expensive mics with not so expensive pre-amps?

[dgatwood]

my point is that you can buy a $25 mic and have it sound fantastic, but you can't buy a $25 dollar preamp and have it sound fantastic. He's better off distributing his budget accordingly.

Sure you can. You just can't buy good single channel pres for that. The most expensive part of a pre is channel costs (profit by dealers, distributors, importers, etc.). Next comes the cost of shipping it to the customer, then the case, followed by the power supply, followed by the XLR jacks at a couple bucks each. It goes down from there, with a DMP3 coming in at well under $25 of actual electronics per channel... probably more like $10-12. I'm not saying that's a fantastic pre, but it is pretty decent.

The best pres in my arsenal, if transparency is my goal, are the pres on my Peavey PV8 mixer. They come in right at about $25 per channel, and the price drops as the channel count increases, because, again, most of the costs are fixed costs....

More importantly, the difference between a cheap pre and a nice pre isn't much in terms of parts costs, so it really isn't surprising that some relatively cheap pres sound quite good. The big difference between a cheap pre and an expensive one is volume, not the parts cost.

 

[tdukex]

My experience, although not vast, is that the preamp is equally important as the mic. I've heard some really nice mics (including U87) through budget preamps (Mackie, etc.) and the mics did not sound special at all. I have also heard some budget mics (SP C1, for example) sound damn nice when paired with a really good preamp (Avalon). Now, the U87 through the Avalon was in a different world.

None of this means that I believe you shouldn't upgrade your mic first. It is a matter of preference--which to do first. Just don't discount the importance of the preamp. Preamps will change the way your mics sound. My Shure Unidyne III, which I never used to use, came alive when I got a Sebatron. Similarly, my 797 Audio CR998 went from a good sounding mic to a great sounding mic.

 

[TyphoidHippo]

I read an interesting observation somewhere that often times when people are looking for a more "professional sound" from their setup, the missing element may be compression. A modern pop/rock/r&b/hiphop vocal may have anywhere from 1-3 compressors or limiters tacked onto the chain on the way in to tape/hd and additional compressor/limiters added during mixdown just on the vocal track/buss (plus mix buss compression and compression added during mastering).

This is exactly what I was thinking as I read this thread - the OP probably just needs to learn to use compression....simple as that. There's nothing "wrong" with that microphone he has, and I've never used that presonus device he has, but I have used other presonus gear (mostly their compressors - I use them for live sound a lot) and it's not of poor quality. The "professional" sound he's looking for is almost certainly the absence of, or the improper use of, compression. If you really just wanna buy something, buy a nice analogue compressor (personally I don't think affordable digital compressors are quite on par with traditional analogue gear just yet, but they are certainly getting there, that's for sure - however, high-end digital compressors can do some pretty awesome things).

As to the mic/preamp debate, I can throw my experience out there, for whatever it's worth: The nicest preamps I've ever used are Focusrite Red 7. When asked why I pick Focusrite Red 7, however, my response isn't "It's magically just better" - it would be more along the lines of "Well....honestly it's *really* only the nicest because of extra features like the gorgeous compression, deesser, and EQ - but the same result could be achieved through various other outboard gear which would be more time consuming....it's just nice, convenient, and perhaps most importantly, fastest to have all that proven, reliable, consistently high-quality *extra* stuff right there in the preamp.

In fact, it's arguable that some of it's features are just completely unnecessary, like the fact that it's accurate frequency response extends into both sub and supersonic ranges - Why do you possibly need that? Well....scientists say you don't I guess, heh. I can't prove them wrong - but hey! Surely it's better because of that....right? Rupert Neve designed it so it's automatically better because of that and to hell with the scientists I guess all I'm trying to say is that I can, and have gotten the same results with and without the Red 7 - it's just easier and faster with it - and for me, that's why I use a "nice" preamp. To save time - not because it's the only way to get a great sound....

However - the other side of the argument - I generally use nice microphones for the same reason I use nice preamps - they sound good immediately. I haven't always had access to them, and before I did I could still get great sounds....it just took more effort. The wisest words I've ever heard about anything recording related is 'It's not what you've got - it's how you use it'. It's so true...within reason of course - obviously you can't make a dynamic mic a condensor and you honestly can't make an MXL a Neumann....but with enough patience, time and determination you can get fantastic results with cheap stuff. The difference for me is all in the time I save with "nicer" things, honestly....but that's just my opinion based on my own experience of course. YMMV. Well....actually everybody's mileage always varies in this business, lol.

 

[dgatwood]

My experience, although not vast, is that the preamp is equally important as the mic. I've heard some really nice mics (including U87) through budget preamps (Mackie, etc.) and the mics did not sound special at all. I have also heard some budget mics (SP C1, for example) sound damn nice when paired with a really good preamp (Avalon). Now, the U87 through the Avalon was in a different world.

None of this means that I believe you shouldn't upgrade your mic first. It is a matter of preference--which to do first. Just don't discount the importance of the preamp. Preamps will change the way your mics sound. My Shure Unidyne III, which I never used to use, came alive when I got a Sebatron. Similarly, my 797 Audio CR998 went from a good sounding mic to a great sounding mic.

The Unidyne III sounds reasonable with some pres, muddy as hell on others. That's one of the big problems with dynamic mics. They are a lot more sensitive to input impedance than condensers, and thus, a lot more sensitive to the particular preamp you use.

P.S. The Mackie pres I've tried are not a good indicator of modern budget pres, IMHO. I haven't used my CR1604 pres in a long time. Everything sounds muddy through them. The quality of budget pres has come a long way in the last few years.

 

[antman]

am learning alot here......well the thing is i invested in a portable booth and that made a big difference.............i record vocals singing and mostly rap....so am a vocalist.So what would be a good pre-amp and i dont mean one with more input and outputs cause i record one at a time so, i want to pay for quality and i would like to use my pc. I figured professionals used better mics and am always looking for new "wow" type of sound one that really capture the voice. And as i was reading the comparison i notice alot of the higher end mics claim to capture a more accurate sound. so am still open to a new mic...or even a pre-amp. continue with your opinions........

oh yea i always felt my compression skills were not that great...........i only used the digital ones (wave, audition) but i hear hardware compressors are better.......so could someone point me in the right direction about compressors like could i use them with the firebox? also if am using a compressor while recording do i gotta find the right setting for each recording, meaning i can't change it my sound with out recording and setting a new setting......(hope that makes sense)

 

[NL5]

Saying the preamp doesn't matter is ridiculous, especially at mixdown with a lot of tracks. I recorded my last album through an M-Audio Omni. Mixing a song for that record took my mix engineer forevever, and was a very frustrating experience for him. Since I've upgraded my pres, he gets a song done in a little more than an hour.


That said, if you've got a good sound, the mic placement and then the mic will make much more differnece in the sound.

A lot of people will tell you not to worry about it, you'll never record a good sounding project yourself, save your money and go to a real studio with real engineers. For some this is true, but not necessarily. The group of artists and bands I'm associated with almost always record themselves. Their releases are on some of the larger independent labels and many are considered classics of the genre. Don't let people bully you into think that all you'll ever do yourself are demos.

Craig

Great post. The only thing I take exception to is that nobody said the pre doesn't matter. EVERYTHING matters. You second paragraph sums it up pretty good. The original sound (including the room) is king. Followed by mic placement, the mic, and then the preamp

 

[kojdogg]

am learning alot here......well the thing is i invested in a portable booth and that made a big difference.............i record vocals singing and mostly rap....so am a vocalist.So what would be a good pre-amp and i dont mean one with more input and outputs cause i record one at a time so, i want to pay for quality and i would like to use my pc. I figured professionals used better mics and am always looking for new "wow" type of sound one that really capture the voice. And as i was reading the comparison i notice alot of the higher end mics claim to capture a more accurate sound. so am still open to a new mic...or even a pre-amp. continue with your opinions........

oh yea i always felt my compression skills were not that great...........i only used the digital ones (wave, audition) but i hear hardware compressors are better.......so could someone point me in the right direction about compressors like could i use them with the firebox? also if am using a compressor while recording do i gotta find the right setting for each recording, meaning i can't change it my sound with out recording and setting a new setting......(hope that makes sense)

I found that the Safe Sound p-1 had a great feature set for vocals or voiceover-- plenty of gain, a great "transparent" compressor/limiter, downward expander. I read several reviews of that box before I got one-- many people stated that it's hard to make anything sound bad unless you feed it a ridiculously hot signal or crank all of the settings and I found that to be true. The compressor is very useful and the pre is nice and clean. I got one used for <$500 (and have since sold it ; I kind of regret selling it, but I was able to upgrade)

 

[cavedog101]

In general, a preamp is only a way to amplify the low level output of a microphone up to line level. It's a volume knob. That's it.

Depending on exactly what mic you're using, results may vary. Daisy's post covers a lot of very useful ground here. All the components work as a system to give you results, good or bad. Depending on mic design and how bad a cheap preamp may be, gain requirements and so forth, you might find that certain mics work better with high end preamps while others don't really make much difference. A lot of people read things on message boards that say things like the preamp is the holy grail and the most important part of the chain, or that you can expect huge differences from better preamps across the board. Someone might go out and drop a lot of money on a great preamp and do some A/B tests to find that they can't hear a difference. It seems like a waste of money in some cases. There are a few things to think about first.

As a general rule, the recording chain is a simple map of the order of importance of all your recording devices. Anything higher up on the chain makes more of a difference. anything lower makes less of a difference.

As an example, this might be a recording chain for an electric guitar or something:

Song>
Performance>
Guitar>
Amplifier>
Room acoustics>
Microphone>
Mic placement>
Preamp>
Converters>
DAW

Obviously, having a great performance of a great song is important for good recordings without really having much of any gear. Given that, having a high quality guitar suited to the tone you want to achieve that has fresh strings and is properly tuned and intonated will net much larger wholesale improvements than any mic/pre combo. The amp makes less of a difference, but it's still critical. Bigger isn't always better, and some great studio recordings have been made from anything ranging from a Marshall Plexi into a 4x12 to a battery powered Pignose. It changes the tone, but not nearly as much as what your fingers are doing on the frets.

The mic, positioning and room acoustics all kind of go together. If you have money invested in room treatment, you can get away with a larger range of mic techniques. If you're using a dynamic mic like an SM 57 or something with a nearfield placement close to the amp, the room acoustics will play less of a role. You still have to be aware of early reflections from things like corners and floors in your room, but using a very expensive and sensitive condenser mic might change the equation for you. You could get more of a room sound from having a condenser a couple of feet away from the amp instead of a 57 right on the grille. If the room sounds bad, the nice condenser will capture all of the badness in exquisite detail. Is that what you want?

Preamps have no power to change anything already discussed. It's just a volume control, but consider how well the preamp was designed, and what operating level it was designed to run at. More expensive preamps generally have more headroom and a larger sweet spot, and they help to keep a mix sounding focused once you combine a lot of different source tracks. You can crank the gain on some preamps to impart slight (or drastic) changes in tone and focus. Basically you're adding distortion, and some things distort better than others. To use the El-Cheapo effectively, it becomes more important to understand gain staging and not overcook your tracking levels - a common mistake.

Looking back at the recording chain it might seem that the converters really don't make much difference, but that's not so true. At a minimum, you should have something that can interface properly with a +4 line level signal. After that it comes down to monitors and room acoustics once again - can you really hear what the recording sounds like, or is the room throwing the picture of the monitors out of whack? Acoustic treatment is important before you can start to hear the differences, as well as being trained with critical listening.

Also, when you think about mics you need to understand all the different types. Dynamics, condensers and ribbons. Cardioid, Omni, Figure 8. What's the difference? What makes a mic well suited to a specific recording task? Or not? How can we manipulate the sound through placement?

If you can't answer some of these questions, you probably aren't going to make better recordings by throwing money at the problem.

Good luck to you,


sl

THIS is the post that you should all be reading. It is the definitive truth of the matter.

This is not to suggest that all the others are meaningless, I'm simply saying it covers the ground in a proper and direct way and associates the parts of the chain in order of importance.

I have nice pres, great mics, cheap pres and cheap mics. And I have used most things audio to capture a performance or two......I cannot reiterate enough the importance of PERFORMANCE, and ENVIRONMENT. When you combine these two things with EXPERIENCE you will always get a very good sounding product no matter what the gear is. It was pointed out that Harvey makes excellent recordings with mixed recording chains. I think this is a great example of what I just said. Harvey's room does NOT suck. The environment plays into a performer feeling comfortable enough to PERFORM at a high level. And the EXPERIENCE goes without saying.

Gear is only the tools.

 

[antman]

how would i connect a compressor to my firebox?? i dont get that at all..........

 

[dgatwood]

Depending on exactly what mic you're using, results may vary. Daisy's post covers a lot of very useful ground here. All the components work as a system to give you results, good or bad. Depending on mic design and how bad a cheap preamp may be, gain requirements and so forth, you might find that certain mics work better with high end preamps while others don't really make much difference.

To give a crude generalization, preamp differences tend to have the greatest effect on vintage ribbons because of the high gain required, followed by dynamics and modern ribbons (which take much less gain than vintage ribbons), followed by phantom-powered ribbons and any condenser (whether phantom-powered, externally-powered, or battery-powered).

Further, preamps have a greater impact on transformer-coupled condenser (or phantom-powered ribbon) microphones than they do on FET-coupled condensers.

Finally, the effect even within the space of ribbons and dynamic mics is highly variable. Most of it depends on whether the output impedance of the mic is well matched to the input impedance of the amplifier. If you're loading down the mic's output transformer too much, the sound will be impacted negatively (unless the mic is hideously too bright, in which case it might be a positive impact...).

Looking back at the recording chain it might seem that the converters really don't make much difference, but that's not so true. At a minimum, you should have something that can interface properly with a +4 line level signal.

Fortunately, that's pretty much anything more expensive than a SoundBlaster. I haven't seen anything even moderately semi-pro that couldn't deal with +4 inputs. That's pretty basic. Worst comes to worst, though, it's easy to add a pad or reduce your preamp gain a little.

 

[snow lizard]

am learning alot here......well the thing is i invested in a portable booth and that made a big difference.............i record vocals singing and mostly rap....so am a vocalist.So what would be a good pre-amp and i dont mean one with more input and outputs cause i record one at a time so, i want to pay for quality and i would like to use my pc. I figured professionals used better mics and am always looking for new "wow" type of sound one that really capture the voice. And as i was reading the comparison i notice alot of the higher end mics claim to capture a more accurate sound. so am still open to a new mic...or even a pre-amp. continue with your opinions........

The problem with vocal recording is that there is no one mic that will work well for any singer or any type of music. If you consider instruments, they're known quantities. The fundamentals coming from an electric guitar or a tenor sax or a drum kit or what have you don't make huge changes from one instrument to the next, so folks with experience can say that "X microphone" will work good for such an instrument.

All voices are different. Engineers won't tell you they always use one mic for all their vocal recordings. Usually you end up trying a variety of them and use the one that works best with the voice and the song.

The KSM 27 is definitely a respectable mic. You could be doing worse than what you have there. For doing rap, you might want to consider some type of dynamic voiceover mic like the Heil PR-40, EV RE-20 or Shure SM 7. No guarantees, but one of those might get you closer to what you're looking for. As was pointed out, dynamic mics generally rely on the preamp more. The SM 7 in particular has a low output and is more likely to expose the limitations of your Presonus. These mics are relatively inexpensive considering what they compete with on the large condenser side of the world. It would definitely be worth your while to rent or audition a few different mics to see what works best for you. I'm not saying that a large condenser isn't the way to go, but these ones are also candidates.

Another thing that will definitely help you is to try to search for Harvey's pointers on vocal recording. He has a lot of golden advice all over this board and it will give you some great ideas on how to change the sound quite a lot with what you already have.

I'm sure there'll be lots of other suggestions for you.


sl

 

[snow lizard]

Fortunately, that's pretty much anything more expensive than a SoundBlaster. I haven't seen anything even moderately semi-pro that couldn't deal with +4 inputs. That's pretty basic. Worst comes to worst, though, it's easy to add a pad or reduce your preamp gain a little.

I was surprised to learn the M-Audio 2496 doesn't do +4. Yeah, line level is basic. I was alluding more to the difference you might get from checking out a Lynx or Apogee or something, but that's probably overkill for most homerecorders unless they're going to open a studio or something. I'm not overly familiar with the Firebox, but it's probably already at +4 by default.


sl

 

[juan162]

I have no high end mics or pres. I'm not bragging, it's just a point of fact . I am a voice teacher by trade and record my students everyday. I found one great truth - my sucky students sound sucky when recorded and my great students sound great when recorded! If I can capture a good performance by a talented musician/musicians, I usually end up with a good recording.

With that said, I do plan to work on slowly upgrading my recording chain. I've got decent mics and a few decent cables, a decent pair of monitors and my next move will be to try a better preamp.

This is where I actually have a question, and sorry for the post hijack. I currently am using the pres on my Alesis IO14. Will I hear a noticable difference in quality if I get an RNP, or should I save $200-400 more and get a higher end pre? If you're wondering, I mainly record classical or musical theater vocals as well as classical concerts and recitals. Any takers?

Juan

 

[TyphoidHippo]

oh yea i always felt my compression skills were not that great...........i only used the digital ones (wave, audition) but i hear hardware compressors are better.......so could someone point me in the right direction about compressors like could i use them with the firebox? also if am using a compressor while recording do i gotta find the right setting for each recording, meaning i can't change it my sound with out recording and setting a new setting......(hope that makes sense)

I just looked at the user manual for your firebox and there doesn't seem to be any way to use any outboard gear as an insert (between the preamp and converter)...which means that you would have to have a different preamp in order to insert a compressor in the analog signal chain. The only way you could do it without having a different preamp would be to use your software to route the input of one of the front preamps to one of your numbered outputs on the back, pass that through the compressor, and route that output back into a line in on your firebox - but I do not recommend doing that, because you would be going from analog to digital to analog and back to digital again...which is just generally not considered a great idea.

So....that's kinda disappointing but I wouldn't worry about it too terribly much if I was you - I was just suggesting to buy a good analog compressor if you just really want to buy *something* right now, heh.

Anyway, if you ever do decide to buy an outboard compressor, I would personally recommend a DBX 166XL as a first compressor for anyone, because it is a lot of bang for your buck and I have personally used, and still currently use them in about a billion different ways with great results. It gives you a very usable and handy gate, a really, really nice limiter (at least in my opinion - I love the way it limits, especially when used as a main insert for live sound), and a great compressor in one rack space.

As to how you would use it - you would insert it in your signal chain between a preamp and your firebox's line in. If you were to get some kind of preamp or mixer that had inserts then you would use side chain cable to insert the compressor there, and if you got a preamp that just had line outs then you would run those to your compressor and then send the compressor out to the firebox.

Setting it up - you first set your gate very loosely to where it brings any ambient noise (like when the vocalist isn't actually singing) to complete silence - which is always a handy thing to have from the get-go, then set your limiter to keep the bloody murder screamer-type people from clipping your firebox and then set your compression to taste. You would not necessarily have to change it for every single vocalist - only if it does undesirable things to their voice (which it won't do unless you just overcompress the snot out of them - it's really not too terribly easy to make a 166XL sound crappy...).

This is a helpful guide to "Compression 101" on DBX's website:
You can use the info there with any compressor... It should definitely get you started in the right direction (even if you choose to just stick with your firebox and use compressor plugins in your DAW software - which can certainly achieve great results, no doubt).

Anyway....hope some of that info helps, and everyone have a Merry Christmas!

 

[cavedog101]

One of the big differences between using a software compressor as opposed to the hardware type is the ability to remove it should you happen to get a setting that sucks. With the hardware you are stuck with it. This means learning to live with the mistake and perhaps creating a whole new era of compression usage due to your 'wonderful mistake' which goes on to sell eight zillion units, or you simply erase and begin again.

The software would allow you to retain the original track with or without the compression.

There are 'older' methods for compressing that date back to acetate usage....(errr tape) involving sidechaining or parallel compression, but those are archaic in comparrison to what you can accomplish with the computer.

Even though I am an old analog person and still dont use a computer to record with, I have experienced the ProTools thingy and I didnt have a problem at all with the sound of the UA bundle in HD. Of course there are artifacts that they simply cannot (at this time ) write into the program, but they're damn close. The software is still very very usefull and really quiet in comparison to the originals. (some of the artifacts they cant add....or wont!)

 

[kojdogg]

One of the big differences between using a software compressor as opposed to the hardware type is the ability to remove it should you happen to get a setting that sucks. With the hardware you are stuck with it. This means learning to live with the mistake and perhaps creating a whole new era of compression usage due to your 'wonderful mistake' which goes on to sell eight zillion units, or you simply erase and begin again.

The software would allow you to retain the original track with or without the compression.

There are 'older' methods for compressing that date back to acetate usage....(errr tape) involving sidechaining or parallel compression, but those are archaic in comparrison to what you can accomplish with the computer.

Even though I am an old analog person and still dont use a computer to record with, I have experienced the ProTools thingy and I didnt have a problem at all with the sound of the UA bundle in HD. Of course there are artifacts that they simply cannot (at this time ) write into the program, but they're damn close. The software is still very very usefull and really quiet in comparison to the originals. (some of the artifacts they cant add....or wont!)

Parallel compression is still fairly widely used-- particularly for buss compression.
I think there are numerous reasons to use outboard compressors while tracking-- they can prevent signals from clipping your converters, *they can dramatically improve feel during a performance (particularly on bass and vocals IME) which, can in turn, result in a better performance*, and, at least as this point, some still sound better than software plugins (though I use lots of those myself).
On mixdown, you'd use them the same way you'd use a plug in, of course and you wouldn't have to print anything if you don't want to.
One of the awesome advantages of software compressors, of course, is that if you get a UAD card with some compressor plugs or something similar, you can use them multiple times on multiple tracks while mixing instead of just having one to use.

*this may be the only part of my post that's relevant to the OP

 

[giraffe]

I have no high end mics or pres. I'm not bragging, it's just a point of fact . I am a voice teacher by trade and record my students everyday. I found one great truth - my sucky students sound sucky when recorded and my great students sound great when recorded! If I can capture a good performance by a talented musician/musicians, I usually end up with a good recording.

With that said, I do plan to work on slowly upgrading my recording chain. I've got decent mics and a few decent cables, a decent pair of monitors and my next move will be to try a better preamp.

This is where I actually have a question, and sorry for the post hijack. I currently am using the pres on my Alesis IO14. Will I hear a noticable difference in quality if I get an RNP, or should I save $200-400 more and get a higher end pre? If you're wondering, I mainly record classical or musical theater vocals as well as classical concerts and recitals. Any takers?

Juan

you'll prob notice a little difference in that change, and you'll probably never outgrow a rnp, even when you have much more expensive stuff it'll still be useful.

 

[dgatwood]

I was surprised to learn the M-Audio 2496 doesn't do +4. Yeah, line level is basic. I was alluding more to the difference you might get from checking out a Lynx or Apogee or something, but that's probably overkill for most homerecorders unless they're going to open a studio or something. I'm not overly familiar with the Firebox, but it's probably already at +4 by default.


sl

M-Audio 2496: $87
Creative Soundblaster X-Fi Platinum Fatal1ty Champion Series: $168.93

So not more expensive than a Soundblaster....

I said what I meant, and I meant what I said....

 

[thajeremy]

Sorry, but saying buying a good mic and using it with a less-than-stellar pre is pointless, is retarded.

oh...well...to me its like taking a nice pretty clean white shirt and draging it through a pile of shit and expecting it to come out just as clean and white.....

but hey...thats just me....

 

[Robert D]

Sorry, but saying buying a good mic and using it with a less-than-stellar pre is pointless, is retarded.

oh...well...to me its like taking a nice pretty clean white shirt and draging it through a pile of shit and expecting it to come out just as clean and white.....

but hey...thats just me....

"Less than stellar" doesn't necessarily equal "pile of shit". If the preamp sucks, yes, anything passing through it will suck. But there are several modest preamps that will faithfully apply nothing but clean gain to whatever mic is plugged into it. Given such a preamp, you most certainly will hear the virtues of better mics coming through loud and clear.

It's not one or the other, it's a matter of balance.