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

  • Thread starter Thread starter blue4u
  • Start date Start date

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

  • The microphone

    Votes: 99 51.6%

  • The preamp

    Votes: 24 12.5%

  • Both are equally important to the signal chain

    Votes: 69 35.9%
  • Total voters
    192
Supercreep said:
Which is more important - the hammer or the nail?
Click to expand...

The nail.

Much like a preamp, even a really crappy hammer is going to work acceptably with any nail. (Worst case is the hammer breaks, but otherwise, it's going to work.)

By contrast, much like a microphone, the choice of nail (coated vs. uncoated, finishing nail vs. full-size, etc.) can make all the difference in the world as to whether the project holds together or not.
 
dgatwood said:
The nail.

Much like a preamp, even a really crappy hammer is going to work acceptably with any nail. (Worst case is the hammer breaks, but otherwise, it's going to work.)

By contrast, much like a microphone, the choice of nail (coated vs. uncoated, finishing nail vs. full-size, etc.) can make all the difference in the world as to whether the project holds together or not.
Click to expand...

Well if your nail is a 16-penny and you have a tack hammer, you can get the job; it will just take you longer.

On the other hand, if you sledge hammer and you are tiring to hammer a tack... :eek: (overkill)

So the answer must be neither as long as you are using compatible tools.
 
Just for the fun (and rigor) of it, lets say the answer to the question "What's more important the mic or the preamp" must not be answered through the use of analogy, parable or anecdote and has to be answered using electrical engineering, acoustical and / or musical terms.

I'd really like to read some convincing arguments supporting one proposition or the other - but arguments grounded in and expressed through the language of the recording arts - be it electronic, acoustical or musical. Think of yourself applying to work at Abbey Road in 1959 and the question (or similar) was asked of you. Yeah I know the preamps used by the BBC were pretty much what were in the consoles. The point I'm trying to make is the BBC and perhaps Bill Putnam on the West Coast epitomized the highest standards of audio engineering excellence. These people could communicate audio engineering problems and solutions without resorting to analogy.

They could speak directly in the language of audio engineering - electronics, acoustics and musicology. With this in mind, what is more important - the microphone or the preamplifier?
 
Last edited:
MichaelJoly said:
Just for the fun (and rigor) of it, lets say the answer to the question "What's more important the mic or the preamp" must not be answered through the use of analogy, parable or anecdote and has to be answered using electrical engineering, acoustical and / or musical terms.

I'd really like to read some convincing arguments supporting one proposition or the other - but arguments grounded in and expressed through the language of the recording arts - be it electronic, acoustical or musical. Think of yourself applying to work at Abbey Road in 1959 and the question (or similar) was asked of you. Yeah I know the preamps used by the BBC were pretty much what were in the consoles. The point I'm trying to make is the BBC and perhaps Bill Putnam on the West Coast epitomized the highest standards of audio engineering excellence. These people could communicate audio engineering problems and solutions without resorting to analogy.

They could speak directly in the language of audio engineering - electronics, acoustics and musicology. With this in mind, what is more important - the microphone or the preamplifier?
Click to expand...

LOL

Ok, here are my thoughts. The preamp is more important; once you have the right mic pre, any mic will do well. If I have a nice fairly clean and detail preamp (Grace, John Hardy, Millennia, etc) I can use a Nady to a Neumann and get great results. If I have a crappy mic pre like a Behringer, it really does not matter what mic I use as they will all sound hazy and muddy with little detail. Once you have a good mic pre, then you can slecet the right mic for the job.
 
Fishmed_Returns said:
LOL

Ok, here are my thoughts. The preamp is more important; once you have the right mic pre, any mic will do well. If I have a nice fairly clean and detail preamp (Grace, John Hardy, Millennia, etc) I can use a Nady to a Neumann and get great results. If I have a crappy mic pre like a Behringer, it really does not matter what mic I use as they will all sound hazy and muddy with little detail. Once you have a good mic pre, then you can slecet the right mic for the job.
Click to expand...

No offense, but that's the biggest load of horse crap ever plopped on a road.

When I build a microphone I can hear unbelievable differences in each build, in each component, each body style. There are HUGE differences in microphones. I hear very little of that between preamps. ANY mic will do? Are you serious?

Sorry, but that is just folly! A bad mic will always sound like shit no matter what pre you run it through!

Try putting a disposable camera lens on an expensive profession camera and tell me the picture will look fantastic. Sorry for not sticking to Michael's request for not using analogy, but at this point I don't care.
 
PhilGood said:
No offense, but that's the biggest load of horse crap ever plopped on a road.

When I build a microphone I can hear unbelievable differences in each build, in each component, each body style. There are HUGE differences in microphones. I hear very little of that between preamps. ANY mic will do? Are you serious?

Sorry, but that is just folly! A bad mic will always sound like shit no matter what pre you run it through!

Try putting a disposable camera lens on an expensive profession camera and tell me the picture will look fantastic. Sorry for not sticking to Michael's request for not using analogy, but at this point I don't care.
Click to expand...

I think we are in somewhat agreement. I am not stating that any mic will fit the bill for every recording situation, more so that with a good clean/detailed mic pre, any mic will sound good through it (at least up to the mic's potential). I like to think of the mic pre as the foundation, once it is good, I can use any mic with it.

Also from an economic view, I would rather buy one good mic pre and several different mics than buying one mic and several mic pres. If I am going to buy one mic pre, then it is more important which one I buy since there will only be that one.

So would you want one great camera with a wide choice of lenses, or one great lens with a wide choice of cameras? If you where to buy only a single purchase of the two and had several of the other, which one would be more important when making that choice?
 
k now i have a question for you all. if you have a u87 or some other amazing mic... if you run it with a 300$ pre will it make it sound worse?
 
I would argue it this way: both are equally important, but it is more important to have more than one style of microphones than preamps. Matching a microphone to a source generally results in a much bigger improvement than matching a preamp to a source.

Are there times when you might want to use a colored preamp? Sure. Does it depend on the source? You bet. That said, the difference between the worst, most colored preamps I've encountered and the best, cleanest preamps is still far less than the difference between a 6mm small diaphragm condenser and an AKG D112....

Alternatively, I would argue that in terms of maximizing use of money, it generally makes more sense to upgrade a microphone than a preamp. I'll explain.

The difference between a $10-per-channel preamp in an audio mixer (by the time you subtract off the cost of the mixer circuitry, this is probably in the ballpark) and a $200-per-channel preamp is fairly negligible. It may be there, but you have to really pay attention to hear it, and it isn't always the $200-per-channel pre that sounds best. Within that range, most of the cost differences are due more to economies of scale than to actual differences in parts, design, construction, etc.

By contrast, the difference between a $10 microphone and a $200 microphone is trivially audible to anyone who is not deaf. Ever try a Nady SP-1? CAD M179? I rest my case.

Thus, at least within the price range that is typical for home recording purposes, upgrading a microphone generally results in a much bigger improvement in sound than upgrading a preamp.

Therefore, I would argue that, at least for home recording purposes, the microphone is more important assuming that your preamp isn't complete and utter excrement. :)
 
Fishmed_Returns said:
I think we are in somewhat agreement. I am not stating that any mic will fit the bill for every recording situation, more so that with a good clean/detailed mic pre, any mic will sound good through it (at least up to the mic's potential). I like to think of the mic pre as the foundation, once it is good, I can use any mic with it.

Also from an economic view, I would rather buy one good mic pre and several different mics than buying one mic and several mic pres. If I am going to buy one mic pre, then it is more important which one I buy since there will only be that one.

So would you want one great camera with a wide choice of lenses, or one great lens with a wide choice of cameras? If you where to buy only a single purchase of the two and had several of the other, which one would be more important when making that choice?
Click to expand...

OK. I think we're about on the same page there.
 
MichaelJoly said:
Just trying to play along with and maybe expand on the original poster's 8 month old (but perennial) question and not side step it - what's more important: the mic or the preamp?

So lets say in addition to meeting all the qualifications I laid out above AND the gear is good (and yes of course both are nessessary) what influences results more - mic or pre and why?

I have a strong belief the mic is far more important for the reasons I noted above plus the fact the mic operates in three-dimensional acoustic space and is subject to complex standing wave behavior and other reflection and diffraction effects.
Click to expand...

There is no one answer that covers it all (I voted the mic BUT I will go further)
The mic puts out a signal in mV. The pre-amp amplifies that signal over 1000 times (to approx. 1V). So, if I were stuck between a choice of mic or pre-amp I would choose the mic for a single instrument, voiceover etc. where the tracks would be 1-2. If I had to do a full blown 24 tracks or more I would choose the better pre-amp to keep the pre-amp artifacts low. Stacking a ton of tracks is where a cheap pre-amp kills the mix. I could use an SM57 through a great pre-amp and get a better overall mix than a U87 through a cheap pre-amp. And YES, I have done both and learned the hard way. It all depends, but for the home-reccer, I would say the mic is more important usually.
 
MCI2424 said:
There is no one answer that covers it all (I voted the mic BUT I will go further)
The mic puts out a signal in mV. The pre-amp amplifies that signal over 1000 times (to approx. 1V). So, if I were stuck between a choice of mic or pre-amp I would choose the mic for a single instrument, voiceover etc. where the tracks would be 1-2. If I had to do a full blown 24 tracks or more I would choose the better pre-amp to keep the pre-amp artifacts low. Stacking a ton of tracks is where a cheap pre-amp kills the mix. I could use an SM57 through a great pre-amp and get a better overall mix than a U87 through a cheap pre-amp. And YES, I have done both and learned the hard way. It all depends, but for the home-reccer, I would say the mic is more important usually.
Click to expand...

So True.

I have seen where I was doing some vocals over keyboard/synth tracks and I only had 1 to 3 actual mic'ed sources (Vocals), the lower end mic pre seemed to work much better than a higher end pre. The higher end pre sounded great, but the tracks did not blend as well as the ones cut on the lower end gear. (I may have to revisit those mixes and see if they stood the test of time.)

I will say, if you are fortunate enough to have several good mic pres to choose from and it is time to record, the mic at that point IS more important than the pre.
 
I know it is the mic...not that you need to blow a bundle on a u87...there are a few offerings in the homereccers price range that are pretty terrific...but most are crap.

The only choice of pres in thier price range are the clean ones designed to be a wire with gain...

The end result here has been a ton of questions reguarding which crap mic and crap pre combo will give me results like Gary Katz and Steely Dan.

Well...you get what you pay for most of the time.

If the noobs only bought SM57's...SM7's...and Beta 57's...once they do leave that price neighborhood...they still have some useful mics in thier cabinet...and not a hole in thier wallets like we have.

If we went to a modeler like the Line6 UX2 or UX8 then you can have an API 512...or a Neve without paying several thousand...thier modeling is spot on nowdays...Ive been impressed on what I can do for clients with these peices.
 
I can't believe this debate has been going on for a almost a year, and I've never weighed in. It's like asking what's more important, the dick or the vagina? What's more important, the gun or the ammunition?
To tell the truth, I don't really know. Let's see- I've got an inexpensive preamp that is pretty good- a DMP-3. I've got a cheap mic that's pretty good- an SM57. I've got a cheap preamp (actually 8 of them) that should suck by whatever standards you want to apply- a Behringer ADA8000. I also have a cheap mic that sucks (sorry, it's the best I can do- No really bottom feeder mics here)- an EV N/D 257. I've got an expensive mic that rocks- a B.L.U.E. Kiwi, and an expensive preamp that rocks- an Avalon AD2022. I don't own an expensive mic or an expensive preamp that sucks- I'm not that stupid.
Why don't we try this- 3 preamps, 3 mics, 9 combinations. I'm willing to make 9 clips of the same source and post them up in random order. This is what I think will happen- All recordings with the EV mic will suck, regardless of the preamp. All recordings with the Behringer preamp will suck, but not as bad.The SM57 and the DMP-3 will be almost as good as the SM57 and the Avalon, but the best ears will hear the difference. The Kiwi and the DMP-3 will be noticeably inferior to the Kiwi and the Avalon. Y'all may be surprised that the Behringer sucks less than you expect.
I am thinking there are 3 factors that matter more than the pre vs the mic. The first one is that if you have a component that really sucks, it doesn't matter what else you have in the signal chain. Secondly, just because something is inexpensive doesn't mean it sucks. Thirdly, vast disparities in component matching can have an effect. In other words, a mic that sucks may sound worse through a great preamp, because the preamp will showcase the fact that the mic sucks. On the other hand, the Avalon may showcase just how much the SM57 *doesn't* suck. So what do y'all think? Is this a worthy experiment? I would include a short vocal clip, and some acoustic guitar, with my Taylor 710CE as the source. All bone dry with no EQ. Actually, just for the sake of the experiment, I may be able to go to GC over the weekend and spend $25 or so on the cheapest, cruddiest dynamic I can find. We'll need a real dog to do it right-Richie
 
Richard Monroe said:
I can't believe this debate has been going on for a almost a year, and I've never weighed in. It's like asking what's more important, the dick or the vagina? What's more important, the gun or the ammunition?
To tell the truth, I don't really know. Let's see- I've got an inexpensive preamp that is pretty good- a DMP-3. I've got a cheap mic that's pretty good- an SM57. I've got a cheap preamp (actually 8 of them) that should suck by whatever standards you want to apply- a Behringer ADA8000. I also have a cheap mic that sucks (sorry, it's the best I can do- No really bottom feeder mics here)- an EV N/D 257. I've got an expensive mic that rocks- a B.L.U.E. Kiwi, and an expensive preamp that rocks- an Avalon AD2022. I don't own an expensive mic or an expensive preamp that sucks- I'm not that stupid.
Why don't we try this- 3 preamps, 3 mics, 9 combinations. I'm willing to make 9 clips of the same source and post them up in random order. This is what I think will happen- All recordings with the EV mic will suck, regardless of the preamp. All recordings with the Behringer preamp will suck, but not as bad.The SM57 and the DMP-3 will be almost as good as the SM57 and the Avalon, but the best ears will hear the difference. The Kiwi and the DMP-3 will be noticeably inferior to the Kiwi and the Avalon. Y'all may be surprised that the Behringer sucks less than you expect.
I am thinking there are 3 factors that matter more than the pre vs the mic. The first one is that if you have a component that really sucks, it doesn't matter what else you have in the signal chain. Secondly, just because something is inexpensive doesn't mean it sucks. Thirdly, vast disparities in component matching can have an effect. In other words, a mic that sucks may sound worse through a great preamp, because the preamp will showcase the fact that the mic sucks. On the other hand, the Avalon may showcase just how much the SM57 *doesn't* suck. So what do y'all think? Is this a worthy experiment? I would include a short vocal clip, and some acoustic guitar, with my Taylor 710CE as the source. All bone dry with no EQ. Actually, just for the sake of the experiment, I may be able to go to GC over the weekend and spend $25 or so on the cheapest, cruddiest dynamic I can find. We'll need a real dog to do it right-Richie
Click to expand...

This is a fantastic idea!
 
OK, I'm going to do it-but if I'm going to go to the trouble, there's a few things I need to do. First, I'm going to start a new thread, because folks mostly don't log into this old thread much anymore, and I'd like to drum up a little interest. So I will eventually start a new thread on the mics forum. Secondly, I broke the piggy bank and ordered the perfect bottom-feeder dynamic- so sucky even my local Guitar Center had to special order it- a Behringer XM8500- $19.99! I felt dirty buying it, like when you sleep with a woman you don't like because she has good tits!

Oh well. I've also decided that I want to separate the condensers from the dynamics, so it's a little less apples and oranges. On the dynamic side, I'll use the XM8500, ShureSM57, and Shure SM7b. I really don't use the SM57, because it doesn't agree with my voice, and requires too much EQ to get even close. I generally use AKG D770 for the kind of stuff most people use an SM57 for, but in this case, I'll use the SM57 just because everybody has one, everybody knows what it sounds like, and it has so much hype behind it for a cheap mic.

On the condenser side, I'll use Studio Projects B-1 and B.L.U.E. Kiwi for sure, as my cheapest and most expensive FET condensers. I'm still deciding what mid-priced mic to slip in between the two. I could use a C414B-ULS (cost me $650 new), or a B.L.U.E. Baby bottle ($500). I have Rode NTK, but I'm not sure I want to involve a tube mic. I don't know, though. It's probably my best $500-or-so condenser. Other options would be B.L.U.E. Bird (down to about $300 now), Oktava MK319 (about $300, although I bought mine new at GC for $50, no kidding), and AKG C2000B (bought for $100, now up to about $250- an underated studio workhorse). What do y'all think? I think I want to use 3 dynamics and 3 condensers. All six mics will go through Behringer ADA8000, M-Audio DMP-3, and Avalon AD2022. Let me know which mid-priced condenser you think I should use. I'd love to use, say an AT4040 or similar, but I don't own one. The options above are what I own. I'll start up the new thread when I have that cool new Behringer dynamic, and I've finalized the mic and pre combinations. I think I'll make that Behringer dynamic the prize to the person who guesses the most combos correctly!-Richie
 
I think that's exactly right. The crappiest preamps these days are still not bad. The same can't be said about the crappiest microphones. :D

BTW, that's not quite a bottom-feeder dynamic. The Nady SP-1 goes for more than ten bucks less---$8.18 at the cheapest price....
 
That's all right Dgatwood. I'm betting it'll suck enough for our purposes. And besides, it's got the Behringer name on it. That ought to count for something in a bottom-feeder shootout.-Richie
 
Actually I've read a lot of really good reviews about that mic. A lot of people like it, especially live. Might not be the best choice for a bottom feeder, but hey, let's see what it does anyway!

Thanks for you enthusiasm in putting this together!:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top