What preamp for country-blues/folk music?

[MIC83]

Hi everyone, thanks for having me!
I'm a new member, i'm a musician from Italy.
I'm really into country-blues, finger style guitar, clawhammer banjo... That kind of stuff.
My gear for home recording is pretty basic: one Teac a-3340s reel to reel tape recorder and a Ear Trumpet Labs Louise large-diaphragm condenser microphone, that i use for guitar and vocals simultaneously.
I'm fairly happy with the results but i sure could be happier.
I think the next step has to be a mic preamp, but i don't know anything about it.
Can you recommed some suitable to my purpose? Tube or Solid State?
Thanks a lot!

 

[ecc83]

Hi everyone, thanks for having me!
I'm a new member, i'm a musician from Italy.
I'm really into country-blues, finger style guitar, clawhammer banjo... That kind of stuff.
My gear for home recording is pretty basic: one Teac a-3340s reel to reel tape recorder and a Ear Trumpet Labs Louise large-diaphragm condenser microphone, that i use for guitar and vocals simultaneously.
I'm fairly happy with the results but i sure could be happier.
I think the next step has to be a mic preamp, but i don't know anything about it.
Can you recommed some suitable to my purpose? Tube or Solid State?
Thanks a lot!

Pretty deep question MIC83. I have a 3340 (rtrd) and sure, the mic pres are rather basic, not balanced*, no phantom power and probably noisy for anything not close and loud.

Then, the mic preamp market is huge and various! At one end is the uber clean stuff that will not modify the mic signal in any way to gear that has 'attitude' and adds its own 'colour' (aka 'distortion) to the sound. Gear in the latter camp is very personal and people like or not like various brands.

If you are seeking a pre with 'colour' them you will need to find a way to specify that here so the vastly experienced chaps who have used the kit can advise.

But! Can I ask? "Thinking of going 'computer' any tme soon?" I say that because if so you could look at the Behringer UMC 204HD. That has two excellent, low noise preamps in it but moreover it has 'insert' jacks. They can send a signal out to the Teac and you could make tape recordings AND computer recordings at the same time.

Lot to think about there friend!

*You could get over that with some XLR to jack 'unbalancing' transformers at about $20 a pop and they could give you a 'free' gain boost of about 10-15dB and improve the noise performance. THEN you could get a twin phantom power supply! But it has all got dangly and messy and costwise you are most of the way to the Behringer!

Dave.

 

[snow lizard]

At some point in the journey of learning to record, using a high quality preamp can be a big help to a small degree. The type of recording you're trying to do with acoustic instruments might be able to be improved in other ways. We would have to know more of your situation. Type of microphone, mic placement and the room or acoustic space will have a bigger potential effect on changing the sound than the preamp. What are you using for a preamp now? I'm sure the Teac will also have a big influence on the sound.

With preamps, the style of music doesn't matter. A good preamp should be able to stay out of your way. A great preamp might be able to bring some extra quality to the sound. How much difference it really makes depends on a lot of different things. Dynamic microphones (ribbons and moving coil) can sound quite different through different pres. Some condensers as well, but not as pronounced. I'm not familiar with the Ear Trumpet condenser you're using.

There are different types of designs for preamps. IC chips are used for the lowest cost designs. They are generally good and have gotten better in recent years with the market demand. Sometimes they run the circuit through a starved plate tube to add subtle distortion to the circuit. Sometimes this is called a tOOb circuit. The tube is running at a fraction of its operating range. Some of the older circuits that used tubes to build the actual circuit rather than an IC are totally different animals and a lot more expensive. Other designs use solid state components with input and output transformers. The IC designs can be fairly clean and transparent without the tOOb component. Adding subtle amounts of distortion with the tOOb can be interesting. Those designs have their own character. Proper all tube preamps of different designs could all sound very different from each other, so in a big way it's not about whether or not it has tubes, but how good is the design? People often associate tubes with distortion, but a lot of the old tube stuff was super powerful, fast and transparent and had like 10 dB more headroom than other designs. Tubes can be the cleanest, most linear amplifying device. The opposite of distortion. Other designs that use discrete circuitry and transformers have often been copied. API, Neve and Trident are some of the popular parents of these designs. These preamps are not as clean as some of the all tube stuff or even IC's. The harmonic properties of the transformers imparts its own character to the sound.

With preamps, the idea that you get what you pay for is fairly accurate. Talking about harmonic distortion and subtle variations in the sound is not hugely relevant. A good preamp is good in all genres. It should be relatively noise free and have enough clean gain for your needs. A great preamp that says "This is the voice of broadcast" is great in all genres. The difference in preamps in a similar price bracket is not the same as those ones vs. the ones that cost 10 times more. Design type doesn't matter. The specific design of the individual preamp does. And the difference can be subtle. If everythig else is in order, it might be a worthwhile upgrade. Very often not the case when you're starting out.

The idea of mixing and matching different preamps to different needs is mostly an internet thing. The classic recordings from back in the day were all done with whatever preamps were at the studio. They were the ones in the console and they were all the same.

The room itself is very important for recording acoustic instruments. Have you considered that, or do you know much about room acoustics? Without knowing more about your situation it's possible that building some bass traps might have a bigger improvement on the sound than the preamp, and would possibly cost a lot less.

 

[MIC83]

Hey Dave,
thank you!
I apologize in advance for my naive questions but:
Couldn't i use the Behringer UMC 204HD without "going computer"? I really like the sound of my 3340...
I never thought of an unbalanced transformer, sounds like something that would worth trying.
Also i forgot to mention that i do have already use a twin phantom power supply, otherwise i wouldn't be able to use the ear trumpet mic.
I sure do have a lot to think about, thanks again!

 

[ecc83]

Hey Dave,
thank you!
I apologize in advance for my naive questions but:
Couldn't i use the Behringer UMC 204HD without "going computer"? I really like the sound of my 3340...
I never thought of an unbalanced transformer, sounds like something that would worth trying.
Also i forgot to mention that i do have already use a twin phantom power supply, otherwise i wouldn't be able to use the ear trumpet mic.
I sure do have a lot to think about, thanks again!

You must have the 204 plugged into a computer's USB port but no, you don't need to go the whole hog and get into 'pute audio, the 204 will feed the mic signal (amplified) to the Teac.

However! A lot of guys and gals have gone 'hybrid'. That is to say they lay tracks down on tape but then bounce them into a PC for subsequent manipulation. The PC is, to all intents a 'perfect' noise free copying device that can store a near inifite amount of music and you can bounce and build track to your heart's... and not add any noise.

You could instead record onto the Behringer/PC system then run the recording through the tape deck and get whatever 'buzz' it gves you that way. The advantage of that is, recording digitally frees you from the compromises inherent in tape of noise on the one hand and excess distortion on the other.

I can almost FEEL the hate beaming at me from the 'purist annyloggers'! But my view is, technology is there to serve us and any way it gets the job tone to YOUR satisfaction is right.

Audio2000'S ACC3100 XLRF to 1/4" Male 500 to 50k Ohm Impedance Matching Transformer: Amazon.co.uk: Musical Instruments

You can pay a bit less and a lot more but that will do the job. I did not know the mic was a capacitor so you may not need the gain boost.

Dave.

 

[rob aylestone]

If you're happy using the Tascam preamps with the power supply presumably feeding into the unbalanced mic inputs, then I'm not sure you'd really notice very much from the popular interfaces. You could of course go for the esoteric or boutique preamps but the cost will be very high. What is it about your current recording tone/tibre/sound that you like? The old recorder preamps weren't really 'special' just competent. I surmise you like the tape saturation and compression so if you do cascade it with a more modern design, I suspect it will sound the same, or perhaps a bit 'harder'.

You'd also then be tempted to record with the computer and you'd either love the process and shift to it, or hate it and never go three again. Usually the advances in how you can do things (and fix them) win.

 

[MIC83]

You must have the 204 plugged into a computer's USB port but no, you don't need to go the whole hog and get into 'pute audio, the 204 will feed the mic signal (amplified) to the Teac.

However! A lot of guys and gals have gone 'hybrid'. That is to say they lay tracks down on tape but then bounce them into a PC for subsequent manipulation. The PC is, to all intents a 'perfect' noise free copying device that can store a near inifite amount of music and you can bounce and build track to your heart's... and not add any noise.

You could instead record onto the Behringer/PC system then run the recording through the tape deck and get whatever 'buzz' it gves you that way. The advantage of that is, recording digitally frees you from the compromises inherent in tape of noise on the one hand and excess distortion on the other.

I can almost FEEL the hate beaming at me from the 'purist annyloggers'! But my view is, technology is there to serve us and any way it gets the job tone to YOUR satisfaction is right.
You can pay a bit less and a lot more but that will do the job. I did not know the mic was a capacitor so you may not need the gain boost.

Dave.

Ok, thanks a lot, that was helpful!
I'm not necessarily an analog purist, whatever works is good for me.

 

[MIC83]

The room itself is very important for recording acoustic instruments. Have you considered that, or do you know much about room acoustics? Without knowing more about your situation it's possible that building some bass traps might have a bigger improvement on the sound than the preamp, and would possibly cost a lot less.

Hey, thanks for your detailed answer.
Yeah i know, the room! I don't know anything about room acoustics, but i can definitely tell that some rooms sounds a lot better than others.
I do my recordings in a random apartment room, pretty full of books, records, instruments and stuff... So you might be right.

 

[MIC83]

If you're happy using the Tascam preamps with the power supply presumably feeding into the unbalanced mic inputs, then I'm not sure you'd really notice very much from the popular interfaces. You could of course go for the esoteric or boutique preamps but the cost will be very high. What is it about your current recording tone/tibre/sound that you like? The old recorder preamps weren't really 'special' just competent. I surmise you like the tape saturation and compression so if you do cascade it with a more modern design, I suspect it will sound the same, or perhaps a bit 'harder'.

You'd also then be tempted to record with the computer and you'd either love the process and shift to it, or hate it and never go three again. Usually the advances in how you can do things (and fix them) win.

That's right, i really like the saturation and the warmness of it.
I'm not sure of what you mean with "esoteric preamps".

The Universal Audio Solo 610 looks like a cool piece of gear and with some luck it can be found second hand for 500/600€, but again, i don't know anything about preamps and i don't want to spend that kind of money just because it looks good.

A cheaper one would be the PRESONUS TubePre v2... I guess that it would make sense to rent one and see how much difference it makes.
Any other brand suggestions?

One last thing: to convert the audio from analog to digital i use a Zoom H6 and Audacity (yeah, i know...) on my MacBook Pro. Would you suggest something different?

Thanks a lot.

 

[rob aylestone]

To be honest, I'm the sceptical one. I'd happily live using the H6. Esoteric for me means tubes. I've never been sold on what they do to audio. Maybe I just don't like what other call warmness, or appreciate the things people hear that I don't. I just tend to detect the absence of what they do as better - but accept it's just me in the wilderness on this one. I see tales of people spending thousands on preamps and monitoring on dinky speakers, using very unsocial mics.

 

[ecc83]

If you're happy using the Tascam preamps with the power supply presumably feeding into the unbalanced mic inputs, then I'm not sure you'd really notice very much from the popular interfaces. You could of course go for the esoteric or boutique preamps but the cost will be very high. What is it about your current recording tone/tibre/sound that you like? The old recorder preamps weren't really 'special' just competent. I surmise you like the tape saturation and compression so if you do cascade it with a more modern design, I suspect it will sound the same, or perhaps a bit 'harder'.

You'd also then be tempted to record with the computer and you'd either love the process and shift to it, or hate it and never go three again. Usually the advances in how you can do things (and fix them) win.

Now, those Teac preamps are pretty crude (iirc) 2 or 3 discrete transistor jobs and whilst the noise level is fairly good they will be at least an order of magnitude worst for harmonic distortion than a modern preamp using a discrete transistor pair and a couple of op amp* sections and harmonic distortion is JUST what you are paying for with many of the 'boutique super pres'!

My advice? Get that XLR to jack transformer and give it a blow, you will then be able to put 'king long cables on the mic. Like 50mtrs easy.

*NOTHING wrong with op amps! Just about everything you have ever heard was recorded through hundreds of them in mixers and other kit. (if NE5532s are good enough for Benchmark they are good enough for the likes of us!)

Dave.

 

[snow lizard]

The Universal Audio Solo 610 looks like a cool piece of gear and with some luck it can be found second hand for 500/600€, but again, i don't know anything about preamps and i don't want to spend that kind of money just because it looks good.

A cheaper one would be the PRESONUS TubePre v2... I guess that it would make sense to rent one and see how much difference it makes.

It absolutely makes sense to try or rent the gear if you can before spending the big money.

One last thing: to convert the audio from analog to digital i use a Zoom H6 and Audacity (yeah, i know...) on my MacBook Pro. Would you suggest something different?

Reaper is very popular as a DAW. It's a big step up from Audacity. The demo is free and fully functional. The cost is very low compared to similar software. You probably also already have Garage Band, which I believe is similar to Logic on the Mac platform but with less features. There are many other choices. Once you start comparing between different DAWs one of the main differences is how comfortable you are with the workflow. Some of them also have subscription fees or require you to use a security dongle. Reaper does not.

I would expect the Zoom to work as well as an entry level recording interface. Again, there are a lot of choices. I haven't used the Zoom specifically, but if I understand correctly it has all the basic features of an interface and can be used that way, with the additional features of being a standalone battery operated recorder with built in mics. It's possible that other interfaces might have subjectively better mic preamps and converters, but in the same price bracket it's likely to be a sideways move rather than a big improvement.

I don't know anything about room acoustics, but i can definitely tell that some rooms sounds a lot better than others.
I do my recordings in a random apartment room, pretty full of books, records, instruments and stuff...

It's an important subject, very worth reading up on. Smaller spaces have more problems and can benefit from acoustic treatment like bass traps and gobos. The Studio Building & Acoustic Treatment forum can help to give you some ideas. Google can get you started with room acoustics.

Now, those Teac preamps are pretty crude (iirc) 2 or 3 discrete transistor jobs and whilst the noise level is fairly good they will be at least an order of magnitude worst for harmonic distortion than a modern preamp using a discrete transistor pair and a couple of op amp* sections and harmonic distortion is JUST what you are paying for with many of the 'boutique super pres'!

Not all harmonic distortion is equal or desirable. I agree that modern preamps, even at a modest price have come a long way since the Teac days.

 

[ecc83]

"Not all harmonic distortion is equal or desirable. I agree that modern preamps, even at a modest price have come a long way since the Teac days."

I don't want any harmonic distortion! Well not in a mic circuit, guitars are anothe thing. The single ended discrete crcuits in the Teac will produce mainly even harmonics unless pushed very hard and even harmonics are the very sort made much of by the pedlars of boutique electronics.

Yes, I am cynical but as someone said earlier, those old studios used whatever pre amps were to hand (often built by the very same engneers doing the recordings) It is only in later years that they have become a big marketing opporunity.

Dave.

 

[snow lizard]

I don't want any harmonic distortion! Well not in a mic circuit, guitars are another thing.

I know. I still think you get what you pay for. I wouldn't hold Teac to the same standard as API or something.

Honestly the preamp is one of the last things that might warrant an upgrade. The monitoring chain, microphone, mic placement and room can all have a bigger wholesale effect on sound. The Ear Trumpet Labs Louise isn't something I've used, but I did have a look at the frequency plot. There are some very pronounced bumps in the high end. Not to say that's good or bad, but a mic with a flatter response would be pretty much guaranteed to sound different.

 

[jamesperrett]

While I'm not usually in favour of changing the mic preamp, in this case I would say that the Teac preamps are nothing like the studio preamps of the 1970's and the 3340 would always have been used with an external mixer with its own preamps for any serious recording work. In the early days I used various reel to reels and one of the biggest improvements I ever made to my setup was buying an external MM mixer with good mic inputs.

These days you can buy mixers with far better quality mic inputs than the old MM mixer that I bought for next to nothing so I'd probably investigate something like an A&H Zed or similar.

 

[rob aylestone]

Got to disagree there James - I found exactly the opposite. Moving to 4 track from my Ferrographs - 722HD, with Dolby cross wired so I could have it on 15IPS too, I found the 3340 just as pleasant. The recordings from those days were all very live and strange to my ears now, but until you really whacked the gain up, the actual quality was indistinguishable. In fact, looking back, I don't think my teenage recording experiments ever had 'quality' of pre-amps as a talking point at all. Back then, I was isolated with just my ears to go on, and I didn't even know there WAS a quality difference between preamp designs. All I knew was hiss, and how turning the treble down could cure much of it. Dolby wasn't really noise reduction, it was hiss reduction - noise, was for me, hums and crackles. Boost treble on record, reduce treble on replay. Worked fine. My pro studio experience then didn't have me believing I did anything wrong. They too seemed to have a very simple way of working. You picked a mic suitable for the job. You stuck it in the best place and you pressed record. You then tweaked on replay to make it blend.

I've very much kept to this approach. If a preamp hisses so much I notice then it's a bad design or faulty. if it doesn't hiss and meters move, generally I'm happy. I was pushed to actually compare my preamps by a topic here a year or two ago, and surprisingly discovered they all DID sound a little different. A year on and I've carried on as before. I've swapped my old Tascam multichannel interface for a Presonus one. They sound the same, or close enough to not make me notice. I'm sure the Presonus is better in every way on paper. In practice I simply don't notice.

 

[ecc83]

Got to disagree there James - I found exactly the opposite. Moving to 4 track from my Ferrographs - 722HD, with Dolby cross wired so I could have it on 15IPS too, I found the 3340 just as pleasant. The recordings from those days were all very live and strange to my ears now, but until you really whacked the gain up, the actual quality was indistinguishable. In fact, looking back, I don't think my teenage recording experiments ever had 'quality' of pre-amps as a talking point at all. Back then, I was isolated with just my ears to go on, and I didn't even know there WAS a quality difference between preamp designs. All I knew was hiss, and how turning the treble down could cure much of it. Dolby wasn't really noise reduction, it was hiss reduction - noise, was for me, hums and crackles. Boost treble on record, reduce treble on replay. Worked fine. My pro studio experience then didn't have me believing I did anything wrong. They too seemed to have a very simple way of working. You picked a mic suitable for the job. You stuck it in the best place and you pressed record. You then tweaked on replay to make it blend.

I've very much kept to this approach. If a preamp hisses so much I notice then it's a bad design or faulty. if it doesn't hiss and meters move, generally I'm happy. I was pushed to actually compare my preamps by a topic here a year or two ago, and surprisingly discovered they all DID sound a little different. A year on and I've carried on as before. I've swapped my old Tascam multichannel interface for a Presonus one. They sound the same, or close enough to not make me notice. I'm sure the Presonus is better in every way on paper. In practice I simply don't notice.

Well who was I to argue with James?! But yes, 'electronically' a pre amps a pre amp. I cannot find a schematic for the Teac's mic pres, had it, lost it, but iirc they were the usual 2 or 3 transistor DC coupled form used by almost all the early transistor pre designs derived from Mullard or other semiconductor's data sheets. I recall a BBC circuit with a bit more sopistication but of basically the same form. The only real difference in the Teac amps is the lack of an input transformer.

Now! Before someone says "Ah yes but those Neve/BBC/any old stoodio pre, traffs made all the dif!" I say "bollocks". Maybe these days input transformers are wee things but not back in the day! Big Mothers and there was no way a 4038 or an SM58 was going to push those into any kind of distortion.

In any case, you would have to make a fekkin' AWFUL pre amp to come close to the THD off tape, even at -10VU (about 0.1%?)

Dave.

 

[snow lizard]

Now! Before someone says "Ah yes but those Neve/BBC/any old stoodio pre, traffs made all the dif!" I say "bollocks". Maybe these days input transformers are wee things but not back in the day! Big Mothers and there was no way a 4038 or an SM58 was going to push those into any kind of distortion.

Interesting. I'm not sure what Jack White would say to that. If you can't get something to distort maybe you're not trying hard enough. Of course the overdrive characteristics of a variety of different gear are likely to be different. Even when we're not trying to overdrive anything there can still be differences.

It's funny you mentioned an SM58 in the same sentance as a 4038. Those cheap Shure mics can actually sound surprisingly good through a preamp built more like a tank than an electric scooter. It's an example where the difference should be obvious.

 

[jamesperrett]

Well who was I to argue with James?! But yes, 'electronically' a pre amps a pre amp. I cannot find a schematic for the Teac's mic pres, had it, lost it, but iirc they were the usual 2 or 3 transistor DC coupled form used by almost all the early transistor pre designs derived from Mullard or other semiconductor's data sheets. I recall a BBC circuit with a bit more sopistication but of basically the same form. The only real difference in the Teac amps is the lack of an input transformer.

I can certainly understand the scepticism and the difference may be down to factors like being able to close mic more sources at the same time but I also found that the preamps on the tape machines I was using had limited headroom as the level control was often after the input stage which could be overloaded by loud sources. The mixer also allowed things to be eq'd before going to tape. I find input eq to be very useful when working with analogue recording as you can use it to both enhance the recorded sound and also to compensate for deficiencies in the recording system.

Now I'd agree that, once you get to a certain level, most preamps sound very similar and, despite owning a couple of Neve channels, I tend to use the preamps in my A&H desk for everything in the studio. The Neve channels win out when you need eq as the Neve eq seems to be more musical than the A&H eq but this can be easily explained by the different eq characteristics used. I also find some external preamps to be more usable than others - things like illuminated push buttons and easily visible controls in low light tell me that the manufacturer has consulted real professional users and thought about how the product will be used - which is why I like the Audient preamps.

 

[miroslav]

I can't believe this thread had over 4 thousand views in one day...?
I guess preamps for country/blues/folk music must be a hot topic.