Building the Cheapest Power System - Neve 1073 1084 or 1290 + Urei 1176 reissue + DAW

Ker

New member
Hi,

I'm getting ready to do some serious investment in my home studio and I've ultimately come to the conclusion that for the music I'll be doing (mainly rock, deftones sounding), I'll be requiring an SM57, a Neve 1073 / 1084 or 1290 (1073 no eq) and a UREI 1176ln, either the reissue or a vintage 'F' model - into a Protools 002 Digidesign setup.

I'd like to achieve exactly this signal chain and cut the costs down as much as possible but I haven't been able to reduce anymore. I know the SM57 is great for the type of effect I'm going for. As for the compressor, I figure that I can't cut the 1176 because 1) the plugin on Protools isn't as good and 2) I absolutely need a hardware comp to ensure that I'm recording with the highest gain possible to not lose resolution on the converters (vs. recording with no comp and then boosting everything via software). Could anyone tell me if I'm wrong or if hardware comps can be replaced nowadays with software?

But my biggest question is this: Can I save money and simply get the Neve 1290 and therefore get the same "Neve" coloring but drop the hardware eq on the much more expensive 1073s or 1084s? I'm really thinking that the software plugins these days should really do the job + I've heard that it's always much better to record with as little eq going in as possible to avoid printing a strong eq that'll later cause problems in the final mixdown - so why bother paying for a hardware eq at all?

So my final idea was to go SM57 -> Neve 1290 -> 1176 comp -> 002 Digidesign DAW.

Can anyone tell me if I could have done this better some other way?

Thanks
Ker
 
in my honest opinion it sounds like a shithot setup. are you planning on recording just vocals?

Most of the neve sound in those modules is from the transformers, and i think the 1290 uses the same transformers and a pretty similar preamp board. especially if your going for deftones style compression i very much doubt there will be much difference.

the only thing i would sugest is look at the seinheiser md421 as an alternative or addition to the sm57 and possibly a cheaper condenser mic (rode nt1 etc) also. this should give you plenty of scope when you layer vocals,etc.
 
only thing i can say is you'll probably be better off looking at some of the Neve 'clones'

Aurora GTQ2(has EQ)
Vintech x73
Brent Averill 1073

no eq:
phoenix drs-2
great river MP 2 NV


just to name a few...they are cheaper and some would say sound better then the original...at least more 'modern'(more of a open air sound with the low mids still big but tighter to avoid mushyiness when tracking multiple tracks)
 
Hi Ker,

Sounds like a pretty similar set-up to what I have, and I'm contemplating the same compressor delima that you are. I use Nuendo, however and not protools.
You covered a lot of terrritory, let me see if I can take these one at a time:

The compressor.
Nuendo actually has 2 stock software compressors, a multiband, and a.... what?... single band I guess.
In my experience, the key to using any software plugin is moderation.
I don't (yet) have a vintage or vintage style compressor, but those 2 plug-ins produce acceptable results.
What you're looking at, the 1176, would definately be a benefit to any studio, but you may what to expand your research, and consider an electro-optical compressor.
Cranesong and Pendullum Audio come to mind.
But which ever one you choose, you can record dry, and route the recorded track to the bus out of your DAW, send that signal to an input that has the hardware compressor in the chain.

The Mic Pre's
The Neve 1073; Kind of the holy grail there of mic pres huh.. almost.
Expensive!
What do you have for mic pres now?
I own a pair of Audix 35102's. These were made, back in the day, by ex-Neve employees. (Or so the legend goes)
Same eq points as the Neve 33115. Excelent pres, Class A, very discrete, transparent, surgical eq.
I use them on all things acoustic.

I also have a pair of Neve 1272 mic pres. They're similar to the 1290's your looking at. No onboard eq.
Slightly flavoured. In fact, I've heard it said that a 1290 is like a 1272, but with the gain of a 1073.

You may also consider a Vintage Calrec PQ1061/1161 for a preamp/eq module.
Very clean.
Class A.
Transparent eq.

Point is, it seems like you're dead set on the 1073, but there's a lot of other options, that are right up there in that same signal quality/sound that I think you're looking for.
Ultimately, you'll decide. I'm just offering options. It just seems to me that you're limiting yourself. Nothing wrong with a SM57>1073>1176 chain, in fact, it could sound gorgeous!, but an artist wouldn't paint a picture with one color, so maybe you might consider broadening your pallett a little too?

But my biggest question is this: Can I save money and simply get the Neve 1290 and therefore get the same "Neve" coloring but drop the hardware eq on the much more expensive 1073s or 1084s?
Yes, that will save money. Will it sound just like a 1073 or 1081? It depends. It depends on how good of a recording engineer your are. I'm sure you'll capture some of that flavour, but only the most discernable ears would probably pick out the difference between a 1290 and a 1073. But that's beside the point. In that type of signal chain, most people aren't going to critique your pre-amp choice. They're going to listen to the music, and hear the performance, not the pre-amp.

I'm really thinking that the software plugins these days should really do the job
Well, maybe. Maybe not. There's good plugins, just as there are bad ones. What it really comes down to is knowing how to effectively use the tools you do have.

+ I've heard that it's always much better to record with as little eq going in as possible to avoid printing a strong eq that'll later cause problems in the final mixdown - so why bother paying for a hardware eq at all?
Hmmm... there'll always be divided camps on this one.
The key is to get the sound you're after, going to tape. (or HD) And process the recorded sound as little as possible.
If getting that "sound" means using eq or compression, or even mic placement by all means do it.
The trick, and only experience can tell you this, is anticipating how that recorded sound will fit in the mix. A well tracked session should require very little post processing.

If you're hell bent on building that golden channel, and you can afford to do it, go for it!
But before I sank that kind of money into a channel, I'd come up with a budget, do some more research, and weigh the pro's and con's of several options that'll lead you down the same path.
 
Hi,

Great responses!

Actually, yes, this is predominantly going to be a vocal channel set up, but would still be versatile for most rock electric guitar type stuff i'm assuming, with the 1176 in there (I know an LA2A is apparently better to smoothen out the harshness of the electric but hey, you can't win 'em all)

My dilemma about a hardware comp is that I've encountered a lot of hassle trying to adjust everything perfectly in a recording session so that the digital converters don't saturate. And because I'm doing Deftones-like music, the typical soft-loud passages are very prevalent, so it drives me up the wall trying to achieve any kind of good sound if I've either turned the trim too low or two high.

I have considered something like a cheapo fmr rnc to do a light comping in hardware first, then comp again in Protools with the UAD-1 emulation to add that 1176 "flavour" to the sound, but because I haven't been able to get my hands on a real clean comp like the rnc, I really don't know how big a difference there'd be between the two signal chains. 10%? 20%? Anything above that and it's not worth saving the (1200$ for a 1176ln - 200$ for a rnc) 1000$ just to cut corners.

As for other pres, I have looked long and hard at more modern alternatives and yes, if I were to settle on a clone, I'd probably go with the Aurora GTQ2, just because of the credentials of Mr. Tanner. Don't know if their manufacturing and wait time for orders has improved of late though. I guess Phoenix Audio is still the only distributor?

From my understanding, the GTQ2 comes off quite a bit brighter than the original 1073 in the mid-range. My question now is then, what % difference would an untrained person really be able to tell between the two? If it's 10% or more, then I'd start to worry that I saved (4500$ for a Neve 1073 - 2500$ for a GTQ2) 2000$ dollars but would still be yearning for the real deal in a couple of months. I'd say at 5% or so difference, you could still fudge with some software eq, maybe a touch of a harmonic exciter plugin in the right band and voila, virtually no difference. Mind you, I'd argue that if you're resorting to some harmonic excitation plugin after shelling out 2500$ or more for a pre just to get that right sound, then something's a little wrong.

As for your comments Michael, very well put. I do agree that I'm limiting my palette a bit with this golden channel and a lot has to do with the skill of the engineer, but at this point, it's a question of necessity. I personally don't own a nice pre (apart from the one in the 002, which is akin to jacking direct from a mackie console, not too pretty!) but I have some friends with gear and have tried long and hard to achieve this "golden channel" sound by running through a friend's fmr rnp (a reputedly *very* clean and affordable pre) and then running heavy software eq and harmonic excitation plugins, + software compression (the uad-1 1176ln modelling comp) and yes, it's probably got something to do with my lack of skill as a recording engineer but I just can't get the same sound I'll hear when I compare to something from the big studios. I'd say it's not even 60% of the way there. That's frustrating.

As for your 1272, do you have original 1272 modules racked up or is it a 1272 clone like the Vintech? The 1290 is exactly what you say, a 1272 with more gain. From what I understand, a 1290 is exactly a 1073 without the eq stage - I don't know if you or anyone else has ever had the opportunity to compare your 1272s (or better yet, a 1290) with a 1073 with eqs set to flat. Is it identical?

The reason I'm so hell-bent on a 1290 is that it is reasonably affordable (for an obssessed gear-head). Two 1290s racked go for around 2600$ at Vintage King (though I'm sure there are cheaper places, they seem a little pricey across the board with their vintage stuff). That's the cost of a GTQ2 with a full eq, *but*, I personally haven't ever really used much eq'ing at all except in the mixdown stage, so my software eq has more than served me well. I've almost never needed a hardware eq in the tracking stage - so having a super-clean eq on some modern pre like the GTQ2 doesn't seem that compelling to me, especially if that low-end thickness isn't as *THERE* as in the vintage units. I've been chasing that low-end in software plugin hell and I've never been able to get it.

My only concern now is the coloration of the eq stage on a vintage Neve unit. I'm sure it's not clean. I have a feeling it too adds some special "Neve" quality to the sound that you can't recreate in software. I've actually talked to the guys at Vintage King and proposed that I use their 1290 + soft. eq. to mimic their Neve 1084 and (as I expected of the salesman) they naturally balked at the idea and said that no plugin on earth could possibly sound as good as the real thing - which I believe is true. However, I just need it to sound 90% as good.

So to apologize for my long explanation, my point is that if I'm likely not to use much eq anyway in the tracking stage, and the soft eq is 90% of the way there, I can save about 2000$ by getting a vintage 1290 and then spend that money on other things, like a different pre or better mic, etc. - as you say, for the palette. But until I know what impact downgrading from a Neve 1084/1073 to a 1290 or GTQ2 will have on that "golden channel", I'm going to be nervous committing to anything.

So budget-wise for all variations of THE GOLDEN CHANNEL in order of estimated sound quality:

1 channel Neve 1084 (4700$ at Vintage King) -> 1176LN comp (~1400$ on ebay, either vintage or reissue) = ~6100$

2 channel Neve 1290 (2600$ at Vintage King) -> 1176LN comp -> DAW eq (0$) = 4000$

2 channel GTQ2 (2500$ Phoenix Audio) -> 1176LN = ~3900$

with each of these having the option of downgrading the comping to..

FMR RNC (200$ on ebay) -> DAW UAD-1 Protools plugin (say you got this already for free) = 200$!! (save 1200$ on a 1176LN)

So the range is 6100$ -> cheapest 2700$

Tough choices...any opinions?
 
ker:

the brent averill 1073 and vintech x73 are the most notable in actually sounding like a real 1073

the others are based on the 1073 but improved(more modern sounding tighter low mid and more openess and air) upon or vice versa...
 
I know this is an old thread, but for anyone reading this thread there's one point here that the original poster made that sticks out to me.

In the second to last post above mine the original poster says something about the fact that with an RNC and software compressors he's only able to get something like 60% of the sound of the pro recordings he's trying to emulate, or in his words, the sound of a pro recording studio.

Just as an example, I've done recordings with a elcheapo radio shack electret condensor mic and a soundblaster live running Sonar 3 with stock plugins and many professional recording engineers liked it and thought it was recorded in a pro ANALOG studio with major gear and great mics. My point isn't to be arrogant, ANY good professional serious recording engineer with talent, experience, knowledge and time should be able to do exactly the same thing.

So if you are only getting 60% of the sound you want (the poster's words), learn how to get 95% of the sound you want from the tools you have. That extra 5% may come from great equipment. But with a digi and a RNC he should have been able to get amazing recordings that sound almost exactly like the pro albums of the bands he's trying to emulate. The expensive gear makes life MUCH EASIER for very experienced engineers, but it also makes life much more complicated for inexperienced engineers like this person humbly admits to be, and I wouldn't want to inflict any confusion or false expectations that a $4000 to $8000 gear purchase will bring recordings that sound 60% like his favorite albums to anything even close to 100% of the way.

Man, if I'd had an RNC in the old days with 4 track recorders I would have been in heaven, but I had to deal with colored gear with uneven transformers that sounded different with every cable and every mic and every board in existence. People claim that was the holy grail, to be honest, while I love having a couple of classic Neves around for certain uses, I most certainly don't use them for everything and only with very particular mics. These days with transformerless designs becoming so finished (some incorrectly say "stale") sounding, it's up to the musicians and the engineer to alter the eqs using their ears to get the warmth we're used to hearing from the past decades. High end modern gear is generally (but certainly not always) superior in transparency to the old stuff, although everything has it's uses.

If you want "THAT" sound, go ahead and buy into it, but I think the fact that this person didn't know how to get the sound he wanted from his (or his friends') existing gear just shows that he didn't really understand what it was about his desired (Neve etc) gear that he liked so much. If he had understood what the neve did to the frequency response etc, he could have emulated it pretty closely with mic placement, eq and other fx.

And there's no reason why he should have had any trouble tracking his music just because it has some dynamic range to it. There is so much more to being an engineer than having access to great classic gear. The gear is 5% of it. The musicians are 85% percent of it, and the engineer's knowledge is the remaining 10% of it, unless you're queen or hendrix where the engineer was often 25% of it.

Cheers,
Don
 
Back
Top