Are the preamps doing the mics justice?

[dingwall]

ok... I must have been unclear in my original post.

Let me make it clear... not to toot my own horn or anything, but..

I'm not a beginner at this recording thing.. I've been doing it for a number of years. My room is treated. It's not "professionally" treated, but I have absorption panels and bass traps. I have excellent mic technique.. I always spend the necessary amount of time getting the mics in a good spot. I have great mics that a lot of people are using (421's, e906's, e609's, SM7B, m201's, Beta91's and 52's, 414's and I often borrow K2's, Nt2's and m160's at certain times, and so and so on and so on. I've had experience with a ton of different mics, some of which I own, some I don't.) I record directly to a DAW and mix in the box, although I have plenty of outboard processing from companies like Lexicon and TC Electronics.

All I was asking was a question from one experienced engineer to another experienced engineer. Who thinks I should make the investment in different kinds of preamps.. or who thinks a row of 16 of the same preamps is fine? Who here likes to use different preamps for different colours, and who relies solely on the microphones for that? I know my preamps are above-average... but I could get some different sonic characteristics if I had some different pre's.


I think I may have just answered my own question...

 

[cusebassman]

I think I may have just answered my own question...

Then you should edit that post and cut it down a bit

Most people here assume that anyone posting has at best, mediocre equipment. If you have a treated room (professional or otherwise), and good mics, and you are happy with your interface, then yes - try out different preamps. They all have unique sounds, and can bring different things to the table. Most of the elders here will tell you that it is better to have a variety of preamps verses 16 of the same one, simply because you don't want a build-up of the exact same exaggerated freqauency ranges and the same sounds as the tracks pile up.

Some of us can't afford em - I have a DMP-3 and some Nady crap for high-volumes of tracks when recording live. They function well for my needs, but I'd love to upgrade... just so happens that at the moment I don't have the cash to buy Great Rivers and True Systems stuff, among many others. And if I did, I wouldn't buy 8 channels of Avalon, I'd probably try out a variety. So there ya go!

 

[dingwall]

I enjoyed that reply... thanks.

 

[kojdogg]

Who thinks I should make the investment in different kinds of preamps.. or who thinks a row of 16 of the same preamps is fine? Who here likes to use different preamps for different colours, and who relies solely on the microphones for that? I know my preamps are above-average... but I could get some different sonic characteristics if I had some different pre's.

I like the idea of different pres and if you can get them, in pairs like microphones. ime transformer-based vs. no transformers (op-amp-based) makes a significant difference-- more so than tube/toob vs. no tube/toob. many believe that starved plate "toob" pres do more harm than good to the fidelity of your signal. transformers may change the fidelity of your signal (non-linear response), but many people feel that this is a good thing. some people might generalize transformer-based (especially fully heated tube designs) are more vintage, and good opamp-based designs are more accurate, faster, more modern (though i'm sure most people wouldn't think a mic through a neve 1073 would sound archaic).
changing mics will often make the most pronounced difference in sound though, i am in the camp that pres are almost or equally as important.

 

[RezN8]

I think it's important to consider how many tracks you will be recording. If you are just recording one or two vocal tracks over a MIDI arrangement, then I think one or two "pro" channels should suffice.

A few years back, recording with just Mackie pres worked fine until the tracks started adding up - then things started to get crowded and muddy. It was also apparent that a trusty ol' SM57 through a Mackie board sounds completely different when using higher-end pres.

I'm sorry, what was the question again?

 

[jessesetsfire]

yes they are

 

[The Axis]

Do you all think I should get some new outboard preamps to mix things up a bit? Do you think my soundtracs preamps are doing my mics justice?

Thoughts?

Get some candidate preamps (by whatever means) to demo.
Have a friend mix up the signals while you do a blind A/B comparison. Take notes.
Run the test a few times. Remember to keep it mixed up and blind.

If you can't hear a difference, you can save some $$

 

[vadoom]

Is there a "tracks per preamp" and "mic costing no more than..." figure of merit for preamps?

For example, take ART Pro - could you record 32 tracks with that before noticing your sound going down the tube. Would a $1k mic be an overkill? Could you get same sound with a $200 mic on the same preamp?

On the other hand Great River or Avalon or any preamp at $1k/channel, may not necessarily pose a limit on the price of the mic, but perhaps there still would be a finite amount of tracks you could record.

How about middle of the road preamp such as twinQ? What would its limits be?

 

[chessrock]

Why is it that when you tell people the truth ... they get their panties all in a wad?

In the bigger picture of it all, I will bet good money that your mic pres are fine, and that for most people on this board, any more than a few minutes' worth of pondering on this topic is mostly wasted time. Don't use mic pres that suck donkey balls (i.e. something that says ART of Behringer on the label), but beyond that, it probably isn't worth worrying about.

In all likelihood, you're not making the next Abbey Road, so get over yourself, and sweat the bigger stuff instead.

.

 

[vadoom]

Why is it that when you tell people the truth ... they get their panties all in a wad? ...

Are you talking about me??

I'm still interested to know if there is a general rule of thumb for that "figure of merit".

I understand it is very subjective since technique and other elements will greatly affect the "figure of merit". However, logically it may make sense that if you use a $10k mic even for a $500 preamp, the mic is probably an overkill. Unless of course you are trying to achieve a certain effect by using that specific equipment...

 

[The Axis]

$10k mic even for a $500 preamp,....

I just wish to emphasize that price has very little to do with audible sound quality.
That is why I urge A/B blind comparisons.

In one notorious A/B blind shootout of high-end preamps, the stock preamps of the Roland VS1680 digital workstation beat out the creme-de la creme of hoity-toity audiophile preamps. There was no corelation of user preference to price of the preamps.
Of course AFTER the users knew the results, there was all sort of excuse-finding, but the fact is that in repeated A/B blind tests, almost no one can actually hear differences in preamps repeatedly even when tested by highly motivated audiophiles. Mikes are a different story because they involve electro-mechanical transduction, which is still somewhat of an art. The design of the simple signal-boosting function of preamps has been driven by demands of the electronics industry that so vastly exceeds the demands of audio that very high quality preamps are available very inexpensively. In fact, I believe the main differentiator in cost is the cost of the case, knobs, dials, gauges, etc....not the electronics of the signal path.
If you feel good about buying an expensive preamp, fine. I Just don't believe that it makes an easily audible difference.

 

[chessrock]

However, logically it may make sense that if you use a $10k mic even for a $500 preamp, the mic is probably an overkill.

What on earth are you even talking about? Holy crap, you call that logical sense? I'll tell you what; If that $10K mic is overkill for you, then send it over my way.

A really good mic is still a really good mic, and it's probably still going to sound like ... a really good mic, regardless of what device you're using to bring it's output up to line level.

.

 

[MCI2424]

I just wish to emphasize that price has very little to do with audible sound quality.
That is why I urge A/B blind comparisons.

In one notorious A/B blind shootout of high-end preamps, the stock preamps of the Roland VS1680 digital workstation beat out the creme-de la creme of hoity-toity audiophile preamps. There was no corelation of user preference to price of the preamps.
Of course AFTER the users knew the results, there was all sort of excuse-finding, but the fact is that in repeated A/B blind tests, almost no one can actually hear differences in preamps repeatedly even when tested by highly motivated audiophiles. Mikes are a different story because they involve electro-mechanical transduction, which is still somewhat of an art. The design of the simple signal-boosting function of preamps has been driven by demands of the electronics industry that so vastly exceeds the demands of audio that very high quality preamps are available very inexpensively. In fact, I believe the main differentiator in cost is the cost of the case, knobs, dials, gauges, etc....not the electronics of the signal path.
If you feel good about buying an expensive preamp, fine. I Just don't believe that it makes an easily audible difference.

I don't know about that particular test, but most of those comparison tests are of a single instrument on a single channel .There is practically no way to tell how a pre-amp will sound unless you build up tracks. A Mackie will sound better, or worse than a ten thousand dollar pre-amp under these conditions.

I have done so many years of recording on all kinds of pre-amps and the worst muddy messes were the cheapies built up to 24 tracks. That is why I have a rack of expensive pre-amps. I really didn't relish the thought od spending that kind of money, but they do payback with great recordings and much faster mixdowns. Unfortunately, the mixdown is where you find out that the cheap pre-amps have done you in.

 

[The Axis]

I don't know about that particular test, but most of those comparison tests are of a single instrument on a single channel .There is practically no way to tell how a pre-amp will sound unless you build up tracks. A Mackie will sound better, or worse than a ten thousand dollar pre-amp under these conditions.

OK then,
Do the blind A/B tests on mixes built entirely from "cheapies" and entirely from "Premiums".

People will always find a way to obscure the fact that the differences are simply not audible, because they want to justify spending money on "fine quality" preamps.

Who here thinks that the noise floor, signal-to-noise, freq response, or ANY audible or measureable parameter of the preamps used to record any classic album of 30 years ago was better than those of a DMP3 ? Check it out.

I don't intend this to be an "argument". You can all laugh at me when you are accepting your Gold Records, recorded with Avalon and Great River preamps, while I am groveling in the gutter for spare change. I am just expressing mmy opinion, and relating the results of truly blind audition tests.
I admit that I liked my Great River, Earthworks, etc, better than my Audio Buddy and Mackie mixer, but mostly because the knobs seemed a lot more rugged and precisely controllable. It really wasn't because they definitely sounded better.

 

[sound125]

People will always find a way to obscure the fact that the differences are simply not audible, because they want to justify spending money on "fine quality" preamps.

Perhaps the differences might not be audible to you, but they are to me. The older SSL pres and EQs (E and G modules) have a very distinctive and identifyyable sound, as do the vintage Neve and Trident B desks I've been around. I would gladly take any of those pres over the plethora of moderately priced pres and mixing boards that are on the market today.

 

[XLR]

A pre to do the mic justice? ...Depends on the mic. Some are touchy about pre's, others aren't. Combinations I can think of that by nature sound bad... M160 into a Berhi pre (got to laugh at that one. It's all hiss.), SM57 into a Mackie (edgy). Many condensers that have a hot output are much less sensitive about pre's IME. And it all depends on the source. Transient-rich sources are a challenge for any pre. With some pre's bright transients sound natural instead of like glass breaking. But then again it depends on the mic. Try the good ol' key jangling test w/any pre/mic combination to see how it handles transients.

Bottom line though... a good performance through a cheapo pre will be better than the opposite.

 

[The Axis]

Perhaps the differences might not be audible to you, but they are to me.

I have avoided talking about what I think I can hear, because I don't want this to become a personal issue.
Maybe you can hear the differences....but that would make you one in a million.
I just urge impartial people who are really interested to make truly blind A/B comparisons. A truly blind A/B comparison is actually a little bit difficult to accomplish, so I suspect that is why there is so much personal opinion involved in this subject.

 

[vadoom]

What on earth are you even talking about? Holy crap, you call that logical sense? I'll tell you what; If that $10K mic is overkill for you, then send it over my way.

A really good mic is still a really good mic, and it's probably still going to sound like ... a really good mic, regardless of what device you're using to bring it's output up to line level.

.

In my defense I never said that it did make sense. I said that it may make sense...

However, as many others have said:

1. It is probably best to make A/B comparison for yourself.
2. If you don't have that ability, nowadays most decent preamps (>$300) would probably be fit just for just about any mic (unless obviously of poor quality) for perhaps <11 tracks.
3. If need to lay 10+ tracks using preamp, might be best if you use multiple preamps or more expensive preamps (perhaps >$1500).
4. At the end it all may work out for you anyways regardless.
5. Best if you do A/B test anyways...

 

[XLR]

I admit that I liked my Great River, Earthworks, etc, better than my Audio Buddy and Mackie mixer, but mostly because the knobs seemed a lot more rugged and precisely controllable. It really wasn't because they definitely sounded better.

My experience was the opposite.

 

[Stefan Elmblad]

I can hear differences in preamps. Axis you need new ears and a new haircut.