should i get a better pre?

P

postalblue

New member
suppose (only suppose) i had the money, should i get a better preamp? i have a mackie 1202 (older model) and a pro audio 2496 soundcard/pre. i tracked a lot of songs with the pro audio, and it sounds pretty good to me. but i wonder what i may gain in quality, warmth, clarity or anything over the pro audio, by getting a better pre.
i suppose anything under $1k won't make a big difference. but how much should i expect to fork out to really make a difference, and what pre would you suggest. it needs to be somewhat versatile. two channels is better too.
 
i should have mentioned that before, but i only really use the pro audio. i use a mackie 1604 that belongs to a friend to track drums. but everything else i use the pro audio.
 
scottboyher said:
A better anything can't hurt. Depends on how much you want to spend...
Click to expand...

i don't want to spend anything. :D
but i take my music very seriously, and i'm worried that i might be selling my work short by not trying to make the next effort sound better all the time.
 
M-Audio DMP-3. 2 channels, clean noiseless gain. $199.

Grace 101, 1 channel, very clean gain, $550

Speck Mic Pre 5.0, 1 channel, transformer balanced, $675

Great River MP1-NV 1 channel, (slightly) colored gain $975. This is where the big boys start to play ;)
 
Well if we're talking about GR, Grace Hardy, etc. prices, then I suppose I should mention DaviSound.

Both the TB-1 and TB-6 kick-ass for under a grand... And NOT just "for the money"... They kick-ass, period! But the fact that they're about a grand makes the icing that much sweeter!
 
I heard a blind test of 6 different pres. The mackie 1402 vlz-pro was the cheapest. The most expensive preamp was over $3000 for one channel.

If I let you hear it, I can bet 5 dollars that you wont be able to pinpoint the mackie. In fact, I can bet an extra five dollars that you'll prefer the mackie to some of the big ticket pres.

So, yes, you might want to upgrade to a new vlz-pro, but only the best of ears with the best of monitoring can pick out the mackie . Its a really great pre.
 
i remember hearing somewhere from harvey gerst that he uses nothing but his board's pre's. and i'm not talking about the api, as he himself pointed out, but about the cheaper board he has.
 
I agree with Cyan to a degree, but pres are also a cumulative thing. If you run 16 tracks through a Mackie and 16 tracks through a Great River or similar high end stuff, I guarantee you'll notice a big difference.
 
BradD said:
I agree with Cyan to a degree, but pres are also a cumulative thing. If you run 16 tracks through a Mackie and 16 tracks through a Great River or similar high end stuff, I guarantee you'll notice a big difference.
Click to expand...

bradB, empirically, that happens, but I am yet to hear a major improvement over this track that was done with nothing but a 24 track mackie.

http://www.bluechairrecordingstudio.com/sounds.html

listen to "indie rock" by green olive tree, who are a great local band in Arkansas.

In fact, I have heard studios with far better equipment not approach this quality.
 
CyanJaguar said:
but I am yet to hear a major improvement over this track that was done with nothing but a 24 track mackie.
Click to expand...

That was using nothing but the Mackie preamps? I wonder if they used that UA pre they have listed on their equipment page on any tracks in that song... Would be interesting to know!

Frankly, I think it shows a good example of how to use compression as effects and an example of how good mastering can take your recordings to the next level...

Actually, more than anything else, I think it's a great example of miking techniques (one of the most overlooked things in recording) and a great example of "it's who's behind the desk more than what's in your rack or mic cabinet"! Of course, that's to a certain degree... And Blue Chair Studio's gear is probably about at that threshold!

Now, that's already assuming the room and instruments are reasonably decent sounding! Plus, remember, if it's an extremely loud and huge electric guitar sound you want, you better be recording an extremely loud and huge sounding amp!!!
 
Mackies sound just fine as long as you don't have to crank 'em up too far past 12 o' clock.

A dmp3 is even better, so long as you don't have to crank it up anywhere lower than, say, 10 o'clock or so (which is an indication it might be too loud of a source for it to handle without distorting).

Even the more expensive pres have their sweet spots . . . the trick is to find where it performs best. The mackies, for example, have decent headroom and handle moderately loud sources without blinking. But they will start sounding a little harsh at higher gains (where a dmp3 or even an audio buddy might excell) but compete extremely well with the bigger names at more moderate gains.

Find the range it likes best, work only within that range, and your cheapo pre can perform as good as anything else out there.
 
recording engineer,

that's what I thought when I first heard the track. Definitely UA into distressor

he emailed me back and said it was ALL mackie. He had neither the UA nor the Distressor when he recorded green olive tree. Even his vocal condenser was a lowly rode tube mic.

Mackie rocks.
 
CyanJaguar said:
recording engineer,

that's what I thought when I first heard the track. Definitely UA into distressor

he emailed me back and said it was ALL mackie. He had neither the UA nor the Distressor when he recorded green olive tree. Even his vocal condenser was a lowly rode tube mic.

Mackie rocks.
Click to expand...

aren't all those lowly rode tube mics pretty good???

i'd put more credit on the skills than the mackie.

steve
www.piemusic.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top