Do 'Good' mic pre's make a difference, to you?

superspit

superspit

idiots unite!
Probably being a little cheeky and rhetorical here, but I've often wondered, even though I've been recording for sometime, if there was a practical difference between purely 'operational' pre's and more expensive, dedicated ones. For years I utilised the pres on my mixing desk, going straight into an AD converter then into my pc. Now I am using a set of dedicated mic pre's and the difference wasn't just amazing, it was instant! Just thought I'd leave this here, cheers guys!
 
Personally, if I can hear the difference, then one set must be pretty poor. Frankly, all I hear are different tonal characteristics, not better or worse. I have access to, but don't own, a nice pair of expensive preamps. It takes me a twenty minute drive to collect them. This is enough for me to rarely bother. I find the same kinds of differences with my mics, so I am very happy with the options open to me without going for large ticket preamps with my money.

I can hear bad ones, less bad ones, OK ones and good ones. However, I'm totally open to the normal ones being used for pretty well anything. I have far more grief with producing the stuff the mics capture. I know that posh preamps make an audible difference. I just cannot determine if it is better, or just different. I'm not certain that what I hear is actually 'better'? Once the hiss has gone, then I am happy.Tonal changes I can create with mic choice and eq. I am also totally unsold, and always have been, that tube circuits are better. I accept many people like their results, and I can live with this opinion, but I don't share it. I have some quite elderly mics in my collection, and if you arrange them into date order, this is also the same order you would get if you sorted them on top end clarity and presence. I had some old but perfectly functional STC mics, and I hated them. The money from their ebay sale generated funds for new brighter ones, which have worked well for me. Warming up the sound with flash preamps isn't on my list.
 
superspit said:
Probably being a little cheeky and rhetorical here, but I've often wondered, even though I've been recording for sometime, if there was a practical difference between purely 'operational' pre's and more expensive, dedicated ones. For years I utilised the pres on my mixing desk, going straight into an AD converter then into my pc. Now I am using a set of dedicated mic pre's and the difference wasn't just amazing, it was instant! Just thought I'd leave this here, cheers guys!
Click to expand...

Does anyone else who does not know which pre is which notice the difference and can you quantify it? Lower noise? Less distortion? Wider bandwidth?

Five or so years ago I still would not have agreed that "boutique" pres made a "night and day" difference but I had no data to back that up. All that changed a couple of years ago with the now infamous Sound on Sound tests using a MIDI controlled grand piano.
The clips that were posted could not reliably be found to be from a pre amp costing 10 times another.

This is NOT to say people should not buy quality gear and pre amps are often chosen not for their "cleanliness" but for their attitude. The test was just for basic, non-od operation.

I think the received wisdom today is...Get the RIGHT microphone and learn to use it properly and pay attention to room effects. Preamps figure a long way down in the sound stakes.

Dave.
 
Yes, I guess I did leave a lot of non-specifics in my post. At least with a mic I have more of a chance of almost hearing what I expected more than an AD converter or pre-amp choice. Ie, the difference between a 57 or large diaphragm condensor unit, if that makes sense. I guess its the way I'm hearing more of the original sound than I have before. Maybe my desks pres are just plain crap. (??), anyways, I'm thrilled with the sonic possibilities at this time. I think the upgrade(?) was worth it.
 
Hey, it's not like I'm going from unbalanced to balanced cables then shouting Alleluia!!! It sounds amaaaaaaazing! Lol
 
Once you've mastered mic choice and placement the mic pre is the next level of refinement to try. It does make a difference, sometimes a significant one. Right now the only external mic pre I have regular access to is a Solo 610. It's quite a nice preamp though I still find on most stuff the ones in the Tascam console work better for me. The 610 is a bit too soft on stuff. I've also use many other external pres, including Telefunken V72, Daking, Grace (love the M101, super silky), API, Vintech etc., along with some custom hand built stuff. They all have their uses as creative tools, but none are what I'd call essential.
 
If you get to a point where you actually have a half-dozen or more pres at your disposal...run the same signal through each, record it, and then sit down and compare them.

While just trying to pick out the "most expensive pre" in the bunch is kind of a dumb test to try and do...and I have no idea how anyone would go about doing that, since there is a lot subjective considerations as to what "more expensive" is even supposed to soudn like...
.... you will be able to hear the differences between the pres, cheap or expensive, and then you can be the judge which pres work for the sound you are after.

The point about expensive pres isn't really just about some so-called "expensive sound"....but more so about the build quality, the specs, the additional features that lower costing ones don't have...etc.
A lot also depends on which mic is being plugged into which pre. I've got a few decent pres, and depending on the mic, one will sound better than the other...in a given situation, even thought both pres are about the same cost/quality.

That said...I do think that for many home rec situations...just an expensive pre may not by itself make much difference, if the rest of the chain or other aspects of your home rec studio are also not up to par....though like BSG said above...the mic and the pre ARE two of the primary items, that's what captures your audio...along with them, are the room and the monitoring as the other to very important items.
 
I've felt there were definite shifts to improvements during my transitions. That would be from earlier the Mackie pre's to RNP's, Precision 8, -skip the Chameleon's their supposed to have a 'tilt and last a 'Mik-e. -Not even Mackie Onyx though. I think they sound different than the old 24-8.
Having said all that- it wouldn't surprise me at all to fail 'A/B's.
 
If I had the cash I would likely fill a rack with Grace M101s. To my ear that one preamp makes almost everything sound good.
 
They do make a difference, but not having top of the line preamps should not keep you from recording very listenable music.
 
Farview said:
They do make a difference, but not having top of the line preamps should not keep you from recording very listenable music.
Click to expand...

Yes yes yes :>) I know for a fact even my coffee' pollution' time-on-ears (tone shift/fatigue effects -day to day hour to hour..) quotient swamps tiny stuff like this.
 
Farview said:
They do make a difference, but not having top of the line preamps should not keep you from recording very listenable music.
Click to expand...

Exactly my thoughts.

I pay more attention to post recording/tracking effects, EQ, and compression to get the sound I want. The recording process in my approach is to capture as clean and uncolored as possible.
 
It's funny, I've been on the opposite side of this kind of discussion about gear elsewhere today. Compared to real gear snobs I'm pretty undiscriminating, but it does make a difference. With those Grace preamps I feel less need to use eq and effects to get a satisfying result. It's as if they bring me 30% closer to my goal right off the bat. It may be that I've got the more important issues sorted allowing me to hear what the preamps do. That said, I don't see it as a major handicap using the preamps on the old Tascam console.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
...I feel less need to use eq and effects to get a satisfying result. It's as if they bring me 30% closer to my goal right off the bat. It may be that I've got the more important issues sorted allowing me to hear what the preamps do.
Click to expand...

I'm in the same camp...my post-tracking processing is probably minimalist compared to what I see a lot of folks doing these days.
For me, it's more about the sound that the mic (and pre) are hearing/capturing. That's what I'm hearing and that's what I base my recording/production decisions on.
Sure...there's always some post-tracking stuff that happens during the mixing stage, but I like to hear my mix as it's being tracked, so that when I do get to mixing, it's more about fine-tuning and less about getting my sound...IOW, the sound I want is gotten at the tracking stage...so mics and pres and sound sources are the key pieces of the production and the overall sound, and not so much the processing during mixing...
...but everyone works differently.

Oh...might it make sense to move this thread to the Mic or Recording forum...?
 
Different strokes/folks. The proof is in the final product. If you like how it turns out then everything is as it should be.
 
I think that the difference good mic pres would make is dependent on how bad the mic pres you have now are.

For example the mic pres on my console sound pretty good, the main reason have external mic pres is that I can use different mic / pre combinations and have more recording inputs when I am tracking a band live (sometimes up to 20 inputs) and want the console channels freed up for monitoring.

Alan.
 
I honestly did not inyend to stir up a wasps nest here.. Lol. Look, I see all your points, they're all well made and educated, that's very cool. I believe a good pre is very important. It may not be your number 1, not even mine, but I'll be placing it in my top 3 quality things to have. The difference may not be night and day, but more like morning and evening! And they're very different to me Lol. Loving it. Cheers guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top