J
GONZO-X
Well-known member
that's why so many pros base their careers around $5 preamps.
because no one can hear the difference.
because no one can hear the difference.
G
Greg_L
Banned
Or why total hacks buy high level shit thinking it makes them better. They hope someone can hear a difference..
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
Yes, and I won't disagree very strongly. My point was more that even the 3DAudio tests weren't fully scientific for the reasons stated. And for whatever flaws there might have been in the $5 preamp test, it still came out on top. So take that as a criticism of most tests where people's opinions are shown to be based more on beliefs than evidence. If someone believes that a $5 preamp can't be good enough, this surely proves that belief to be wrong.
--Ethan
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
I'm sure you can, but probably not to the minute level needed to properly assess preamps. Another factor is whether it's an acoustic or electric guitar. Acoustic guitar is more difficult to duplicate because, beside the pick pressure and location along the string, you also have to keep your own body perfectly still to keep the guitar at exactly the same distance and angle to the microphone. The closer the microphone, the more exact this needs to be.
--Ethan
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
There's an assumption made in the one test that the people who posted their choices online even knew what an expensive preamp is supposed to sound like.
I mean really...WTF is an "expensive" preamp *supposed* to sound like????
That's why it was un-scientific. It was basically asking people to *GUESS* what THEY thought an expensive preamp sounds like.
The 3D Audio tests were listening comparisons and the preamps where all properly level calibrated...and the listening team was probably more critical in their listening ability since they were engineers whose job is to listen to details...and who are aware that there is a vast variety of DIFFERENT sounding expensive preamps.
The two comparison tests were not at all on the same accuracy/critical listening level....but I doubt you want to be convinced of that, since you want to use the un-scientific test to prove your point about cheap preamps.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Funny....here you point out the need for perfect position to maintain accuracy per pass in a test....but in that silly preamp test you're using to prove your point, the guy *steps away from the mic* as a method to control level, and you have no problem with that?
So which is it....accuracy in the repetition per pass is needed...or it's not...?
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
ALL we're gonna get from these sorts of tests (in my opinion) is impressions of what they might sound like.Funny....here you point out the need for perfect position to maintain accuracy per pass in a test....but in that silly preamp test you're using to prove your point, the guy *steps away from the mic* as a method to control level, and you have no problem with that?
So which is it....accuracy in the repetition per pass is needed...or it's not...?
To really know (once again ... my opinion) you have to have your hands on it and work with it.
I will say again, I do feel higher quality preamps offer something .... a sense of ease in how hard they're working or transparency or whatever terms you like to use. When I hear recordings that impress me and find out it was an expensive pre in the chain I always find myself wishing I could have THAT sound and can't get it because I can't afford it.
I don't think we can settle that on the 'net with these sorts of comparisons but I'm VERY interested in the test proposed just to hear how substantial the differences might (or not) be. I do think that large difference will be apparent and that would be useful for me at least.
M
mark1971a
New member
I hear you, bob. The more expensive stuff is still avalible at places to rent. I would never have had the opportunity to play with a 1176, until I rented one. Then, you know what is missing. There was a place out here called the soundpost, closed now. It had all the expensive stuff. LA2A, NY, 1176,etc.
A
ajzbop
New member
Mic Pre's and other thingieees
There are many ways to record your 2050 or any other mic.
1st off you need to accoustisize your room.
2nd, you need to have the best cables you can afford.
3rd, mic pre's...I prefer channel strips with good pre's...I have two, an ART Tube Channel strip the one that was made
in the USA, Rochester, NY...Great pre, compression/or limiter & 4 band EQ with sweepable mid's... use this mainly for
guitar or bass into my CPU interface into Amplatuide 3
I also have an Foucsrit Platinum Voice Master, to many bells and whistles to mentions..great pre, great sound & great everything.
Used this for vocals...great recorded out come.
Now I just purchased from Sweetwater a M-audio M-Track Plus bundled with Pro Tools Express...see how it works out.
Ajzbop/Blue Dog Records
There are many ways to record your 2050 or any other mic.
1st off you need to accoustisize your room.
2nd, you need to have the best cables you can afford.
3rd, mic pre's...I prefer channel strips with good pre's...I have two, an ART Tube Channel strip the one that was made
in the USA, Rochester, NY...Great pre, compression/or limiter & 4 band EQ with sweepable mid's... use this mainly for
guitar or bass into my CPU interface into Amplatuide 3
I also have an Foucsrit Platinum Voice Master, to many bells and whistles to mentions..great pre, great sound & great everything.
Used this for vocals...great recorded out come.
Now I just purchased from Sweetwater a M-audio M-Track Plus bundled with Pro Tools Express...see how it works out.
Ajzbop/Blue Dog Records
Attachments
Last edited:
ShofB
Sometimes here...
I have never heard that figure and couldn't disagree more.
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
So in your estimation, if it's not 2/3rd of your sound, how much does the room contribute? Is it more, is it less?
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
I am curious as well. Though, might be worth pointing out that Tim's statement was "2/3rds of your 'sound' ". Not necessarily meaning "2/3rds of 'your' sound". I would consider them two different opinions.
M
mark1971a
New member
Can you look at it like that?
What part of the sound, you mean as a whole? Anything could be part of that inclusion then too.
Bring a recorder around to different rooms and halls, at many locations. Sing the same verse, with a clap or two for decay. Document everything. You will quickly understand what the room brings to the table .
What part of the sound, you mean as a whole? Anything could be part of that inclusion then too.
Bring a recorder around to different rooms and halls, at many locations. Sing the same verse, with a clap or two for decay. Document everything. You will quickly understand what the room brings to the table .
G
Greg_L
Banned
It's not even measurable, so that's a silly thing to say anyway. Suppose you have a guitar cab in a room, any room, with a supercardoid dynamic mic crammed right up on the grill. There's no way the room is gonna color that sound 66.6%.
Or you could put a drum kit in an airplane hangar and one mic at the other end. The "room" will color 100% of that sound.
It's a double-edged sword. Most home recorders track and mix in the same place. A good tracking room is most definitely a shitty mixing room. So which is it gonna be? I think you're better off treating your do-everything space for good mixing. You can track in that flat space and add "room" later.
Or you could put a drum kit in an airplane hangar and one mic at the other end. The "room" will color 100% of that sound.
It's a double-edged sword. Most home recorders track and mix in the same place. A good tracking room is most definitely a shitty mixing room. So which is it gonna be? I think you're better off treating your do-everything space for good mixing. You can track in that flat space and add "room" later.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
It's all totally subjective so arguing about whether it's 2/3 or whatever is pointless.
However, I'd start by saying the most important part of any recording is the performance. All else is icing.
Yes, the room acoustics are important but there are ways around that in a home situation. Unless and until you can make the room sound good, just use the moving blanket trick to make it sound dead and add some electronic ambience later. Not perfect but a lot of good recordings are done that way. If you're doing anything with the spoken word rather than mixed music, then the "dead" room is actually desirable.
The next important thing is the skill of the operator. Little things like mic placement and gain structure can make a big difference. Similarly, providing a really good headphone mix to the musician can really affect the performance.
Matching the mic to the voice or instrument is important. I cringe when I hear people ask "what's the best mic under $100 to record everything". Different mics have different strengths and weaknesses.
Finally, once you're happy with everything else, a pre amp you like may add that little extra something.
Nothing can be taken in isolation though. It's all part of a chain.
However, I'd start by saying the most important part of any recording is the performance. All else is icing.
Yes, the room acoustics are important but there are ways around that in a home situation. Unless and until you can make the room sound good, just use the moving blanket trick to make it sound dead and add some electronic ambience later. Not perfect but a lot of good recordings are done that way. If you're doing anything with the spoken word rather than mixed music, then the "dead" room is actually desirable.
The next important thing is the skill of the operator. Little things like mic placement and gain structure can make a big difference. Similarly, providing a really good headphone mix to the musician can really affect the performance.
Matching the mic to the voice or instrument is important. I cringe when I hear people ask "what's the best mic under $100 to record everything". Different mics have different strengths and weaknesses.
Finally, once you're happy with everything else, a pre amp you like may add that little extra something.
Nothing can be taken in isolation though. It's all part of a chain.
heatmiser
mr. green christmas
Me too. At least in my experience, the room itself is negligible in comparison with almost every other variable.
I've recorded in many different rooms over the years. In our current home in which I've been recording off an on for about 15 years or so, I alternate back and forth between a den and a garage, neither of which are treated. They are completely different sizes with completely different building materials, and the recordings done in each sound more or less the same.
If I swap out a different guitar - huge difference...same thing if I change mics, or simply adjust the tone knob on an amp or guitar. There are hundreds of different things I can do with EQ, effects, mic positioning, etc. that all have a greater impact on the recorded sound than the room I happen to be in. I just don't get it.
I'm talking about recording electric guitars through amps, acoustic guitars, vocals, acoustic drums...pretty much everything.
M
mark1971a
New member
No , difference? How is the room mic'd? You are setting a mic back to capture the room ?
I record flat. Yeah, some tracks are shelfed hpf cause there is nothing useable/useful in the low. There should be a certain cadence change.
A room with a higher background noise sounds different too. Did you get a listening room db reading? You might need phones.
I record flat. Yeah, some tracks are shelfed hpf cause there is nothing useable/useful in the low. There should be a certain cadence change.
A room with a higher background noise sounds different too. Did you get a listening room db reading? You might need phones.
