Preamp for recording Beatles type music

Status
Not open for further replies.
LazerBeakShiek

LazerBeakShiek

It is a life preserver
Looking for a nice preamp to record some Beatles type music.

The API A2D I thought had a strong pure sound. I was thinking there might be something newer. They have a bunch of those 500 size units. I want to build me a single GOLDEN CHANNEL.

The Chandler TG-2 sounded like something I would be interested in or the BAE 1073 boasts a massive dynamic range.

Could a member steer me in the right direction?

My best mic is an AKG 414.
 
LazerBeakShiek said:
Looking for a nice preamp to record some Beatles type music.

The API A2D I thought had a strong pure sound. I was thinking there might be something newer. They have a bunch of those 500 size units. I want to build me a single GOLDEN CHANNEL.

The Chandler TG-2 sounded like something I would be interested in or the BAE 1073 boasts a massive dynamic range.

Could a member steer me in the right direction?

My best mic is an AKG 414.
Click to expand...

"Hai know nothing" really but pre amps seem to split into two main camps. The ultra clean and accurate, Grace. F'rite Red.. and those with a greater or lesser degree of 'attitude' Neve and the 1073 clones and of course the various 'toooob' types.

I doubt many of either type were ACTUALLY used at Abbey Rd?

Then, although converters are not usually massively important they might be if combined with esoteric pres. What have you got? As usual, nothing you do at the front end will be worth a flea's underpants unless the monitoring chain and room are beyond reproach.

Just my 2pen'oth.

Dave.
 
Hows about a Avalon 737 ?

So , I am being recommended locally to the BAE 1073 or Avalon 373. The major selling feature is this claim of an extended range. Beyond the 20k air limit.

My method of selection , search mic preamps, then filtering by price highest to lowest.
 
Last edited:
Well, if you've got writing, arrangement, instrumentation, performance and mic selection/technique/placement covered it might be worth delving into preamps. Or you could get the Abbey Road REDD plugin.
 
RRuskin said:
The magic was in the music and the musicians, not the gear.
Click to expand...

The magic is the gear. Anybody can train to play the A B C's.

If you A B the Behringer and a 73 type preamp, the dif is amazing. The transformer in the output section, and possibly the front end adds a lot. Like a 6i6 vs the ISA 430 producer pack. Both from focusrite, but the 430 has a Lundahl transformer that absolutely makes the unit sound tits.
 
RRuskin said:
The magic was in the music and the musicians, not the gear.
Click to expand...

LazerBeakShiek said:
The magic is the gear. Anybody can train to play the A B C's.
Click to expand...
This will make a forever grand debating point but I think both points are extremes that simply do not take into account all the elements that make up an eventually recorded song/piece of music. I disagree that
Anybody can train to play the A B C's
Click to expand...
but at the same time, I don't think the magic was solely in the music and the musicians and this can partly be seen in the plethora of cover versions that don't even come close to the originals or even outtakes of the originals themselves. While I do partially agree that
A preamp is probably the least significant factor in replicating a particular sound
Click to expand...
taking the point somewhat wider than just a preamp, there is something about the combination of gear used {and, it must be said, the way the gear is used} that contributes to the sounds of the recording. It's not just the music and singing that makes "I am the walrus" or "Strawberry Fields forever" or even "Your Mother should know" sound the way it does.
But it's not the preamp either !
I guess I just tend to see the cement mixers and the slate cutters when I see a building, as well as thinking about the architect.
 
gecko zzed said:
A preamp is probably the least significant factor in replicating a particular sound.
Click to expand...

In many cases, yes...but in this case, the REDD preamps (and other REDD circuits along with the EMI TG stuff) were powerful tone shaping tools that were new designs not seen before, and the Beatles used them on everything and pushed them to the max.

There's a few pieces recreated by Chandler Limited that I've been seriously considering just because of their unique tone shaping options, and the first on the list is the REDD.47 preamp. I have several other really good preamps, but the REDD.47 is unique.

If you're going for a more minimal post-processed approach, it's going to mostly happen at the mic and preamp....though in today's fix-it-in-the-DAW world, it may not be as important.
 
miroslav said:
In many cases, yes...but in this case, the REDD preamps (and other REDD circuits along with the EMI TG stuff) were powerful tone shaping tools that were new designs not seen before, and the Beatles used them on everything and pushed them to the max.
Click to expand...

Sure. But on the other hand, I'm willing to bet my house that were the OP to acquire and put the REDD in his signal path, he would not get the sound he was seeking unless all the other elements that go towards that sound were also in place.
 
gecko zzed said:
Sure. But on the other hand, I'm willing to bet my house that were the OP to acquire and put the REDD in his signal path, he would not get the sound he was seeking unless all the other elements that go towards that sound were also in place.
Click to expand...

Yes there are other variables to consider...but that doesn't dismiss THAT particular gear as being somewhat key in getting those sounds.

The REDD and EMI stuff was/is not your average vanilla gear.
 
There needs to be a reason they cost the money they do. If they werent worth it they would not sell. If they drop rapidly in value what does that say?

The 73's hold value. Sell like hot cakes. Are known for a British sound. Thick as a brick and 30-40k air quality.
 
LazerBeakShiek said:
There needs to be a reason they cost the money they do.
Click to expand...

Sometimes the reason is that someone will buy it. I'm not saying the REDD gear doesn't make a difference, but that it's one small part of the equation. If the other parts aren't in place then it won't be enough to make a difference. The biggest part of the equation will be the playing, the instruments and the transducers in the signal path.
 
When I was at a studio one thing I remember is the engineer turning a console knob and my guitar came to life on the monitors. I asked what the knob was. He said a 4 pole filter.

It is absolutely the gear.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
If the other parts aren't in place then it won't be enough to make a difference.
Click to expand...

Yes...for sure. Putting all your bets on one piece of gear won't get you there.
Your entire signal chain needs to be pretty much on the same level, and that includes the performance, arrangement and every other aspect of the production.
I mean, you might hear a difference from one piece of gear...but to really make it worth the high-price, you have to raise the bar on your entire game.
 
LazerBeakShiek said:
When I was at a studio one thing I remember is the engineer turning a console knob and my guitar came to life on the monitors. I asked what the knob was. He said a 4 pole filter.

It is absolutely the gear.
Click to expand...




I guess it's probably about time for someone to chime in with "tone is all in the fingers". It won't be me though.
 
If I play the A chord or you do it is the same.

There were some interesting peices on using bone conducting transducers to add in 'air' that isnt captured. An excerpt from getpocket..

A common explanation often found in popular media is that because we normally hear our own voice while talking, we receive both sound transferred to our ears externally by air conduction and sound transferred internally through our bones. This bone conduction of sound delivers rich low frequencies that are not included in air-conducted vocal sound. So when you hear your recorded voice without these frequencies, it sounds higher – and different. Basically, the reasoning is that because our recorded voice does not sound how we expect it to, we don’t like it.

So people use gear like this to make the sounds recognizable. Bone conducting transducers.

I was watching a video where the guy was using bone conducting transducers and using wood and metal surfaces as homemade simplified plate reverbs. Then mixing back the original sound, with a sheet metal plate or oak door. Trying to convince me every type of wood has a specific sound and that resonance of the woods' escence can be mixed back in. Using bone transducers and barker surface mount microphones every surface was an effect.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top