3D PRE CD

  • Thread starter Thread starter Recording Engineer
  • Start date Start date
After looking at the prices of the mic's and preamps that they tested, that CD would do nothing but depress me.
Mic's that cost 5 or 6 thousand dollars will sound great on almost ANY preamp that costs a thousand dollars and up.
It would've been nice if they tested more "affordable" preamps (with less expensive mic's) and posted the results. Then I would definately order that CD, since I'm in the market for a preamp right now.
 
Buck, I've ordered my CD too (and don't anybody tell me if I'm wrong - I want to have my own unbiassed listen to the different preamps and draw my own conclusions), but what if it turns out that there isn't all that much audible difference between them? What if it's a matter of fine tuning, or mere preference?

I wish cheaper preamps had been tested as well, but Lynn Fuston, the guy who set the test up, said a number of manufacturers were not interested in sending their pres to the test. Which might be significant in itself...

It's all high-end gear over at 3D Audio, and show-off studios. Maybe we should organize a poor man's preamp test, using the SM-58, Rode NT-1 and Oktava C-012. The Po' Boy Pre Showdown. :)
 
When you get down into some popular but real cheapo mics, I guess the test would be valid enough as long as you stuck to that same mic for all the cheap pres. The data wouldn't be as useful as using a $1K mic, now would it? Any detail of the pricey mic that got through the pre sounding OK shows the pre would surely handle less detailed input with as least that level of fidelity- right?
My other guess is that there would be more difference noticeable right away among the real cheap shit than between any of the samples seen on this 3D CD Preamp Showdown.
Hence the reluctance of some of the competitors to compete.
 
I'd be willing to bet the evening's beer you're right about the second point, but I'm not so sure about the first. It might turn out that a particular mic (eg SM58) might sound great with a cheap pre (eg ART tube mp), but that a more expensive pre didn't do much at all in the way of improving on that sound. In other words, it's combinations of gear that make a sound. In other words, you have to put it to the test before you know.

And even if you're right on both counts, I'd really like to know where that line is between the crap and the okay gear. When it comes to wine, I can tell you more or less exactly where that line is, and how much you have to pay to cross it. With recording gear, I'm just guessing. For instance, I'm really happy with the two ART pres I just acquired. Is that because:

a) the ARTs make good sound?
b) I haven't sampled really good pres yet?

Dunno. I know which one I *want* the answer to be, but that's desire, not knowledge. :)
 
I'd like to see someone compare pre's like the ART Pro Channel, ART Tube Pac, and the ART Dual MP, as well as the Joe Meek VC3, VC3Q, VC6Q, the Mindprint Envoice, Bellari, and maybe a few others that are in the $200 to $600 range.
The mics used should be a Rode NT1, an AKG C3000, and a similarly priced Oktava (large-diaphram) mic. These seem to be the most common condenser mics used by the masses around here.
The reason for comparing different models of the same brand would be to see if all those extra features (parametric eq's, compressors, stereo capabilities, etc.) are worth spending the extra $$$, and also to see if the noise level is less audible on a $600 preamp (ART Pro Channel), as opposed to a $250 preamp (ART Tube Pac).
I would be willing to spend $600 on a preamp, if that's what it takes to achieve the best possible sound for the money. But, I'd like to be able to justify spending the same amount as I spent on my digital 8-track machine to get that total "pro-quality" sound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top