preamp comparison

One thing to remember is that the classic "Neve" sound comes from much more than just the Neve preamps. Neve's also have an incredible EQ on them. When you get into a Neve channel strip, the versatility becomes exponential. Having a good channel EQ is just as valuable, if not more valuable, then having a good preamp.
 
$2,000? Wow, you could get any of the following...

Avalon vt737sp
Great River ME-1NV
Vintech X73i
Neve Portico

Any of those would be a good choice!
 
Peetr3 said:
hahah brad the AT440 is a pretty good microphone, i know the other mics are subpar for what I'm gonig for, but I have freinds that own incredible mics they would most likely be willing to lend. Good microphones alone straight into the 002 are not going to sound that great without a good mic pre correct?
Click to expand...
Well, see, the problem is that you probably just aren't ready to be dropping that kind of jing on a great preamp. Please understand Peetr3, that I'm not trying to diss you. But, you do sound as if you're really, really inexperienced. The reason that I don't think you need to be buying a high $$$ preamp is that, first of all, it's not the weakest point in your signal chain. And you will get the biggest improvement in your sound by improving the weakest link in the signal chain. The preamp in your 002 is more than capable of producing very nice sounding recordings. Not world class, no. But it's fully capable of producing pretty darn good recordings, provided that you are able to use it to it's full potential. And, frankly, until you're able to squeeze really nice recordings out of the gear that you already have, you don't need to be spending big bucks on a new pre. ESPECIALLY when you don't even have a clue about how one preamp sounds different from another one.

At this point, you should be trying to fill in as many weak spots in your recording chain as possible. Right now, the most obvious weak spot is your mic collection. (Again, I haven't even asked you about your monitoring chain. I suspect that, if I did then THAT would probably turn out to be the biggest weak spot, and the one you need to address first.) So, assuming that there is NOT a problem with your monitoring or room treatment, then you first need to fill in that mic collection. You will also need to train your ears to be able to hear the subtle differences that various changes make in your recordings. This will takes several months to years of practice. Quite frankly, you might spend a couple of grand on a preamp right now and not be able to hear ANY DIFFERENCE AT ALL, compared to what you already have to work with. That might be because your monitoring system is so poor that it simply won't resolve the difference between a cheap preamp and an expensive one. Another possibility is that your sense of hearing has not been developed to such a degree that you can hear a difference between them.

Right now, you need to fill in your mic collection so you have some decent tools to work with. THEN, you need to make lots and lots of recordings with the gear you've got. Keep making recordings until the mixes start sounding pretty good to you. And THEN, you need to keep making more recordings until the same mixes no longer sound so good to you. At THAT POINT, you're hearing will have developed to the point where you can start to make rational decisions about what you need to buy to upgrade your equipment. But NOT BEFORE!!! When you can hear a particular weakness in your system, then you should spend money to fix THAT problem. You might need new monitors more than you need a new preamp. Or you might need better compressors, better mics, some more room treatment, or whatever. So, you will need to fix that problem. Then, just repeat this process over and over. You really shouldn't just go around dropping one or two thousand dollars! to solve problems that you may not even have, to make a difference that you may not even be able to HEAR, just because somebody on a web site tells you to do this or that, in order to get a "professional sound." That's just plain foolish.

Hope that makes sense. Lots of luck on your journey!

Brad
 
Middleman said:
Brad, your profile says you are a psychotherapist by day. I would have never guessed.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is correct. It's been over two decades now, since I was involved with audio recording on a professional level, as an engineer, a producer, and a session musician. Back in THOSE days, the only time you ran across a Neve preamp, was when it was attached to something that we used to call a "Neve Console." ;)

Brad
 
Middleman said:
First let me say, if you had read the entire thread you would have known I reversed my recommendation from NEVE to API. Regarding Neve however, you need to take some time and learn the differences. Neves are not that colored. Big ended, rich maybe but not deeply colored like a tube preamp.
Click to expand...
I think I should reply to this, since you made some statements that I believe are highly inaccurate. First of all, I DID read the entire thread, and I AM aware that you changed your recommendation to API, instead of Neve. Both recommendations are bad. Keep in mind that the guy who is asking this question is a 19 yr. old kid who has a pitifully weak mic collection, will probably be monitoring his recordings on the same computer speakers that he uses when he plays Doom III with his buddies, and most likely hasn't taken the time to train his ears to even be able to HEAR the difference between a Neve or an API preamp (or the ones on his 002, for that matter). Recommending ANY high end preamp to somebody like this is just plain irresponsible. ANY of them would be a ridiculous waste of his money.

I must admit that I am rather surprised that you still insist that the Neve-style pre's have relatively little "color," while also claiming that ALL tube preamps are rather heavily "colored." I strongly disagree with that, on both sides of the equation. I have always just assumed that it is common knowledge that Neve pre's are very nice sounding, but rather heavily colored. I thought EVERYBODY knew that. Obviously, that's not the case. But, since you've said that you're familiar with Lynn Fuston's Preamp Test CD, from 3D Audio, then I suggest that you break it out and do some comparative listening. Compare the Neve-style pre's (either the actual vintage pre, or the Great River) to any of the famously "neutral" pres such as the Earthworks or the Sytek, and I think that you will hear quite clearly just how "colored" the Neve's are. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the Neve-style pres are some of the most strongly "colored" pres on the entire CD. But don't just take my word for it. Listen for yourself and learn the difference.

Furthermore, claiming that all tube pres are strongly colored is also very, very far from the truth. On CHEAP tube pres, yes, they do tend to have a certain "color." In particular, they often have rolled off high frequencies, and the highs that are there tend to be blurry and indistinct. But QUALITY tube pres certainly don't sound like this. The good ones can be supremely neutral and accurate. In fact, when I think of the "tube sound," I think of things like extended high frequencies, excellent spacial relationship and "air" between the various instruments, and EXTREMELY accurate tonal representation, especially in the midrange. To me (and many others), these qualities equal a MORE honest and truthful presentation than you can get from transistor electronics.

Of course, as to the question of whether or not tube electronics are MORE "accurate and realistic" than transistor electronics, well, this is a debate that has raged among the audiophile community for decades, and STILL hasn't been resolved. I don't know what YOUR music collection is like, Middleman. However, I will say that some of the most stunningly accurate "you are there"-type of recordings that I personally own are jazz and classical recordings that were recorded in the 1950's, which were made using tube mics AND tube preamps. In fact, there are a few audiophile-quality recordings out there that were recorded with tube mics, into tube preamps, and then sent directly to a tube-driven cutting lathe to cut laquers that were then used to produce special limited-edition LP pressings. This is still being done (occasionally) today, even in this era of digital recordings. And, regardless of where you stand on the "transistor vs. tube debate," absolutely NOBODY could claim that these recordings (which are purely analog, and 100% tube-based) are "colored" in any sense of the term. I believe that they are, quite simply, some of the most stunningly life-like and truthful recordings ever made.
Middleman said:
I agree on this point. Lynn's CD is a great reference product for choosing preamps. However, there is adequate detail at Dan Richards (DOTs) site to make a decision.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of there being sufficient "detail," Middleman. MP3's certainly have plenty of detail. Unfortunately, there are also some very deep, fundamental problems with MP3 files that make it fundamentally impossible to make critical purchase decisions on something as sensitive as a microphone preamp.

For the sake of argument, let's just ignore the fact that MP3's alter the spacial relationship between instruments, and often make the high frequencies sound harsh and "brittle." For now, let's just focus on the one simple fact, which I mentioned earlier. When you encode a musical recording into MP3, it will alter the frequency balance of the recording. Some frequencies will be attenuated, while others will be boosted. This is just a fact of life with MP3's. So, trying to compare the sound of two preamps that have been recorded to MP3 simply isn't going to work. It is, basically, like going to a listening session at a store, but before you get to listen to the pres, the salesman says, "Well, I'm going to let you listen to these two preamps, but first, I'm going to hook up this graphic equalizer, and I'm going to change the frequency response of the signal going into them, and I'm NOT GOING TO LET YOU KNOW which frequencies will be altered." Obviously, this won't work! Even the fact that both pres are changed in the same way, doesn't solve the problem, since one preamp might benefit from a slight frequency boost at, let's say, 5 Khz, and another might be hurt by it. And we are only looking at ONE of the many problems with the MP3 format. Bottom line, it is incredibly unwise to try to make any critical purchase decisions on ANY piece of musical equipment, simply by listening to a bunch of MP3's.

Brad
 
Brad,

Don't worry I'm not offended, I'll be the first to admit I'm a 19 year old that is just breaking into recording (and really only knows what hes told about it). I've been playing guitar and writing songs for about 7 years and i'm just very interested in recording. I've been saving some cash so I've been taking suggestions and I really apprecaite your constructive criticism.

So my solution:

Record my ass off with the mbox.

Eventually purchase the 002...record my ass off with that

Purchase some really good monitors (the ones I have are not terrible but not great...I don't use them to play Doom III hahah I bought them for recording)

Condition my room better.

Record More.

Purchase a few good mics...record more again

Purchase a good preamp (when my good recordings start to sound not so good anymore)


Thanks to everyone who put in their 2 cents! If you guys think this is a good way for me to start off getting decent at recording let me know because I'm taking Brad's suggestion as of right now.

- Pete
 
Bassman Brad said:
I think I should reply to this, since you made some statements that I believe are highly inaccurate. First of all, I DID read the entire thread, and I AM aware that you changed your recommendation to API, instead of Neve. Both recommendations are bad. Keep in mind that the guy who is asking this question is a 19 yr. old kid who has a pitifully weak mic collection, will probably be monitoring his recordings on the same computer speakers that he uses when he plays Doom III with his buddies, and most likely hasn't taken the time to train his ears to even be able to HEAR the difference between a Neve or an API preamp (or the ones on his 002, for that matter). Recommending ANY high end preamp to somebody like this is just plain irresponsible. ANY of them would be a ridiculous waste of his money.

I must admit that I am rather surprised that you still insist that the Neve-style pre's have relatively little "color," while also claiming that ALL tube preamps are rather heavily "colored." I strongly disagree with that, on both sides of the equation. I have always just assumed that it is common knowledge that Neve pre's are very nice sounding, but rather heavily colored. I thought EVERYBODY knew that. Obviously, that's not the case. But, since you've said that you're familiar with Lynn Fuston's Preamp Test CD, from 3D Audio, then I suggest that you break it out and do some comparative listening. Compare the Neve-style pre's (either the actual vintage pre, or the Great River) to any of the famously "neutral" pres such as the Earthworks or the Sytek, and I think that you will hear quite clearly just how "colored" the Neve's are. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the Neve-style pres are some of the most strongly "colored" pres on the entire CD. But don't just take my word for it. Listen for yourself and learn the difference.

Furthermore, claiming that all tube pres are strongly colored is also very, very far from the truth. On CHEAP tube pres, yes, they do tend to have a certain "color." In particular, they often have rolled off high frequencies, and the highs that are there tend to be blurry and indistinct. But QUALITY tube pres certainly don't sound like this. The good ones can be supremely neutral and accurate. In fact, when I think of the "tube sound," I think of things like extended high frequencies, excellent spacial relationship and "air" between the various instruments, and EXTREMELY accurate tonal representation, especially in the midrange. To me (and many others), these qualities equal a MORE honest and truthful presentation than you can get from transistor electronics.

Of course, as to the question of whether or not tube electronics are MORE "accurate and realistic" than transistor electronics, well, this is a debate that has raged among the audiophile community for decades, and STILL hasn't been resolved. I don't know what YOUR music collection is like, Middleman. However, I will say that some of the most stunningly accurate "you are there"-type of recordings that I personally own are jazz and classical recordings that were recorded in the 1950's, which were made using tube mics AND tube preamps. In fact, there are a few audiophile-quality recordings out there that were recorded with tube mics, into tube preamps, and then sent directly to a tube-driven cutting lathe to cut laquers that were then used to produce special limited-edition LP pressings. This is still being done (occasionally) today, even in this era of digital recordings. And, regardless of where you stand on the "transistor vs. tube debate," absolutely NOBODY could claim that these recordings (which are purely analog, and 100% tube-based) are "colored" in any sense of the term. I believe that they are, quite simply, some of the most stunningly life-like and truthful recordings ever made.

It's not a matter of there being sufficient "detail," Middleman. MP3's certainly have plenty of detail. Unfortunately, there are also some very deep, fundamental problems with MP3 files that make it fundamentally impossible to make critical purchase decisions on something as sensitive as a microphone preamp.

For the sake of argument, let's just ignore the fact that MP3's alter the spacial relationship between instruments, and often make the high frequencies sound harsh and "brittle." For now, let's just focus on the one simple fact, which I mentioned earlier. When you encode a musical recording into MP3, it will alter the frequency balance of the recording. Some frequencies will be attenuated, while others will be boosted. This is just a fact of life with MP3's. So, trying to compare the sound of two preamps that have been recorded to MP3 simply isn't going to work. It is, basically, like going to a listening session at a store, but before you get to listen to the pres, the salesman says, "Well, I'm going to let you listen to these two preamps, but first, I'm going to hook up this graphic equalizer, and I'm going to change the frequency response of the signal going into them, and I'm NOT GOING TO LET YOU KNOW which frequencies will be altered." Obviously, this won't work! Even the fact that both pres are changed in the same way, doesn't solve the problem, since one preamp might benefit from a slight frequency boost at, let's say, 5 Khz, and another might be hurt by it. And we are only looking at ONE of the many problems with the MP3 format. Bottom line, it is incredibly unwise to try to make any critical purchase decisions on ANY piece of musical equipment, simply by listening to a bunch of MP3's.

Brad
Click to expand...

You know Brad, you have an affinity for creating realities that don't even exist. Not to mention extrapolation skills and just out-and-out twisting of the truth for your own purpose. Here is an example so people are aware of your technique.

My statement: “Neves are not that colored. Big ended, rich maybe but not deeply colored like a tube preamp. Of course this is a general comparison because all Neve preamps or Tube pres for that matter don't sound the same.”

Your recap of my comments: “must admit that I am rather surprised that you still insist that the Neve-style pre's have relatively little "color," while also claiming that ALL tube preamps are rather heavily "colored."

I think I qualified plainly that there are variations to the rule. However, you seem bent on rewriting my opinions to suit your purpose. Suffice it to say we have a difference of opinion on what colored means. By the way I just had a 1073, Portico, Great River and a D.W. Fearn here a few weeks ago for tracking. The Fearn, a tube preamp, was the most colored by far although I imagine you would have found it more pristine to your ears.

I also never stated MP3 was equal to Lynn's CD. I just defended Dan Richard's site which you so adamantly are putting down. I think his is a well done effort and can provide basic comparisons which I have found fairly accurate in the real world using some of that gear. I think it is irresponsible that you would downplay its significance because he uses MP3. Your implying that MP3s cannot be used for comparing gear is totally bogus to me. I will say it’s not my preference in formats but tell me you cannot hear the difference between the Great River and say the VTB-1 at Dan’s site.

I'm not here to coddle participants. Peetr3 asked for a preamp recommendation for the money he had available and I provided the best solution in my experience for the intended use. My recommendation by the way is used on a lot of albums for those very stated purposes. You however, took it into a realm of mic recommendations, your agenda, and with his lack of experience he would end up buying a bunch of mics with higher depreciation value vs. a really good preamp which would tend to maintain value. If he makes a mistake your way he is going to lose more money vs. trying to sell a very nice preamp. A used mic will not retain as much value plain and simple.

Another note, this is not the Newbie forum. If someone comes here and asks for a recommendation, then I assume, regardless of age, that they want some experienced advice. I do not suppress what my experience has shown nor do I go to lengths to suppress others experience, something you must be accustomed to because you have gone to great length here to indicate almost all of my recommendations were poor.

Advice for the future, if you want to maintain good relations on a forum, disagree with the color of my shoes but don’t piss on them.
.
 
Well, I have a little time to kill so I thought I would go back and see how many times I was misquoted or slandered here. Always a fun exercise.

Brad: “You seem to be a strong advocate of the Neve sound, while dismissing all tube pre's as being too "colored."

MM: Tell me where I stated that.

Brad: Furthermore, claiming that all tube pres are strongly colored is also very, very far from the truth.

MM: Never stated this. You are extrapolating.

Brad: Of course, as to the question of whether or not tube electronics are MORE "accurate and realistic" than transistor electronics, well, this is a debate that has raged among the audiophile community for decades, and STILL hasn't been resolved.

MM: Not sure who you are talking to here, possibly yourself. Is this a self therapy technique?

Brad: Unfortunately, there are also some very deep, fundamental problems with MP3 files that make it fundamentally impossible to make critical purchase decisions on something as sensitive as a microphone preamp.

MM: Hey you’re the one with MP3 issues not me. Take it out on the industry. Deep fundamental issues huh? That sounds pretty clinical to me. Sounds like a doctor’s opinion.

Brad: Bottom line, it is incredibly unwise to try to make any critical purchase decisions on ANY piece of musical equipment, simply by listening to a bunch of MP3's.

But can he have permission to just go to the site and listen, is that OK? I mean, is it Ok to give him a little background on gear. You're not against education too are you?

Wow, Peet3, you have a new dad. I would just take his suggestion and buy a bunch of mics. Let me know if that gets you the sound you are looking for.
 
Peetr3 said:
I've always been told by many people that tube is the way to go with every piece of musical amplification. Obviously an old Marshall JCM 800 is going to sound 100 times better than a solid state or valvestate new marshall.
Click to expand...

What you're saying here is something that I agree with, sort of. I'm a fan of tube amps for guitar over solid state in general. There are a couple of exceptions for odd circumstances.

The tube mysticism doesn't translate well to other gear such as mics, preamps or even power amps for listening purposes. With a guitar amp, the benefit of tubes is in how they distort and what kind of harmonics they produce.

At the preamp level, you don't want distortion.

You want headroom.

Tubes have advantages for mic design as well, but 99.9% of the designs are condenser mics. There's a large number of capable FET based condensers as well. (Don't worry about David Royer just yet.)

As for the coloration of a mic preamp, that comes mostly from transformers, not tubes. There's a bunch of cheap "tOOb" preamps on the market that are distinguished from regular "tube" gear in that the cheap junk usually runs on starved plate voltage - it's not even really driving the tube properly. It's a gimmick. They distort. It isn't always good, but they put LEDs in there to simulate "tube glow" so it looks "kEwL". Studio Projects is the only company I know of at present who put blue LEDs in their starved plate preamp. They define the tube circuit as starved plate, and explain the LEDs as "a cool blue glow". There's also a knob to let you dial the tube in or out of the circuit. (Maybe they have a sense of humour - I don't know) The other "tOOb" companies put red or orange LEDs behind the actual tube, which you can see through a window. It provides tube glow in the absence of enough plate voltage to actually make the tube glow on its own.

They don't explain shit.

Doesn't mean you can't get a decent recording with them, but they're largely irrelevant to that.

There are also many tube preamps that are very transparent if they're well designed and running at the correct plate voltages.

The sound at that level has much less to do with "tube". It has everything to do with being very well designed, or not. Half decent solid state pres will sound better than cheap tubes for most things, and a well designed tube pre will be much better than cheap solid state, but not necessarily any more suitable than a different flavour of quality pre that doesn't have any tubes.

Dot has explained all of this stuff so much better than I can.

For guitars, "that tube sound" comes from an amp with power tubes. Preferably something that has generally less than 50 watts unless you're talking about a bass, or you like wearing earplugs. Low powered amps are great for recording, because you get "that sound" from cranking it up.

With microphones, "that tube sound" often comes from a ribbon. Depends on who you're talking to. if it's a person that really knows tube mics, that's not true. Most of the qualities many would like to associate with tube gear are sort of available in a lot of popular ribbon mic designs, but as with anything, a badly designed ribbon mic might really sound - bad.

A different kettle of fish, and a new can of worms.

With mic pres, "that tube sound" often actually comes from transformers. Not tubes. If you're having a problem with how your mic pre distorts, it's probably not because of the lack of a tube. Mic pres are described as very focused (the better ones) that allow you to stack up a lot of tracks and everything sounds coherent after 24 tracks or so, or else mushy. It might sound just fine after only a few tracks, but you have to stack them up to hear the mush. If you're not recording hit albums for clients with very demanding riders, don't sweat it too much. Plus, you have to have the monitoring chain, the room and the recording chops to narrow it down to the preamps in the end. It can only come with experience. Start with mic placement. If you're having problems with distortion from a preamp, it's either very crappy or you don't understand gain structure. If your preamp simply doesn't have enough gain to drive the mic you want to use for a quiet source, or if it craps out badly when you absolutely need to crank it up, this is a more obvious reason for upgrading a pre. There are sill some very inexpensive ones that offer lots of clean gain if you need it. The lesser pres might still be useful for condenser mics on loud sources where you barely need to apply much gain at all. You won't notice the differences anywhere nearly as much if you're not cranking it up.

It's just a volume knob.

Pres are also characterized by being very coloured, or very transparent and they all impart their own flavour if you know how to distinguish it. Again, mixing a dense collection of tracks in a proper acoustic enviornment with experienced ears is the best thing. Some of the most coloured gear has no tubes. Some of the most transparent gear won't have tubes or transformers. It's no better or worse, just different.


Sorry for the rant. Hopefully some of it makes sense.

sl
 
Middleman said:
You know Brad, you have an affinity for creating realities that don't even exist. Not to mention extrapolation skills and just out-and-out twisting of the truth for your own purpose.
Click to expand...
My, my, my! Did you have a bad day, or are you always this grumpy? :confused:
Middleman said:
Here is an example so people are aware of your technique. My statement: “Neves are not that colored. Big ended, rich maybe but not deeply colored like a tube preamp. Of course this is a general comparison because all Neve preamps or Tube pres for that matter don't sound the same.”

Your recap of my comments: “must admit that I am rather surprised that you still insist that the Neve-style pre's have relatively little "color," while also claiming that ALL tube preamps are rather heavily "colored."

I think I qualified plainly that there are variations to the rule. However, you seem bent on rewriting my opinions to suit your purpose. Suffice it to say we have a difference of opinion on what colored means. By the way I just had a 1073, Portico, Great River and a D.W. Fearn here a few weeks ago for tracking. The Fearn, a tube preamp, was the most colored by far although I imagine you would have found it more pristine to your ears.
Click to expand...
Well, the first part of that statement ("Neves are not that colored. Big ended, rich maybe, but not deeply colored like a tube preamp.") certainly DOES seem to imply that you believe that Neves should be classified on the "neutral, un-colored" side of the spectrum, whereas all tube pres should be considered "deeply colored." THIS is the statement that I was responding to. I still assert that, in my opinion, this is exactly backward. I consider Neves to be rather significantly colored, while some of the cleanest, most pristine sound I've ever heard comes from (well-designed) tube gear. Yes, indeed, you did add an appropriate qualifying statement, which I did NOT acknowledge. For that reason, perhaps I did overstate my case a bit (although I still stand by the basic points that I made). Thank you for the clarification, Middleman. I stand corrected.
Middleman said:
I also never stated MP3 was equal to Lynn's CD. I just defended Dan Richard's site which you so adamantly are putting down. I think his is a well done effort and can provide basic comparisons which I have found fairly accurate in the real world using some of that gear. I think it is irresponsible that you would downplay its significance because he uses MP3. Your implying that MP3s cannot be used for comparing gear is totally bogus to me. I will say it’s not my preference in formats but tell me you cannot hear the difference between the Great River and say the VTB-1 at Dan’s site.
Click to expand...
And please notice that I never SAID that you stated that MP3's are "equal" to CD. Now, I think that YOU are misquoting ME, Middleman. Furthermore, I most certainly am NOT "adamantly putting down" Dan Richard's site. If you will recall, I specifically went out of my way to say that I do not mean to disparage Dan's work in any way. I even said that I admired the work he's put into this project. However, I still feel that MP3 is simply NOT an adequate format for doing the sorts of comparisons that one would make for purposes of making a purchase decision. This has nothing to do with Dan's work. It is merely a fundamental problem with the MP3 encoding scheme. I believe that I made this distinction very clear. In this case, Middleman, I think that YOU are making the same sort of extrapolations that you have just accused ME of making.
Middleman said:
Advice for the future, if you want to maintain good relations on a forum, disagree with the color of my shoes but don’t piss on them.
Click to expand...
I totally concur with this, Middleman. I try to behave courteously this during ALL my posts on this forum. And, whether you believe it or not, Middleman, I was attempting to be courteous and respectful to YOU in my reply, although you seem to have taken it as some sort of personal attack. I believe that two people can disagree about something, but still remain courteous and respectful. There is a difference between disagreeing with a person and attacking them. And, yes, I did feel that your recommendations were incorrect, for the reasons that I have specified. I'm sorry that you insist on feeling attacked just because I disagreed with the advice you gave. But please note, Middleman, that at absolutely NO TIME did I do any of the following:
1)resort to making petty personal attacks against you
2)make insulting comments about your choice of profession
3)accuse you of having poor hearing
4)take any cheap shots against the original poster (apparently, simply because he seems to be inclined to accept my advice)
5)accuse you of "creating realities that don't exist" (even though you've clearly taken some of MY statements way, way out of context, which is precisely what you accused ME of doing)

I happen to be very good at what I do, and I'm very proud to be in my profession. I also happen to know quite a bit about human psychology. I certainly would not make the mistake of believing that somebody is delusional, simply because they disagree with me, or challenge a statement that I've made.

I'll tell you what, Middleman. If you show me a single instance where I have ATTACKED YOU (as opposed to merely disagreeing with you), then I will be happy to apologize for it. But, there's certainly no need to be so defensive. :cool:

Best regards,
Bassman Brad
 
Middleman

Not that my opinion means squat, because it doesn't, but I would be inclined to agree with Brad about at least one point here.

Granted, this isn't the newbie forum, but that doesn't mean obviously newbie posts don't show up here. God knows I'm responsible for far more than my fair share, and I'm grateful to the likes of the both of you for setting me straight. This is a relatively young man, who, while he may have been playing for a number of years, obviously is fairly new to the recording end of things. He's just asking about things based on what he believes to be what he should be focusing his attention on. I think it would be a great disservice to him to not point out to him that he's probably barking up the wrong tree. No, it's not your job, or anyone else's here for that matter, to handhold newbies. Fine. Don't do it. But it would be better to remain silent than to mislead, which is what I think you may have done in the beginning, if even unintentionally. And I don't mean the Neve vs. tube thing. I'll probably never get my hands on either, and if I did, I probably couldn't tell the difference. Sad, but true. The point is, neither, probably, can Peetr3. And until you know what the rest of his signal chain is, his mic selection alone should be a HUGE red flag that tells you that a high end pre is not what he should be looking at first, even if that's what he asked about. It' just wrong not to let him know that. I understand what you're saying about a piece of gear that he will keep and hopefully grow into, but it's still not what he needs the most at this point.

You made the comment "I would just take his suggestion and buy a bunch of mics. Let me know if that gets you the sound you are looking for." Well, do you really think if he takes your suggestion and gets an API (or Neve, or Great River, or any other pre) that he's going to get the sound he's looking for? Of course not. (And, BTW, I guess I missed where BB said to get a 'bunch' of mics.) What he's really wanting to know is 'What do I need to make my recordings sound more professional?' even though that's not how he asked it.

I think this is just a misunderstanding that spiralled out of control, much like this post.

Peetr3: Will you ultimately need a high end pre to make a truly professional sounding recording? Yeah, you will. But there are many more things that should be on your list that are way ahead of that in terms of how close they will get you to where you want to be. I personally would suggest that you put conditioning the room and decent monitors ahead of the 002. If you can't get GD's drum sound in the room, no pre will do it for you. The record your ass off part you got right. I'm envious of your position (youth+technology+money), but I truly wish you the best of luck.
 
Ok Brad, I accept your apology. It was never a matter of being attacked just your redesigning my comments to create your position.
 
Drum Sound

I read a long article in EQ or Electronic Musician...? One of the two..
About Jimmy Eat World's recording process...
I LOVE J.E.W. ...I hate Greenday,
but that is beside the point. Anyway, there is a reason for the Futures Jimmy Eat World CD to sound so great. I estimated about 40K worth of mics used to do the drums alone. Through a Neve desk...yadda yadda. But if you want Greendays sound, get Drumagog. I wonder if there is a drum on the CD that isn't replaced or mixed in at least. That is a sure-fire way to get that kind of too good to be true sound.
Don't listen to the things on the forum that could sound discouraging. I actually try to stay away from this forum because people were sometimes so mean about stuff. It is like they would be encouraging about people's MP3s they posted that really just SUCKED and mean and negative about mine. I couldn't handle it. And everyone on here thinks their posts will count towards the completion of their dissertations or something...It is kind of funny. I have been spending probably 3 hours a day minimum scowering through crap on these forums. Here is what I have learned. If you are on this one... research Chessrock. He knows his shit. He makes some of the best recordings that I have ever heard period. He uses alot of shitty gear! However, he is using it with wisdom greater than Budda. He is really nice too and he seems to take fads in gear with a grain of salt. Just check him out. Also, if you want a nice pre, and have the money, you deserve it.
It reminds me of when I was trying to get a job as a server during one summer off during college. They said, "You can't get a server job here if you haven't been a server before." With everyone saying that, it was a little hard to make that happen.
Since we are the same age, kinda have similar taste in music, and don't have tons of cheese, but both seem to come up with it one way or another through hard work and saving.... here is my progression.
Recorded live out of the PA line outs to a Minidisc player from 9th grade to 11th.
Tascam Portastudio... freaking killer fun... 4-track my first multitrack 11th grade year in high school.
12th grade got a new Boss 1180CD COOL....
still 12th grade, realized its limitations... sold at right time, grabbed up a Yamaha AW4416HDCD... NICE... but slowwwwwww
simultaneously got Lexicon Omega $250 studio in a box ran on my dell...
Said, DAMN, I can do more with this $250 box than with my $2000 Yamaha and more quickly...
Kept getting mics as I could, sold Yamaha to get a Gibson LP (eventhough it looked cool with the moving faders and all!)

Saved a bunch, while making decent recordings on the Lexicon Omega (had good monitoring Mackie HR624s and sub)
Upon getting advice from an engineer who I had emailed about his work with alot of bands that I loved he said..."Get a Vintech x73i...and a distressor and you can do anything."
That night...I found a Vintech x73i on ebay. Also got a Motu 896HD to replace the Omega.
I don't think you have to be 40 years old before you are mature enough to own a nice preamp. When I first sang through my Vintech with my now sold to the first bidder Rode NTK, I said to myself, "OH, that is how they do it!" The sound of the recording was reminiscent of what I was after. I felt closer. I have made alot of upgrades that have made me feel closer.
Crazy enough, other than skill of singing and playing the instruments...the biggest thing that I feel affects recordings is arrangement of the song. I think that is what lies behind getting a "polished" sound. I think having better gear makes stuff more 3-D and more tight in its individual space. Mixes seem more spacious. I will tell ya, having stuff doesn't make the sound, but it gives you the chance to get close. It is all about choosing the right miking technique, the best source, the best performance, and arrangement. Also, if you can't hear what you are doing properly, you can't fix it. But I don't think you should wait to record until you have a built from the ground up million dollar structure. You can listen to stuff you are familiar with and learn what the playback system those songs as evidence about what they are doing to your own songs.
Check out my site http://sporkmyband.tripod.com/id2.html to see my gear. It is fully of stupid stuff that I say to attract people....but you can see what I have picked my way through and arrived at for my gear today. And all of it I bought before I was 20 except for the added Pearlman TM-1, which I got within the past 30 days I guess.
But don't get discouraged. Those studio in a box deals, get people sickeningly close! I think you might look at a Presonus Firepod. I also think the MXL 990 sounds pretty sweet through a good preamp. I know of a pretty big label release that has a 990 on the lead vocal on most of the songs. You've already got 57s and 58s. Those are killer mics, and anyone who says they aren't is just a snob who needs to explain where you can find their information about their Grammy nomination.
 
To sum up

Well, to sum up: $2000 preamp ≠ the sound of J.E.W. or GreenDay.

If many other things are not in line, it may be the most disappointing 2G's you ever spend. Or if you are in recording for the long haul and are not as concerned with your band duties, then you may acquire a preamp that will serve you well for all your years.

You do know that there are studios, probably even near you, that specialize in getting good sounds for you? They probably have a preamp or two that cost $2000, but it will probably only be like 1% or 2% of the total cost of the equipment used to record you. Of course, you won't have to pay for all that stuff.
 
Tubes and Teles, I heartily agree.

I spent years on low end preamps and mics and did not come close to producing an album quality sound. Chessrock, because he is a highly talented engineer can pull this off using inexpensive gear because he knows, through years of experience, the skill set to make this happen. Given the choice however, anyone who has been doing this awhile knows that high end gear is having a shortcut to tweaking knobs and would prefer using it in a project.

Prior to buying a quality preamp I went through a rental phase (actually I still rent on occasion) and tried a lot of different preamps before choosing one that I felt had a broad range of applications. Suddenly, bland sounding microphones had a whole new life something my numerous low end preamps were not able to produce. At the risk of firing this whole controversy back up, a good quality preamp goes a long way toward a top quality sound.

In this instance, although I don't recommend buying a $2000 preamp out of the shoot, I would recommend the Great River at $1100 is an excellent choice. The reason why? It's a pretty useful box in a lot of applications and can produce a great vocal. It also has great resale value. Peetr3 wants to record guitars and drums however, and he would be better off either making his preamps or just buying a mixer because he would get to work immediately. One preamp is not going to cut it on drums.

I do believe in the pursuit of low end gear in trying to create a mix. I have a lot of inexpensive mics, compressors, reverb boxes for niche uses. In my recording experiences there are two places, if you have the money, you don't want to skimp, preamps and compressor. Given these, a lot of inexpensive mics will work for recording.

There is a running controversy here about which is more important mics or preamps, I really don't want to go down that road again, suffice it say different people will have different experiences. I would advise any newbie to get to some studios, ask people who have done this awhile, accumulate your own information and then make your decision.
 
Actually, Middleman brings up a good point...

If at all possible, try to find a place that you can rent one or more of the pre's you're looking at, and see if that makes the difference you're looking for. Best case scenario would be if you could rent both some high end pre's, and some better mics (for your particular applications) at the same time. Try various combinations and see what you think would be the best use of your available funds.

If you have tunes all worked out and ready to go, I'm with Reggie on going to a studio. A very few exceptions notwithstanding, the big time acts are not getting 'that' sound doing it themselves, and the ones who are generally have learned how from spending years in studios watching the pros record their stuff for them, and even then they've got plenty of talented 'help' with the process. People pay professional engineers for a reason, not just because they don't know what to plug in where. I seriously doubt that Chessrocks' customers would get the same quality results just by using the same equipment he does. HE is the most important piece of equipment in the process.

And I did not say you had to wait until you were 40 to record, just the opposite. But if you think you're recordings are going to sound like American Idiot or whatever tomorrow just by throwing a high end pre at them, it ain't gonna happen, my friend. There's a learning process, and I know you understand that, because you're willing to 'record your ass off'.

Also please note that none of the rancor going back and forth here has been directed towards you. You seem like a level-headed guy who's willing to put in the effort required to get where you want to go. I hope you get there. Go get 'em.

And to clarify why I gave the original advice I did, regarding the whole 'which is more important, the mic or the pre' debate, here's my reasoning. If Peetr3 had a mid-level pre and a couple of mid level mics, and he was wanting to know which pre to look at, you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me. As MM said, the debate rages on, and I'm not qualified to contribute. But when a relative newbie says he wants to know what $2000 pre to buy for his 57 & 58, I feel it's my duty, contributing what little I can to this board, to say 'Whoa, wait a minute. You might want to at least reconsider your plan, and think it through.' Now if he had come back and said, no, I've tried a lot of mics, and this is the best one for my voice, then I would've said OK, sat back, and listened and learned.

Tubesandteles, you advised Peetr3 to listen to Chessrock's opinion. I believe he said 'Bassman Brad pretty much nailed it' or something to that effect. My opinion was pretty much in line with his.

Good luck to ALL.
 
Well guys I have been in a studio before...

www.purevolume.com/morningsidenj <--- let me know what you think (besides that the vocals sound like shit)

The songs we had were produced by a good freind of mine from a very reputable band from NJ (www.copperpot.us) but we had to kind of half ass the vocals due to time constraints (its just a rough demo anyway).

The studio we had at our disposal was pretty low-end gear, but it came out half decent because the guy showing me "how" to record was great. Like it was mentioned before: the arrangement of the songs really helped the recordings.

The problem is, I've listened to this recording about 1000000 times and I now hear how much better it could be. So with my knew knowledge of being a better player and song arranger in the studio I want to take our new songs and really get them to sound great.

I was considering doing drums and vocals at a payed studio and maybe working on guitars and keys and synth at my place.

Hence: my journey for good pre amps and mics etc. etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top