Is a mic preamp worth it?

[WhiteStrat]

Curious what is mid teir?

What is aphex, or joemeeks vc6 stuff? What is behringer , or mxl?

I suppose that's a very subjective question. In your list, I'd call Aphex & JoeMeek mid tier, while Behringer is low tier. (Does MXL make pres?)

In my own list of preamp brands, I'd break it down like this:

Low tier

Behringer mixers
Behringer ADA8000s
Sunn rack mount mixer

Mid tier

TNC Neve clones
TASCAMs
Symetrix
MPA Gold
Octanes (at $600 for 8 channels, they're priced like low tier, but I consider them mid)

High Tier

(Don't have any yet...)

Y'know, it's funny--when I look at my pres as I just broke them down, there's one common difference between the low and mid: noise. Any of the lows would be (and have been) fine in live situations or on certain sources in the studio. And of all those preamps (low and mid) only two have any hint of a sonic signature that makes them different--and it's very subtle. (In fact, I might only hear it because I'm looking for it!)

 

[Greg_L]

gradual improvement that came with me learning to track and mix.

Yup, this ^^^^^^^^

 

[mark1971a]

So then a UA 6176 would be the best input chain ( or 610 and 1176 ).

I don't know how to say this but the hardware rack Aphex tubessence to the compellor is not bad. It can be more transparent and sometimes that is good, not just classic.

I don't know what MXL is making, its a puzzle.

 

[WhiteStrat]

So then a UA 6176 would be the best input chain .

I don't know how to say this but the hardware rack Aphex tubessence to the compellor is not bad. It can be more transparent and sometimes that is good, not just classic. Is it for drums, not the best smasher. decent.

I never said the Aphex was bad. I don't have one, but I've heard good things about them. And I never said a UA 6176 would be the best input chain. I don't believe there is a "best" input chain. I just happen to be getting one in a few weeks (again, for free), and in terms of retail value, it's way more expensive than anything I own. That's why I'm so curious to do this test pitting the UA against one of the cheapies that have served so well.

 

[miroslav]

If you want to hear what the pre on the 6176 sounds like....just listen to the clips John Watkins posted earlier, he used a UA LA-610.
If you don't engage the limiters of either channel strip....the pres should be identical, both are 610 designs.

preamps2.mp3


The 610 is a darker, almost woolly sounding pre....that can be an acquired taste, but certainly applicable for many recording situations where that sound is desired....but becuase it is that dark-n-woolly, I'm expecting the outcome here will not place it in the "blown away" category for a lot of folks....
...but I still want to add a 2-610 to my rack.

 

[Ethan Winer]

If anyone wants to check out a serious preamp shootout of 33 preamps done by industry audio engineers....they should get the 3D Audio Preamp CD ... That test done here Well, could *you* hear the difference? Could you?? was not very scientific at all.

Why do you think one comparison was "less scientific" than the other? Please be very specific!

In truth, neither test was scientific, by the same amount, because in all cases different performances were recorded. That throws everything out the window. Everything! Nobody can sing or play exactly the same, or remain perfectly stationary in front of a microphone. The only time different performances are valid for comparison is when the differences are glaringly obvious.

When considering only preamps that aim for a "clean" sound, the difference between one competent preamp and another ranges from subtle to nonexistent. Any differences that truly exist (not imagined) are due mainly to performance and placement variation. The only way I know of to fairly compare preamps is to re-amp the same source through a loudspeaker.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

neither of those jumps even compare to the gradual improvement that came with me learning to track and mix.

Yes, and this is surely a big reason people believe their mixes improved over time as they upgraded to better gear, when in truth what really improved was their skills. Same for the common claim that "good gear" lets you get a good sounding mix more quickly. No, it's your experience that helps you to mix faster and better now.

Also, some sessions just sound great right off the bat, while others sound terrible no matter what you do. So if you replace your preamps (or converters) and then do a session that happens to be an "easy" one, it's not a stretch to wrongly believe the better sound was due to the new gear.

--Ethan

 

[miroslav]

Why do you think one comparison was "less scientific" than the other? Please be very specific!

If you simply read how each test was conducted and to which degree of precision level measurement....I think it's pretty obvious.

At one point, the guy in the "un-scientific" test stated that he "stepped away from the mic" as method to control the level.....and of course, skewed the sound comparisons completely...yet it was those sound comparisons that people used to guess which mic "sound" sounded more expensive.
That's not very scientific...that sounds pretty half-assed to me.

If level difference aren't equally accounted for...the signal changes, and we all know that even the smallest position change can make a difference, and that louder/up-front sounds will command more attention from a listener than ones more distant/ambient.
I would think you would be a stickler for accurate/equal levels in measurments of signal comparisons.

 

[miroslav]

Yes, and this is surely a big reason people believe their mixes improved over time as they upgraded to better gear, when in truth what really improved was their skills. Same for the common claim that "good gear" lets you get a good sounding mix more quickly. No, it's your experience that helps you to mix faster and better now.

Also, some sessions just sound great right off the bat, while others sound terrible no matter what you do. So if you replace your preamps (or converters) and then do a session that happens to be an "easy" one, it's not a stretch to wrongly believe the better sound was due to the new gear.

--Ethan

No one disputes that practice makes perfect....but as good as you can become, would anyone here rather work with cheap, low-grade gear....or quality high-end gear (if money wasn't the issue)?

As good as anyone here can become....do you feel that high-quality gear would then add something and be in support of your skill set...or absolutely nothing at all?

In just about every profession/activity/hobby that uses some form of "tools" to perform the acquired skill....better tools are almost always sought-after.
I'm not so sure some people here feel that way......

 

[mark1971a]

Yes but my craftsman tools can build just as good a engine as my snapon.

I would love an 610 1176 chain , but it would be ridiculous going into a line6 toneport ux2 and reaper , via usb.

 

[Lt. Bob]

Nobody can sing or play exactly the same, or remain perfectly stationary in front of a microphone.

well ..... I don't agree with that. Playing is my thing ...... I actually don't record much anymore other than session work.
But I absolutely can play the exact same thing repeatedly ...... and put the exact same amount of sir behind a note or striking pressure on the strings.
OK ..... in the most minute sense there will be small differences but I can definitely play things so close to being the exact same that it would be useful in a test like this.
I have to defer to you in matters of recording and technology of recording because that is your area of expertise ...... I promise you, PLAYING is my area of expertise and absolutely very good players and/or singers can do the same thing twice so close to the same that you'd not be able to tell a difference.

 

[Lt. Bob]

I also said at least 2-3 times that it will be an "interesting experiment".

I never, anywhere said it would be "pointless"...all I said was that based on how at this time the execution was planned, the end result would not be a definitive one....IF the goal was to prove the value of a high-end pre compared to a low-end pre.
You're a smart guy...I think you know the difference there and in what I was saying.

There may be an obvious difference between the two pres, but it could very well end up being just the difference in how the various tracks stack, and that one mic/pre may favor or not favor particular tracks....and that cuts both ways, the experiment cound favor the high-end pre or the low-end pre tracks.
Like I said...that result will be interesting...but AFA what it will definitely prove....that's hard to say.

Look at the 3D Audio Preamp Shootout...you can find the details of how they set that up on the Internet...just type it in.
They were configuring levels to be within 0.02 dB of each other, among other very calibrated measurements...and event THAT didn't really show which pres were best, it only showed that there were differences and maybe changed what some people though a particular preamp was going to sound like....so even that ended up with a lot of subjective results.
That’s all I was pointing out….but I’m still interested to see the outcome of WhiteStrat’s experiment.

ANDDD I said I don't agree with you.

 

[miroslav]

Yes but my craftsman tools can build just as good a engine as my snapon.

I was at Home Depot last year looking for a saws-all.
So I'm checking out the DeWalt stuff and one other high-end brand (can't remember the name)...and then there was the Ryobi stuff at about half the price.
So the salesman comes over and pushes the Ryobi...which is really a Home Depot brand.
I said, I see all the construction guys with the DeWalt stuff.
He replys that for just occasional, limited use, the Ryobi will do the same thing for me, if I was only getting the tools for maybe a couple of small projects...which made sense, and was the case for me, so I bought the Ryobi at half the price.

And really, that's kinda where the audio gear thing is for my mindset, but in the opposite direction.
I'm buying for the duration, a lot of use/lot of projects, plus also for the variety of application, the extended functionality and sometimes the smile factor.
People need to purchase whatever their mindset dictates.

 

[miroslav]

ANDDD I said I don't agree with you.

OK...but I'm not clear on what exactly you're not agreeing with in the post you quoted...there's several things in it that you could agree or disagree with....???

 

[grimtraveller]

I never met a preamp that I never liked or couldn't use !

 

[JohnWatkins]

Ryobi is the Behringer of power tools. My buddy has a Ryobi drill which I affectionately refer to as his "Lady Norelco".

 

[miroslav]

Ryobi is the Behringer of power tools. My buddy has a Ryobi drill which I affectionately refer to as his "Lady Norelco".

Priceless!

I couldn't agree more...but you can get your money/use out of it, usually just before it breaks.

 

[Bobbsy]

well ..... I don't agree with that. Playing is my thing ...... I actually don't record much anymore other than session work.
But I absolutely can play the exact same thing repeatedly ...... and put the exact same amount of sir behind a note or striking pressure on the strings.
OK ..... in the most minute sense there will be small differences but I can definitely play things so close to being the exact same that it would be useful in a test like this.
I have to defer to you in matters of recording and technology of recording because that is your area of expertise ...... I promise you, PLAYING is my area of expertise and absolutely very good players and/or singers can do the same thing twice so close to the same that you'd not be able to tell a difference.

Hmmmm...

Not getting at you but I wonder about the ability of any musician to do several takes in an absolutely identical fashion time after time. Indeed, if they did it would almost be like everything that's wrong with electronic drums etc.

One of my boring anecdotes...

Many years ago...it would have been in the early 1970s...I was doing post production on a documentary about a fairly well known symphony conductor (Seiji Ozawa if that means anything to anyone). The director wanted a sequence where we were watching Ozawa at a rehearsal then mix through to the same piece in performance. We did numerous attempts at this edit/mix (this was the days of tape of course so getting it wrong meant going back to the start) and each time the director insisted I stop because "I" had the timing wrong as she listened to the incoming performance track over the existing rehearsal one.

In the end it turned out that this world famous director had his tempo noticeably different between the rehearsal and the performance.

I know this is very different to recording your own thing in a home studio...but if Seiji Ozawa couldn't do things the same every time....

 

[Greg_L]

It's not rare or uncommon for a pro in any profession to do things the same time after time, or very close to the same. Just yesterday I was looking at a slideshow of Peyton Manning over the years from his college years to now. Each pic was him in mid throwing motion. It was astounding how exactly similar each picture was. His arm angle, his leg spacing, foot placement, his leading hand, even the way his fingers were positioned - all identical from throw to throw and year to year. There was also a sports science segment recently on ESPN comparing the accuracy of Drew Brees to an archery professional. My boy Drew nailed the bullseye with a football 12 for 12. Every fucking throw was exactly the same, over and over. He even knew how many times the ball would spin on it's way to the target. Insane. Ever see a "pro" dart tournament? Lol. Those fuckers are all about doing things the exact same every time.

So yeah, if it's something someone does every day, time after time, over and over, at a very high level like a pro quarterback or a guitarist that has been playing for 50 years, I can believe that repetition at a high level is not only possible, but probably pretty common.

 

[Lt. Bob]

So yeah, if it's something someone does every day, time after time, over and over, at a very high level like a pro quarterback or a guitarist that has been playing for 50 years, I can believe that repetition at a high level is not only possible, but probably pretty common.

that's my opinion and it's funny 'cause I was actually thinking of athletes and how they can do something like throw in 3 pointers while practicing and do it repeatedly. That takes the same kind of ability to repeat movements and it's just as critical as to needing to be exact as music is.

I dunno ...... I hear some wonderful and truly great recordings right here at HR.
What I don't hear is session caliber musicians ........ and they're not csuper common. Since I've been here in Florida I've heard/played with maybe a thousand players. Out of those exactly 3 impressed me as top caliber players. I absolutely believe those three could do it ...... but I've not heard a single recording on any of the sites that had players of that level on it so I think the average home hobbyist has musicians that can't.
An example ...... I've had quite a few people ask me and/or doubt that I can jump up on stage with players I've never met and play their original music of significant complexity (say, Steely Dan level) and play with no problem but I do it all the time. For me it's as easy as playing the blues. And I have friends in New Orleans that can and those 3 guys I mentioned in Florida could.
But I'm not a recordist ...... I'm primarily a live/session player which is a way different skill than recording.

So my opinion is that top flight players can do this.