What's more important...mic or preamp?

[blue4u]

So, I have been thinking about how a cheap mic can be made to sound great with a great preamp and vice versa, a great mic can make an otherwise cheap preamp sound great. All things considered I have to think the preamp is more significant considering MANY great sounds are captured on 100 dollar mics through expensive, well-designed preamps like Neve, API, and SSL (think SM57). But maybe you disagree? Or, maybe you think they are equally important. Or, maybe you think it's irrelevant and the performance is what matters. Share you thoughts if you're so inclined....

 

[WhiteStrat]

I respectfully disagree with your logic, and thus chose "mic" in the poll. For example, you mention how many great tracks have been made with a $100 mic (SM57) with great pres. While that's very true, that mic wasn't used because they ran out of money--it was used because it's great for that use. And those same tracks could have been made with a much lesser pre--they woudn't have been as good, but they would have still been good. I use a 57 all the time--and I get great results with fairly cheap pres. In other words, the pre didn't make the 57 sound great--the 57 already has something going for it, the great pre just polished it.

I don't think a $2000 pre can save a $7.00 Nady SP-5 on vocals, whereas a U87 through my $200 pre will still sound pretty special.

Now, if it sounds like I'm saying it's ALL the mic--I'm not. They go hand in hand, and should increase in value and quality simultaneously. I think it would be wasteful to have half a dozen $1000/$2000 mics with cheap pres. But I also wouldn't spend a couple grand on a pre for a $50 mxl mic.

So first, give me a good mic, then next I'll buy a good pre for it. A little later, I'll buy a great mic, then a great pre to go with it. Then another mic, then another pre...

(Think about it this way: what upgrades were more instantly noticeable in your gear? For me it's mics over pres. With the better mics, I want better pres to get the most out of the mic, but it's the mic upgrades that take my sound up a bigger step.)

 

[tc4b]

So, I have been thinking about how a cheap mic can be made to sound great with a great preamp and vice versa, a great mic can make an otherwise cheap preamp sound great.

I think the opposite, or maybe it's the converse, but basically:
The shitty elements in your signal will ruin the excellent ones. I mean, what's the point of having a $2k pre if you're running a shitty mic, or if you're using shitty pre's then you might as well use a studio projects b1 as a u87. Keep in mind, I've never used a u87, so take it for what it's worth. I guess what i'm saying is that I would consider spending way more on one part of the chain than all the others to be a waste of money.

 

[soundchaser59]

a great mic can make an otherwise cheap preamp sound great.

This is the part I disagree with.......

If you have the budget, but you must choose...... get the great preamp first. Get a great mic later..... a great mic will NOT make a cheap preamp sound great.

 

[tdukex]

Not that one is more "important" than the other, but my preference was to have a great preamp first. I haven't regreted that decision (although I already had a very nice LD).

 

[wheelema]

Well, let me see if I can figure out how to phrase this...

I asked myself which is more realistic...

To find an extremely decent mic for, oh, say one or two hundred dollars, OR...
to find an extremely decent preamp for, oh, say one or two hundred dollars.

Because if someone had a budget of $600 bucks, just to toss out a number, then you could score... for example... at Shure SM57 for a hundred bucks and a FMR RNP for $475...

Or you could score a Shure SM7B for about $350 and a M-Audio DMP3 for about $160.

Now that I've phrased the question and tossed out a couple of configs (kudos to Massive Master for the preamp suggestions in a prior post) I have to vote for the preamp first, mic second.

Guess I screwed up! I got the mic first.

 

[guitar zero]

The fact that no one ever agrees on this "chicken or egg" type question proves once and for all that the real answer is............ C (both are equally important). Oh and throw in converters and room treatment and the question really becomes dizzying. Sort of like complex algebra solving 4 equations with 4 unknowns. Man, don't even go there.

 

[dgatwood]

The microphone. No doubt about it. While you could argue that a crappy pre can ruin a wonderful mic's sound, the fact that decent pres are as cheap as they are makes that point moot. The same cannot be said about microphones. You can get some very good pres at $25 a channel. You can't get nice microphones at $25 a channel (except for SDCs). You certainly won't be able to find mics that match most sources at that price.

It's all about diminishing returns. As you spend more money on any given component, you get less and less improvement in quality. The difference between preamps and microphones is the rate of the curve. The difference between a cheap pre and a $2000 pre is certainly there, but it isn't even in the same ballpark as the difference between a cheap mic and a $2000 mic.

With mics, you don't even need to jump to $2000 to see the difference. The difference between a $20 mic and a $200 mic is huge. The difference between a $20/channel pre and a $200 pre is usually negligible, and in many cases, the cheaper ones sound better, depending on the manufacturers in question.

Thus, if you're going to spend money, get a decent pre once, then spend further money on your mic locker. After you get something with reasonably high gain and low noise, throwing more money at the pre is likely to give you far less bang for the buck than getting another mic that is significantly different than the ones you already have.

 

[WhiteStrat]

dgatwood:

You said it so much better than the bald guy about 6 posts up. Very well put!

Yours truly,

The bald guy

 

[MCI2424]

Microphone by a long shot

 

[bubbagump]

Or, maybe you think it's irrelevant and the performance is what matters.

It all depends on the task at hand and assigning dollar amounts as universally good or bad is worthless IMO. You may pay much less for a Ford truck than a rocket... but you can't haul 25 sheets of drywall in rocket.... but it will get you to the moon. Ya dig?

 

[blue4u]

It all depends on the task at hand and assigning dollar amounts as universally good or bad is worthless IMO. You may pay much less for a Ford truck than a rocket... but you can't haul 25 sheets of drywall in rocket.... but it will get you to the moon. Ya dig?

Man, I totally dig! Problem is... I have a job that demands I haul 25 sheets of drywall when all I wanna do is fly to the moon. So, here I am driving the work truck dreaming that it's a rocket

The nature of a question like this is that whether it's logical or not, people are making decisions based on budget and many are building their studio out of parts rather than as a large, one-time investment. Few are creating "environments" (arguably, the better approach to studio construction) when they buy gear. Most of us are assembling components that we hope one day will be a complete studio. Therein lies the nature of so-called "home recording".

There's no easy answer here but I sure hate it when people say you need ALL high quality components and your signal is only as good as the weakest link in your chain. It's all true of course but I still hate hearing it

Great feedback guys! I am surprised actually. I thought most would say a cheap LDC or a Shure dynamic with a high quality pre is the first choice. Who knew? Anyway, I'm taking notes..........

 

[PhilGood]

I can't remember who said it here first because I would like to give them full credit, by I really like the analogy of photography.

The microphone is the lens. The picture cannot be great unless you use a really good lens. I don't know much about photography, so I don't remember what the preamp was compared to. Wish I did. The recording material, tape, AD converters to disk etc. is the film.

The point being is that the source material must first be captured correctly. If you do not have a great mic at the beginning of the chain then nothing you do down the line can improve things. It is best to have all the quality components, but you have to start at the beginning of the chain.

 

[WhiteStrat]

Great post, PhilGood. Here's another way to look at it: in it's simplest goal, the very best thing a preamp can do is get the hell out of the way of the incoming signal. We use all kinds of mysterious, almost religious terms to describe the various qualities some preamps impart to a signal, but what we're really saying is that they affect it somehow. Is there any "effect" that can be added to a crappy mic to somehow make it sound great? Of course not.

Again step one is get the sound right at the mic! Then get a pre that gets out of the way, or colors it in some way you like. But if the mic sound is no good, even the best pre in the world is just gonna amplify a sound that's no good.

 

[JTC111]

I think this is a pretty simple thing to figure out. It's obviously the mic since that's what the sound hits first. You're stuck with whatever the mic hears and passes along, good or bad.

I'd even argue that it makes no sense to buy a high-end pre until you've actually acumulated a collection of microphones and learned their charateristics and how to squeeze the most out of them. Then you can upgrade your pres later on and listen to the magic happen.

I think there's an order to upgrading things that makes sense early on. Mics and/or room treatment should be first, then preamps. I know that room treatment really should be at the top of the list but most people don't buy into it and aren't willing to spend the green on traps when they could have a new mic instead. And this is coming from a recently educated convert on the subject. So I'll say this about it: if you record in a bad room for a few years, then treat it properly, you'll gain a much deeper appreciation for the value of room treatment than if you treated your room well from the start. Of course everyone has the option of skipping that painful learning experience and just doing it right from the beginning but for many of us, we have to learn the hard way.

In my own case, I went mics, crappy room treatment, preamps, proper room treatment because I was stupid and uninformed. Early on, I wasted a chunk of change on cheap foam that gave me minimal improvement. Dumbass!

 

[Middleman]

I've rarely heard a great mic sound good through an inexpensive preamp. I have however heard lots of inexpensive mics sound great through a high end preamp.

The answer lies in what can you really afford. So let your wallet be your guide.

 

[mrface2112]

This is easy. It's the preamp. A great preamp can make even a marginal mic sound decent.........but a cheap preamp will make a telefunken 251 sound like an mxl990.


cheers,
wade

 

[Micter]

The pre! You'd be surprized what you can do with an SM7 and a nice preamp.

 

[WhiteStrat]

The pre! You'd be surprized what you can do with an SM7 and a nice preamp.

Yeah, but an SM7 is a great mic.

 

[dgatwood]

I've rarely heard a great mic sound good through an inexpensive preamp. I have however heard lots of inexpensive mics sound great through a high end preamp.

True, but only if the mic is the right mic for the job. Some sources sound good on mics that aren't particularly expensive, particularly if the sound is fairly buried in a dense mix (e.g. an SM57 on snare). You would expect them to thus sound good.

For other sources, though, those cheap mics fall flat, and if your budged limit you to one or two mics, those wouldn't be good choices. No preamp can make the SM57 not have a huge, unflattering bump in the lower mids that makes it wholly unsuitable (muddy) for most vocalists.

The preamp is like the icing on a cake. The icing can make the difference between good and great, but unless you choose icing that is catastrophically bad, it is unlikely to make a good cake terrible. Spending money for acceptable frosting is worth it. Spending money for frosting with flecks of gold leaf is probably not.

This is easy. It's the preamp. A great preamp can make even a marginal mic sound decent.........but a cheap preamp will make a telefunken 251 sound like an mxl990.

A really terrible preamp, perhaps, but you can get a preamp that isn't terrible for not a lot of money.

Tell you what. Let's settle this debate. I'll take my best cheap pre and you find me a Telefunken 251. We'll do a vocal shootout with your expensive pre and my cheap-ass Nady dynamic drum mic and we'll see which one sounds better.