A very simple (I hope) mic pre question

Chris F

Chris F

New member
I've been hanging around (mostly lurking) at this forum for a while now, and I've learned a lot about many subjects I knew next to nothing about (special thanks to Harvey G, among others...). But the one question which I can't seem to find an answer to regards mic pres. I've noticed that the SECOND least popular question around here seems to be, "Best mic pre under $*** (fill in the blank), second only to, "best mic under $***.

I understand why - the pros always tell the truth and say, "you get what you pay for", which is exactly what I would say to a Double Bass related question (DB is my chosen field). BUT, having said that, I still can't seem to make heads or tails out of one issue that has remained unresolved for my recording needs, and at the risk of p*ssing everybody off by asking the SECOND most hated question around these parts, I'll just spill it:

I've been recording demos of jazz duo stuff for the past year and a half on a Yamaha MD4s, and regardless of what many may think about minidisc or Yamaha, I'm VERY happy with the sound for my needs. I'm about to buy a couple of Large Diaphragm condensers to go with the two MXL 603's that I got earlier this year, and I'll need something to power them....given that I'm perfectly happy with the sound of the mic pres on the Yamaha board, should I :

a) just get another 2 channel phantom power box to power the mics and just go with the onboard pres;

b) look into some of the cheaper two channel mic pres to power the mics and possibly improve the sound (I'm thinking of MXL V67's, if that helps); or

3) Just go for the MXL V77 and bypass the need for phantom power altogether?

The gist of the question is, are the cheaper two channel mic pres (i.e. - ART, Behringer, Presonus, etc....the usual suspects) likely to sound AT LEAST as good as my onboard pres on the Yamaha, or am I risking taking a step down with this stuff? There's been so much dissenting opinion about this that I really can't tell up from down....

All replies welcome. Thanks in advance.


Chris Fitzgerald
 
Chris,

I've never used an MD4, but I'm guessing that even pres like the ART MP or Blue Tube would slightly improve your sound. I use a dual MP, and although it doesn't rock any boats, it's much better than the pres on my TASCAM mk3. That's about all I know.
 
It only gets better. If you're happy, be happy. Or, be happier. Order an MP20 and note the difference. If you dont hear it or see its worth, send it back. I think you'll notice.
 
Tubedude,

Pardon my ignorance, but what's an MP20? And can I get them at Music -Go-Round for $17.99?;) (Actually, I don't know what an MP 20 is...I just play the bass).


Vurt,

Pardon my ignorance all over again, but isn't the Dual MP just 2 tube mp's at 3 times the price? I'm just going by the price I saw at GC, which might be wrong. Thanks.
 
Chris F said:
Pardon my ignorance all over again, but isn't the Dual MP just 2 tube mp's at 3 times the price? I'm just going by the price I saw at GC, which might be wrong. Thanks.
Click to expand...

No, you're about right. For the extra $100 you get a rack-mountable, steel chassis unit with an internal power supply rather than 2 plastic boxes that gobble up precious space.
 
Vurt said:


No, you're about right. For the extra $100 you get a rack-mountable, steel chassis unit with an internal power supply rather than 2 plastic boxes that gobble up precious space.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those wall-warts ARE annoying. A while back there was a thread about the soon-to-be-released two-channel Tube MP Studio. Did that ever get released, and is it about the same thing as you're describing plus a VU meter? I can't seem to find it anywhere at any of the retail sites.

Also, I couldn't care less if what I end up with has tubes or not...I'm just wondering if it would be stupid to spend another +/- $60 on a couple of phantom boxes when I could spend 3 times that much and improve my sound and learn a thing or two about outboard pres in the process.
 
The MP20 is the Presonus box. About as close to discrete class A as you'll get for $500, 2 channels.
 
Sure, the studio was released. Looks to me like they slapped on a limiter, that VU meter, and an additional $40. Totally unnecessary unless you want to operate your pre like a microwave.

I would definitely get a preamp rather than just a phantom box, but I would recommend something a step up from the Tube MP or Blue Tube if you can wait for a while and save up.
 
I would suggest you skip the ART, most of the cheap "fake tube" micpreamps are muddy sounding even compared to many other cheap preamps. The Presonus Blue Tube is about the only exception I have seen and heard, if you keep the drive control off (which controls the toob effect) it's a decent little micpre for the money similar in quality to the Mackie preamps.

The M-Audio DMP-2 is a good preamp for about the same price as the cheap Presonus but it's not clear if they are making them anymore, the Audio Buddy which is a cheaper version of the DMP-2 is well liked but I'm not clear that it is as good as the old DMP-2 as I have not heard one.
 
I own a blue tube and a mackie 24 x 4. I have compared the preamps time and time again and I will say that the presonus blue tube preamps are horrible, even with the drive control all the way down. The mackie pre's blow the blue tube away. The mackie pre's on the board are much cleaner.
 
I have to side with Fenix on this one. As I've said elsewhere, the four XDR mic preamps in even Mackie's least expensive mixer, the 1202 VLZ PRO ($379 new, $275 used), set a baseline against which other mic preamps can be judged. They not only "blow away" a lot of the low-end units, they actually sound better than *some* of the outboard preamps that cost a lot more. Also, it's important to distinguish between "amplification" and "processing." If you need to "warm up" a recording, a little tube amp might be just the ticket, although the sound you get is not just amplified but also fairly heavily processed.

I use the cheap little 1202 VLZ PRO for just two things: its XDR mic preamps and its ability to deliver the output from one mic to two channels for recording. I leave everything else set at "unity," meaning I'm bypassing (or at least minimizing) everything else that the mixer does.

A useful analogy might be this: a Shure SM57 microphone costs $80. It does everything reasonably well. The effect is always musical, even if it isn't the epitome of refinement. In mic listening tests, you may find that FOR YOUR PURPOSES a Shure SM57 sounds BETTER than a tube microphone selling for $1300 (the Neumann M147 comes to mind). Why would you spend more money for something that didn't work as well FOR YOU?

Likewise, the Mackie XDR preamps certainly are not the most transparent, detailed or silent mic preamps you can buy, but they are invariably musical and are very forgiving of what you throw at them.

If I could rip the XDR preamps out of the Mackie case and stick them in my own box with a better power supply, gain pots and shorter signal path, I'd do that before I started seriously auditioning any mic preamps in the under-$600 range.

I've mentioned this before, but I splurged recently and bought the mic and preamp CD set from 3DAudioinc.com for $110, and it's money well spent if you're thinking of buying even a moderately expensive mic or mic preamp. Yes, it only tells you what each unit sounded like in a certain studio on a certain day, recorded in a certain way, with certain performers, but there's still a lot of useful listening information there that can never be put into words. Because the test included a Mackie 1604VLZ, it allowed me to compare a known quantity to 32 other mic preamps.

Among the very best preamps, the sound differences became very subtle, as you would expect. Out of 33 preamps in the test, in critical listening on a high quality system, a dozen of them were utterly superb, but only three of those went further and made me tap my feet to the guitar licks being played. Two of them are available in single-channel versions for around $600 on the Internet: the Earthworks Lab 101 and the Grace Design 101. Both are accurate, both have a certain drive and immediacy that the others did not, and yet even they sounded slightly different from each other. The Earthworks was simply stunning in its realism. The Grace Design made an almost unlistenably irritating male vocal sound good. Either is a great deal.

I should point out that the preamps tested were the 2 channel versions: the Earthworks Lab 102 and the Grace Design 201, so if either company trimmed parts quality in their single-channel version, this comparison would not necessarily hold. However, both companies are fanatical about quality, so personally I'd be willing to risk the single-channel purchase based on hearing the two-channel version.

Before I forget to mention it, most tube mics with their outboard power supplies, still output at mic level. There are a couple of expensive tube mics that offer +4 / -10 as an option, but none that I know of at the price level we're talking about (under $2,000). So buying a tube mic does NOT necesarily relieve you of the need for another channel of mic preamplification.

Likewise, supplying phantom voltage to a regular condenser, which does increase a mic's output, still does not produce line-level output or elminate the need for a mic preamp.

Workarounds can be OK. I just bought a used Rane MS-1 to stick on either a minidisc deck or stereo hi-fi VCR for mono field recording of lectures without having to drag my mixer around as well. But workarounds get expensive quickly when you start adding more channels.

I hope this helped and didn't further muddy the waters.

Best wishes,

Mark H.
 
Hey Chris
I used to use an MD8 and I can assure you that any outboard pre will sound better that those on your Yamaha.
Mark
 
Chris,

I had an MD4 for about five years, and after getting an Akai 12 track, came to the realization that the Yamaha built-in preamp was incredibly powerful and very, very, very quiet. Powerful meaning I got plenty of volume. Because I didn't know any better, had some extra money, and wanted to blindly "improve" my MD4, I bought one of those ART tube preamps. It fattened the sound, but it also raised the noise (hiss) level, which isn't hard since the hiss level with MD4 is practically nil. Plus, I realized I could fatten the sound by, of course, adding more bass and getting the same sound (but without the noise) as the ART. I hate to disagree right under Mark, as I would imagine the MD8's pre is surely the same design as the MD4, but I don't think you need a pre with the MD4. If you need phantom power, just get a phantom power unit.

HOWEVER, that said, I am one of those called "idgit" because I can't tell the difference between a tube amp and solid state amp when listening back to a fully-recorded song.

Bodhisan
 
Thanks for all of the very helpful replies everyone...

Mark H,

I've been thinking about the Mackie for doing a sub mix on drums should I ever feel the need. One of the guys I play/record with has a small mackie mixer, and I'm sure I could use it any time I wanted for that purpose. Hell, I may borrow it just to A/B it with the Yamaha pres, which sound pretty good to me. Like you, I've also wondered why Mackie doesn't market their pres separately in a rackmount unit, or why Yamaha doesn't, for that matter.


Mark Tigger,

You know, it's funny, but I have another friend with an MD8, and I'm not nearly as impressed with the recording quality: it seems to have more high-end "hiss" and noise in general. It may well be that the pres are different. If I can get my hands on it, I'll post a sound clip in this thread in case anyone wants to comment on their quality.


Bodhisattva,

I especially appreciate the input from your post, since you have direct experience with the MD4s. If no one tells me the sound clip sounds terrible, I may just go ahead and get a second two channel Phantom box and spend the extra bread on an RNC instead.

I love this site!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top