Running previously recorded tracks through "better" preamps?
- Thread starter hipskind
- Start date
Garbage in garbage out is more likely used in reference to the music and playing itself, at least the way I understand it. Even then, its amazing what a good mix engineer with good stuff can do. Even tracks recorded through mediocre equipment can greatly benefit from running them back through better stuff. Stuff like a Neve channel strip will still impart some of that "Neve" sound even on tracks originally recorded through a Behringer. I am certainly not saying that it would not have been better to have just started with the Neve, but sometimes options present themselves further along in the process then when they may have been the most useful.
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
Most likely you can control the level of the track in the DAW, so just turn it down. Some preamps can also handle a lot of level before breaking up. My DAV Electronics BG-1 is like that, I can hit it pretty hard. Also, many preamps have a pad, so that will help out as well when going in line level.
DI's are used primarily for instrument level applications. Most preamps also have line inputs so a DI would not be necessary, but yet another peice of equpiment along the way to impart its character, and on this case, probably not in a good way.
It is important that XLR does not mean preamp, just like 1/4" does not mean line level. There are many peices of equipment out there where line inputs also use xlr connectors. IN fact, most nicer stuff uses xlr for line level as well as mic level inputs and outputs. XLR, 1/4", TRS. TS etc... these are just different formats for the same thing.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
It still fascinates me how things get convoluted over time. Exactly when did the definition of a "good preamp" start to include the property of coloration? Used to be a time when one defined "good preamp" as one that offered as little coloration as possible.
G.
G.
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
Maybe things get more convoluted here than elsewhere. 
I feel that the concept of "good" or "great" is not connected to the concept of "color" or "straight wire with gain". Sometimes a person might want straight wire with gain and other times a little added color or personality might be the ticket. How well the preamp does those jobs is a separate issue.
I feel that the concept of "good" or "great" is not connected to the concept of "color" or "straight wire with gain". Sometimes a person might want straight wire with gain and other times a little added color or personality might be the ticket. How well the preamp does those jobs is a separate issue.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Wile I don't necessarily disagree with the point you make, Al, that in itself is the convolution. Preamps are or at least were supposed to amplify voltage, not act as preset EQs, The use of one as an EQ *is* the convolution.
I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong to do so, just facinating how perceptions change. Time was when you told a designer that his preamp has a defineable color - whether you thought it was pleasant or not - he hung his head in disappointment and went back to the drawing board. Preamps were selected and judged based not the hue of the color it had, but rather the lack of color it had.
G.
I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong to do so, just facinating how perceptions change. Time was when you told a designer that his preamp has a defineable color - whether you thought it was pleasant or not - he hung his head in disappointment and went back to the drawing board. Preamps were selected and judged based not the hue of the color it had, but rather the lack of color it had.
G.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Never. I didn't say they were not colored, I said that noticable coloration was considered a fairly undesireable trait. Preamps were supposed to be preamps; i.e. they were supposed to be circuits that took the voltages from microphones and amplified them to more useable levels. Period. They were supposed to do for microphones what later phono preamps were supposed to do for phonograph cartriges. I have never known anybody who thought that a distinctively colored phono preamp was a desireable thing.
The same line of thinking used to be used for mic preamps. They were a necessary device in the recording chain only because the weak voltages coming out of microphones needed to be amplified before they could be used with the rest of the recording circuitry. The idea was to try and make them as transaprent as possible so that they let the sound come through, not color it so that it sounded like it was going through a preamp.
The fact that the theoretical of transparancy was next to impossible under the technology available meant that there was always some level and form of coloration, but that didn't stop them from trying to get as close as they could.
That's exactly the change I am talking about and the one that I find interesting. The coloration that engineers were trying to avoid back then is the very coloration they actually strive for now. Again, I'm not so much passing judgement on it one way or the other, I just find it a very interesting and somewhat instructional phenomenon worth (IMHO, anyway) pointing out.
It's very similar to the debates in that other thread over the past few days which was yet another round of the analog vs. digital debate. The analog "sound" was something that used to be considered a necessary evil to minimize. Now there are tools and procedures purposely designed to try to emulate it when it's not there.
G.
This I think is the key statement here. Back then, the rest of the process was also very "colored" between all the different circuits in line, the tape machines of the time, the mics etc.... There were so many phases of the recording chain where things happened to the sound whether we wanted it or not, that wherever possible it was in the best interest to keep it clean. Now, things are very different. Not only has musical style and often taste changed, but playback systems have, the rest of the recording chain has etc... Personally I feel that all of those things changing has led to trying to "reclaim" some of that style. In the end though, it is all a matter of taste. The cold truth of the whole thing to me is that with most types of music, clean and transparent engineering is not what is desired by the engineer, the band, the listener and everyone else involved. There is still great use for clean and transparent sounding stuff, but there is also high demand for things with certain character to them. If most bands cam out sounding how they did on the way in, most bands would be pretty upset, as would the listener. I don't think this is really a question of right and wrong, but more a statement of how things are, like it or not.
I do understand the theory and the intent behind your original question and do beleive it, on many levels. In my studio however, 9 out of 10 times a signal chain that is flattering rather than just revealing is more desirable for the whole process.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Keep this in mind as a key, perhaps, to the rest:
Again, I don't dispute or disagree. I think you have it just about right. I just ask, "Why?" Why is it that way? Why is a certain artificial sound more popularly desireable than the real thing? How is it that we feel that the sound of a tube is not only "better" then the sound of a transistor or integrated circuit, but is actually "better" than reality itself?
There are some who will answer that it has something to do with the particualr type of distortion that a tube adds, or some other type of technical dance. But that doesn't answer the question. if that were true, the question would still be, "Why does tube distortion sound better than reality?" There's ceratinly no evolutionary or genetic reason I can think of for it.
I'm just postualting the theory that your first quote has something to do with it; that it is a matter of nurture, of conditioning.
Have you seen that episode of "Everybody Loves Raymond" where Ray buys his father an entire set of jazz CDs to replace the ones he used to have on vinyl, and the dad just hated them? He hated them half because they were not what he remembered them to sound like and half because he hated the idea of new technology. Then he put an old album on that sounded horrible with all the high end gone and no dynamic range and all the sctratches and pops and so forth, and he loved it because that's what he was used to.
I think there is a whole lot of that going on behind the glass too. Again, I'm not judging it (hell, I'd give my left lung for an RCA ribbon through an original Pulman pre myself, I'm not kidding anyone
), just observing it and reporting it, and thinking that it's a factor to consider when we judge just whether something actually does sound "good" or not. Are we judging based upon an objective listen or based upon what we have come to expect?G.
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
I'm not referring to using preamps as eq. Coloration is not eq. It's the tone that each and every piece of equipment lends to the signal passing through it. Even the cleanest gear has it's own tonal characteristics. I think that's substantially different than eq.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
If changing the tone of a signal isn't a definition of EQ, then I don't know what is.
At the base of it, for all the plugs and devices and toys we have, there are only three basic effects we can apply to a signal: change the amplitude based upon frequency, change the amplitude based upon amplitude, and change the amplitude based upon time. Everything we do to a signal is a form of one of those or a form of a combination of one or more of those. Circuit coloration actually combines aspects of all three to varying degrees, whereas EQ is just the first one, but it's really used in the same way that EQ is used; to change the perceived "tone" of the signal.
G.
ecktronic
Mixing and Mastering.
Coloration = EQ = dynamic processing.
Tone is related to frequency which is related to EQ.
Eck
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
Tone coloration is *not* the same as eq.
To say so is to imply that the tone coloration of any piece of equipment can be negated by applying an eq curve to compensate for it. Therefore, once the curve of any unit is compensated for, all equipment will sound the same. Even if the output of two different preamps were to display the same response, they would still no doubt have subtle tonal differences.
You also imply, for example, that the tone of a Stradivarius violin could be mimicked by eq and any violin to be made to sound like one by applying that eq. Complete nonsense--this is of course not the case.
Coloration is not the same as eq, period.
To say so is to imply that the tone coloration of any piece of equipment can be negated by applying an eq curve to compensate for it. Therefore, once the curve of any unit is compensated for, all equipment will sound the same. Even if the output of two different preamps were to display the same response, they would still no doubt have subtle tonal differences.
You also imply, for example, that the tone of a Stradivarius violin could be mimicked by eq and any violin to be made to sound like one by applying that eq. Complete nonsense--this is of course not the case.
Coloration is not the same as eq, period.
pohaku
New member
Running recorded tracks through different pres is a technique used all the time by those doing passive summing with the Roll Music Folcrom or similar devices. You use whatever pres you want for the make up gain. The pres you choose affect the overall sound. There is extensive discussion of this on GS and other forums.
If it sounds good it is good.
If it sounds good it is good.
Farview
Well-known member
Coloration is a combination of EQ, distortion and compression. The distortion and compression are sometimes frequency dependant as well.
Coloration is not ONLY EQ, Eq would just be one of the factors.
Two completely different issues. The tone of an instrument comes from the physical properties that it posesses and how they mingle with the air around them. The tonal differences between instruments usually have to do with the harmonic content that they produce because of the way they were made and the wood that was used. The instrument is creating the whole sound.
The tone of a preamp is what it does to the original signal via frequency shaping, distortion and compression. The preamp doesn't (or shouldn't) add anything to the signal, it just shapes it. If the preamp is adding harmonics that weren't there to begin with, it's distorting. If the preamp tightens up the low end, it's either compressing it or adding a low cut of some sort (or both)
. I just wanted to point out one thing that might be confusing the issue. There is a difference between 'timbre' and 'tone.'
Farview
Well-known member
for the purpose of this discussion, The two words are being used interchangeably.