High end preamps, are they worth it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dreib

Active member
Since the thread that tried to cover this got derailed big time yesterday I thought I would start another one with some interesting links. I talked to a lot of salesman, read a few articles, and ended up changing my opinion on where to spend my money for my recording chain.

Lets keep it on topic boy's.

Preamp post-mortem

The Book Outlines Wiki / Predictably Irrational

Can You Tell The Difference? ART vs. Great River! - Gearslutz.com



Don't get me wrong if I had unlimited resources I would have one of everything, I AM NOT saying anyone who spent over a grand on a pre didn't need to.
 
Can I be the troll this time? :D

From the derailed thread ... I kinda like what Richard Monroe had to say about preamps.

Gotta find the link now.
 
No. Not worth it.


But something's "worth" is totally dependent on the person interested. If having some umpteen million dollar preamp makes some shmoe think that his shit will be better and therefore he tries harder or gets inspired, then yeah, it's worth it to him.
 
Greg_L said:
No. Not worth it.


But something's "worth" is totally dependent on the person interested. If having some umpteen million dollar preamp makes some shmoe think that his shit will be better and therefore he tries harder or gets inspired, then yeah, it's worth it to him.
Click to expand...

I concur.
 
Yes....in the right signal chain and specific situation, and in the right hands, they will sound better than most $200 preamps, a lot of the time. Only thing those "blind" comparisons do is show that each person has a different opinion about what they are hearing, there is little real consensus on what is "better" in a given situation....but when you're squeezing the wallet, and wondering if you can afford to drop a $1000+ on a preamp, it may be hard for some people to take that step and spend that much money on one item. There’s people here who want to have a pro studio and get pro results….on a $500 total budget, and they get very offended if someone tells them it can’t be done.

If you are going to buy an expensive preamp, and the rest of your signal chain is so-so....then you won't get much out of it.
Also, you need to know what you are listening for when comparing preamps and what a high-end pre does for the signal.
The problem is that some people think a high-end pre will magically improve the signal in a very big, noticeable way, and because it's more money, the sound quality will be proportionally better per dollar.....and when they are not blown away, they believe that the high-end pre was a waste of money.
It can be a subtle thing, but when combined with the right mic and the rest of your signal chain and production....it makes a difference.

People can look for reasons to deny that, but getting opinions on what's the best gear on a home rec forum often ends up with the majority going for the inexpensive stuff, and then often there's the follow up argument, "it's only home recording, and I'm just recording for fun".
Well...that's fine, no one is saying you have to compete with pro studios ....but you'll never match the sound quality of a high-end signal chain and production process of a pro studio...with a $50 mic, $200 pre and $100 interface going to a laptop in the corner of your bedroom, no matter how "experienced" you are. You certainly don't have to try and match it....but then what's the point of even asking about high-end pres?

There was a thread around here just recently, where someone was asking another member how they got that specific vocal sound that was on a lot of their YT videos. When the guy finally responded and listed about $20k worth of signal chain.....the thread died quickly.
Now, you don't need a $20k signal chain....but you ain't gonna' do it with $200.
As I said in the other thread....you might need to try out several preamps....have them in your hands, in your studio, spend some time recording with them, using different mics on different sources, and then seeing how all that gels in the mix...and finally THEN you might understand what's better/worse about preamp A or B or C....and then keep the ones you like and sell the ones you don't. I doubt many people do that, or have the opportunity....so it comes down to maybe one pre that they bought and tried, or what other people have said on some forum about a given pre....which is not going to give you a clear answer or understanding what makes one pre the better choice or not....regardless of the price.
 
I don't think that it can be completely dismissed that maybe the reason these shoot outs or blind tests usually have surprising results is because the difference is insignificant. I mean if every blind test came back with everyone saying that the expensive pre was the most pleasing, then most people would say duh, look how expensive it is, or yea well its a 1073 or whatever.

Anyway , I think its fascinating how preconceived notions can be tested .
 
every 'better' piece of gear will offer incremental improvements, if you are chasing the ultimate chain.

if you can afford it, you probably would not be asking the question.
 
dreib said:
Anyway , I think its fascinating how preconceived notions can be tested .
Click to expand...

Well....if it's a blind test, preconceived notions are not in play....right? I think way too much gets made from these tests/shootouts, and in the end, people will walk away with what they wanted. So if someone is looking for a cheap preamp but not sure....these kinds of tests are then viewed as a confirmation that they don't need to spend a lot of money...and that's what they really wanted to hear. The fact that there is nothing in the so-called tests that actually proves anything specific, is irrelevant to them....they simply want to feel good about not having to spend money.

Even the SoS article that you linked to says that the results of the test don't mean a heck of a lot. Not to mention....they only tested them using a MIDI sequence through a digital piano, I believe....so it's not much to go on.

It should be emphasized again that these scores don't represent any sort of scientific assessment, and indeed, it is fascinating to read the wildly differing views allocated to the same preamp by different people. It was quite common to find a preamp rated first choice by some and eighth by others, or to be described simultaneously as having "classy vintage sound” and being "strident and grainy”! Clearly, different people have different expectations and preferences, and 'hear' different qualities — whether real or imagined, who can say?
Click to expand...


As I said....you need a bunch of pres in your studio, and to spend some time with them, and then you might start formulating an objective opinion about what you want to spend your money on. Anything less, and it's just guessing, in which case the choices get driven by the wallet.
 
Signal chain, signal flow is where it is at. Garbage in garbage out. A high end pre will not fix a poor mic choice or poor performance. I love great pre's but without the right stuff in front you are f****ed. I have heard fine recordings done with very cheap pre's; ys the s/n ratios are different but it is all about the capture and the performance. Technology will not make your recordings better. Your use of the technology will make a better product. [/RIGHT]
 
My opinion is that:

A: Depends on how expensive you mean. I really don't think a $2k preamp sounds that much better than a $1k preamp (if both were clones of the same thing and all other things were equal so no extra controls like eq or compressor)

B: Single source examples are an incredibly poor way to evaluate a preamp. Nobody has done it yet but I would prefer to hear how a preamp stacked against another when recording the same song twice. So all 16 tracks of your song processed through one preamp, and then again through the competition.
 
Guitargodgt said:
B: Single source examples are an incredibly poor way to evaluate a preamp. Nobody has done it yet but I would prefer to hear how a preamp stacked against another when recording the same song twice. So all 16 tracks of your song processed through one preamp, and then again through the competition.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but preamps are not commonly used to "process" multi-track mixes, so what's that going to really tell you?
Most people use single preamp channel to amplify a single mic source, so they would be familiar with how that would work on an acoustic guitar, or vocal, or piano, etc.
With multiple tracks, going through a preamp, there's too much stuff going on at the same time, and it's not really a function of a preamp to "process" mixes (though of course you can do that if you like).
 
I bought an LA610 last year (used off Ebay for $1100 US). I use it for vocals only with my Sputnik mic. I have only recorded a few things (mostly backups) but I like the way it sounds compared to my raw Lexicon U42S Interface preamp (very clean and bright IMO). For one thing I use the EQ to trim some of the high end harshness at 10K. The compressor is set to 3/10 and that is just enough to compress the peaks and give it some color. I have not had to compress in the mix as such.

I sing through it live on a regular basis for practice moreso and love the way it responds compared to a straight condensor through the mixer. It's not "incredibly different" but it does give me a nicer overall sound/tone/vibe and I think it's worth what I paid for it.
 
miroslav said:
Yeah, but preamps are not commonly used to "process" multi-track mixes, so what's that going to really tell you?
Most people use single preamp channel to amplify a single mic source, so they would be familiar with how that would work on an acoustic guitar, or vocal, or piano, etc.
With multiple tracks, going through a preamp, there's too much stuff going on at the same time, and it's not really a function of a preamp to "process" mixes (though of course you can do that if you like).
Click to expand...

Correct. Maybe reamp the entire mix track by track through the same preamp then? Or track it twice, I don't know.

All I know is I'm not going to judge a preamp based on a single source comparison.
 
Guitargodgt said:
All I know is I'm not going to judge a preamp based on a single source comparison.
Click to expand...

That's why I was saying earlier that you have to work with a preamp for awhile...try it on a bunch of stuff, with different mics...and then you can come to some realistic conclusion about it.
 
A couple of things:

As others have basically said "better" is a subjective term. Different people are looking for different qualities in their sound.

That's where high end pre amps come into it--if you have a top notch performance, acoustics, microphone, A to D and monitoring then the subtle differences between pre amps can add something you like to your recording. That's why specialist pre amps are available and used in really high end pro studios--based on all the other aspects, they may want to add "warmth" or "clarity" or whatever.

However, I think it has to be said that, unless the rest of your chain is perfect, your $2000 (or whatever) would be better spent on acoustic treatment, microphones, monitors...or even singing lessons!
 
still love the pompous answers!

"a duhh well, if you cant sing or have a bad song, no preamp will help you, and if your mic stinks no preamp will help"

Everybody together now "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO CHITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT"

Imagine a customer walks in a music store with his son who wants a guitar. The father asks the salesman, "do you think this guitar is ok for a beginner" And the salesman saying "well, if your son doesnt have any talent, no guitar will matter"

Why not assume people have an idea what they are doing otherwise, and answer a damn question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top