speak to me about mic pres

S

sotorious

New member
I see a lot of them come with eq and compression on them. Since a lot of people form what i hear do eqing and compression after the track has been recorded. With that said, how many of you use the eq on the mic pre also is it smarter to get one with out a eq on it a long with a compression?

Those of you who have a micpre with eq and compression do you use it from the mic pre or do you use it from your daw? also is theere any real difference from which one you use it from.

I was looking at this

Neve 1073
 
Most pre's I've seen don't have eq or compressors built in. That would be more what's called a channel strip.

I wouldn't get any kind of exotic pre until I had a very good (great) mic.

Myself I always go through a pre and a tube compressor when I record. With modern setups, it is usually better to use no compression or eq while you record because you may be sorry you did it and once it's recorded it's too late. I use the tube compressor because I like that sound.

The mic makes way, way more difference than the pre.

Here's one I'd look at http://cgi.ebay.com/Summit-Audio-2B...988?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3360996df4
 
The Neve is nice if you can aford it.
I really like my Joemeek TwinQ it has comp and EQ plus a few other little surprises. Take a look at one of those. You can also find them used for a win-win on a nice preamp for very little money. ;)






:cool:
 
Personally, I use compression at the Pre, about -12db with a 2.5:1 ratio. Nothing else.

I find that the comp just gives you a nice balanced vocal track to work with, without it sounding edited at all. Gives you the flexibility of EQ'ing completely at the mixing stage.

The times when i have used EQ at the pre-amp it's only been a slight curve, reducing lower mids and boosting slighty around the 4khz mark. Normally that is just to sweeten the vocals a bit so they sit well in the mix before i intend to sit down and properly mess with them.
 
Well i was just gazing at the pre wasnt to was reading threw someone elses post, i am planning on upgrading to a bit more expensive mic as well as a nice pre. Question here Say i get a Tube condens microphone, should i stay away from a tubed pre amp? Also that ebay listing of the summit you sent me looks like a very good price, and your saying its a good pre, i am also going to look at that other pre someone has just recommended.

Joemeek TwinQ has the eq on it, which i guess isnt a bad thing just incase. Looks good though at a decent price
 
Using compression at the pre lets you run your levels a little hotter than you might otherwise run them. That being said a lot of pres don't come with those bells and whistles. And you might want to keep them separate anyway so you can get the premium parts as budgets allow and only trash the broken components, not the whole kit. When/If issues arise.

I like my MM-1's. But not for everyone. Battery powered, came with an external power connection jack, but JUST the jack. Otherwise runs on 2x AAs for a few hours. A lot of gain, most of it clean. A limiter that actually works. And stepped gain makes things a little easier in post to edit in that difference in gain you did that one time DURING a take.
 
Unless you "need" those extras for live use. You can always do those extras in post for the most part. But if you "need" it for live use, or to lessen your burden in post, then opt for them.

Otherwise get a higher-end pre that does well with any mic, or settle on the best compromise that does best with YOUR mics. Which can be a complex formula to figure that one out. Phantom power, noise floor, impedance, total dB of gain, EQ, shielding, digital out, world clock, .....

Budget?
 
I like the idea of compressing the signal before it gets laid down. The secret is to use it sparingly. If you would EQ, same goes there. Ever so slight changes.

Don't laugh, but I have an ART Tubepac pre. 1 12AX7 for the preamp and one for the compressor. Using my Bluebird mic, I have a very tight signal with great tone. I can get a high dollar pre, but when the vocals sound that good, I figure "why bother"?
 
budget 5 to 1000 only 1000 if its really really worth it. Id rather not the EQ so, id rather do it in the DAW, and i guess compression wouldn't be a bad option to have.

so far i read some good things about that summit a lot of people saying its worth a lot more then what it costs. Kinda sucks it doesnt have 2 mic inputs. btw this pre would be for mainly vocals, would be nice to have some versatility but mainly for vocals.


btw i love you guys :) helped me extensively.
 
dintymoore said:
I have heard a lot of people say that the Art VLA compressors are a bargain.

Whatever works. :)
Click to expand...
They are a fabulous bargain (the VLA II/second gen is the one I can attest to). Especially when Sweetwater owes you a favor and sells you one for 1/2 price: $150!

Yup, a nice bit of warmth from the (stock) tubes...but more importantly, the compression is transparent and very unobtrusive. This is the only time I print FX/dynamic control to disk while tracking: a wee bit of compression on vocals and a wee bit more than that on acoustic guitar to help tame boominess (dipping an eq by a few dB around 180-200 Hz can work wonders on boom, too, especially when you hear it in the mix. Settings I've found to work well: 1)Threshold: -5 to -6 dB; (2)Ratio: the classic 4:1; 3) fast attack of 5-10 ms; 4) also fast release at .3-.5 sec; Output level to taste.

Mattheaxe made the best point in this thread: it does not matter a whit how much you spend on compressors, EQs, etc. The ONLY thing that matters with music is how the finished product sounds. To YOU. Simple mike placement can do more for your sound than any Manley or Massenburg $5000 box. The power supply alone for ol' George's 8200 para EQ is over $500. For a glorified wall wart.

Finally - and this is just my opinion: unless you're trying to restore damaged media (scratched records, etc) or doing some serious Bob Ludwig-level mastering, the average home recordist is far more likely to mess up the sound than improve it through EQ. EQ should be a very last resort, not something to add to a recording "because it's there". Finally, if you must play with that new $5000 EQ - and who can blame you - remember the recording axiom: "less is more". Cut frequencies rather than boost. Learn to sweep for trouble spots and cut those frequencies. And remember that even if adding 3 dB of 11KHz gain to the ride cymbal track when soloed sounds "good"...it may not work or may be competing with another instrument for that very piece of sonic real estate when it comes to mixdown. Learn mike placement and panning before EQing the crap out of something.
 
I tend towards EQ as digital correction. As in make the mic characteristics more flat. In a semi-scientific manner. I can't really call it scientific since I don't have full range monitors to run a frequency sweep of a set dB of tones to be recorded by the mic. To later be analyzed and used as a basis for correction. But I do go, four voices (Bass, Tenor, Alto, Soprano), and the Tenor isn't registering, adjust EQ, there they are... Otherwise I generally avoid edits beyond hard limit, amplify and trim. And of course resample from fairly high bitrates to lower ones after those edits have been made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top