Preamp still needed when using "high-end" PC firewire interfaces?

S

stratmaster713

New member
Preamp still needed when using "high-end" PC firewire interfaces?

or atleast high-end to me such as the Steinberg MR816CSX Firewire Interface

what are some industry standard preamps?

Also, is it common to compress/limit during tracking? Why not just keep it raw, and then do the compression all within the DAW?
 
A stand alone pre-amp is certainly not "needed" but some add one as a matter of preference, perhaps to use a low output dynamic mic or just to achieve a particular sound.

Personally, I question how much benefit you get from most pre-amps unless you spend a LOT of money (and have already spent a LOT of money on a microphone--but I know there are lots of differing opinions on this forum. There's no right or wrong--it's just what works for you.

As for compression during tracking, I fully agree. I much prefer to record "dry" and add it during the mix. The one exception to this is that I will sometimes put a compressor in circuit...but adjust it so it works purely as a limiter with the threshold set that, with my gain set up it should never kick in. Once or twice a year this can save a take when somebody really lets rip at higher levels to the sound check...but if my levels are right then this should rarely be needed.
 
Simple answer, "NO". The Steinberg has plenty good preamps.

Now, having said that, I use a Focusrite Pro40, and rarely use the preamps on it. I use some homemade Neve, API, and some other external pres. But they arent' "needed". They do sound better, but the ones on the Steinberg are great and won't hold you back. When you can afford it get some better ones.

First preamp, I'd recommend GAP pre-73 for $300. It's great for vocals, acoustic guitars, and sounds awesome on most things.

I don't compress on the way in 99% of the time. I think most would agree. Add compression in mixing and keep input volumes low (-18, -12) when recording and you won't need compression until mixing.
 
IF your interface has built in preamps, you don't need outboard ones. Even if you have really really nice ones, chances are you won't be able to bypass the preamps in your interface. That means that you still won't be getting the full effect of them anyway.

I do compress on the way in when I'm recording vocals and bass. But I almost never compress to reign in dynamic range, I compress to get the sound of compression. There is no real reason to mess with the dynamic range of anything on the way into a 24 bit digital recorder.
 
My opinions differ somewhat from the previous offerings.

As always, the gear you choose hinges on a variety of factors, one of the big ones being your experience and resulting preference and taste. The only way, in my mind, that you can truly develop a taste for these things is by giving them a good run and then making up your mind as to what makes a good piece of gear for your needs and what doesn't. For instance, a certain preamp may work fantastically for rock drums but may be too noisy for recording an orchestra. Furthermore, the difference between a seasoned pro and a novice is that the pro has years and years of experience in evaluating a variety of different pieces of gear and this comes from having the oppertunity to actually get their hands on them. Of course, there certainly isn't anything wrong with the preamps in your interface, just like there isn't necessarily anything wrong with your compressor plugins. It's just there is a certain aesthetic with analog devices and they often possess a certain musical "something" that is difficult to describe but works beautifully and sounds equally so. You also often have to pay an arm and leg for the ones that really shine.

Often knowing the difference comes from using a mediocre preamp, like a Behringer or a Mackie and then getting an opportunity to work with Neves, etc. Sometimes it take a whole project to come to fruition before you go, "ya know, those preamps worked GREAT on this stuff" because whether they're great or not often doesn't present itself immediately and that just comes down to the inherent subjectivity of recording. I guess you could also make mental notes along the way like, "X preamp worked great with X mic for X instrument that time so I'll try that again". There is nothing wrong with knowing a winning combination.

As far as industry standards go, there are the classics that are tried and tested: Neve 1073, Focusrite ISA, UA 601, API 312, etc. There are also a bazillion boutique options now available and if you're thinking about going into that world I'd say it's most cost effective to buy a 500 series rack and collect them that way. You'll save lots of cash but you can feasibly collect a variety of different specimens.

Just expect to pay around $600-$1000 a channel. :spank:

Of course, when it comes to value for money a good medium format console just can not be beaten for price/channel ratio. I personally use the preamps on my console for everything, which is a very common scenario for a lot of trench working stiffs. It's a Chilton (Calrec) CM2 and the preamps are stellar. It's all British, fully modular and is 100% discreet with 70dB of gain. I picked it up for around $360 and as far as I can tell, each MODULE is going for around $700 EACH. So, I scored since I have 10 channels making the console worth around $7000! Keep your eyes out and you can improve your situation pretty quickly for minimal investment.

On the topic of compression...

Do whatever sounds best. Don't be afraid to compress on the way in. I almost always do on bass and vocals but take in a case-by-case scenario. It's kind of seen as an old school approach these days because of all the post-rationalization that is available to us, and maybe it is, but if you have a good compressor unit that sounds good and you have the experience to make it work on input, then do it! Personally I'm sick of all the pussy-footing around input processing because I'm the tracking engineer, goddammit, and I'm going to fucking compress it if I see fit!!!!

Hope that helps.

Cheers :)
 
I agree with the above (what I read of it), but the real issues is always the money. And until you have a decent grasp on recording basics, preamps are the least of your worries...and shelling out $1000-2000 for a couple channels of preamps WILL NOT make the recordings sound better. You have to have some skill to make the good preamps worth the extra cost (it's all relative to how much money you have, but most of us non-millionaires would be better off sticking to the built in pres for a while).

And, another thing to consider is you need to know what you want. For example, I didn't know the basic differences between an API and a Neve for a long time. Once I kinda figured out what sound I wanted, I was able to get the pres that worked for that. So, my advice (which is worth about half a nickel or less) is stick with the built in pres for a while, until you are comfortable recording and have basic mic placement down, and are getting good sounds...then decided what pres will work for you (research)...then get a couple channels...only then will you really hear a difference in your recordings.

Oh, and not to create an argument, but some like to compress going in, some don't. I've found more recordings were hurt by compression on the way in than were helped. I don't like to do it because you can always add compression later. But, some people disagree and get way better recordings than I do.
 
Extra pre-amps are not needed, but they will be a plus if they are of high quality (expensive).
You could place a limiter on the input as a safety net to make sure there is no clipping, but your levels should not be so loud that it is near clipping anyway.
Compressing on the way in is worth while if you have a high quality (expensive) compressor like a Joe Meek comp. This will add a different flavour to the recording. If you don;t have high quality compressors then don't bother with compression until Mixing.

G
 
Just to add a little to what was said above: The differences between preamps are more about subtle texture than quality. If you can't make an awesome sounding recording using the built in preamps on an interface, getting high end preamps isn't going to make much difference at all.

When people talk about how much better their stuff sounds when they use high end equipment, it's normally after they have spent a long time working with lesser stuff and learning how to get the most out of it. Once you get to that point, preamps and really expensive mics and things like that start to make a difference. Until then, most interfaces out there sound better than most digital recorders in the 90's did. Metallica's black album was mastered from the 16 bit dat backup that was recorded with its own internal converters. (which suck in comparison to anything m-audio makes right now) That album sold 20 million worldwide and has long been a benchmark for what an album in that genre should sound like.
 
Mo Facta said:
My opinions differ somewhat from the previous offerings.

As always, the gear you choose hinges on a variety of factors, one of the big ones being your experience and resulting preference and taste. The only way, in my mind, that you can truly develop a taste for these things is by giving them a good run and then making up your mind as to what makes a good piece of gear for your needs and what doesn't. For instance, a certain preamp may work fantastically for rock drums but may be too noisy for recording an orchestra. Furthermore, the difference between a seasoned pro and a novice is that the pro has years and years of experience in evaluating a variety of different pieces of gear and this comes from having the oppertunity to actually get their hands on them. Of course, there certainly isn't anything wrong with the preamps in your interface, just like there isn't necessarily anything wrong with your compressor plugins. It's just there is a certain aesthetic with analog devices and they often possess a certain musical "something" that is difficult to describe but works beautifully and sounds equally so. You also often have to pay an arm and leg for the ones that really shine.

Often knowing the difference comes from using a mediocre preamp, like a Behringer or a Mackie and then getting an opportunity to work with Neves, etc. Sometimes it take a whole project to come to fruition before you go, "ya know, those preamps worked GREAT on this stuff" because whether they're great or not often doesn't present itself immediately and that just comes down to the inherent subjectivity of recording. I guess you could also make mental notes along the way like, "X preamp worked great with X mic for X instrument that time so I'll try that again". There is nothing wrong with knowing a winning combination.

As far as industry standards go, there are the classics that are tried and tested: Neve 1073, Focusrite ISA, UA 601, API 312, etc. There are also a bazillion boutique options now available and if you're thinking about going into that world I'd say it's most cost effective to buy a 500 series rack and collect them that way. You'll save lots of cash but you can feasibly collect a variety of different specimens.

Just expect to pay around $600-$1000 a channel. :spank:

Of course, when it comes to value for money a good medium format console just can not be beaten for price/channel ratio. I personally use the preamps on my console for everything, which is a very common scenario for a lot of trench working stiffs. It's a Chilton (Calrec) CM2 and the preamps are stellar. It's all British, fully modular and is 100% discreet with 70dB of gain. I picked it up for around $360 and as far as I can tell, each MODULE is going for around $700 EACH. So, I scored since I have 10 channels making the console worth around $7000! Keep your eyes out and you can improve your situation pretty quickly for minimal investment.

On the topic of compression...

Do whatever sounds best. Don't be afraid to compress on the way in. I almost always do on bass and vocals but take in a case-by-case scenario. It's kind of seen as an old school approach these days because of all the post-rationalization that is available to us, and maybe it is, but if you have a good compressor unit that sounds good and you have the experience to make it work on input, then do it! Personally I'm sick of all the pussy-footing around input processing because I'm the tracking engineer, goddammit, and I'm going to fucking compress it if I see fit!!!!

Hope that helps.

Cheers :)
Click to expand...

:laughings:

Thanks for the advice everyone.. I will stick with the steinberg (or equivalent) until I master that. Right now I dont even have that purchased yet, just doing my homework before I drop cash on interface gear. Anything is better than the PV8 mixer I have running into my onboard laptop input :facepalm:
 
Yes! Good choice. Don't drop the cash until you've done your research, and are relatively good with what you have.
 
I agree that preamps are not the fool proof remedy to a bad recording but there are exceptions.

Case in point...

I have a good friend/colleague who pretty much has the best gig in town. He works for one client - a hugely successful African jazz artist - and he tours the world most of the year and when he's not he records this client pretty much exclusively. Well, he's developed this philosophy over the years of picking the correct gear for the correct situation and aims for a purist approach where he uses no [or VERY little] EQ or compression to get the results he wants. It's an approach that relies heavily on the performer and next on the quality of the mic, it's placement, the signal chain, and the room.

Anyway, when he made his first recording of this client in the clients' studio through a Mackie 1640i it turned out OK. Nothing hugely spectacular sonics-wise, but OK. The playing definitely saved it. Then, a few months later after he had purchased a Focusrite ISA828 and an Audient 2802 and made the second recording, the results were nothing short of stunning. Such a difference. Pretty much the same mics were used - DPA's, Royers, Sennheissers, etc - and it was clear that the preamps had made a huge difference.

They were just what was needed.

Cheers :)
 
Last edited:
That's the great thing about the whole business of recording--there's an infinite number of ways to do things and an equally infinite number of views on what's best.

In my opinion, yes, a pre amp can make a difference. However--the difference they make is relatively subtle compared to the choice of microphone, the positioning of the microphone, the acoustic of the recording space and, most important, the quality of the performance. Beyond that, to have a significant difference you have to pay a lot of money for that specialist pre amp--which is not really worth it unless you've also spent a lot of money on the microphone at the front end.

But whatever works for you!
 
Mo Facta said:
I agree that preamps are not the fool proof remedy to a bad recording but there are exceptions.

Case in point...

I have a good friend/colleague who pretty much has the best gig in town. He works for one client - a hugely successful African jazz artist - and he tours the world most of the year and when he's not he records this client pretty much exclusively. Well, he's developed this philosophy over the years of picking the correct gear for the correct situation and aims for a purist approach where he uses no [or VERY little] EQ or compression to get the results he wants. It's an approach that relies heavily on the performer and next on the quality of the mic, it's placement, the signal chain, and the room.

Anyway, when he made his first recording of this client in the clients' studio through a Mackie 1640i it turned out OK. Nothing hugely spectacular sonics-wise, but OK. The playing definitely saved it. Then, a few months later after he had purchased a Focusrite ISA828 and an Audient 2802 and made the second recording, the results were nothing short of stunning. Such a difference. Pretty much the same mics were used - DPA's, Royers, Sennheissers, etc - and it was clear that the preamps had made a huge difference.

They were just what was needed.

Cheers :)
Click to expand...

True. But the whole point we've been making, is the preamps only make a major difference when A) they are crap, or B) everything else is already good (room, performance, engineer, mics). Your friend had everything but the preamps. Once he got those it was good. Most people on this forum have nothing...no room, low end mics, minimal skills. Getting nice preamps won't help them.
 
aaronmcoleman said:
Most people on this forum have nothing...no room, low end mics, minimal skills. Getting nice preamps won't help them.
Click to expand...

The quote I keep remembering from some high-end article was "80% of your sound is the ROOM."
(ok, just call it a major part... don't be picky, it's the thought...)

Preamps and converters in the majority of prosumer gear will get you nearly there.
It's that final few percent that people start throwing around major money to 'cure'.
 
There's only one thing that a new pre-amp can cure--a really rotten "other" pre amp". However, an interface or mixer with pre amps that bad is probably not worth using with a premium bit of kit as a front end. Rotten pre amps often feature on rotten A to Ds.

Beyond that (as somebody else said) the choice of a premium pre amp is far more about adding colouration you find pleasing than curing genuine problems. Since the vast majority of standard interfaces and mixers have perfectly adequate pre amps, the main part of this discussion is about everyone's taste in colouration.

Edited to add: I just thought of an exception to prove my rule. The place I used to work had a lovely audio post production suite with a great sounding mixer (an Amek BCIII for those with memories). However, the mixer had one issue--the standard mic pre amps just didn't provide enough gain for a couple of the low output mics we had in the voice over booth--so, in that case, we DID "cure" something with an external mic pre amp.
 
Bobbsy said:
Beyond that (as somebody else said) the choice of a premium pre amp is far more about adding colouration you find pleasing than curing genuine problems. Since the vast majority of standard interfaces and mixers have perfectly adequate pre amps, the main part of this discussion is about everyone's taste in colouration.
Click to expand...

I dunno. There are always other reasons for choosing preamps. I can think of a few off the top of my head, one being a low output mic. Some ribbons need huge amounts of gain and if the preamp is noisy at higher gain settings, it's going to be inadequate. Then there's the issue of noise floor. If you're making a really quiet recording a mediocre preamp is just not going to cut it. Those who record classical music will agree with me. Then there's the issue of headroom (not gain) - the output sensitivities of the preamp. The clipping point of a preamp does not necessarily indicate at which point it starts exhibiting distortion. It may produce distortion many dB's before it reaches the clipping point and that depends on the quality of the components. That is probably also the point at which the "colour" of the preamp starts to be heard. Then there's the issue of input sensitivity. Check out this Rane article:

Selecting Mic Preamps

Basically, if you have a microphone which has an output sensitivity that exceeds the input sensitivity (the lowest gain setting) of the preamp, it will distort unless it has a pad of some sort. Many budget preamps do not have a pad and this can be a huge problem when it comes to distortion. Check out the charts on the page in that link. Very interesting.

A high quality preamp will excel in all these parameters and give you a cleaner, truer signal regardless of the colouration it supplies. The rest is taste.

Cheers :)

Ps. I just saw your edit. Please take my comment regarding the low output mic as reiterating yours.
 
Last edited:
Taking the question the OP asked {because I'm not dealing with a pc or firewire} a little wider, I'd have to say preamps can make a huge difference. Not in terms of saving bad recordings ~ that's a different matter altogether and I don't know about that. But in terms of adequate gain.
I use a standalone DAW and the on board preamps are OK. For certain instruments and loud vocalists, they're good. But recently I've been using a very average {some would even say because it's Behringer, it's below average ! } preamp and the difference it's made is more than merely 'noticeable'. Today I was recording someone singing and when I had the settings as I wanted them, the person merely talking normally was loud and clear ~ and she was a good four feet away from the mic.
I can't go against what those more experienced recorders than I are saying and it's been great food for thought. But an external preamp can really make a difference. It hasn't made my recordings better, but it's contributed towards me acheiving certain results I couldn't previously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top