A "Recording For Dummies" question on preamps

[pchorman]

Why are preamps so important for recording, like for vocals? I imagine it increases the signal to noise level, but I didn't think there's typically a deficiency in signal to noise from most mics. What am I missing?

Please understand that I'm a guitar player who records the band for demos, as an amatuer, so I have no expertise in many aspects of professional recording.
Thanks

[Chris Shaeffer]

Even though most mics have fine signal to noise, the over all level of the signal coming out of the mic is miniscule. In order to get that signal up to a level where other audio equiptment can deal with it a preamp is needed. Preamps also let you adjust the recording level of the mic for the volumes of different sources: quiet singer, loud guitar, etc.

Since preamps are taking such a tiny signal and amplifying it, any color that the pre has can have a huge effect on the sound coming out of it. I understand that great pres are one of the main differences between pro and consumer level equiptment.

-Chris

[tubedude]

The circuitry and layout of a fantastic and expensive preamp usually will enhance a sound, making it "creamier" or "thicker" "warmer" etc... the signal path itself in a great pre is most likely cleaner with better, more expensive electronics and larger headroom and is more carefully designed with the way it will sound in mind.
Have at least one really good pre in your setup.

[pchorman]

Thanks. Does the same go for instruments then? I mostly hear it come up in conjunction with mics on this forum.

[Gidge]

Yes, instruments (guitar, bass) need an amp/preamp of some sort to boost the signal....Keyboards(Casio type) have line level outs and dont need preamps......

[psmith66]

I need a decent mic preamp for approx $100. I'm assuming an ART tube MP would be a wise choice?

[Floyd]

Yes....what are some adequate Preamps for a budget of about $100 -$150. Or, better yet some preamps that people have had some luck with.

Thanx,
Floyd

[little z]

I would also like to know which mic pre-amps are good according to successful usage....... I use a Fostex FD-8, and would love to get hotter, better signals for my acoustic guitar and really all else I am recording. I have heard good and bad things about the A.R.T. tube mic-pre amp, but have never used one. In fact, I have never used a mic pre-amp, PERIOD!!! So, I am all up for some knowledge and new info!!!!! Thanks guys!!!
Little Z (Steve)

[Mad Hack]

In my search for good convenient live acoustic guitar sound I discovered that Richard Thompson uses a Sunrise magnetic pickup with sunrise DI (over a thousand bucks) coupled with a bridge pickup (near as I can figure transducer) going through a $95 ART tube Pac (preamp/compressor combo). I don't know, listen to a live recording and decide for yourself about the noise and sound...
MH

[James HE]

The ART TUBE MP is really great as a DI for acoustic guitar, and it's a swell mic pre-amp too! I love it's sound for somethings. For drums I like the open sound of my Mackie pre's (think of the Mackie 1202 as a four pack of mic pre's, if you need a buch of pre's for not much money, they hit the spot) I also have 2 M-Audio DMP-2's. Dual Channel pre with low cut and phase switches for < $200. (Got mine $80 a pop when Mars was blowing them out) LOVED them at first, but now all they really do is sit in the rack. Very airy, these pre's, but I'm not getting much use out of them, very easy to clip the input stage. If I want a really airy, wispery vocal, these are perfect. I do like them on snare, but even with a 57, the level is too too hot (When I'm behind the drums they shine, but when my drummer gets back there banging away the spl's are too much!) I need to get some inline pads, to get any real use out of the DMP-2s'. (or just play softer )

-jhe

[Fela]

I have a mackie 1202 as well. My mackie was designed before the VLZ stuff. The pres on my Mackie suck. This is not a subjective statement. They are noisy and thin. When I turn up the pre on one channel the other channel pres change in strange ways. The two
mike pres on my akai dps-16 totally kill the mike pres on my 1202.

I heard that when they redesigned the mackies to become VLZ stuff that they reworked the pres. As for now I don't use them because they are two agravating. I have a TUBE PAC channel strip from ART and a Behringer something and then the pres on the akai. They all stomp the mackie.

[sjoko2]

Unfortunately you get what toy pay for.
One bit of advise ----- from an old ex analogue person -----
I know tube stuff is all the rage, but it is not possible to make a GOOD tube pre in the couple of hundred bucks price range.
A pre-amp is an amp, and a good amp needs a good transformer, a good power supply etc. Cheap components = cheap sound.
I have NEVER yet heard a decent tube pre for under 500 bucks.

There are some really good solid state ones for less, of a much higher sound quality than simularly priced tube pre's

[psmith66]

C'mon man.

I've got a few guitars/misc instruments, a couple sm 57's, a tascam 414, a PC with ntrack/fruity loops, etc sitting in a room in my basement. I record for FUN. Since I'm not going to spend $500 or more on a preamp, then I should just burn the contents of the room and take up squash? I don't dispute your opinion, but your response is out of context with what this thread's subscribers are looking for. Perhaps the engineers on staff at the Record Plant think your gear is crap, maybe not.

I've heard your stuff and I think it's quality production/engineering. That's your profession and I envy you for that. But that's not where most of us are going unfortunately.

Would I buy a Squier? No. Would I recommend a Squier to a kid starting out, or a keyboardist who wanted to dabble with electric guitar? Yes.

[sjoko2]

Who is that typing? You? Or the chip on your shoulder?

Quote: "There are some really good solid state ones for less, of a much higher sound quality than simularly priced tube pre's"

I thought what I said was quite clear, perhaps I should re-phrase it like this:
1 - IMHO you cannot get a good tube pre for under about 500 bucks.
2 - Tubes seem to be in high fashion today - but you are often better off buying a good quality solid state pre - better price, better sonic quality.

Let me put it yet another way ......... my advise is for people NOT to spend money on a low quality tube pre if they can get a much BETTER quality solid state one for LESS MONEY.

Yup, your response is way out of context, it must have been the chip talking.

[Blue Bear Sound]

I agree with Sjoko2 100%.....

I made the exact same comment regarding cheap "tube" pres in a couple of other posts.

Bruce

[psmith66]

sjoko2:

Guilty as charged. My comments were inappropriate, out of line and uncalled for. No excuses.

I apologize. I've always attempted to post constructively and in good taste - but I didn't see that brain cramp coming - it has not been a good day.

However, I do not have a chip on my shoulder - as that would imply arrogance stemming from talent/knowledge (which I do not have much of).

If I'm forgiven, I'd appreciate your recommendation on a low cost ($100 - $150) solid state preamp.

With humble regards
Paul

[sjoko2]

I'll go as low as I can / know off with stuff that works.

Symetrix 302 Dual - 2 pre's with 15dB pads - under $250 (for 2!)
Rane MS1 - about $150
DBX286E - basically a cheaper copy of the most used pre in broadcasting, the Symetrix 528E. Lots of features for about $225
Event EMP1 - about $200

My choice would be, of cause, the Symetrix. Their 528's are my most used ones

[Dolemite]

I'm curious what you big boys, Bruce and sjoko, think of what sonusman says about the Tube MP's. I'm not defending the cheap tube stuff but you can't deny that he's done some great work with it, and not out of limitation. He actually chooses to use his Tube MP's over some very high-dollar stuff like Drawmer. I know I don't have to fill you in, you've probably read all that, but what do you think of it?

[sjoko2]

Sonus has got a pair of excellent ears, he will use whatever sounds best for what he wants to achieve, and whatever sounds best with the equipment he's got available.
I'm spoiled and hyper critical, and I also do a lot of recording with huge amounts of tracks, mixes with between 80 and 120 tracks is becoming more and more common. This dictates a different kind of recording technique, one governed by a need for the clearest possible definition/seperation/clarity.
Also, especially my vocal mics are very sensitive and high quality. This means I can HEAR a preamp, a very strange sensation.
I've got my chain figured out in such a way now that I hardly ever use any EQ on a vocal track at all, just use some high and low shelving to distinguish between various groups of vocal tracks.
rambling..........

[Dolemite]

Thanks for the insight, man, that actually makes a lot of sense to me. It took a while for me to realize that choice of gear is dictated by a lot of other things besides budget and the assumed quality that comes with $$. I guess for you and Ed its a combination of musical styles along with styles of working with the music (recording, mixing, listening, etc.) that influence your different choices of gear. BTW, 80 to 120 tracks just seems like an unmanageable number...its hard enough for me to get 8-12 tracks to work together, I can hardly imagine that times 10.

[sjoko2]

Everything is horses for causes, using logic, sense and reason.
Just because you've got a bundle of really expensive gear, doesn't mean you need to use it all the time.
One very well known singer I often work with. I have tried everything on his voice, but apart from in a slow ballad, he just sounds best on a Shure 57, so that's what we use.

A lot of tracks ... its cool now in the digital realm, and its just something you get used to. I use lots of tracks when I'm recording, which gives me max flexibility in the mix. And if I think back to when I started...... then you had to track at least your bass and drums in one go, to 2 tracks, and spend hours comping to release more needed tracks.... the more available the better!

The only problem is --- doing large mixes on an analogue board without automation kept you pretty fit, now you can just stay in the sweet spot, and need "external excersize"

[psmith66]

I've never worked in a studio, but I can picture four or five individuals, each with a designated range of tracks along with instructions as to what dials/faders to adjust and when - during final mixdown. Was this how it would actually work if the console couldn't be automated? Must have drove engineers nuts, especially on complicated mixes.

[sjoko2]

Sorta like you described, but with less people
Didn't really drive me nuts... there was no alternative! If I work on a large console now, with for instance just moving faders rather than full automation of all parameters, yes, it drives me totally crazy. But then, that's because I know what I could do easy with full automation.
In those days there were much more "nailbiters", cutting and pasting parts of songs ment really that - taking a razorblade to a 2" tape, slicing the tape, and putting it back togeter again with sticky tape. Can you imagine doing that to a finished song? Without a back-up copy? It was normal. If you wanted to, for instance, repeat a part of a chorus, you'd dump it onto another tape machine and fly it in... no sync tools! Just do it by ear, hold the reel with your hand, listen, and let go just at the right time, allowing for the motor to reach the right speed. Do it a couple of thousand times and you get to know the timing of each individual machine...

[RWhite]

Thank God for hard disk recording. Amen!

[sneil]

I hope it is ok that I respond to this thread but I have a very basic question. I have jsut begun recording on a four track. By what I have read in this post, it seems that I should be running everything thtrough a preamp before plugging it into the four track.
If I am micing my guitar amp, should I then run that mic through a preamp before plugging it into the four track. Thanks for your help.