Are PreAmps a marketing myth?
- Thread starter CoolCat
- Start date
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
For years my go to preamps for drums were DBX386 on kick, Envoice on snare and HHB Radius 10's on toms and overheads. Still basiclly same mics (D-112 inside the kick and a GT AM-52 on the outside, AKG C-3000 on floor tom and a C-1000 on rack toms, an MD-441 on snare and a pair of Earthworks SR-71 on overheads although I do occaisionally use KM-184s). Lemme see what I can dig up.
Honestly, I think it's a mix of psychology and the desire for that "magic" piece of gear. But here's the secret sauce – if your ears don't hear a significant difference, then trust your instincts. Your music is about what feels right to you, not just the gear you use.
So, keep rocking with what you have, and don't let that GAS bug drive you too crazy!
By the way, if you're looking for some SEO tips to boost your music online, check out this link: https://www.searchseo.io/. It might help you get more visibility for your music.
So, keep rocking with what you have, and don't let that GAS bug drive you too crazy!
By the way, if you're looking for some SEO tips to boost your music online, check out this link: https://www.searchseo.io/. It might help you get more visibility for your music.
Last edited:
rob aylestone
Moderator
The trouble is we constantly struggle to assess 'quality'. We are really good at identifying hums, even us oldies detect hiss, and we're probably now all more sensitive to unwanted distortion. The snag is the sorts of magic some interfaces generate is marketing hype and microphone choice. Most of the clever, expensive preamps also add something to the sound - be it tonal changes, maybe 'nice' distortion, very 'nice' compression or stuff like that. As a stop gap, I bought a Behringher 1820 - the Tascam and Presonus ones of a similar type doing service at the other studio. It has those Midas preamps. Turned up to full gain, it's very quiet - in hiss terms the Tascam is obviously noiser near full gain, and the Presonus maybe a little noiser? They sound the same to my ears, bar the hiss. The Behringher, used as a direct swap does have that horrible data buzz in bursts every now and then, but it seems to be in the output stage and does not get recorded, but that I do not like.
ChaseRoy above says it all - "Your music is about what feels right to you, not just the gear you use." - On one drum source I like to use, I always add some HF boost above 5K - always. There's nothing wrong with the sample set, but every use of it for me needs an EQ tweak. That's not a fault, it's preference.
ChaseRoy above says it all - "Your music is about what feels right to you, not just the gear you use." - On one drum source I like to use, I always add some HF boost above 5K - always. There's nothing wrong with the sample set, but every use of it for me needs an EQ tweak. That's not a fault, it's preference.
You mentioned that purple site. Ewwww.
Gear pusher was a phrase that associated with that site. I remember getting attacked there when I downed the cloudlifter and told everyone how recording engineers and musicians 20 years ago used to bypass the EQ on the SM7 and install a dynamic mic transformer inside it so it would be compatible to any mic preamp.
But I got tired of the British assholes that think they know better. A lot of electronics engineers I know don't go on that site and the ones that did left along with highly knowledgeable techs after I bailed from that site.
Even my old boss bailed from that site. He stuck around there for a while and one day after telling me about the attitudes on that site, and Richard and Geoff Tanner not posting anything anymore, I asked him: Did they ever recognized you as a business? If not, you should bail because that site does not respect you or the fact you are a professional in the business. He told me he closed his account and started a RGO account (realgearonline.com) and is happy there because they will not put up with anyone from the purple site as well (gearspace,gearslutz, whatever they want to call themselves this decade).
Slouching Raymond
Well-known member
There are some.
Papanate
Well-known member
Well if we are still talking about Mid Pres - then I posit the following:
The are differences in Mic Pres between the low budget Preamp and the High Budget PreAmp -minor differences - some the noise levels are quite obvious - but the audio quality is not - once you get to certain point - which is the the Focusrite and above range - we are talking about small incremental changes - and with the average rig no one is going to going to really notice in the mix - the Biggest Change is in the Mics themselves - and that's where we hear the major differences - whether that is good or bad is subjective - but overall microphones are what makes the biggest difference - if you are taking hardware (keyboards etc....) you are going to barely hear any difference in mic preamps - and when you get to modelers like the Helix - the average listeners are not going to hear much in the difference between high and low grade preamps - beyond impedance matching.
The are differences in Mic Pres between the low budget Preamp and the High Budget PreAmp -minor differences - some the noise levels are quite obvious - but the audio quality is not - once you get to certain point - which is the the Focusrite and above range - we are talking about small incremental changes - and with the average rig no one is going to going to really notice in the mix - the Biggest Change is in the Mics themselves - and that's where we hear the major differences - whether that is good or bad is subjective - but overall microphones are what makes the biggest difference - if you are taking hardware (keyboards etc....) you are going to barely hear any difference in mic preamps - and when you get to modelers like the Helix - the average listeners are not going to hear much in the difference between high and low grade preamps - beyond impedance matching.
Problem is there is some interfaces that are ok for dynamic microphones, but never spectacular. But most are not really that compatible and are engineered more for fet condenser mics. So their solution is to make these little buffer amps which most of the time, is about equivalent of removing the phantom power circuit and terminating the input at a lower impedance.ok not trying to troll anything or any brand....
but I seem to be stuck in a perpetual circle of preamp purchasing that literally goes nowhere.
like life, I can recall the first preamp purchase really well and it was like ok...then added a RNC and it was like wow! this does sound more "studioish than my portastudio preamp...
then thinking Lightening might strike twice even better! I sold it and got a more expensive one! and that was pretty cool...and I felt kind of like an explorer into sound.
then I go blurry, and something to do with SM7 got me into even more and more and reading and cash was more and more....and years flew buy (pun intended)...the list so long of preamps I dont even remember them all....
then eventually I got the big PayPal and went for a few $1700 pro-pieces and was totally let down in the sound difference but the Engineerng pieces of work were amazing, but I was looking for that "professional mastered Capital EMI SoundCity " sound! and it didnt happen...and actually...for sanity checks I rebought the first ones again and they sounded really close to all the others.
so the point is...am I nuts? or is this WOW! factor more a marketing placebo GAS thing than a true engineering-honest opinion(no marketing allowed) that there is very little difference once you have a decent preamp...which these days can be on the interface itself.?
maybe its a psychologist question about placebo namebrand effect that gets to me? because my ears dont hear a difference, and Ive tried literally a long list of gear....and theres still some
GAS bug like...oh try <enter preamp model> !!! it might sound different!! and be the warm gooy honey holy grail one!
I am in Rob's camp, microphone pre amps are not electronics rocket science and a decently low noise solid state hybrid circuit was developed at least two decades ago. That original circuit was not that good for distortion mind you, probably produced more THD at operating level than the rest of the desk's circuitry that followed it. That might be why those old console pres were and still are venerated and copied ad.inf?
But the distortion got fixed (mainly down to a chap called Duggy Self) and there is now no reason not to have very low noise pre amps with adequate gain and with THD figures suited to the digital audio world...But! YCPAOTPAOTT! So we have this constant pantomime of searching for the "holy grail" of pre amp sound.
To answer the title of the thread directly? Yes, most of what is said and written about "pre amp sound" is horse feathers but the people in the Adpuff depts of the gear manufacturers have a vested interest in keeping the myths going. How TF else are they going to keep selling pre amps??
Microphone do interact a bit with the pre's input load but for almost all input devices there is an optimum terminating resistance that give the lowest noise. For most transistors that will be about 800 Ohms to 1k but the value is not that critical 50% either way. So your usual microphone output Z of 150-200Ohms is a bit low for optimum noise but in practice pre amps are quiet enough. Some designs use two or even three transistors in parallel and these with be better with a lower load. It is generally said that many dynamics and most ribbons sound better with a much higher load than the usual 1.5k but unless you have a dedicated circuit without phantom power feed resistors you cannot do better* than 13.6k shunted by the actual input circuit.
*Although I dare say someone could come up with a clever 'bootstrap' circuit? Hard to do perhaps without compromising noise?
Dave.
jamesperrett
Active member
My Studiomaster Mixdown desk was designed over 35 years ago and the preamps in there are very quiet and sound as accurate as any designed since. I was amazed at the time that a fairly budget desk could be so good - and if Studiomaster could do it back then, I see no reason why other manufacturers can't achieve those results today. That's why I get a bit annoyed by audio interface manufacturers cheating by doing things like using A weighted noise specs.
rob aylestone
Moderator
Totally agree - one thing we've all spotted over the past few years is that chasing the meter needle is just not important now. Indeed the feature most DAWs have where you can expand the waveform display to make it look louder is pretty vital. For accurate editing by waveform, you need to see the troughs to make silent cuts, and on the default setting, they're often way to difficult to see without expanding the scale. I had a studiomaster - in fact it might still be in the garage somehere - and it was a fine sounding mixer. The Sountracs Topaz I had in my 96 studio was really nice and quiet.
I'm really uncomfortable with the concept that some preamps have 'better' sound - they often have a colour, but that's distortion and EQ really. I just cannot take things like the Neve preamps individually cased as anything other than processing, not really just amplifiers. Tony Waldron who used to be Cadacs design engineer often criticised other designs as compromised and unpure. Distortion of any kind he viewed as a mistake. I'm certain at some point he mentioned the 'Neve' sound as a happy accident, less than good design, but one that people loved.
I'm really uncomfortable with the concept that some preamps have 'better' sound - they often have a colour, but that's distortion and EQ really. I just cannot take things like the Neve preamps individually cased as anything other than processing, not really just amplifiers. Tony Waldron who used to be Cadacs design engineer often criticised other designs as compromised and unpure. Distortion of any kind he viewed as a mistake. I'm certain at some point he mentioned the 'Neve' sound as a happy accident, less than good design, but one that people loved.
If that manual is the right one James then the mic pres are indeed very low noise. An EIN figure of -129dB is claimed which is bettered today by very few devices. Mind you! Be careful with words like "cheating" ref' weighting curves? That EIN is a DIN weighted number.
The Audio Industry has always massaged its figures so as to present them in their best light. Most here will remember the "Watts Wars"? Music power, Peak power, Total Peak Music power... We still have a legacy in the form of the totally daft "RMS" Power! Some manfctrs intend to mislead but I think most simply feel they have to jump on the weighting bandwagon to compete?
I have been unable to find a clear schematic but from what I can see the pre amps are the pretty basic 2 transistor+op amp hybrid. Maybe they selected the input transistors or had access to very low Rb samples? I doubt the THD performance is outstanding but then far better than the tape machines of its day!
Dave.
jamesperrett
Active member
There are a couple of circuit diagrams for the Mixdown on the net. One shows a couple of 2SA970 transistors feeding half a TL072 while a newer one for the Classic 8 has a pair of 2SA1137s feeding a 4560 op amp. Mine probably has the older version - it certainly uses TL072s in there - and I have always been impressed with how quiet it is. I can't find the DIN curve but, if it is similar to the IEC A weighting curve then it will give an EIN of -126dBu flat which is still quite respectable.
real recording boards back then had real preamps in them. My 24 into 4 studiomaster was able use a lot of mics cleanly. Even ribbon mics and un modified Sm7. I think they set up the studiomaster to accept 200 ohm mics because of the size they chose for the phantom blocking caps. Granted, my 1974 model might have issues now, but its never been recapped.
jamesperrett
Active member
The circuit design of the Studiomaster is pretty much the same as used in modern preamps (or at least preamps from the likes of Allen and Heath and similar quality manufacturers). It is just that some of the real budget brands have tried to pare things back too much and ended up with inappropriate gain settings and more noise.
Not really trying there James! As we can see, DIN is a much 'peackier' curve than A.
I am not sure what an "unreal" pre amp is? One perhaps that works in the left side of the co-ordinates?
There are some things to take into account with mic pre amps in older kit, mixers and interfaces.
Really old desks will likely have inputs transformers* and these can give some 10dB or more of noise free boost to the signal (a valve pre amp really HAS to use a transformer) so not fair comparing those with later transformerless designs.
Then mixers have a gain control but then a second stage that usually adds another 10dB of gain if needed. Splitting the gains that way eases design considerable compared interface which almost all just have one gain pot.
Mixers also use higher internal supply rails than most AIs (especially 'bus' powered AIs) often 2 X 17 even 18 volts. This gives much greater headroom than is usually possible in an AI.
*Especially mixer intended for broadcast use as they need very high RFI immunity. BTW be very careful if offered a 'broadcast' mixer...the internal OP levels may well mean it is rather noisy for recording, especially digital recording.
Dave.
I am not sure what an "unreal" pre amp is? One perhaps that works in the left side of the co-ordinates?
There are some things to take into account with mic pre amps in older kit, mixers and interfaces.
Really old desks will likely have inputs transformers* and these can give some 10dB or more of noise free boost to the signal (a valve pre amp really HAS to use a transformer) so not fair comparing those with later transformerless designs.
Then mixers have a gain control but then a second stage that usually adds another 10dB of gain if needed. Splitting the gains that way eases design considerable compared interface which almost all just have one gain pot.
Mixers also use higher internal supply rails than most AIs (especially 'bus' powered AIs) often 2 X 17 even 18 volts. This gives much greater headroom than is usually possible in an AI.
*Especially mixer intended for broadcast use as they need very high RFI immunity. BTW be very careful if offered a 'broadcast' mixer...the internal OP levels may well mean it is rather noisy for recording, especially digital recording.
Dave.
Attachments
And they tried over the years to build it cheaper. Which eventually led to the use of op amps and the invention of the INA217 IC. The one chip mic pre.
The one chip mic pre can be configured to run low z mic nicely, but the drawback to a lot of these they go unbalanced at the end of the circuit, that adds the power supply noise to the signal. In the interface case, its the noise from the usb supply.
But there is a better Mic IC op amp. called the INA 851 that is fully balanced like it should. This is the proper design for audio mic pre + ADC.
I've been getting good results with this chip in my lab. The next level of things I'm doing is playing with the signal limiter circuit part of it so I can come up with a nice sounding auto limiter.
But for interfaces like the focusrite, installing an input transformer in the place of the phantom blocking caps would defiantly lift the veil and bring it up to a better level of design. But most mic preamps can be improved with a swap of phantom blocking caps to an input transformer.
There are a few boadcast mixers that are ok. But you minus well buy a Neve or an SSL because its in that price range. I guess the Sandies/Dynamax would probably be the only one below $300K and that one works really good for recording. The only problem with them is It would take a tech guy to install it, because you have to make the i/o jacks/circuits but at least you get really nice sounding mic pre on those vocal channels. Maybe you are thinking of something else.
I am. For broadcast use mixers often have much greater headroom because overload cannot be tolerated or predicted. Since there are no dynamic range free lunches, this means lower internal levels and hence higher noise.
Dave.