So my pre-amp blows up.....

[RAMI]

the end goal of buying any pre-amp is to bypass the stock pre.

Absolutely. That's the point I was missing before this thread. Maybe my pre breaking down temporarilly was a blessing in disguise.

 

[rayc]

Yeah RAMI, you have an unfair head start - talent!!!
I much prefer the pres built into my old MT100 than the ones I've bought (Behri, bluetube, something else I can't remember) & those in the tape machine suit things like 'cello a lot more anyway. My basses really sound good throug the outboard pres but I'm unconvinced that they sound better recorded through them - still try to get a handle on that. My vantage bass into the MT100 then into Cake proaudio for a LITTLE bit of compression & a good 3khz tweak seems to get the nod from most listeners.

 

[CoolCat]

The true grit of any pre-amp is not on a single track, but the buildup of tracks in a mix. Cheaper pre-amps seem to stack up poorly and can end up either (and) muddy, shrill, "cold" or all of these. Really, do a total mix with more than 4 tracks and see how the mix goes. I have had many people rave to me about their new low cost pre-amp and then tell me weeks later how the mix is crappy.

for the life of me I can't wrap my brain around this one....I've heard it several times over the past couple years.

"builds up"...phasing... but only when the multi tracks are combined...stack up?

so it sounds like adding multiple pre-amps in a chain, one preamp input into another preamp etc. is asking for trouble.

Rami's stuff always sounded good imo, but my brother has been running mics into a drum mixer into another roland recorder and then into the 2488. cables and gain staging and a mess!

maybe its phasing and not stacking up, there is often some mud on the final mix...

i don't know but it sounds logic and solid to only have the mic straight into one preamp. less crap in the chain.

 

[Fishmed]

for the life of me I can't wrap my brain around this one....I've heard it several times over the past couple years.

"builds up"...phasing... but only when the multi tracks are combined...stack up?

so it sounds like adding multiple pre-amps in a chain, one preamp input into another preamp etc. is asking for trouble.

Rami's stuff always sounded good imo, but my brother has been running mics into a drum mixer into another roland recorder and then into the 2488. cables and gain staging and a mess!

maybe its phasing and not stacking up, there is often some mud on the final mix...

i don't know but it sounds logic and solid to only have the mic straight into one preamp. less crap in the chain.

I think I can help you on this one as I have just recently learn from experience myself. Many inexpensive mic pres do not capture clean signals from the microphone or they may add a little noise to it. In a recording using just a few tracks the quality may not be that noticeable, but as you add more and more tracks to the mix using that mic pre the limitations of that mic pre tend to increase. Think of it when one person claps their hands, not very loud right? Now think of a room full of people or even a stadium full of people clapping; the more people you add to the clap that louder it gets. Poor signals from mic amps work pretty much the same way.

The thing is that you really cannot train your ears to hear the deficiencies until you have done recordings with better pres for awhile and then go back to the cheap mic pres; at least that was my experience in learning the difference. Now when I listen to mixes, I can tell a little better the quality of the equipment used to record. To me, the drums are the give away since they cover a wider range of frequencies.

The experience of a good engineer can help reduce the inadequacies of such cheap gear.

 

[CoolCat]

great explanation. makes sense with the clapping analogy.
and it makes sense that it isn't so obvious on a small number of tracks, like 2 or 3. i had to ask, as i'd heard this "term" so many times.

so your saying it probably makes even more sense, especially if using Home recording stuff, to keep the chain simple, due to this "build-up, phasing, stack-up"... sounds like a good foundational suggestion.

 

[Fishmed]

great explanation. makes sense with the clapping analogy.
and it makes sense that it isn't so obvious on a small number of tracks, like 2 or 3. i had to ask, as i'd heard this "term" so many times.

so your saying it probably makes even more sense, especially if using Home recording stuff, to keep the chain simple, due to this "build-up, phasing, stack-up"... sounds like a good foundational suggestion.

I like to keep the chain as simple as posible regardless if it the equipment is inexpensive or not. The only thing I might add in the chain once in awhile is a limiter. I've never liked the idea of mic pres with eq/comp/etc built into them. I will save EQ and Compression for mixdown.

 

[tango]

The thing is that you really cannot train your ears to hear the deficiencies until you have done recordings with better pres for awhile and then go back to the cheap mic pres; at least that was my experience in learning the difference. Now when I listen to mixes, I can tell a little better the quality of the equipment used to record. To me, the drums are the give away since they cover a wider range of frequencies.

Isn't there also the question of what you're listening on?

As an example there seems to be more difference in sound quality between my recording interface (in playback mode) and the normal PC soundcard than there is between uncompressed audio and MP3.

So, assuming no effects, the components that affect the sound you hear are:

Source -> Mic -> Pre -> A/D, D/A, Amp, -> Speakers -> Ear.

The sound you hear is bound to be affected by the weakest link in that chain. If that isn't the mic pre then the other components in the chain may not be good enough to hear any difference.

 

[RandyW]

Let me see if I have this right. You guys are saying the 2488 does NOT have std line in's only preamps? This is hard to believe. If it did have line ins I would have to think these bypass the pre in the unit and hence forth aquire no coloration, noise, etc that would be associated with the built in pre amps.

I'm not talking reducing gain on the pre amp either xlr or 1/4 I'm talking running into a std TRS LINE IN. Surely they would not design the 2488 with out line level inputs.

 

[RAMI]

Let me see if I have this right. You guys are saying the 2488 does NOT have std line in's only preamps? This is hard to believe. If it did have line ins I would have to think these bypass the pre in the unit and hence forth aquire no coloration, noise, etc that would be associated with the built in pre amps.

I'm not talking reducing gain on the pre amp either xlr or 1/4 I'm talking running into a std TRS LINE IN. Surely they would not design the 2488 with out line level inputs.

Randy, you may have a good point, but I don't know for sure. The 788 has TRS jacks that come with it, that I know. But I can't remember if the TRS plugs I have in my drawer are from the 788 or if I also got some with the 2488. Maybe someone else knows, but I honestly don't think the 2488 comes with TRS...I might be wrong.

 

[SonicAlbert]

I just looked at the specs for the 2488 and I think you are right, no TRS inputs that aren't mic/line. In other words, all eight inputs have preamps on them. Very interesting, you would expect there to be line level inputs that aren't shared with a preamp.

 

[Fishmed]

Let me see if I have this right. You guys are saying the 2488 does NOT have std line in's only preamps? This is hard to believe. If it did have line ins I would have to think these bypass the pre in the unit and hence forth aquire no coloration, noise, etc that would be associated with the built in pre amps.

I'm not talking reducing gain on the pre amp either xlr or 1/4 I'm talking running into a std TRS LINE IN. Surely they would not design the 2488 with out line level inputs.

Looking at it on their website, it does have 8 lines in. You would still be using their AD converters though. Since it only supports two digital inputs, you are pretty much stuck with their AD when doing multiple tracks for drums. A good mic pre would still make a BIG improvement even with their AD converters in the chain.

 

[Fishmed]

Isn't there also the question of what you're listening on?

As an example there seems to be more difference in sound quality between my recording interface (in playback mode) and the normal PC soundcard than there is between uncompressed audio and MP3.

So, assuming no effects, the components that affect the sound you hear are:

Source -> Mic -> Pre -> A/D, D/A, Amp, -> Speakers -> Ear.

The sound you hear is bound to be affected by the weakest link in that chain. If that isn't the mic pre then the other components in the chain may not be good enough to hear any difference.

True, but in my case, I was using the same monitoring system. There can always be room for improvement in my chain. My main issue is that when you capture a dull sound that lacks detail, there is not that much you can do to reintroduce the clarity to that origianal signal.

The factor I'd like to bring in though is the idea of not thinking of mics and pres seperately, but rather as an integrated system. Matching of mics to pres makes a difference when building up tracks. For example, let's say you have two different microphones of signifigantly different sound and signigificantly different output impedance, and you have two different preamps of signifigantly different input impedance and characteristics. You essentially have four different sounds. Add another nic and you don't have 5 different sounds, but you now have 6 (3 mics x 2 pres). And a third pre and the number of potential sounds runs up to 9. (This of course assumes you select a third pre with substantially different characteristics from the fitrs two.)

I had one type of mic pre at the time I notice they did not sound even close to my previous ones; furthermore, it did not matter what mic I put on them, the tracks sounded dull in the grand scheme of things.

 

[RandyW]

It looks like channels E through G are TRS with nominal input level +4 doesn't say they are balanced but it does say that channel H is unbalanced 1/4". So you would have to assume they are balanced or why would they be. I think these would be your best choice to run your Focusrite into.

I also find it hard to believe the preamp on the focusrite are not superior to the 2488. Come on a $800 dollar recorder is going to have 8 preamps that are equal to the price of a sing channel pre amp in the $600 dollar range???????????
I only have a couple of the focustrite platinmum pieces but they are a lot better than the pres in my Motu 828 and Tascam FW1082


http://www.americanmusical.com/manuals/tascam/tas2488mkii_manual.pdf

 

[Fishmed]

Looking at it on their website, it does have 8 lines in. You would still be using their AD converters though. Since it only supports two digital inputs, you are pretty much stuck with their AD when doing multiple tracks for drums. A good mic pre would still make a BIG improvement even with their AD converters in the chain.

I stand corrected from the other posts. I really did not think of the signal still going though the mic preamps when it was just a line level. I assumed that there was something internal to the unit not to use the preamps when it was not a mic.

 

[RAMI]

It looks like channels E through G are TRS with nominal input level +4 doesn't say they are balanced but it does say that channel H is unbalanced 1/4". So you would have to assume they are balanced or why would they be. I think these would be your best choice to run your Focusrite into.

I also find it hard to believe the preamp on the focusrite are not superior to the 2488. Come on a $800 dollar recorder is going to have 8 preamps that are equal to the price of a sing channel pre amp in the $600 dollar range???????????
I only have a couple of the focustrite platinmum pieces but they are a lot better than the pres in my Motu 828 and Tascam FW1082


http://www.americanmusical.com/manuals/tascam/tas2488mkii_manual.pdf

Yes, channels E through H are only 1/4" inputs. Does that mean they're just lines in??? I thought all the inputs had a pre-amp, but the manual isn't even that clear. I know there are no effect returns, so I bring my reverbs back into 2 (well 4 really) channels (E-F and G-H).

Having said all that, I went back to using my Focusrite with the 2488. It just sounds better, whether I'm going through 2 pre-amps that way or not. I do think the Focusrite sounds nice and warm, though many people are down on it, and they might have good reason to be. I haven't been lucky enough to ever play with something better, so I can't compare. On the other hand, maybe by some freak accident, the Focusrite/TASCAM 2488 combo is the exact sound I'm looking for.

Fishmed's also correct in saying that you're going through their A/D's no matter what. Unless I use the digital in. But I'm not so worried about recording drums because I only put the bass drum through the Focusrtie and everything else goes straight in.

Thanx for the help and suggestions so far. I have to go look at the manual and re-aquainted with my 2488's specs again.

 

[SonicAlbert]

Yes, when you do look at the 2488 specs you'll see that those four TRS inputs have preamps on them. There's no guesswork needed on this.

Just because an input is TRS doesn't necessarily mean it's line level only. TRS and XLR jacks are hardware connectors, you can certainly have preamps on TRS connectors.

 

[RAMI]

Just because an input is TRS doesn't necessarily mean it's line level only.

OK, that's what I wasn't sure of after reading one of Randy's posts. Not his fault, I probably read it wrong. I was pretty sure there were pre-amps on all the inputs. I might have forgotten after all this time, but I would have looked into it before hooking up the pre-amp.

 

[MCI2424]

I think I can help you on this one as I have just recently learn from experience myself. Many inexpensive mic pres do not capture clean signals from the microphone or they may add a little noise to it. In a recording using just a few tracks the quality may not be that noticeable, but as you add more and more tracks to the mix using that mic pre the limitations of that mic pre tend to increase. Think of it when one person claps their hands, not very loud right? Now think of a room full of people or even a stadium full of people clapping; the more people you add to the clap that louder it gets. Poor signals from mic amps work pretty much the same way.

The thing is that you really cannot train your ears to hear the deficiencies until you have done recordings with better pres for awhile and then go back to the cheap mic pres; at least that was my experience in learning the difference. Now when I listen to mixes, I can tell a little better the quality of the equipment used to record. To me, the drums are the give away since they cover a wider range of frequencies.

The experience of a good engineer can help reduce the inadequacies of such cheap gear.

Absolutely class "A" analogy!

 

[RAMI]

The Sub-Ins patch directly to the L/R-Stereo (main) buss, & bypasses the entire mixer section with exception of the Master fader.

Reel, you saying that the SUB-MIXER goes straight to the Stereo Bus??? That might be the case, but by-passing the mixer section doesn't mean it bypassed the pre-amps and D/A converters coming in.

 

[A Reel Person]

Sheesh!

Sorry, wrong thread! I followed a link & got confused about where I was!
My Bad!