tweeky

Jesus, Mary and Joseph why should a mic amp have a flat response when most mics don't either. Every mic amp has a function as has every microphone.
Specs me b*ll*x can we start using ears again or do i need to know the slew rate/THD/ before we do.

And while i'm at it who said you can't use API mic amps on strings?
RAK in London records more strings than most and through Mickey Most's old API!

PaulBrewer

tweeky wrote: »

Jesus, Mary and Joseph why should a mic amp have a flat response when most mics don't either. Every mic amp has a function as has every microphone.
Specs me b*ll*x can we start using ears again or do i need to know the slew rate/THD/ before we do.

And while i'm at it who said you can't use API mic amps on strings?
RAK in London records more strings than most and through Mickey Most's old API!

Bunch a eeegits !

RealEstateKing

And also, that discussion you have linked on Gearslutz about stacking theory, Ethan Winer says that it doesn't exist, others (including Paul Frindle) disagree. How does that conclusively prove anything?

I didnt say it was a proof: Its merely a very good argument which I happen to agree with, based as it is on science and reason. All anybody else in here is offering is personal conjecture. You like the sound of something? Great, more power to you. I can just as easily say you're a victim of expectation bias. Which one of us is right?

Of course there are people who disagree with Mr Winer on that issue. There are also 80 million Americans who dont believe in the theory of evolution. The question is, is his arguement sound or not? I think if you read it, you'll find that it is.

Specs me b*ll*x

You do realise that this discipline you're so interested in is called "Audio Engineering" for a reason dont you? Dont think you'd get very far in any other engineering field with that attitude.

My precise point is that, while specs may not tell you much about many audio devices, when the device is as simple as a microphone preamp, specs tell you almost everything you could possibly want to know about it. When you say "smooth and buttery" I can say "Slight dip in response at 8 khz" and I can show it too you on a graph.

There isnt some magic 4th dimension of audio where qualities like buttery, smooth, warm, 3d and Mojo etc live, they are all there in the audio in a simple device like a pre, there's no need for voodoo thinking about them.

And for the last time, I'm not denying that there are differences in sound between pres, or that some folk might prefer the sound of a tube or a transformer over whatever else you've got. But fer Chrisakes stop pretending its a matter of quality rather than a matter of preference.

Once most of us are squinting our ears trying to tell the difference between one high-quality pre and another (once the winky lights and expensive-looking fascia are out of sight) and actually cant tell the difference more than we would at random, slew rates, transformers, mojo, tube harmonics and all the other marketing buzzwords become irrelevant,. Qualities there, now lets make some music!

And anyway, all I ask is that you don't encourage this sort of magical thinking in people who are not as wealthy as you. Hell if you've got a couple of grand to splash on a glorified volume control, knock yourself out, it'll prop up our failing economy, but for the love of Jeebus stop encouraging ordinary folk to do so as well.

kfoltman

madtheory wrote: »

but not before room acoustics, instruments, decent grounding mic positioning and microphone quality, in that order.

What about *ahem* musician quality (talent/skills)?

Beats any preamp or even room acoustics (especially using DI :P).

PaulBrewer

kfoltman wrote: »

What about *ahem* musician quality (talent/skills)?

Beats any preamp or even room acoustics (especially using DI :P).

What about not dragging the thread off topic ? All of the above is a given :mad:

Seziertisch

RealEstateKing wrote: »

I didnt say it was a proof: Its merely a very good argument which I happen to agree with, based as it is on science and reason. All anybody else in here is offering is personal conjecture. You like the sound of something? Great, more power to you. I can just as easily say you're a victim of expectation bias. Which one of us is right?

Of course there are people who disagree with Mr Winer on that issue. There are also 80 million Americans who dont believe in the theory of evolution. The question is, is his arguement sound or not? I think if you read it, you'll find that it is.

Who would I consider more knowledgeable when it comes to audio design, Ethan Winer or Paul Frindle? Looking at their careers/achievements/products out there that they have had a hand in designing, I would have to say Paul Frindle, though you seem to be equating him with a creationist... Where do the G-series SSL and the Sony Oxford EQs fit in in the story of creation?

RealEstateKing wrote: »

My precise point is that, while specs may not tell you much about many audio devices, when the device is as simple as a microphone preamp, specs tell you almost everything you could possibly want to know about it. When you say "smooth and buttery" I can say "Slight dip in response at 8 khz" and I can show it too you on a graph.

There isnt some magic 4th dimension of audio where qualities like buttery, smooth, warm, 3d and Mojo etc live, they are all there in the audio in a simple device like a pre, there's no need for voodoo thinking about them.

And for the last time, I'm not denying that there are differences in sound between pres, or that some folk might prefer the sound of a tube or a transformer over whatever else you've got. But fer Chrisakes stop pretending its a matter of quality rather than a matter of preference.

I have zero experience with mic pres, but I have modded a share of guitar amps and in my experience different types of the same component produce very different results. I have replaced capacitors of one type with capacitors of another of similar value, and if the difference is down to slight variations in value I would be amazed. In terms of these being a matter of taste I don't think there is anyone who would prefer to hear a €.20 ceramic disk cap (one of the new smaller ones and not the old large body type) over a paper in oil cap in the coupling stage of their amp, unless of course they were a fan of coarse, barking midrange and unpleasant high frequencies. Electrically speaking, on the level of circuit design, either does the job.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Once most of us are squinting our ears trying to tell the difference between one high-quality pre and another (once the winky lights and expensive-looking fascia are out of sight) and actually cant tell the difference more than we would at random, slew rates, transformers, mojo, tube harmonics and all the other marketing buzzwords become irrelevant,. Qualities there, now lets make some music!

And anyway, all I ask is that you don't encourage this sort of magical thinking in people who are not as wealthy as you. Hell if you've got a couple of grand to splash on a glorified volume control, knock yourself out, it'll prop up our failing economy, but for the love of Jeebus stop encouraging ordinary folk to do so as well.

You mean you have read online from a source you consider reliable that the quality is there ... In terms of testing this theory for yourself, you show little interest. Like all good scientists you don't want to see for yourself first hand (although you easily could). Instead you are happy to quote the gospel according to Ethan Winer augmented by your own previous "different instruments, different mics, different rooms, different days, different years, different skill levels of those involved, different mixes" evaluation of gear. As a sort of justification for your behaviour, you keep going on about the cost of high-end pres, yet ignore the fact that they are available to demo free of charge with no obligation to purchase from any one of a number of obliging retailers in this country.

RealEstateKing

You mean you have read online from a source you consider reliable that the quality is there ... In terms of testing this theory for yourself, you show little interest. Like all good scientists you don't want to see for yourself first hand (although you easily could). Instead you are happy to quote the gospel according to Ethan Winer augmented by your own previous "different instruments, different mics, different rooms, different days, different years, different skill levels of those involved, different mixes" evaluation of gear. As a sort of justification for your behaviour, you keep going on about the cost of high-end pres, yet ignore the fact that they are available to demo free of charge with no obligation to purchase from any one of a number of obliging retailers in this country.

Well, firstly, I have not simply READ online, I have LISTENED online to as many blind tests as I could find - and found no meaningful difference in many, many tests. This is actually a more scientific way of doing it than being taken into a room and made a cup of tea and shown Super Fancy Preamp number 1 with all it's winky lights and 2000 Euro price tag, as it removes the expectation bias and volume differences that are the main reason why people think there are huge differences betwen pres.

I have zero experience with mic pres, but I have modded a share of guitar amps and in my experience different types of the same component produce very different results.

Im sure they do, but guitar amps are specifically designed to muck up the signal in an obvious way: Preamps are largely designed to do the opposite, and my argument is that this can be done very, very well for under 100 Euro nowadays, do you dispute this? I'm not trying to get you to say that all expensive pres are a waste of money, merely to stop saying that cheap pres are junk, when many of them quite plainly are not.

Secondly re. Ethan Winer and Paul Frindle, the Ad Hominem, appeal to authority argument does not hold any water with me. The question is, is what Ethan Winer says true or not?

Seziertisch

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Well, firstly, I have not simply READ online, I have LISTENED online to as many blind tests as I could find - and found no meaningful difference in many, many tests. This is actually a more scientific way of doing it than being taken into a room and made a cup of tea and shown Super Fancy Preamp number 1 with all it's winky lights and 2000 Euro price tag, as it removes the expectation bias and volume differences that are the main reason why people think there are huge differences betwen pres.

Can you link these tests? I did a converter test that Ethan Winer posted and got it right 4 times out of 4 (with a strong preference each time), although he was adamant that the differences were negligible. What's more if someone had given me the tracks to mix I would have approached them completely differently in terms of eq and compression.

Expectation bias. If anything you are biased against Super Fancy Preamp, which would make you the perfect candidate. You could approach the test expecting to hear no difference. What are you afraid of?

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Im sure they do, but guitar amps are specifically designed to muck up the signal in an obvious way: Preamps are largely designed to do the opposite, and my argument is that this can be done very, very well for under 100 Euro nowadays, do you dispute this? I'm not trying to get you to say that all expensive pres are a waste of money, merely to stop saying that cheap pres are junk, when many of them quite plainly are not.

This has come up already. If linearity was so desirable in audio, why do all mics have (unnatural) eq curves with generous boosts and cuts in places that do not correspond to nature. Why do eqs even exist? My point about the guitar amp was that for better or worse, in my experience there is no such thing as transparent components, they all have a sound. Why is this not applicable in the case of a preamp?

As for the 100 Euro pre, sure you can get one for that price that functions. Just like you can get a condenser mic for 100 Euro that does the same thing, or an acoustic guitar. I have owned, used and recorded (with) all three in both budget and higher end models and have found a difference in all three.

One of the reasons that the 100 Euro condenser mic costs 100 Euro is that the components used in the mic circuitry (which is an amplifier) are as cheap as chips. You look into higher end and "better" sounding mic and you will find that the components used are vastly superior/more expensive, for whatever reason. Is it the case that these components have an audible effect (which you acknowledge to exist in a guitar amp) or is it just a case of the high-end mic manufacturer deciding to increase the production cost for no good reason, using a component that costs a couple of dollars instead of one that that costs a couple of cents?

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Secondly re. Ethan Winer and Paul Frindle, the Ad Hominem, appeal to authority argument does not hold any water with me. The question is, is what Ethan Winer says true or not?

If Paul Frindle had come onto the forum and said "Stacking theory exists" and had given no reasons other than his authority in the field, you would have a point about the fallacy, but he does give reasons, reasons which neither you not Ethan Winer seem to be able to disprove.

Real, I find discussing with you to be akin to discussing religion with someone who has a strong religious belief. You really, really want to belief that a preamp can make no difference. Everyone else here offering an opinion on the matter has taken the time to see for themselves. It would be so much more constructive if you would do the same thing, instead of telling us that we have deluded ourselves into hearing a difference to justify having spent so much money (i.e. that we are f**king idiots)

PaulBrewer

I never heard of 'Stacking Theory' or Paul Frindle before but I now have a name for something I experienced myself.


In the early 90s I was working in a DDA console equipped studio when we got a Focusrite isa 215 mic chan on Demo.

I compared the two and thought the Focusrite sounded a bit better but what was all the fuss about ?

I decided to do some tracking with it seeing as it was there. As I tracked and 'stacked' I thought stuff sounded better overall.

On mixing the track (a Country and Irish opus of which I recorded many! Nothing radically different than the track before or after) it was by far the best sounding one I'd done up to that point.

I guess I can put it down to 'stacking theory' ?

tweeky

RealEstateKing wrote: »

You do realise that this discipline you're so interested in is called "Audio Engineering" for a reason dont you? Dont think you'd get very far in any other engineering field with that attitude.

I'm not in any other "engineering field" and this attitude has served me very well for 25 odd years. Specs me B*ll*x and use your ears!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

kfoltman

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I guess I can put it down to 'stacking theory' ?

Getting slightly hotter signal due to soft clipping is more likely to me. Or device's controls being more friendly to work with. Or because the awareness of using a more professional device is better for your motivation. I wouldn't discount the psychological factors including but not limited to placebo effect.

Stacking theory would only hold true if a significant nonlinearity was present. Significant meaning enough THD to cause distortion above ear's masking threshold, given specific signal.

Otherwise, the same linear system (say, +1dB boost at some frequency) applied to each track will be the same as applying the identical filter to overall signal (so, +1 dB boost at the same frequency, compared to input signal, not +1dB times number of tracks). You can verify that yourself, using a DAW and per-track EQ (stacking EQs in parallel instead of serially, of course). Or you can check the math.

The theory would make sense if you passed the same signal through a preamp several times in a row - but that'd be chaining, not stacking, and it's totally different from how any multitrack environment works.

kfoltman

PaulBrewer wrote: »

In the early 90s I was working in a DDA console equipped studio when we got a Focusrite isa 215 mic chan on Demo.

Also, as far as I understand we were talking about preamps, not compressors, EQs, channel strips, valve-based "colouring" preamps etc. Those are (obviously) different story.

RealEstateKing

As for the 100 Euro pre, sure you can get one for that price that functions. Just like you can get a condenser mic for 100 Euro that does the same thing, or an acoustic guitar. I have owned, used and recorded (with) all three in both budget and higher end models and have found a difference in all three.

Oi Vey, again with this: The arguement in favour of cheap gear that I am advancing is only related to microphone preamps. There is an asbolutely massive, exponential difference between a 100 Euro guitar and a 1000 Euro one. Furthermore a microphone is an extrodinarily precise device that converts acoustic energy to electrical, the more expensive ones are hugely , massively better than the cheap ones in many cases.

A microphone preamp on the other hand, is about as simple an electronic device as it is possible to design bar a friggin' light switch: It is easy and cheap to make one to a very high standard for peanuts nowadays. Once again, do you deny this? If so, on what grounds?

This has come up already. If linearity was so desirable in audio, why do all mics have (unnatural) eq curves with generous boosts and cuts in places that do not correspond to nature. Why do eqs even exist? My point about the guitar amp was that for better or worse, in my experience there is no such thing as transparent components, they all have a sound. Why is this not applicable in the case of a preamp?

I am not saying that linearity is the holy grail of audio, or that people who like a little grunge are deluded: I have tons of intentional distortion all over recordings that I make: What I am arguing against is the idea that this intentional distortion or non-linearity is somehow inherently BETTER than transparency and worth spending thousands of Euros for.

All I am saying is that perfectly clean, transparent preamps are available now for less than 100 Euro, and that I want people to stop saying that these preamps are useless and sound like ****, when they quite provably and measurably don't. That's all.

Secondly for those of you who are arguing that I'm 'Scared' of listening to the differences between preamps, Ill offer you this. I will quite happily visit Mr Brewer or whoever else for a listening test (if they'd have me!) if you will undertake a blind test of 5-10 of the same preamps and see if you can tell the difference. You cant accuse me of being afraid of testing, if you havent undertaken tests yourself.

Is it the case that these components have an audible effect (which you acknowledge to exist in a guitar amp) or is it just a case of the high-end mic manufacturer deciding to increase the production cost for no good reason, using a component that costs a couple of dollars instead of one that that costs a couple of cents?

I have not argued anywhere in this thread that high-end preamps are not adding anything to the audio you pass through them: I am simply arguing that the extra some of them add is not that significant in most cases, barely preceptible in others, and largely not that worth worrying about, especially when all the other factors are taken into account.

If you dont think so, I suggest that a blind test is the only way to remove the bias that occurs when you plug in something that you know costs 2000 Euro. Try that and get back to me with the results. I suggest even you will be surprised.

For those that say: Well if there's no difference, why do they make them? Well obviously because there has to be a high-end. People always like to beleive that there is a magic golden brand somewhere that contains all the beauties of the universe. We do it with wine, and with nobility and with watches and so on.

Hell there was an article in the Guardian the other day about famous leaders and their 20,000 Patek Phillipe watches. In the past of course, you had to pay thousands for a Swiss expert to make something accurate enough to be used as a watch, and they were a prestige item. Of course now, we can make a watch as accurate as the best 17th century swiss watch for under a Euro. But of course you wont see Tony Blair wearing something he bought in Camden Casket (even though it'd be about as accurate a timepeice) - and for the same reason you're not going to ask Mick Jagger to plug his mic into a DMP3. Doesnt actually mean the item doesnt do what it's supposed to though.

Everyone else here offering an opinion on the matter has taken the time to see for themselves.

As have I, to a reasonable extent, Ive had a normal guys experience with a resonably broad range of preamps in real life, and done countless online listening tests. And have mentioned that Im willing to listen to more if available. What more do you want? I doubt anybody else in here, has gotten a y-cable and done blind A/B listening tests on all the preamps in existence either. Everything else is just anecdote as far as Im concerned.

kfoltman

RealEstateKing wrote: »

All I am saying is that perfectly clean, transparent preamps are available now for less than 100 Euro, and that I want people to stop saying that these preamps are useless and sound like ****, when they quite provably and measurably don't. That's all.

My theory re: preamps and people recording at home goes like this: the hype around expensive pres is a convenient excuse to avoid hard work - "I'm saving cash for the €3000 pre to make my voice sound great" sounds better than "I don't have a clue what to do next and I'm too lazy to bother with lessons". It also applies to any other form of GAS, but with pres, the hype factor seems to be particularly bad.

Seziertisch

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Oi Vey, again with this: The arguement in favour of cheap gear that I am advancing is only related to microphone preamps. There is an asbolutely massive, exponential difference between a 100 Euro guitar and a 1000 Euro one. Furthermore a microphone is an extrodinarily precise device that converts acoustic energy to electrical, the more expensive ones are hugely , massively better than the cheap ones in many cases.

A microphone preamp on the other hand, is about as simple an electronic device as it is possible to design bar a friggin' light switch: It is easy and cheap to make one to a very high standard for peanuts nowadays. Once again, do you deny this? If so, on what grounds?

Yeah, you can produce one that works for very little money, that will do the job of amplifying your signal. Will it sound the same as a class A, discrete transformer coupled mic pre or a tube circuit? No, it won't. It will impart a sound of its own, just as those other circuits do. Whether this sound is what you want, that's another question.

As for the special case of a microphone circuit, a condenser mic contains a preamp. I know for example, that certain newer condenser mics put out so much signal that they don't even really need to be plugged into a mic pre, you could just go straight to line and get enough level. How could the components in the mic be of the utmost importance, in the case of an expensive mic presumably chosen for the sound they impart, while for a mic pre the components don't matter?

RealEstateKing wrote: »

I am not saying that linearity is the holy grail of audio, or that people who like a little grunge are deluded: I have tons of intentional distortion all over recordings that I make: What I am arguing against is the idea that this intentional distortion or non-linearity is somehow inherently BETTER than transparency and worth spending thousands of Euros for.

All I am saying is that perfectly clean, transparent preamps are available now for less than 100 Euro, and that I want people to stop saying that these preamps are useless and sound like ****, when they quite provably and measurably don't. That's all.

What is this transparency that you keep going on about? Everything has a sound. No preamp is transparent, even if only for the fact that its input impedance will have a significant impact on the sound (less so with mics containing amplifier circuits). Changing this impedance produces very different results. Which impedance value is the transparent one?

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Secondly for those of you who are arguing that I'm 'Scared' of listening to the differences between preamps, Ill offer you this. I will quite happily visit Mr Brewer or whoever else for a listening test (if they'd have me!) if you will undertake a blind test of 5-10 of the same preamps and see if you can tell the difference. You cant accuse me of being afraid of testing, if you havent undertaken tests yourself.

I have undertaken tests. I explained this in a previous post. I heard a difference. I even took one of Ethan Winers converter tests and heard the difference as well.

What would probably be more constructive that testing, would be for you to go to Paul Brewer borrow a piece of gear and actually try and get some work done with it, and should you feel that it is bringing nothing to your work, by all means prepare some test samples and post them here for everyone to listen to and discuss.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

I have not argued anywhere in this thread that high-end preamps are not adding anything to the audio you pass through them: I am simply arguing that the extra some of them add is not that significant in most cases, barely preceptible in others, and largely not that worth worrying about, especially when all the other factors are taken into account.

If you dont think so, I suggest that a blind test is the only way to remove the bias that occurs when you plug in something that you know costs 2000 Euro. Try that and get back to me with the results. I suggest even you will be surprised.

I have, in a work situation, using pres at various prices points, with the most affordable being a DAV BG1 (about 200 Euro a channel). It was always in terms of what we liked best for a sound. There were times when the DAV was better than API or whatever for certain sounds, but there were also many times that the DAV got smoked by the competition (well maybe not smoked, but we strongly preferred some of the others over it)

RealEstateKing wrote: »

For those that say: Well if there's no difference, why do they make them? Well obviously because there has to be a high-end. People always like to beleive that there is a magic golden brand somewhere that contains all the beauties of the universe. We do it with wine, and with nobility and with watches and so on.

Hell there was an article in the Guardian the other day about famous leaders and their 20,000 Patek Phillipe watches. In the past of course, you had to pay thousands for a Swiss expert to make something accurate enough to be used as a watch, and they were a prestige item. Of course now, we can make a watch as accurate as the best 17th century swiss watch for under a Euro. But of course you wont see Tony Blair wearing something he bought in Camden Casket (even though it'd be about as accurate a timepeice) - and for the same reason you're not going to ask Mick Jagger to plug his mic into a DMP3. Doesnt actually mean the item doesnt do what it's supposed to though.

I don't think anybody here said "Well if there's no difference, why do they make them?" although I did say "if there is no difference why do high end mics contain more expensive amplifier circuitry compared to low end mics?" and "why is this only applicable in the case of an amplifier stage in a mic and not in a mic pre?"

RealEstateKing wrote: »

As have I, to a reasonable extent, Ive had a normal guys experience with a resonably broad range of preamps in real life, and done countless online listening tests. And have mentioned that Im willing to listen to more if available. What more do you want? I doubt anybody else in here, has gotten a y-cable and done blind A/B listening tests on all the preamps in existence either. Everything else is just anecdote as far as Im concerned.

You consider your "different pres, every other recording condition" different test to be good enough to be able to make a call. At least the rest of us have had done our pre tests with the pres in the same room at the same time.

You go on about impartial blind listening when your own method for validating your opinion is more flawed than anyone elses. Even your online listening tests would have had to go through your computers soundcard into what more than likely weren' reference monitors in an appropriate studio situation. Of course, according to Ethan Winer converters also don't leave any sonic imprint so this is perfectly acceptable.

Also, nobody said you had to go away and test every pre known to humanity. Discounting your "over the years" testing method, you haven't tested even one high-end pre.

kfoltman

Seziertisch wrote: »

What is this transparency that you keep going on about? Everything has a sound. No preamp is transparent, even if only for the fact that its input impedance will have a significant impact on the sound (less so with mics containing amplifier circuits). Changing this impedance produces very different results. Which impedance value is the transparent one?

Never did that test with the preamp I'm using, but I actually did a sweep test from analogue output to analogue input of my soundcard. It *was* practically flat in a quite reasonable range.

PaulBrewer

kfoltman wrote: »

Getting slightly hotter signal due to soft clipping is more likely to me. Or device's controls being more friendly to work with. Or because the awareness of using a more professional device is better for your motivation. I wouldn't discount the psychological factors including but not limited to placebo effect.

Stacking theory would only hold true if a significant nonlinearity was present. Significant meaning enough THD to cause distortion above ear's masking threshold, given specific signal.

Otherwise, the same linear system (say, +1dB boost at some frequency) applied to each track will be the same as applying the identical filter to overall signal (so, +1 dB boost at the same frequency, compared to input signal, not +1dB times number of tracks). You can verify that yourself, using a DAW and per-track EQ (stacking EQs in parallel instead of serially, of course). Or you can check the math.

The theory would make sense if you passed the same signal through a preamp several times in a row - but that'd be chaining, not stacking, and it's totally different from how any multitrack environment works.

As Tweeky succinctly put it ......... Boulloux.
This was tape, I'm way too ould for placebo/psychological nonsense :rolleyes:

Could it be it's just better ? Like most guys who know anything about things think ?

PaulBrewer

kfoltman wrote: »

Never did that test with the preamp I'm using, but I actually did a sweep test from analogue output to analogue input of my soundcard. It *was* practically flat in a quite reasonable range.

And what information did you glean from that ?

PaulBrewer

Seziertisch wrote: »

What would probably be more constructive that testing, would be for you to go to Paul Brewer borrow a piece of gear

No it feckin' wouldn't !

ZV Yoda

kfoltman wrote: »

My theory re: preamps and people recording at home goes like this: the hype around expensive pres is a convenient excuse to avoid hard work - "I'm saving cash for the €3000 pre to make my voice sound great" sounds better than "I don't have a clue what to do next and I'm too lazy to bother with lessons". It also applies to any other form of GAS, but with pres, the hype factor seems to be particularly bad.

... now I'm far from an expert, but that's the most pragmatic post I've seen on this thread.

I’ve only been dabbling in home recording for just under 2 years (so I know very little), but the one thing that really struck me about this whole area is the huge focus on gear & brands. If you do a poll of posts on this board, I’d say 80% will be gear related & only 20% are related to methods…. and while people do give some great advice on here all the time, lots of posts inevitably end up with “what you really need is a (insert name of expensive piece of equipment here)”

I totally get that a €1000 API pre will sound be “better” than a €100 Behringer one. No question. But as REK said, it doesn’t make the €100 one a rubbish piece of kit… nor does it make the API sound 10 time better either.

I’ve haven't seen this gear fetish among musicians in the same way as it applies to the engineering/production community. I don't think I've ever heard a guitarist say “I wouldn’t bother trying to play a solo on that Squier... it’ll sound much better if you use a real Fender”

As folks (who know a lot more about this than me) have said many times, pres are part of a bigger chain…First, there’s the source (i.e. voice/instrument plus required musical ability)... after that, it works backwards towards the recording medium… room, mic, pre, converter. If the source sounds crap to begin with, then you’re wee-weeing against the wind.

So pres can & do make a huge difference when used in a professional setting by experienced engineers who know what they're doing.... but for a home user, you'll get limited value upgrading from a €100 pre to a €1000 pre unless you've already got a great source to begin with. If you do, then by all means go for it (chances are you'll already have spent a lot more than €1000 to get your source sounding great in the frst place!)

Jaysus... lads save all than pent up passion & use to make great music instead! Now, can we all be friends?

(as he runs for the hills....)

Seziertisch

ZV Yoda wrote: »

... now I'm far from an expert, but that's the most pragmatic post I've seen on this thread.

I’ve only been dabbling in home recording for just under 2 years (so I know very little), but the one thing that really struck me about this whole area is the huge focus on gear & brands. If you do a poll of posts on this board, I’d say 80% will be gear related & only 20% are related to methods…. and while people do give some great advice on here all the time, lots of posts inevitably end up with “what you really need is a (insert name of expensive piece of equipment here)”

I totally get that a €1000 API pre will sound be “better” than a €100 Behringer one. No question. But as REK said, it doesn’t make the €100 one a rubbish piece of kit… nor does it make the API sound 10 time better either.

I’ve haven't seen this gear fetish among musicians in the same way as it applies to the engineering/production community. I don't think I've ever heard a guitarist say “I wouldn’t bother trying to play a solo on that Squier... it’ll sound much better if you use a real Fender”

As folks (who know a lot more about this than me) have said many times, pres are part of a bigger chain…First, there’s the source (i.e. voice/instrument plus required musical ability)... after that, it works backwards towards the recording medium… room, mic, pre, converter. If the source sounds crap to begin with, then you’re wee-weeing against the wind.

So pres can & do make a huge difference when used in a professional setting by experienced engineers who know what they're doing.... but for a home user, you'll get limited value upgrading from a €100 pre to a €1000 pre unless you've already got a great source to begin with. If you do, then by all means go for it (chances are you'll already have spent a lot more than €1000 to get your source sounding great in the frst place!)

Jaysus... lads save all than pent up passion & use to make great music instead! Now, can we all be friends?

(as he runs for the hills....)

I was recently in a recording situation recording a really tweaked guitar set up in a treated room using great mics and pres. In terms of engineering, a ribbon mic was placed fairly randomly in front of the cab, upon listening it was pushed in a centimeter or two to get a bit more body. A condenser room mic was set up, again fairly randomly placed, a quick listen was taken, no phasing issues and away we went.

I know this was a single mic single source situation, but I still think that if everything from the player to the converters is rocking, then the thing will largely engineer itself. Pete Townshend talked about this in relation to all these old engineers he would meet who claimed that the reason the old recordings they did were so great was that they had great ears and this overcame the shortcomings of monitoring etc. Pete reckoned that when recording great musicians playing great instruments in great rooms with great gear there was little enough you could do to **** things up.

Seziertisch

PaulBrewer wrote: »

No it feckin' wouldn't !

I meant to say your pro audio dealer of choice ;-)

kfoltman

Seziertisch wrote: »

a ribbon mic was placed fairly randomly in front of the cab

Excuse the noob question, but is that even safe? :O (never used a ribbon)

RealEstateKing

As for the special case of a microphone circuit, a condenser mic contains a preamp. I know for example, that certain newer condenser mics put out so much signal that they don't even really need to be plugged into a mic pre, you could just go straight to line and get enough level. How could the components in the mic be of the utmost importance, in the case of an expensive mic presumably chosen for the sound they impart, while for a mic pre the components don't matter?

Well obviously this is because a microphone is a very, very difficult thing to create well, as it converting acoustic energy into electrical which is a very precise thing to do and easily the most important part of the audio chain. A microphone preamp , on the other hand is simply amplifying an electrical signal, something which is facile to do well in this day and age.

And, *smacks forehead* , as I seem to have to re-iterate AGAIN, I did not say that components dont matter, - if you were using the mic preamp in your Alba stereo system you picked in a car boot sale, it would of course sound like ass: Noisy, pathetic frequency response and so on.

What I am saying, for the last time, is that almost all of the microphone preamps made in this day and age at all budgets are not like this, and are quiet and clean and have plenty of gain. But still Gearmonkeys will come on and try and convince you that something perfectly reasonable from Presonus or ART sounds like the aformentioned Alba stereo system.

There has been an extraordinary amount of progress on this in the past 10 years, to the point I believe where high-end pres are an extra luxury one can buy if one likes that sound, but far from being the necessity they once were. They are more of a matter of preference than quality.

When I started out in this game, I NEEDED to spend hundreds to get anywhere near clear, transparent sound (Transparent means flat and noise free within the range of human hearing, as well as adding little extra to the sound put into it. A good thing in a microphone preamp or camera lens, but not as you might well say, in a guitar amp.

Now, I simply dont need to spend hundreds to acheive this. Its available for very little money. Obviously there is little I can say to convince you of this too, except to ask you to listen to the sound without looking at what it says on the faceplate, while at the same time paying attention to the numbers, they are not irrelevant like some on here seem to think. We are after all talking about electrical devices, not works of Renaissance Art.

If the extra bit of character or mojo involved in tubes, transformers or whatever the flavour of the month is, is that important to you, knock yourself out. Personally I find that turning an EQ knob 1 dB to the left or right makes a far greater difference to what I hear than any Ive ever heard between competent preamps. I'd be willing to be convinced otherwise, though the science is heavily on the opposite side of the arguement, so I would approach it with the same scepticism I would a stereo-dealer trying to sell me magic audio cable.

We have entered an era where the technical gap between pro and amatuer (though not the skills one) has largely been closed and we are left arguing over the tiny scraps that are left. Well I say, lets rejoice in how great things are now, and how cheap quality audio is, and get on with making records!

Speaking of which, I said I'd say my peice on this, and have done so, and I promise I won't hark on about it again. I'll exempt myself from any wrangling about preamps from now on. Though if I catch any of yis telling a hapless newb he needs to spend more than 200 bucks on a pre, I'll send the boys round...

Peace Out.

kfoltman

PaulBrewer wrote: »

And what information did you glean from that ?

... that the soundcard's converters are pretty transparent, at least as far as sine sweeps go. This wasn't the ultimate test, it could be improved using different (non-sine) signal shapes, static patterns instead of sweeps, looking for nonlinear distortion (significant spectral peaks where there should be silence). However, it provides some information that my band-limited tinnitus-ridden ears will probably not tell me.

In extreme case, if you encoded a ZIP file as a sample, put it through the soundcard's converters and back and got the exact same ZIP file, then you'd lose practically any right to complain about soundcard's transparency (other than output introducing exactly opposite distortion to the input, which is practically impossible). Is that right? (as far as I know, such soundcards don't exist, by the way!)

kfoltman

RealEstateKing wrote: »

What I am saying, for the last time, is that almost all of the microphone preamps made in this day and age at all budgets are not like this, and are quiet and clean and have plenty of gain.

That part is most likely not true. I know at least one that's pretty bad. Objectively and undeniably bad - noise, ground hum, weak-a** compressor, too little headroom (but it's a channel strip not a pure preamp)

Seziertisch

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Well obviously this is because a microphone is a very, very difficult thing to create well, as it converting acoustic energy into electrical which is a very precise thing to do and easily the most important part of the audio chain. A microphone preamp , on the other hand is simply amplifying an electrical signal, something which is facile to do well in this day and age.

And, *smacks forehead* , as I seem to have to re-iterate AGAIN, I did not say that components dont matter, - if you were using the mic preamp in your Alba stereo system you picked in a car boot sale, it would of course sound like ass: Noisy, pathetic frequency response and so on.

In terms of precision, in terms of mass manufacturing a cheap component has all the reliability and performance that would be needed to do this very "important job". They use more expensive components because "they like what it does to the sound". The same is true of mic pres. The components used don't suddenly cease to matter because the signal is at line level. In fact, in a guitar amp changing capacitors at the coupling stage between the preamp and the poweramp has the most effect.

And what about if you are passing a signal through an eq or a compressor, do the components matter then? By your logic it is already at line level so it shouldn't matter.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

What I am saying, for the last time, is that almost all of the microphone preamps made in this day and age at all budgets are not like this, and are quiet and clean and have plenty of gain. But still Gearmonkeys will come on and try and convince you that something perfectly reasonable from Presonus or ART sounds like the aformentioned Alba stereo system.

This is all true but if you are looking to make recordings that are on a par with the classics, you need to use the appropriate tools, including mic pres.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

There has been an extraordinary amount of progress on this in the past 10 years, to the point I believe where high-end pres are an extra luxury one can buy if one likes that sound, but far from being the necessity they once were. They are more of a matter of preference than quality.

When I started out in this game, I NEEDED to spend hundreds to get anywhere near clear, transparent sound (Transparent means flat and noise free within the range of human hearing, as well as adding little extra to the sound put into it. A good thing in a microphone preamp or camera lens, but not as you might well say, in a guitar amp.

I have heard a number of transparent preamps, some more equal than others. The Mackie version of transparent sounds quite different from the GML, it also sounds quite different from the DAV. I preferred the DAV and the GML.

Your camera lens/mic pre metaphor is kind of confused. Surely in terms of their roles a camera lens has more in common with a mic? A camera lens is supposed to accurately capture an image (a flat frequency response, if you will) while a mic is anything but flat. Otherwise, taking your camera lens/mic pre metaphor on spec, you could take two photos of the same object using cameras at different ends of the price spectrum. Both would accurately capture the image, though one would do a much better job of it. If you wanted to work as a professional photographer, one would provide a quality which would be taken for granted by anyone hiring you, the other wouldn't. The same is true of mic pres.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Now, I simply dont need to spend hundreds to acheive this. Its available for very little money. Obviously there is little I can say to convince you of this too, except to ask you to listen to the sound without looking at what it says on the faceplate, while at the same time paying attention to the numbers, they are not irrelevant like some on here seem to think. We are after all talking about electrical devices, not works of Renaissance Art.

If the extra bit of character or mojo involved in tubes, transformers or whatever the flavour of the month is, is that important to you, knock yourself out. Personally I find that turning an EQ knob 1 dB to the left or right makes a far greater difference to what I hear than any Ive ever heard between competent preamps. I'd be willing to be convinced otherwise, though the science is heavily on the opposite side of the argument, so I would approach it with the same scepticism I would a stereo-dealer trying to sell me magic audio cable.

You talk as if you have used all this equipment and this has been your experience... It has been established that what little experience you have had with high end gear has been so spread out that it is almost ridiculous that you would even call it experience. Also, where did you get the idea that you can just turn an eq knob and the sound will morph for you. By that logic you could use eq to make any mic sound like any other mic, and any eq could be made to sound like any other eq.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

We have entered an era where the technical gap between pro and amatuer (though not the skills one) has largely been closed and we are left arguing over the tiny scraps that are left. Well I say, lets rejoice in how great things are now, and how cheap quality audio is, and get on with making records!

Speaking of which, I said I'd say my peice on this, and have done so, and I promise I won't hark on about it again. I'll exempt myself from any wrangling about preamps from now on. Though if I catch any of yis telling a hapless newb he needs to spend more than 200 bucks on a pre, I'll send the boys round...

Peace Out.

If this technical gap is almost non-existant between pro and amatuer where are these great recordings that testify to this. Also, if the gap were so non-existant, considering the state of the recording industry and the desire to cut costs, why aren't recording studios following your example and selling off those racks of expensive pres?

Also I don't think anyone told a newb that they had to spend 2 k on a pre or whatever. In fact what sparked this was a guy with a reasonably large budget asking about 2 high end pres. I for one would appreciate it if you left out the "voice of experience" tone from your posting on the subject. Reading your posts you consistently give the impression that this is based on your own direct experience. You have listened to soundclips through your computer. You have never actually done a proper AB in your own working environment. Your personal experience with high end was fleeting at best, and your overall comparison process disjointed.

And for any newbs reading this: yes, you can do recordings just fine with budget gear, though if you want your recordings to sound like Dark Side of the Moon, budget gear (including mic pres) won't give you that sound. Take all advice given online with a pinch of salt. If you want to find out about a piece of gear go and try it first hand and decide for yourself whether it is worth it to you. Like all things there is a law of diminishing returns, a €2000 guitar will not be 4 times better than a €500 guitar, not will a €500 guitar be necessarily 5 times better than a €100 guitar. The same is true of recording gear, and you have to decide for yourself where the cut off point is.

madtheory

kfoltman wrote: »

That part is most likely not true. I know at least one that's pretty bad. Objectively and undeniably bad - noise, ground hum, weak-a** compressor, too little headroom (but it's a channel strip not a pure preamp)

You're missing the subtleness of the English language again... he said almost all.

rOBeRt frETt

Jaysus!

madtheory

tweeky wrote: »

Jesus, Mary and Joseph why should a mic amp have a flat response when most mics don't either.

Here are two reasons:
1. Because cumulative non flat response can make it difficult to control the process of getting the sound you're after.
2. Because it's easier to make a mic pre flat than to make a mic flat, especially if it's cardioid.

It's perfectly valid to use mic pres as a source of "colour", but personally I find it time consuming, difficult to repeat, and expensive. Most of the time, there's a better way IMO.

That said, I'm about to start testing and modifiying a Shure mic pre, it's funky- trafos in and out!

Seziertisch

rOBeRt frETt wrote: »

Jaysus!

Further reading

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055443454

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

Here are two reasons:
1. Because cumulative non flat response can make it difficult to control the process of getting the sound you're after.
2. Because it's easier to make a mic pre flat than to make a mic flat, especially if it's cardioid.

It's perfectly valid to use mic pres as a source of "colour", but personally I find it time consuming, difficult to repeat, and expensive. Most of the time, there's a better way IMO.

That said, I'm about to start testing and modifiying a Shure mic pre, it's funky- trafos in and out!

Tweeky has made some of the best sounding and biggest selling records in Ireland ever.

I'm with him on this one !

madtheory

As I said, it is perfectly valid.

rOBeRt frETt

Seziertisch wrote: »

Further reading

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055443454

Thanks Sez, there goes my morning!

rOBeRt frETt

- I mostly use boards when I'm in information gathering mode and contribute very little. Threads like this are invaluable, I've been playing for the last 15 years and have only begun to start recording this year - the usual home studio setup, Powerpc G5, Digi 002 (not the rack), a few SM57 and 58's A rode NT, I also have a Mackie 1640 and sometimes use the Onyx pres on that when recording my Martin HD-28 coupled with a rare earth for stereo

- Interesting posts by everyone on the pres subject, and not to stoke the fires any further but what is the definitive on this? - with regard to the high end gear - Emperor's new clothes? - Obviously the capturing medium when it comes to Music is utterly much more complex than any other art form. I am inclined in my own head and for my own reasons to lean much more on the smoke and mirrors theory - however I know nothing about sound engineering - so thats not to say my opinion is unbias. Simply if I was going to underline anything it would be the performance and the instrument - which brings us right back to - 'and when thats as good as it can be - what's next?' however the other side of that is if the latter is not as good as it can be then paying crazy money for a high-end pre is like arranging deck chairs on the titanic.

-....I wish the ring had never come to me.......

-somebody with the appropriate range of equipment should post some tests no?

either way thanks for a great thread

Seziertisch

rOBeRt frETt wrote: »

- I mostly use boards when I'm in information gathering mode and contribute very little. Threads like this are invaluable, I've been playing for the last 15 years and have only begun to start recording this year - the usual home studio setup, Powerpc G5, Digi 002 (not the rack), a few SM57 and 58's A rode NT, I also have a Mackie 1640 and sometimes use the Onyx pres on that when recording my Martin HD-28 coupled with a rare earth for stereo

- Interesting posts by everyone on the pres subject, and not to stoke the fires any further but what is the definitive on this? - with regard to the high end gear - Emperor's new clothes? - Obviously the capturing medium when it comes to Music is utterly much more complex than any other art form. I am inclined in my own head and for my own reasons to lean much more on the smoke and mirrors theory - however I know nothing about sound engineering - so thats not to say my opinion is unbias. Simply if I was going to underline anything it would be the performance and the instrument - which brings us right back to - 'and when thats as good as it can be - what's next?' however the other side of that is if the latter is not as good as it can be then paying crazy money for a high-end pre is like arranging deck chairs on the titanic.

-....I wish the ring had never come to me.......

-somebody with the appropriate range of equipment should post some tests no?

either way thanks for a great thread

The definitive answer is to go and try the stuff for yourself and see if

a. you are able to hear a difference (though this will largely depend on your monitoring)

b. that difference is worth it to you.

Though I would say that I have yet to meet a professional engineer that has said that mic pres make no difference, nor will you see interviews with top level pros where they say mic pres make no difference, in fact all I have encountered is the opposite.

rOBeRt frETt

Seziertisch wrote: »

The definitive answer is to go and try the stuff for yourself and see if

a. you are able to hear a difference (though this will largely depend on your monitoring)

b. that difference is worth it to you.

Though I would say that I have yet to meet a professional engineer that has said that mic pres make no difference, nor will you see interviews with top level pros where they say mic pres make no difference, in fact all I have encountered is the opposite.

Thanks Seziertisch, to be honest I take your comments thoughout this thread with a sense of relief, firstly let me state that as a musician first I pride myself on my ear, that said, this is the concept of interval recognition and I'm finding that in the world of sound engineering this doesn't offer much advantage and the engineers ear is a different animal altogether, so to say I'm not on the same page as you guys is an understatement - I'm not on the same book!
it's relief because- well having spent money on guitars, amps, keyboards I am truly out-the-door with expenses, I was lucky enough to pick all parts of my DAW second hand and to be honest won't get a chance to audition things like high end pres, - until someone posts different I will remain blisfully ignorant

PaulBrewer

My attitude has always been find out what (and why) people who make great sounding records use what they do.

That clears up most things in my mind.

The idea that the lad in his bedroom with no experience on a Euro 150 set of speakers can be even thinking about making proclamations is a sign of ego gone wild.

As I'm now lucky enough to be in a position to be in contact with a lot of those guys who do make the great sounding records (in Ireland, in the UK and the US) now I'm pleased to report the following.

Great guys use, and choose to use, great gear............. Full Stop.

It's simple, anything else would plain stupid.

rOBeRt frETt

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Great guys use, and choose to use, great gear............. Full Stop.
.

-Paul I did mention that I'm not on the same page as you guys, and I do respect your opinion and that of others in the Thread, However the quote above rests heavily on your defintion of Great guys regardless of industry, if they don't choose great gear are they still qualified to be Great guys? - Also I am an expert in another field and know a gravy train when I see one,

-all I asked for was the audible proof, less it remains in the ear of the beholder, I'm not qualified to make any remarks on mike pres (hands in the air) I'm simply asking to be thought a lesson, I remain blissfully ignorant

PaulBrewer

rOBeRt frETt wrote: »

Also I am an expert in another field and know a gravy train when I see one,

I don't appreciate that comment or it's insinuations.

My other post is, I think, concise as it is accurate.

rOBeRt frETt

? - I was insinuating, I simply meant that some of the hardware in this particular industry is hard to quantifty once you've read the price tag!