Are the preamps doing the mics justice?

[The Axis]

Of course **I** can hear the differences in preamps !
**I** can hear the differences in sound that accrue from the slight magnetic anomalies as the Earth wobbles on its rotational axis !

But most people can't. That is why i urge blind tests......preferrably in a magnetically-shielded, zero-gravity, anechoic chamber.

Your mileage may vary.

The haircut is designed to optimize stereo separation. I am surprised you couldn't figure that out. It seems obvious.

 

[MCI2424]

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.

There really is no argument. Cheap pre-amps destroy mixes everyday. The expensive pre-amps exist for a good reason. The main problems is that if you have not used the good pre-amps (like everything in life) you don't know. If you use good pre-amps. mics etc. and don't hear a difference, look into room treatments, new monitors etc.

There was a great battle at PSW from the guy who designs one of the Neve clones. He wanted to have samples of real Neve vs. his copy. Fletcher told him he would participate ONLY if the test would be a mix of at least 8 tracks.

The clone guy beat around the bush and finally would not agree to this test. He wanted one track like every other "test". The guy knew his pre-amp would not cut it in a mix. Too bad because his pre-amp is one of the major ones and it is simply not a great design, but sells for over $1000/channel.

So, to your point, I agree that just because a pre-amp is in the same high end price range, it does not mean it is a better pre-amp design. But, a well designed high-end pre-amp will definately outperform a cheapie in a mix. Many albums from the 70s/80s were done on Neve consoles and the sound is highly sought after because of the buildup of that particular pre-amp sound. It is a good thing to mix up pre-amps when recording dense mixes to avoid any one pre-amp from dominating the mix, but the old days usually used whatever pre-amps were in the console and Neve were everywhere.

 

[mshilarious]

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

Don't make fun of the haircut, or he will murder you with a chainsaw!

 

[MOFO Pro]

Don't make fun of the haircut, or he will murder you with a chainsaw!

After he finishes with the chainsaw hair cut

 

[The Axis]

But, a well designed high-end pre-amp will definately outperform a cheapie in a mix.

But the question would remain: why ?

Why, if you can't hear any differences individually, does the situation change in a mix ?

If anything, I would suspect that one would just want a VARIETY of different preamps in a mx, so there isn't a buildup of noise or frequency response right at a particular frequency band that may have emphasis.

Reminder: I am not being argumentative; I just find this subject interesting and I try to be appropriately scientifically skeptical.

Many recordophiles will swear they can easily hear preamp differences. Yet no one has been able to produce a truly blind A/B test that demonstrates that, and it seems like something that preamp affiocionadoes would love to demonstrate ! So the next level of obscurity becomes "you can only hear it in a mix." So why doesn't somebody do it ? Again, it seems like it would be a great marketing tool for preamp manufacturers.

A truly blind A/B test is a little bit difficult to accomplish. It would require at least 3 people: one listener, one guy to swap equipment, and one guy to signal when ready and record data,. so that the listener couldn't receive any communication from anyone who knew what the setup was at any given test

As I mentioned before, in the few blind tests I have found written up, it was very embarrassing for the high-end manufacturers, because the low-end stuff actually beat them. Maybe that is why the showdown between Fletcher and the "Neve-copy" never happened. Neither side wants to incur a 50% chance of being embarrassed, so they keep making an escalating set of more complex demands to obsure any clear result. As a skeptic, and as an acoustic engineer who looks at a lot of acoustic test data, I just have to be skeptical of the "personal perception factor" that always enters into audiophile equipment marketing.

On the other hand, I do believe that some very obscure things are audible. I believe I can hear superior quality sound from the DVD-A and SACD class of higher sampling rate and greater bit depth equipment. Buit I think that is also demonstratable with double-blind tests on a certain fraction of the population. (My hearing really isn't all that good !) If there was a convincing blind test of preamps, I would believe it.

 

[Whoopysnorp]

But the question would remain: why ?

Why, if you can't hear any differences individually, does the situation change in a mix ?

Many recordophiles will swear they can easily hear preamp differences. Yet no one has been able to produce a truly blind A/B test that demonstrates that, and it seems like something that preamp affiocionadoes would love to demonstrate ! So the next level of obscurity becomes "you can only hear it in a mix." So why doesn't somebody do it ? Again, it seems like it would be a great marketing tool for preamp manufacturers.

Dude, it is easy to hear differences between preamps, even without a mix being involved. When I listen to a recording of the same material--just one channel's worth--recorded through my VTB-1 and my Eureka, I have no problem hearing which is the higher-quality pre.

 

[MOFO Pro]

But the question would remain: why ?

Why, if you can't hear any differences individually, does the situation change in a mix ?

You just answered your own question... in the very next sentence.

so there isn't a buildup of noise or frequency response right at a particular frequency band that may have emphasis.

A well designed high end preamp will have a flatter response, less hype on individual bands, and won't stack up on particular frequencies...

 

[The Axis]

Dude, it is easy to hear differences between preamps, even without a mix being involved.

Well, OK.
But, with reference to numerous posts above, the excuse many people were giving for the failure of truly blind A/B tests was that it requires a mix.
Whether it is individual, or a mix, I just advocate BLIND tests. It is too easy to have psychological factors make one hear a "cleaner" sound, or "more body in the low-midband", etc....

A well designed high end preamp will have a flatter response, less hype on individual bands, and won't stack up on particular frequencies...

But, if that were true, then virtually any modern preamp would easily beat the audiophile stuff of prior eras. Just look at the 20-40K resonse of a cheapo DMP3 ! In the old days, we were lucky to get to 20kHz at -3 dB ! Check out some of the tech specs on that stuff.

Which is it ? Needs a mix or easily audible singly ?

 

[MOFO Pro]

Just look at the 20-40K resonse of a cheapo DMP3 ! In the old days, we were lucky to get to 20kHz at -3 dB ! Check out some of the tech specs on that stuff.

Problem is... this frequency range isn't the problematic one... the mid-bands are where the crap builds up... there's just not enough going on, or enough power to really have anything get into the way of each other up there... and half the population can't even hear above 20,000 KHz well enough to make it matter.

I will concede the point that the newer circuitry and designs have improved the frequency response in budget gear in recent years... and I can also see the logic in stacking tracks of budget tracks using a variety of preamps to distribute the response peaks across a broader spectrum... To a point. Does it make really make sense to buy $3,000 dollars worth of $300 dollar pres to accomplish this... or is your money better spent on one or two boutique pres that will stack without issues... and sound head and shoulders above the budgets in a blind solo test.

But I don't think anyone is really arguing the point that you can make good recordings with some of the budget equipment available today... only that the premium gear does have it's merits... can make the job easier, and will have a better cumulative performance across multiple tracks than a sonically similar budget pre that is compared side by side in a single track blind A/B test... This test only qualifies half of a preamps true performance...

 

[vadoom]

Well, OK.
But, with reference to numerous posts above, the excuse many people were giving for the failure of truly blind A/B tests was that it requires a mix.
Whether it is individual, or a mix, I just advocate BLIND tests. It is too easy to have psychological factors make one hear a "cleaner" sound, or "more body in the low-midband", etc....


But, if that were true, then virtually any modern preamp would easily beat the audiophile stuff of prior eras. Just look at the 20-40K resonse of a cheapo DMP3 ! In the old days, we were lucky to get to 20kHz at -3 dB ! Check out some of the tech specs on that stuff.

Which is it ? Needs a mix or easily audible singly ?

I guess one way to do a blind test would be to have a budget preamp X (that everyone agrees is very good for the most part) inside an expensive package of preamp Y. Replace the pres with the impostors (without anyone looking) and see if everyone hears the difference...

Now, to extend this experiment, if they do hear the difference, observe how they will work with the sound... Based on their reaction(s) you can perhaps conclude the amount of difference it all makes...

 

[Micter]

I can't believe how many people in this thread have down played room treatment. IME There is never a case where an untreated room is better than a treated room. Seriously, there are people that don't understand how to treat a room and the analysis of the room being treated.

Back to the original topic........

Mic preamps have just as much to do with the signal path as does the mic.

 

[MOFO Pro]

There is never a case where an untreated room is better than a treated room.

You can kill a room with bad treatment... Buying bass traps, absorption and diffusion panels, and hanging them willy-nilly around the sound field are not going to improve a room... (though i did note that your later comment included room analysis, very important)

Seriously, there are people that don't understand how to treat a room.

You should treat your room at least as well as you treat your wife or girlfriend... In many cases much better

 

[vadoom]

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...

OK, so...

6. Complete full analysis of your room for proper sound treatment.
7. Get a good job
8. Sound treat your room
9. Get good monitors/amps, etc
10. Do more A/B comparisons.
11. Get better job (may require college)
12. Get a bigger place
13. Redo all analysis of room treatment in your new place
14. Re-treat your room
15. Upgrade all your equipment (may require a even better job)

 

[kojdogg]

IME There is never a case where an untreated room is better than a treated room.

ever hear a live album that you like?

 

[MOFO Pro]

OK, so...

6. Complete full analysis of your room for proper sound treatment.
7. Get a good job
8. Sound treat your room
9. Get good monitors/amps, etc
10. Do more A/B comparisons.
11. Get better job (may require college)
12. Get a bigger place
13. Redo all analysis of room treatment in your new place
14. Re-treat your room
15. Upgrade all your equipment (may require a even better job)

7.5 Get new Wife/Girlfriend
11.5 Get new Wife/Girlfriend
12.5 Get new Wife/Girlfriend

Hey... we're talking upgrades here...



16 Sell house and all equipment to afford alimony and child support payments

 

[vadoom]

ever hear a live album that you like?

Yanni - live at the acropolis... I'm sure other people can think up of some as well...

For some reason I don't think it is a valid argument though... A counterargument could be: ever hear of a studio album that you didn't like?...

 

[Micter]

ever hear a live album that you like?

We're talking about home recording. Right? I have only heard one live album that I really liked and that is UFO Strangers in the Night. I'd almost bet that everything was redone except the drums.

It is painfully obvious when something is recorded in an untreated room. Comb filtering, unwanted noise, early reflections, etc. All are huge problems when recording at home.

If a person hasn't taken the time to understand room treatment and just slaps some bass traps on the wall with no rhyme or reason doesn't constitute room treatment. You really have to anaylize the room and see where the problems are.

 

[vadoom]

We're talking about home recording. Right?

Well, that wasn't specified...

But now that you clarified it, yes I see your point. However, the thread started about "if preamps doing mics justice" was probably implying "given I have a great way to hear it"...... Mostly would be either a general matter of personal opinion or strictly academical.

 

[Micter]

Well, that wasn't specified...

But now that you clarified it, yes I see your point. However, the thread started about "if preamps doing mics justice" was probably implying "given I have a great way to hear it"...... Mostly would be either a general matter of personal opinion or strictly academical.

I thought this was "HomeRecording.com"

 

[kojdogg]

We're talking about home recording. Right? I have only heard one live album that I really liked and that is UFO Strangers in the Night. I'd almost bet that everything was redone except the drums.

It is painfully obvious when something is recorded in an untreated room. Comb filtering, unwanted noise, early reflections, etc. All are huge problems when recording at home.

If a person hasn't taken the time to understand room treatment and just slaps some bass traps on the wall with no rhyme or reason doesn't constitute room treatment. You really have to anaylize the room and see where the problems are.

my point is just that there are acoustic environments that may be better than a deadened room. i'm sure that ufo strangers in the night is wonderful, but just about any orchestral/classical recording made in a concert hall with complementary if not controlled acoustics will sound better than a classical recording made in a deadened room, unless you want a pop string/orchestra kind of sound.
some people are making instrumental (e.g. solo piano, accompanied violin, and the like) music at home and if they have a choice between a small treated (if it's small and rectangular, that may very well mean deadened) room that might be good for vocal tracking and mixing, and a large untreated room with high ceilings and such, they might prefer a more amibent environment. i think i posted in this thread to the effect that yes acoustic treatment is very important, but that i would treat the environment if it sucks. i don't think i'm disputing what you're saying at all as you pointed out how important analysis is and i'm sure you're right on that.