Is all this about colors?

J

Javo

New member
Hello, I will try to upgrade my signal chain to a better mic and preamp. Which do you think should come first as a step up? the mic or the preamp?
And about colors... I understand that the majority of preamps do color the sound, specially those with tubes in it. Now, if I want to have the right color sound, would it be better to have a smooth and natural clean sound, and then add coloration with eq? You would end up with infinite possibilities of eq, by changing the frequency response curve with eq!
Or is the coloration obtained by pre-amps are too unique to emulate with eq? so you will need the best combination of mic and preamp to obtain what you want...???

I have been reading the threads and cant still figure this out myself. I don't want to spend my money buying a bag of mics and preamps just to see which color match another color... this sounds too subjective to me...

I need real and straightforward answers... thanks
 
The coloration you get from a preamp, differs from what you do with an EQ. The coloration on a preamp also consist of ADDING harmonics, while an EQ is designed to just boost/cut frequencies in the original signal.

That's the main idea I guess. You can start nitpicking, an EQ will probably also add some sort of harmonics etc...
 
Javo said:
I need real and straightforward answers... thanks
Click to expand...

If such a thing existed, then you wouldn't have so many different opinions, and all music would sound the same, and it would all be good.

On the surface, your question seems like it should have a real simple answer to it. Cut out all of this nonsense and just tell me how it is, and what's better and what's the right thing to do?

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. It's a lot like clothing selection. I could come on to this board and say:

"Alright, I'm trying to pick out my fall fashions. What should I go with? Blue Jeans, Khakis, slacks? Oh, and pick out some shirts for me that will go with it, too. What colors should I be looking at, by the way? Should I go for a neutral-colored shirt and loud, colorful pants, or vice-versa?

Can someone just give me a straight answer to this one, too?"

Problem is clothing selection is a subjective thing. What is your personality? What do you like? What kind of chicks are you looking to impress? How much money do you have to spend? What color is your hair? What color are your eyes and skin tone? Are you tall or short? Skinny or big? What do you already have in your wardrobe? What stores do you have nearby?

etc. etc. etc. etc. to infinite.

All of these factors will play a huge roll in deciding what kinds of clothing you should select. And in the end, often the best thing to do is just try it on and se if you like it.

That said, I'll give you my opinion on color: If there's a particular sound or color you are after, then spend some time in the mp3 clinic and listen to what some of the guys there are crankin' out. If you hear something that has a particular "stamp" that you find appealing and would like to emulate, ask that person how he/she got it.

9 times out of 10 they probably achieved that sound either by mic positioning, tracking technique, a particular type of guitar or brand of string, an outboard effect, or just a certain way of performing. Rarely do you notice any truly obvious colors that a mic or pre will impart. But there are exceptions.
 
If you want to use your preamp for many purposes, I would start with one clean, transparent and non-coloring, and then add coloring with more preamps when you feel that this is something your sound really needs to become better.

If you plan to use your preamp only for one or two single purposes, like only doing vocals, for example, then you might want one with a suitable coloring for that purpose.
 
Re: Re: Is all this about colors?

chessrock said:


If such a thing existed, then you wouldn't have so many different opinions, and all music would sound the same, and it would all be good.....
Click to expand...


great post chess.
 
Ok, now I'm understanding, thank you Roel for the technical knowledge and regebro and Chess. What i'm understanding from what I've read here is that the microphone itself give you more or less the frequency response you are looking, and the preamp improves it or worsens it by adding harmonics that may be pleasent to the ear. I can understand that. Now, with all the DSP development going on via plug-ins etc. would you be able to emulate those harmonics giving you every possible flavor. I think short in the future there will be a pre-amp emulator for vocals, that will be emulating preamps. There will always be the digital vs analog comparison, but I think I will get a clean preamp and then alter the sound to meet my tastes by playing with DSP. Anybody has use Warmtone from AIPL. I have use it and it does add warmth to the sound by playing with tube and tape saturation emulation. I can't say its as real as the real thing but it does something there that give you warmth.
By the way Warmtone is a DirectX plugin. I'm using this as an example of the type of things you can obtain with DSP.
Hope someone can debate what things will never be attained by DSP? It will be very interesting.
Now, the things in my wishlist are:

SP C1 (read that the MXL V67 compares with it or surpasses it)
SM-57 - it seems to me that this is a whole purpose mic
SP VTB-1 - I read it has a clean natural sound when doing SS and some coloration with the tube on.
or M-Audio DMP-3 - This one is two channel but very clean and I was almost decided in buying it when the VTB-1 reviews came out.

If i'm able to aquire both preamps will do so, any reason to invest in other mic instead of preamp? Maybe...

Oh, and an ECM8000 too cheap to let it slip away. And everyone is talking good things about it.. so will be about $800 and i'm set.
Any recommendations? please :)
 
Some of the things you are saying are debatable.

DSP can add color and some of it is good, but not necessarily believeable yet. I have AIMPL and I think it's kind of comparable to a "suck knob."

Keep in mind that there's a difference between good tube sound and bad, and the AIMPL and others sound kinda' bad if you ask me. Compare it to the dsp modeling that is attempted with a guitar amp modeler. The more I listen to a POD, the more I can appreciate a real amp.

If you're recording to PC, then you might have a look at the new Mackie / Universal Audio suite -- the UAD. It's a dedicated PCI card with it's own build-in DSP that power it's plugins. From what I gather, some of it's analog gear modeling is downright believeable, if not just plain good.

. . . Just a few things to consider.
 
What is AIMPL? Is that the mic modelling plug-in from Antares? I downloaded the demo from Antares website and to me it changed some things in the eq or sound. Do not know if it does anything else than alter the eq curve. Maybe it alters the harmonics too...but I found some interesting new sounds to use.
I haven't used any POD but I have used the Revalver plug-in demo it emulates very good the different guitar distortions... I can tell you that I never use it with a real guitar I use it with my keyboard! with some clean guitar presets, and the thing blows me.. it sounds as a damn real distortioned guitar. Hope someday soon there will be a preamp modeler too. I'm willing to hear any songs or little demo pieces recorded with different preamps to see if all this subtle changes people writes in the forums is worth the money paid or will I stick to my actual gear.
 
Javo said:
. Hope someday soon there will be a preamp modeler too. .
Click to expand...

Roland makes a preamp modeler, the MMP-2 Mic Modeling Preamp, and there are some others too. I have no idea if they are any good and I don't remember reading any reviews of them.
 
Re: Re: Is all this about colors?

chessrock said:



9 times out of 10 they probably achieved that sound either by mic positioning, tracking technique, a particular type of guitar or brand of string, an outboard effect, or just a certain way of performing. Rarely do you notice any truly obvious colors that a mic or pre will impart. But there are exceptions.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with that...and would like to express in my opinion that in the home recording world, that is ever more so true. I believe when you get up into the "big boy" sound....ya know..acoustic gtr sounds to kill for, gorgeous vocals...the finely tuned ears of world class engineers are able to tweak out "that extra" using these 'colors'...thus keeping the majority of the home reccors stuff sounding...just like home reccor stuff. Very close (to world class) in many situations..but no cigar.
 
The idea that the main purpose of a high end preamp is to "color" the sound seems to me to be backwards thinking. The main purpose of a high end preamp is to increase the accuracy and frequency range with which the mic signal is amplified, especially as compared to a "cheap" preamp.

The fact that no preamp does this exactly the same way as another of a different design means that the "imperfections" (or distortion) from each preamp is slightly different. In the high end preamps, what distortion exists tends to be "musical" by nature, so it is often seen as imparting a desireable color. But most high end preamps are still striving for a high degree of accuracy, whether they are tube or solid state in design.

Other factors that can contribute to the high cost of top preamps include the quality of the components (power supply, chassis, circuitry, point-to-point wiring, connectors, meters and knobs, etc.), extra features (like a high grade EQ, impedence switching, etc.), and location and methods (and scale) of manufacturing. A piece that's built to last a lifetime has an inherent value based on that quality aside from how it sounds.
 
To me it seems that most high-end preamps are not built to be as accurate as possible in the sound the achieve, but instead built to emulate high-end preamps from the 60's. :)
 
IMHO

most pre amps want to create the sound of those older analog head bumps and frequency curves where low mids have been bumped to warm up the sound. tht isn't possile with flat converters, pre aamps, micropohones, and A/D. So does all this 20-20,000Hz +/- 1dB mean much? Not really since you still want to record your analog headbumped bass saturated signals. How do you emulate that? Don't ask me, buy the gear.
 
I don't think you can point to one aspect of an analog chain, like the head bump on a tape deck, and say that's where the "analog sound" comes from. It's a combination of many factors, hysterisis in transformers, saturation, the amount of negative feedback in the cirduit, the way some analog equipment distorts when lightly overdriven, the nature of even and odd distortion, and the intent of the original equipment designer.

Low noise and distortion isn't the sole property of digital equipment; engineers have designed tube equipment for years that is lower noise, wide range, with distortion figures that approach the vanishing point, compared to the new breed of digital products.

In actual fact, we don't really know all the differences yet and what factors are most important in creating analog warmth, or how to reduce digital coldness. We do know it's a combination of many things, but we're just not sure exactly what those things are.
 
Thanks Harvey for taking the time to respond. I will check that Roland preamp emulator...
Hope I'll figure out whats better for my studio soon.
Let me see if I can find a comparison of the VTB-1 with the DMP-3 in a thread, if I find it I'll post it here.
 
littledog said:
The idea that the main purpose of a high end preamp is to "color" the sound seems to me to be backwards thinking. The main purpose of a high end preamp is to increase the accuracy and frequency range with which the mic signal is amplified, especially as compared to a "cheap" preamp.

The fact that no preamp does this exactly the same way as another of a different design means that the "imperfections" (or distortion) from each preamp is slightly different. In the high end preamps, what distortion exists tends to be "musical" by nature, so it is often seen as imparting a desireable color. But most high end preamps are still striving for a high degree of accuracy, whether they are tube or solid state in design.
Click to expand...

and I would agree with that also. Why everyone doesn't want equipment that faithfully reproduces what signal it is given, has kinda been beyond me, except for the fact that the really "good" ears 'seemingly' are able to predict and hear how an "imperfection" is able to actually "improve" the sound. My abilities seem to be leaning towards getting the sound right in the first place, and then my learning curve drops of quickly when I try to 'hear' whether something needs some "analog oomph" or a sm58 bump. I understand the theory, but find the method kinda backwards too. Not that trying for 30 some odd years hasn't helped...but my jazz guitar still stinks too!
 
For the amount of money that many home recordists are willing to spend, consideration of a mic preamp's "coloration" is important. When you start listening to preamps that cost $600 per channel and up, often it is their LACK of coloration that becomes more important. Unfortunately, no "preamp emulator" will make a $200 mic preamp sound like a $3,000 mic preamp. Likewise, a preamp that works well for one kind of music (rock) may not be the best choice for another (chamber music, for instance). It pays to listen and to learn what you like.

Best wishes,

Mark H.
 
Javo said:
Hello, I will try to upgrade my signal chain to a better mic and preamp. Which do you think should come first as a step up? the mic or the preamp?
Click to expand...

I'll take a stab at answering this aspect of it.

"it depends." :D

If you have a cheap mic and a decent pre then upgrade your mic. If you have a cheap pre then upgrade that.

Upgrading your pre will make a decent mic sound immediately better, in my experience. Putting a great mic through a cheap pre, though, will not let the mic shine even if it sounds better than a cheaper mic.

Overall, I noticed the biggest increase in the clarity of my sound when I made the following changes (in order of biggest change to smallest change.)

1) Changed from tascam 4-track pres to an Art Tube MP (BIG jump in quality!)
2) Upgraded from dynamic mics (Shure sm57) to condensors (AKG c1000s' and GT 5sm)
3) Upgraded to Alesis Studio24 mixer pres.

At this point, I'm not really increasing my signal quality as much as I am adding DIFFERENT sounds to my options. Each mic sounds different through each pre, so each new pre adds a whole mic locker full of different sounds. By the same token, each new mic offers as many new sounds as your pres (and mic placement) will allow.

The bottom line, though, is that no matter how wonderful the DSP effects may be, they can't do much with a low quality signal. I'd shoot for at least decent mics and a good transparent pre before spending money on DSP to make them sound different.

Take care,
Chris
 
Chris thank you very much for your post, I think the garbage in = garbage out is what you are tryihg to tell me with the DSP effects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top