Recently, Alan Hyatt offered to send a CD to forum members who were interested in hearing the three Studio Projects mics recorded through five different mic preamps, including two that are distributed by his company. If you are considering purchasing a Studio Projects mic and/or a Trident or JoeMeek preamp, I highly recommend that you take Alan up on his generous offer.
The CD is particularly useful for me as a newcomer to recording, because I have no idea what goes into making a "mix." I don't mean that I haven't read about it here and enjoyed the results of recordists' accomplishment; I mean that I haven't *heard* tracks broken out before so that I could understand sonically how they are put together. It makes me want to save up and pop for that "Golden Ears" course that someone mentioned in another thread. I have a lot to learn.
I'm beginning to realize that "dry" is all I know -- from a classical music and purist's perspective, this is not all that bad, but it does mean that I'm missing out on a lot of what's going on and what's possible, especially in pop and rock. For instance, this is the first time that I've actually understood at least a little about why more experienced people on this forum distinguish between how a microphone sounds on a vocal track by itself and how it sounds in a mix. Words are one thing -- hearing it is another.
OK, to the disc itself: On my computer speakers, all fifteen of the "finished" tracks sounded great (3 microphones through 5 preamps, with the singer performing the same song segment 15 times in a synthesized instrumental mix). The differences among the five preamps were relatively minimal on my tiny no-name speakers, and mics sounded similar but vaguely "better" as the price went up.
I should mention that except to confirm the sound qualities on a couple of favored mic-preamp combinations, I didn't listen much to the second song, which was just too hard/funky for my personal tastes.
Then I warmed up our better CD playback system and sat down in the sweet spot with the remote for some serious listening. The differences among the mics and preamps became much more apparent.
For the record, the mix itself did not sound great on the full-range system. The synthesized accompaniment, which was phasey and formed a bowl of sound around the singer in a sort of horizontal "U" shape, left the singer positioned just right of center and too far in the background. I struggled to hear the mic/preamp and general vocal quality, which seemed buried in the mix. It wasn't awful by any means; it just wasn't great.
In defense of the performer and Studio Projects' production people, the detailed notes that accompany the disc (downloaded from their web site) make it crystal clear that the producers considered this a way to expose the listener to the sound of their mics through various preamps, and *not* a finished musical product ready for release. They state very clearly, "Think of these as tracks, not mixes, and nothing more!" My notes on the sound of the "mix" should be understood from that perspective.
But most useful are the sixteen tracks that follow, which offer up the mono vocal track *by itself* for each of the 15 combinations (plus one duplication). The starkness of these tracks -- the vocalist hearing the accompaniment through headphones and singing his composition through three Studio Projects mics on five different preamps -- is incredibly useful for hearing not only the differences among the mics and preamps, but also allowing the listener to jump back to how it sounded in the mix.
The lead vocal tracks each receive about 3db of compression, but no other processing. For singing in this style, it leaves the performer tremendously exposed, and his concern about this -- though unwarranted -- is clear in the written notes.
On the mono vocal tracks, the C-1 sounds close and "dead," not in a negative sense, but in the sense that it successfully isolates the singer from room interactions. Plosives were apparent but not offensive; the mic achieved an intimacy without additional information, much like singing to yourself outdoors. Even with the almost total lack of processing, this use was musically and sonically effective when added to the mix. Hearing the C-1 in this way was the first time I understood why the Neumann U87 is considered so useful -- it produces something musically useful, if not particularly "warm" OR "accurate."
The C-3 (and the notes don't say which of the multiple patterns available on that mic was used) added "air" and "ambience" to the dry vocal tracks. The performer still sounded lonely and exposed, but there was much more information about the space around him, and a sense of 3-dimensionality that was somewhat lacking in the same tracks with the C-1. Jumping back to the mix, this added a certain richness that was subtle but pleasant. It wasn't as though you'd say, "Whoa! That must have been done with the C-3 rather than the C-1." It was more like my smile broadened a bit more as I tapped my foot to the beat.
The T-3 shined on the dry vocal tracks. The sameness heard on the little computer speakers completely disappeared on the full-range system. The differences among the three mics were no longer subtle at all. They all sounded good, but the T-3 opened another level of emotional expression and evocation that was as striking in its own way as the difference between the C-1 and and the C-3. It is a quality that is difficult to put into words, but I found its improvement over the C-3 to be *at least* as significant as the differences among the preamps, which surprised me. The T-3 is a serious contender among tube mics at any price; at less than $700, one should audition it before considering *any* mic costing significantly more, and -- perhaps just as important -- before buying a tube mic that costs less. Depending on your sound preferences and own listening experience with this mic, it might be worthwhile to wait until you can afford the difference in order to buy the T-3. Digital Pro Audio in New York currently stocks the T-3 for $629.
It was fairly easy to sort the preamps into immediate preferences, and those preferences persisted regardless of which mic was being used. I'm embarrassed to admit I have no idea what a Neve 1089 or "Modified V72" is, but each clearly offered the most compelling sound of the preamps used. The difference between them was as subtle -- and distinctive -- as the difference between the ruler-flat and utterly transparent Earthworks Lab 102 and the slightly more euphonic but still crushingly revealing Grace Design 201 that for me offered the best sound recorded on the 3DAudioinc.com Preamp Listening Test CDs (of 33 high-end microphone preamps). The 1089 was perhaps a touch sweeter; the V72 had a bit more drive. I would be in heaven with either one and not miss or long for the other.
At the same time, what was impressive was how *close* the Trident came to sounding like the V72, and that the affordable JoeMeek VC1Q did a highly credible impersonation of the Trident. The differences were much smaller than I would have expected, and if I hadn't heard the Trident and JoeMeek tracks side-by-side with the 1089 and V72 , I would have been very happy with either. It's a credit to PMI Distributing that they were willing to put the sound of two of their products up against such great standard-setters.
I just realized I haven't mentioned the Focusrite Red 1 in these comments (which was the fifth preamp that was used), but in this compilation, while it sounded fine, it was clearly outranked by the other four preamps. It is here that perhaps my ignorance is actually useful: the only preamp that I know the price of in this group is the JoeMeek VC1Q, and only that because PureSound is offering it on ebay for the unbeatable price of $569. I assume that all the other preamps were significantly more expensive, but I honestly don't know. I'm just reporting what I heard.
I hope these notes are useful to some readers, and that other people who have auditioned the Studio Projects "Sessions" CD will contribute their impressions as well to this thread. Again, those who are interested should take Alan up on his offer while supplies of this comparison disc are available. It's a valuable learning experience for anyone considering buying the Studio Projects microphones or the Trident or JoeMeek preamps.
With best wishes to all for a great Christmas holiday,
Mark H.
The CD is particularly useful for me as a newcomer to recording, because I have no idea what goes into making a "mix." I don't mean that I haven't read about it here and enjoyed the results of recordists' accomplishment; I mean that I haven't *heard* tracks broken out before so that I could understand sonically how they are put together. It makes me want to save up and pop for that "Golden Ears" course that someone mentioned in another thread. I have a lot to learn.
I'm beginning to realize that "dry" is all I know -- from a classical music and purist's perspective, this is not all that bad, but it does mean that I'm missing out on a lot of what's going on and what's possible, especially in pop and rock. For instance, this is the first time that I've actually understood at least a little about why more experienced people on this forum distinguish between how a microphone sounds on a vocal track by itself and how it sounds in a mix. Words are one thing -- hearing it is another.
OK, to the disc itself: On my computer speakers, all fifteen of the "finished" tracks sounded great (3 microphones through 5 preamps, with the singer performing the same song segment 15 times in a synthesized instrumental mix). The differences among the five preamps were relatively minimal on my tiny no-name speakers, and mics sounded similar but vaguely "better" as the price went up.
I should mention that except to confirm the sound qualities on a couple of favored mic-preamp combinations, I didn't listen much to the second song, which was just too hard/funky for my personal tastes.
Then I warmed up our better CD playback system and sat down in the sweet spot with the remote for some serious listening. The differences among the mics and preamps became much more apparent.
For the record, the mix itself did not sound great on the full-range system. The synthesized accompaniment, which was phasey and formed a bowl of sound around the singer in a sort of horizontal "U" shape, left the singer positioned just right of center and too far in the background. I struggled to hear the mic/preamp and general vocal quality, which seemed buried in the mix. It wasn't awful by any means; it just wasn't great.
In defense of the performer and Studio Projects' production people, the detailed notes that accompany the disc (downloaded from their web site) make it crystal clear that the producers considered this a way to expose the listener to the sound of their mics through various preamps, and *not* a finished musical product ready for release. They state very clearly, "Think of these as tracks, not mixes, and nothing more!" My notes on the sound of the "mix" should be understood from that perspective.
But most useful are the sixteen tracks that follow, which offer up the mono vocal track *by itself* for each of the 15 combinations (plus one duplication). The starkness of these tracks -- the vocalist hearing the accompaniment through headphones and singing his composition through three Studio Projects mics on five different preamps -- is incredibly useful for hearing not only the differences among the mics and preamps, but also allowing the listener to jump back to how it sounded in the mix.
The lead vocal tracks each receive about 3db of compression, but no other processing. For singing in this style, it leaves the performer tremendously exposed, and his concern about this -- though unwarranted -- is clear in the written notes.
On the mono vocal tracks, the C-1 sounds close and "dead," not in a negative sense, but in the sense that it successfully isolates the singer from room interactions. Plosives were apparent but not offensive; the mic achieved an intimacy without additional information, much like singing to yourself outdoors. Even with the almost total lack of processing, this use was musically and sonically effective when added to the mix. Hearing the C-1 in this way was the first time I understood why the Neumann U87 is considered so useful -- it produces something musically useful, if not particularly "warm" OR "accurate."
The C-3 (and the notes don't say which of the multiple patterns available on that mic was used) added "air" and "ambience" to the dry vocal tracks. The performer still sounded lonely and exposed, but there was much more information about the space around him, and a sense of 3-dimensionality that was somewhat lacking in the same tracks with the C-1. Jumping back to the mix, this added a certain richness that was subtle but pleasant. It wasn't as though you'd say, "Whoa! That must have been done with the C-3 rather than the C-1." It was more like my smile broadened a bit more as I tapped my foot to the beat.
The T-3 shined on the dry vocal tracks. The sameness heard on the little computer speakers completely disappeared on the full-range system. The differences among the three mics were no longer subtle at all. They all sounded good, but the T-3 opened another level of emotional expression and evocation that was as striking in its own way as the difference between the C-1 and and the C-3. It is a quality that is difficult to put into words, but I found its improvement over the C-3 to be *at least* as significant as the differences among the preamps, which surprised me. The T-3 is a serious contender among tube mics at any price; at less than $700, one should audition it before considering *any* mic costing significantly more, and -- perhaps just as important -- before buying a tube mic that costs less. Depending on your sound preferences and own listening experience with this mic, it might be worthwhile to wait until you can afford the difference in order to buy the T-3. Digital Pro Audio in New York currently stocks the T-3 for $629.
It was fairly easy to sort the preamps into immediate preferences, and those preferences persisted regardless of which mic was being used. I'm embarrassed to admit I have no idea what a Neve 1089 or "Modified V72" is, but each clearly offered the most compelling sound of the preamps used. The difference between them was as subtle -- and distinctive -- as the difference between the ruler-flat and utterly transparent Earthworks Lab 102 and the slightly more euphonic but still crushingly revealing Grace Design 201 that for me offered the best sound recorded on the 3DAudioinc.com Preamp Listening Test CDs (of 33 high-end microphone preamps). The 1089 was perhaps a touch sweeter; the V72 had a bit more drive. I would be in heaven with either one and not miss or long for the other.
At the same time, what was impressive was how *close* the Trident came to sounding like the V72, and that the affordable JoeMeek VC1Q did a highly credible impersonation of the Trident. The differences were much smaller than I would have expected, and if I hadn't heard the Trident and JoeMeek tracks side-by-side with the 1089 and V72 , I would have been very happy with either. It's a credit to PMI Distributing that they were willing to put the sound of two of their products up against such great standard-setters.
I just realized I haven't mentioned the Focusrite Red 1 in these comments (which was the fifth preamp that was used), but in this compilation, while it sounded fine, it was clearly outranked by the other four preamps. It is here that perhaps my ignorance is actually useful: the only preamp that I know the price of in this group is the JoeMeek VC1Q, and only that because PureSound is offering it on ebay for the unbeatable price of $569. I assume that all the other preamps were significantly more expensive, but I honestly don't know. I'm just reporting what I heard.
I hope these notes are useful to some readers, and that other people who have auditioned the Studio Projects "Sessions" CD will contribute their impressions as well to this thread. Again, those who are interested should take Alan up on his offer while supplies of this comparison disc are available. It's a valuable learning experience for anyone considering buying the Studio Projects microphones or the Trident or JoeMeek preamps.
With best wishes to all for a great Christmas holiday,
Mark H.
