Running previously recorded tracks through "better" preamps?

hipskind

Newbie...and proud of it
Here's a question I've always had in the back of my mind. In this thread:

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=256651

...a very informative and insightful post by user "nreece" speaks of running mixed/processed drum tracks back through the pre's to sparkle up the sound a bit:

4. run your final stereo drum mix back through the same preamps again after you've done all of your EQ and signal processing to liven it up...this is a huge key! A little compression here will also make your drums sound punchy.

Makes sense. One thing I've always wondered is this (and you can probably see where I'm headed already): Would running my drum tracks, relatively well-recorded through my economical, yet hardly premium Focusrite Octopre, through a much NICER set of preamp channels, such as my girlfriend's API 3124+, do anything to boost or enhance the signal? My best guess is probably not--once the signal has been colored, or "degraded" in a way, it may be hard to boost it back up. And of course I know "try it and see" is certainly an option worth exploring, just for the sake of experimentation. But has anybody done this in the past? Any luck? Any thoughts? Can a good preamp "colorize" a signal that has, shall we say, faded somewhat?

Thanks in advance!
 
all that running thru the best of preamps could possibly give you is bandwidth limiting, noise and distortion

Of course if that distortion makes a snaredrum SMACK it could be a good thing

I dont think "sparkle" is a term I'd use for this procedure though
 
Of course, running any audio through a pre-amp that colors things will result in coloration of the audio no matter how "faded" the audio.

To boost a signal is to make it louder so yeah running through another pre-amp you could easily boost your signal, not sure if it would make it sound better or worse though.

Eck
 
Like Pipeline said, all you'd be doing is boosting the signal, adding noise, and adding the coloration of the pre-amp along with it's artifacts.......AGAIN. If that's the sound you want, then cool.

I know the thread you're quoting from and the guy's post on HIS way of processing drums. I disagree with so much of what he says in that post, but couldn't have been bothered to respond. My main beef with his post is his habit of presenting OPINION as FACT. Just because someone says things like "...and this is a HUGE KEY!!!" doesn't make what he's saying any more true. It's kind of an annoying post, actually.
 
Like Pipeline said, all you'd be doing is boosting the signal, adding noise, and adding the coloration of the pre-amp along with it's artifacts.......AGAIN. If that's the sound you want, then cool.

Ok, thanks fellas! I guess I'd just have to go ahead and try it and see if it actually does (or doesn't) create a sound I want.

I know the thread you're quoting from and the guy's post on HIS way of processing drums.

Yeah, I kind of drew that conclusion myself. All good. I always appreciate peoples advice.
 
You can never add quality, only take it away. If you take away the right parts of your recording, it could make them sound 'better' in certain circumstances. But it won't sound like you ran the mic through them in the first place.
 
What Farview said is pretty much right on. It will not be like having initially tracked your stuff through the API, but it will still impart some of that API thing. It may do stuff to your drums that you like that you also could have spent hours trying to recreate in other ways and still not get there. The only real soultion is to give it a shot. It really is not that uncommon to run individual or groups of tracks back through preampsto achieve a certain result (although it is usually done through the line amp which does usually have some differences compared to the way the preamp utilizes the full set of electronics and so often is not as severe).

A lot of people here talk about always wanting to record things super clean and exactly how they are. The truth here, at least as far as I am concerned, is that in the real world and with most genres and succesful studios and engineers, this is fairly rare. Bands hire good engineers for what they do, not what they don't. There are certainly exceptions to this, but in the Home Recording world especially, it seems paramount to me that the right tools are used since the stellar equipment and rooms are often not availabel which makes the "recording clean" thing that much less achievable. I say break the "rules" and give it a shot if you have the resources and time available:)
 
Thanks, guys, for all your responses. I suspected as much to be the case. I'll just have to try it sometime and see if it really makes any substantive difference for me.

You have a girlfriend with an API 3124+? The next piece of gear you need is a ring! :)

I know! Right? :D
 
Would running my drum tracks, relatively well-recorded through my economical, yet hardly premium Focusrite Octopre, through a much NICER set of preamp channels, such as my girlfriend's API 3124+, do anything to boost or enhance the signal? My best guess is probably not--once the signal has been colored, or "degraded" in a way, it may be hard to boost it back up. And of course I know "try it and see" is certainly an option worth exploring, just for the sake of experimentation. But has anybody done this in the past? Any luck? Any thoughts? Can a good preamp "colorize" a signal that has, shall we say, faded somewhat?

I've done this, and the results depend entirely on the music tracks being re-preamped, and the sound of the preamp itself. In other words, it might be an improvement, and it might not.

Also, you might find that technique an improvement to one tune but not another. It's really one of those things that you have to try out each and every time you think it might worth doing. That's the only way to know.

I do disagree with your equating tone color to "degrading" the signal. In fact, spicing up the track with just the right color can take it to the next level, the very opposite of degrading it. You are making and assumption that color=degrading, which I don't think is correct at all.

As far as boosting the signal back up, there should be no problem achieving the right level, since you'll be going into the preamp at line level, and will have full control of the volume from the track in your DAW. So you can hit the preamp as hard or as easy as you want, giving yourself potentially very little level to make up.

Once again, running tracks or a mix through a preamp is something that can indeed add a little something, but it totally depends on the track itself and the preamp. I certainly wouldn't run a mix through a cheap sounding preamp. Likewise, one has to be a very objective listener in order to determine whether or not the preamp helps.
 
Thanks Sonic! I appreciate the advice.

As far as the "color=degrading" thing, I think you misinterpreted what I meant there, and for good reason; I should have written it differently. I meant it more as in the signal being processed by a cheaper, poorer-quality preamp, i.e. colored in perhaps a negative way? Maybe it should be termed "flattened out" or "discolored" instead. I'd never assume that color=bad; indeed, greater color is what I'm trying to achieve!

Anyway, thanks! I'll have to try it sometime soon and see how it sounds.
 
I do disagree with your equating tone color to "degrading" the signal. In fact, spicing up the track with just the right color can take it to the next level, the very opposite of degrading it. You are making and assumption that color=degrading, which I don't think is correct at all.
But the reality of the situation is: You are taking away from what is already there, not adding to it. Even if, artistically, it's a good thing. Sometimes the 'telephone voice' is the best thing for the track, but you aren't adding quality to the vocal, you are taking it away. (bandwidth limiting, compression, distortion)

You start out with the source, the mic is the first filter, the preamp is the second filter. The sound is already not what it was, any time you change it you are getting farther away from what it originally was. Thus, you are degrading the signal. The fact that you like the degraded signal better than the pristine version doesn't change that.
 
Well, you are adding to the tone, not necessarily taking anything away. If running the track through a preamp attains the sound you want, how is that taking away? I've done it myself, and I never felt I was taking anything away or degrading the signal. The whole reason I did it was because it sounded better.

Of course, I'm not using cheap gear. I use excellent quality converters and have a preamp I love.

If indeed we are talking about a "cheaper, poorer-quality preamp", then indeed we could talking about some negatives. My use is to take synth/sampled tracks and run them through a preamp that I like the tone color of. Perhaps a very different use than what hipskind is referring to.
 
Well, you are adding to the tone, not necessarily taking anything away. If running the track through a preamp attains the sound you want, how is that taking away? I've done it myself, and I never felt I was taking anything away or degrading the signal. The whole reason I did it was because it sounded better.
You are confusing 'degraded' with 'sounding worse'.

Once you have recorded the signal, that's all you have to work with. You can't add anything to it that it doesn't already have. You are only reconfiguring what is already there and adding distortion.

Whether or not you like the degradation doesn't change what it is.

Any time you change the signal you are distorting it. Not in the harmonic distortion sense, but it is a distortion of what was already there.
 
But that is assuming that the original signal is the best signal. It's quite possible that when put together, all those tracks are improved by glueing them together with another round through a good preamp, or a compressor or something of the like.

To even use a term like "degraded" implies something negative, and may dissuade a person from even trying it.

It's really a situation of trying the technique on a track or mix and listening carefully. If it sounds worse it is "degraded", and if it sounds better it is "improved".

I know what you are saying intellectually, but it's a subtle point and even terming signal processing as "degrading" I think leaves a bigger overall impression that can potentially steer someone inexperienced down the wrong path.
 
But that is assuming that the original signal is the best signal. It's quite possible that when put together, all those tracks are improved by glueing them together with another round through a good preamp, or a compressor or something of the like.

To even use a term like "degraded" implies something negative, and may dissuade a person from even trying it.

It's really a situation of trying the technique on a track or mix and listening carefully. If it sounds worse it is "degraded", and if it sounds better it is "improved".

I know what you are saying intellectually, but it's a subtle point and even terming signal processing as "degrading" I think leaves a bigger overall impression that can potentially steer someone inexperienced down the wrong path.
True. "Distortion" is another word like that. the word 'distortion' means 'change' or 'reshape'. Any time you EQ, compress, etc... you are distorting the signal.

But the point I was trying to make was that once you record the signal, that signal is all you have to work with. There is no way to add 'air' that was never captured in the original recording, for example. If you record through a cheap squeeky bellari tube preamp, then send the signal back through a Neve 1073, you will just add some distortion and reshape the frequency response of what was already there. It will not sound like it would if you had originally recorded through the 1073.
 
There is no way to add 'air' that was never captured in the original recording, for example. If you record through a cheap squeeky bellari tube preamp, then send the signal back through a Neve 1073, you will just add some distortion and reshape the frequency response of what was already there. It will not sound like it would if you had originally recorded through the 1073.

I think you can kind of fake that "air" thing a little bit in a mix, but it will never be like if you had captured the air in the room.

And right again on your other point. Recording with a cheap preamp and then running it through a Neve wouldn't make it sound like a Neve. It would add some flavor, but you'd not get anywhere near the full benefit of the Neve.

But it sounds like hipskind is actually talking about the opposite: taking tracks recorded through better gear and then running them through a worse preamp later. In that case, I do think that it's highly likely that only damage will result.
 
If I even mentioned API 3124+ to any girl I ever dated they would have thought I was talking about prescription medication. What's it like to date a girl with an interest in audio?
 
Back
Top