Using preamp for "focus"

D

DM1

New member
This article from Studio Reviews has me perplexed: http://www.studioreviews.com/pre.htm

The basic premise is that a quality preamp will make tracks more focused, and therefore easier to separate and place in a mix. The visual he provides is certainly compelling. And great professional mixes do tend to sound the way that visual looks.

But having never used a quality preamp myself, the notion that a great preamp makes sound more focused strikes me as ... silly. Frankly, I assumed the separation and placement in great commercial mixes was due to the engineer's skill with mic placement, EQ, and reverb. Other than pre's that obviously colour the sound (which seems to me the opposite of focus,) isn't a preamp just an element of gain staging?

If you've used a high-end preamp, do you agree with the article's premise? Can a great preamp by itself make a recording sound more focused?
 
I like his analogies and illustrations. What he says seems to make total sense on paper, but I don't have good enough ears or know enough to tell you if it's as defined as he makes it.
I don't think he's saying a good pre-amp is all you need. Just like a good compresor isn't all you need to make a good recording. But you can't make a good recording without the good equipment on the way in. That seems to be more the message he's trying to convey.
 
DM1 said:
But having never used a quality preamp myself, the notion that a great preamp makes sound more focused strikes me as ... silly. Frankly, I assumed the separation and placement in great commercial mixes was due to the engineer's skill with mic placement, EQ, and reverb. Other than pre's that obviously colour the sound (which seems to me the opposite of focus,) isn't a preamp just an element of gain staging?

If you've used a high-end preamp, do you agree with the article's premise? Can a great preamp by itself make a recording sound more focused?
Click to expand...

Assuming the same photographer for both photos try this illustration......you take two digital photos, the first with an old 1.0 megapixel camera, the second with a new 8.0 megapixel camera.

The second photo looks more brilliant and life-like. Better resolution can translate to better perceived quality. Now translate to an audio example.

Make sense?

Bartman
 
Oh Jesus.

That piece was just classic.

It will go down in history as one of the all-time hilarious and embarassing articals ever written.

:D Whooo hooo-ey ! ! This is your guitar ... and this is your guitar on Dan Richards!

.
 

Attachments

  • unf2.JPG
    unf2.JPG
    9.7 KB · Views: 90
The funny thing about DOT's illistration on that paper is that it shows the quality preamp making a smaller footprint than the cheap pre. Now, I've never read a preamp ad or review touting how small it sounds. :D

Dan knows his stuff though, and the camera lense analogy certainly rings true for something like a Grace. I will always point out though, that many great photos have made good use of grainyness and deliberately shallow depth of field with resultant blurring. I want to have the equivalent of a Zeiss lense in my rack, but I would'nt want to record everything through it. Great focus isn't always what every track calls for, IMHO.
 
chessrock said:
It will go down in history as one of the all-time hilarious and embarassing articals ever written.
Click to expand...
So is he just talking out his arse then? Or trying to force a bad analogy?


Bartman said:
Better resolution can translate to better perceived quality. Now translate to an audio example.
Click to expand...
Your explanation makes more sense than the linked article, for sure. But I'm still not sure what he was trying to get at with the "focus" analogy.

"Better quality equipment = better quality recording", which is basically what you're saying, applies to everything in the recording chain. But Dan's making a more specific point, that a quality pre-amp makes sound more focused and easier to place.

Like I said up-thread, this strikes me as silly. But I lack the experience to qualify that ...
 
DM1 said:
So is he just talking out his arse then? Or trying to force a bad analogy?
Click to expand...


I don't know about all that stuff. Although the whole "focusing sounds" thing is pretty odd. I just think the way it was written ... and with the diagram of the clear guitar going through the evil window and coming out all warped and twisted like a funhouse mirror on the other end. Pure classic. :D

.
 
The irony to me upon reading that article is just how unfocused the article is. Nowhere des he actually say what the hell he is talking about when he is talking "focus". His analogies are all over the board and only once does he brush on any possible technical backing for what he's talking about. And even then, any link between the tech talk and the thesis is about as fuzzy as his unfocused diagrams.

He does mention going into the third act the following quote by another tweakhead:

"Harmonic distortion and intermodulation distortion are both created by the same mechanism...." He then goes on to insinuate that this is most ly a problem at high frequencies.

Now, I will say that when I read the subtitle of the article, "Quality pres can focus sounds in your mix and give everything better definition", what popped into my mind was that good preamps are arguably cleaner and more "focused" in that they theoretically introduce less harmonic distortion. They introduce less extraneous "fuzz" to the signal. This seems to be kind of what he may be pointing at way down in the thrid act with his talk of good preamp design keeping a clamp on the distortion.

But immediately after the titles he launches right into a discussion of focus on the soundstage and how panning makes all the difference.

The insinuation here being that high frequency harmonic and IM distortion can affect the sharpness of the image in pan space. I think this may be the point he's trying to make with the article, and he's just doing it in a very poorly focused and very badly written (or perhaps poorly edited?) way.

And even if it were better written, I think his analogy is quite faulty and misleading. Poorer-quality preamps may "smear" the high freqs worse than better ones will becaused of increased HF distortions, and this smear causes more overlap in the sonic spectrum when mounting more than one bad pre in the mix. However, this overlap is bothersome in the spectral dimension far more than it is in the spacial dimension. We all know it as "mud" or a buildup of "harsh".

The only part that makes any real focused sense to me is the very last sentence:

"Jumping to the next great DAW will not improve your sound nearly as much as a serious mic pre will add to your front-end and to your overall tool kit."

That is sound, common sense. It's just a shame that the 500 or so words before it aren't.

G.
 
I buy his general concepts, but his delivery is misleading and unorganized.

I won't go to say a high quality preamps ALWAYS sounds better than a cheaper one. I will say however that certain preamps give you a better sound for certain applications than other ones.

For example, if I have a choice between a Great River or API when tracking drums, I'm going to take the Great Rivers for my overheads or room mics because I like the quality and crisp high end. However, the API kicks its ass for a kick drum.
 
Where the premise kind of starts unraveling is when you consider the fact that some of the most highy-coveted and expensive mic pres out there have much higher THD (and sometimes noise) figures than a lot of the inexpensive ones. When you look at pure specs, a Mackie VLZ will whip the crap out of a Neve or even an API. Add in the fact that most mixing engineers will attempt to introduce some level of harmonic distortion to many of the cleaner tracks (vocals in particular) as an effect or during the compression stage, etc.
.
 
It seems to me that arguing that one shouldn't use poor quality preamps because they smear the soundstage is like saying that one shouldn't take a toaster into the bathtub with them because they might get crumbs in the bath water.

That's the least of the issues.

G.
 
chessrock said:
Where the premise kind of starts unraveling is when you consider the fact that some of the most highy-coveted and expensive mic pres out there have much higher THD (and sometimes noise) figures than a lot of the inexpensive ones. When you look at pure specs, a Mackie VLZ will whip the crap out of a Neve or even an API. Add in the fact that most mixing engineers will attempt to introduce some level of harmonic distortion to many of the cleaner tracks (vocals in particular) as an effect or during the compression stage, etc.
.
Click to expand...

I agree, but those models have a distinct sound to them that is desired for certain tasks. Hell, I love SSL consoles, but the mic pres on them are dog shit. I'd rather use the Mackie's.
 
"Smeared sound stage" is usually something I associate with converters and jitter, not preamps......unless the former is part of the latter. "Focus" is something I usually associate with slew rate, transconductance, bandwidth, and THD. I guess you can make the argument that a more focused sound is easier for the ear to "place" in the soundstage.
 
well you just have to take it for what it is...



Just feels like a piece that was written by a guy who came across some "exciting" information (which probably answered his own questions) and wrote the piece.

Any experienced live sound engineer could of emphasised the "wow" factor of a good preamp. Meaning seperation, favorable sound qualities, ease of mixing, etc. Which in my opinion is just as valuble a resource, if not more, to the studio recording engineer.


Simply because thier lives depend on manipulating fixed (and not always friendly) acoustics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top