I promise I will shut up about this now!

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!