What freakin' pre?

[chessrock]

I do agree that to me it wiould seem a little odd to run stuff back out through a really clean or neutral preamp ...

I can't fathom any situation where it would do anything other than degredation of the signal. The only scenario I might consider is if you had a DI box with a nice transformer in it, and you were trying to get some subtle iron distortion on a kick or bass track ... and you needed the mic pre to bring the output from the DI box back to line level cleanly.

This would be more along the lines of interesting experimentation, thinking outside the box, etc. (As would Kojdogg's mentioning of the old Tchad Blake / Sansamp technique he used on the Dandy Warhols records).

But Sonic's suggestion is more along the lines of iresponsible technique, to me, brought about not by lack of spirit and good intentions ... but more by lack of understanding -- and not something that would be well advised.

.

 

[chessrock]

Also, the BG-1 has a very specific sonic character. It's not straight wire with gain, there's a definite sound there--clean but not neutral. Transparent, but also big and warm.

Dude, you're losing me big-time, here.

I'm sorry, but you're using a bunch of contradictory statements that make no sense. You sound like some of my dumbass clients who tell me to make their mix "big, but small." ... "Fat, but skinny," or "blue, but green."

... so I press a button that does absolutely nothing, and everyone hollers "Oh my God! That's it!"

If running your mix through some more cables and opamp chips gives you a psychological sonic woody, then don't let me hold you back or tell you it's wrong. You just go do whatever it is you need to do, and I am, for the record, sorry for criticizing your technique. But also note that I won't be calling to ask for your advice on anything relating to audio any time in the near future.
.

 

[SonicAlbert]

But Sonic's suggestion is more along the lines of iresponsible technique, to me, brought about not by lack of spirit and good intentions ... but more by lack of understanding -- and not something that would be well advised.

Lack of understanding--I love it, that's funny. I certainly don't claim to understand everything.

But again, I hire a recording engineer to mix my projects. My guy has major credits, long time in the business, knows what he's doing. You've heard his work. When it comes time to mix I basically turn into the producer.

Sometimes I read about different techniques that engineers are using, and I make mental notes about the ones that seem to apply to what I'm doing. The next time I record or mix something I describe the technique to my engineer and we try it out or adapt it in some way. If we like it we keep it, if we don't like it we throw it away. I have no difficulty admitting an idea is bad or it doesn't produce the result we are looking for, it's all part of the process. It takes just seconds to determine if it works.

But what I *keep saying* is that you have to hear it before you can judge it.

 

[SonicAlbert]

But also note that I won't be calling to ask for your advice on anything relating to audio any time in the near future.
.

You didn't call before, so why should you call now?

My terms were not contradictory at all. It is certainly possible to have something that is clean but not neutral, and transparent but warm. These terms are not mutually exclusive.

It is awfully hard to describe music or sound in words. That's why I keep saying you have to hear it before you can judge it. You keep avoiding that.

 

[Big Kenny]

I'm pretty sure I'm worth my salt, hell, I'm worth your salt too!

 

[kojdogg]

You sound like some of my dumbass clients who tell me to make their mix "big, but small." ... "Fat, but skinny," or "blue, but green."
... so I press a button that does absolutely nothing, and everyone hollers "Oh my God! That's it!"

Does this hint at a bit of cynicism/burn out? You can hammer Sonic-A about some innocuous post (intended to be helpful) in a way that you can't do to your clueless clients, many of whom it sounds like you don't like working with.

I can't fathom any situation where it would do anything other than degredation of the signal.

Couldn't you say the same about distortion-- isn't the distorted guitar sound attributed to a guy in Little Richard's band who had a broken speaker? Couldn't you also say the same thing about recording to analog tape? The bottom line is how it sounds.

(As would Kojdogg's mentioning of the old Tchad Blake / Sansamp technique he used on the Dandy Warhols records)

The point of my post was less to highlight the specific (and very successful-- not limited to just the dandy warhols incidentally) example, but the second part of the post about the spirit of experimentation and pragamatism with the recorded product being ultimately all that matters (again provided that you didn't blow anything up along the way).
In a Tapeop interview with Wally Sear, he compalins about many engineers now are people who learned how to use Pro Tools and have very little knowledge of basic things like the principles of signal flow compared to when he started out when recording engineers used to be either Electrical Engineers or Mechanical Engineers with degrees in those fields. Point is, there's always some who will know more about this stuff than you will-- it doesn't necessarily mean that they'll make better recordings than you. Just like performance, there are recordists who are primarily technicians and those who are primarily artists and there are people who can balance both.

Please don't take this as anti-Chessrock. I think you're right on with almost all of your posts and I'm sure know way more about this stuff than me. I just feel bad for folks who come here looking for information and advice who see their threads dissolve into overblown pissing contests.

end soap box rant

 

[chessrock]

If you want to argue about subjectivity, then we're just going to go in circles on this one.

As a hypothetical example: Let's say you like the sound of running your music through a Behringer mixer on the way to a Soundblaster card, because you feel it ads something subjective that improves the sound of the product.

I can't argue with you if it's what you like.

I can think you're a little strange (and I can advise others to use caution if they want to try it at home), but again, I can't argue. You win, alright. I lose. Case closed.

.

 

[xstatic]

I can't fathom any situation where it would do anything other than degredation of the signal. The only scenario I might consider is if you had a DI box with a nice transformer in it, and you were trying to get some subtle iron distortion on a kick or bass track ... and you needed the mic pre to bring the output from the DI box back to line level cleanly.

This would be more along the lines of interesting experimentation, thinking outside the box, etc. (As would Kojdogg's mentioning of the old Tchad Blake / Sansamp technique he used on the Dandy Warhols records).

But Sonic's suggestion is more along the lines of iresponsible technique, to me, brought about not by lack of spirit and good intentions ... but more by lack of understanding -- and not something that would be well advised.

.

Actually, every bit of processing technical;ly results in a degradation of signal. The art of recording and mixing and mastering etc... is degradation of signal. You are thinking in a very narrow way which is not common to all the great engineers out there. It is not uncommon for engineers to do exactly what I said. It's just like compressing something except that in this instance a track, or group of tracks, or even a whole mix is sent back through a preamp in order to acheive a part of that preamps sonic signature. It is not used on every track, or every mix, or every project, but is a tool none the less. If you can not understand that then you are the uncommon factor here in the recording industry (at least in the succesful side of it).

 

[chessrock]

It's just like compressing something except that in this instance a track, or group of tracks, or even a whole mix is sent back through a preamp in order to acheive a part of that preamps sonic signature. It is not used on every track, or every mix, or every project, but is a tool none the less. (at least in the succesful side of it).

Hey, like I said ... and I'll repeat myself: If you want to argue that a transparent solid state mic preamp (with no transformers or anything colorful at all in the signal path) is going to add some sort of sonic mojo or magic pixie dust to a mix, then I can't argue with you. Just like if you wanted to run a mix through that soundblaster card and the Behringer mixer because you thought it sounded like TITS. Again, if that's the way your ears are hearing things, then I applaud you for sticking to your guns and I exhault you for your pioneering spirit of experimentation.

Again, in that regard, you are right and I am wrong. But I still reserve the right to think it's a pretty damn useless exercise (and that you're probably kind of a goof), and that's where I'm at with things. Shoot me.

.

 

[SonicAlbert]

If by "transparent solid state" preamp you are referring to the BG-1, then once again I have to say that *you haven't heard it*. You are simply making statements that you don't have the qualifications to make, i.e. you haven't freakin' *heard* the darn thing. There, I used the "freakin' word.

It's not transparent like you think it is, there is a definite tone to it. I can hear it, my engineer can hear it, others who I've loaned the preamp to have heard it. It's not a placebo effect, as you keep implying. Every gear has tone anyway, no matter how transparent.

As far as the "useless exercise" of running busses or a mix through a preamp: you obviously haven't even tried it. You condemn equipment and techniques that you haven't used, and that you have no direct knowledge of. You're guessing, estimating, nothing more. I can't help but begin to think you are pulling our collective legs with all this.

You should try some of this stuff out. Expand your mind and all that....

 

[chessrock]

As far as the "useless exercise" of running busses or a mix through a preamp: you obviously haven't even tried it. You condemn equipment and techniques that you haven't used, and that you have no direct knowledge of. You're guessing, estimating, nothing more. I can't help but begin to think you are pulling our collective legs with all this.

You should try some of this stuff out. Expand your mind and all that....

No thanks.

I'll pass.

.

 

[xstatic]

Well, how you got "transparent solid state pre" from my comment I am not sure. But then, how you get a job in this industry with your attitude I am not sure of either. I guess I am jumping to the conclusion that you do have a job in this industry. In either event, I have learned in my life that I can always learn something from everyone. Congrats Chess, from you I have learned exactly how I never want to be.... close minded as they come.

 

[Rodger Hartlett]

i agree with Chessrock. there's no point in going through more circuitry if it ain't adding any color or mojo. the dav is a pos.

 

[warble2]

i agree with Chessrock. there's no point in going through more circuitry if it ain't adding any color or mojo. the dav is a pos.

So, have you used a Dav or is it just a POS because "there are no quality parts or components to justify the price"? I haven't used it, but I would buy it because you think it's a POS.

At least is doesn't use an AC/wallwart for power - I know how horrid you think that is and makes a pre that uses one again, a POS.

 

[Kevin Deschwazi]

At least is doesn't use an AC/wallwart for power - I know how horrid you think that is and makes a pre that uses one again, a POS.

Well, that's just bunkum.

 

[SonicAlbert]

i agree with Chessrock. there's no point in going through more circuitry if it ain't adding any color or mojo. the dav is a pos.

We already know from another thread that Rodger has never heard, used or even touched a BG-1. So he doesn't know one way or another anything about it, and certainly has no basis for making any kind of judgment on it.

I do agree with the part about not going through extra circuitry if it isn't adding anything desirable. That's just business as usual, anyone using their ears will automatically do that as they work.

In any kind of creative process one of the worst things one can do is be resistant. This kills the work flow, the creative flow, and raises everyone's hackles. If someone comes up with an idea, no matter how seemingly foolish it may appear, it's *always* better to say "let's try it" than argue about what a bad idea it is or why it won't work. It is always possible to be surprised and to learn something unexpected and good.

As far as an external power supply, a lot of really high end gear uses external power supplies. I think many of us are used to the cheap and poorly shielded wall warts that come with budget gear. But an external power supply is actually a pretty good design as far as keeping the audio electronics away from any electrical interference. It isn't as convenient though, I agree with that. I personally do like the power supply inside the unit itself.

 

[soundchaser59]

But don't overlook the GT Brick, which sounds better than it's price might indicate.

Took the words right outa my keyboard..... you won't be disappointed with a Brick.

 

[MCI2424]

i agree with Chessrock. there's no point in going through more circuitry if it ain't adding any color or mojo. the dav is a pos.

But, parallel compression is used everyday. Why not parallel pre-amping?

Sounds like a "try-it" before you diss it.

Could be great

 

[Big Kenny]

Hartlett just a goof, no experience that I can see

 

[chessrock]

I suppose the fact that I don't choose to piss in to a strong gust of wind ... makes me close-minded to the idea of having piss all over myself.

This is the stupidest argument I've ever been a part of, and I'm ashamed of myself for taking part. It is truly an embarassment, and an abomination to mankind.

.