fraserhutch
Flypaper for freaks
Who said "awful"??????jmorris said:
jmorris
New member
xstatic, are you saying if I post samples,one with a v72a, and one with an octopre you can tell me which one is the v72a?
jmorris
New member
tell you what, go to my mobile recording site. There is a sample of a live Jazz gig. Tell me which instrument was recorded via V72a mic preamp. This goes for anyone. Here is the link. The site isnt up and public yet but it is active. Its the sample on the right side of the home page.Oh ,and please expalin why you think your particular track chosen was recorded with V72a PREAM.
www.24tracklive.com
www.24tracklive.com
Last edited:
jmorris
New member
no one said awful, Im asking " is it like?' trying to get a feel for the meaning. Wasnt a quote.fraserhutch said:
cavedog101
Well-known member
Thats a nice sounding live recording. Kudos to you Jim. Anyone would be hard-pressed to identify ANY particular piece of gear especially in a live performance situation, but if it were me doing the gig, I would put my best stuff on the lead instrument. So lets say Sax in this case. Its not because its really an audible thing.... its simply because the engineer would set it up that way.
Do I win?
Do I win?
jmorris
New member
thanks for nice comments cave, no not right, but you make my point that it is very hard to tell, a decent pre will give a good sound , a very highend pre will give a good sound, maybe a little better but not an "Oh my freakin god". We will let this ride a while and see what people say about the clip! May be a nice test. Clip isnt mixed, just enough to give people a clue of my sound( for better or worse hah!) In addition if high end pres were so very much worth their price,and not a bit of hype, this recording would prove testement easily by identification.
X
XLR
______
All the inexpensive pre's I've got (Mackie VLZ, Yamaha mixer pre's, EH12AY7, pre's in a Tascam US122, a couple others) sound veiled in comparison to my Great River MP2 on classical or fingerpicked steel string ac guitar. I've got tracks done with Mackie pre's that sound good, but there was a night and day difference when I A/B'd the Mackie and other budget pre's with the GR - in richness of the lows, sweetness of the highs, clarity of the mids, transient detail. The difference gets magnified when files are converted to mp3 for online use. In total, I A/B'd the pre's with about a dozen mic's ranging from Schoeps MK41 to Neumann KM184 to MXL 603. With an M160 ribbon, that needs VERY high gain for classical guitar, forget it - the low end pre's weren't useable at all.
Tim
M
MadMax
New member
Middleman said:
AHA! So that's the Holy Grail! Can you enlighten a bottom feeder on vari-mu and commercial sheen? I think this is what a lot of people expect out of a high end pre.
Amen, brother!
jmorris
New member
yeah! and kind of gets to my point, there are SO many variables to getting "the sound". I DO hear differences in my pres but never a "holly shit" kind of different. and, yes its good when we can all discuss nicely!MadMax said:
Middleman
Professional Amateur
Ok, first let me say that a song that is not written well, performed well, arranged well and mixed well is probably not going to impress anybody, sheen or no sheen. One thing that is rather subtle that a lot of people miss is automation and breath removal of the vocal, not necessary in all cases but, unless it’s a heart wrenching ballad, kill some of the breath data. Actually most of the work is in the mix once you have a decent song and arrangement.MadMax said:
That said, there are some tried and true methods for taking a mix to the commercial level and that resides in the the domain of the mastering engineer. Fades, crossfades & timing between songs also lend an air of credibility. A nice vari-mu (http://www.manleylabs.com/containerpages/mu99.html), a word class EQ i.e. GML and top of the line limiter L2 or other are what take the sound to the next level. If you are working ITB then a tape simulator can also be useful. These are general; I know a lot of MEs that use custom hand built gear too.
You can have a mix that is 95% done prior to mastering but you need a good engineer that knows what he is doing and some decent compressors even for jazz. Still, that even smoothness and upper midrange sheen, especially Nashville based stuff, is the result of what happens after the mix. As the saying goes, you can't polish a turd but you can make it somewhat innocuous to listen to i.e. the current state of the music business.
PS. Go to the link above and read the manual for the Vari-Mu, it's quite an education.
X
xstatic
New member
Actually, I am not saying that I would necessarily know the difference right away between the octopre and the V72. First off, they are in a mix and have already been processed to a certain extent. The biggest difference I notice is when I am mixing. The good pre's "feel" different. They find their place in a mix much easier, they tend to not not step on other channels as easily, they tend to need less EQ, they also take to EQ better and to compression better. All of those things are time saved and in my business time saved is money earned. Over the course of say a year that money earned easily pays for some equipment. I have never said that good recordings can not be done without high end equipment, but it definately takes more experience and ability to achieve it. I have noticed what to me is a pretty nice difference between how an sm57 reacts on a guitar cabinet with my Chandler compared to my D&R. There is an even bigger difference when you try that with a Mackie or something similar. Several months ago we did some double blind tests with different mics and preamps. Out of 4 of us, 3 picked the API preamp on kick drum. There was a distinct tonality difference in certain preamps, where others were definately more similar. I agree, and have always agreed to a certain extent that there is no "blow me away" difference. Occasionally however there is. For instance, my U87 run through an RNP even compared to runing it though an Avalon 737. I am not actually a huge fan of the Avalon stuff, but something about the way a U87 and even a TLM 103 reacts with a 737 is pretty drastic. This is exactly the reason I am soon adding one or two Avalon 737's to my stock. I think that when an engineer properly assesses mic and preamp pairings for individual sources that this is where the differences between different preamps really starts to reveal itself. I also believe that the better the rest of your signal chain is, the more and more apparent those differences become as well. To tell you the truth jmorris, I actually am with on many points, just felt like it was a little extreme. I hold by my statement that preamps aren't really overrated, but more misunderstood. If you go out and buy a good preamp and think that it will be the bridge between you and commercial recordings, you wqill most likely be dissappointed. I don't think that is necessarily because preamps are overrated, but maybe more because the person who ran out and bought one got their information from the wrong source. I beleive that mics and monitors and room treatments are the most important thing. Next would be converters and preamps, and then auxilliary outboard.
X
XLR
______
xstatic said:
Tim
I've experienced the same exact thing - where the pieces of gear mesh in a way that creates a quality greater than just the sum of the parts. flamenco gtr track - done with a U87 in cardioid into an Avalon 737.
Tim
Outlaws
New member
Jesus people are still arguing this?
jmorris
New member
Very nicely put!xstatic said:
I just hate the people that think "oh, I have to have an API, or a Neve to get a decent sound." Like are the aural golden goose. Yeah they are great but only part of the "mix" . Also ( for anyone) I wouls still like for someone to be able to pickout the pre's on my sample. I mean I know its in mix but if high end pres have NO hype at all then it should be easy...right?
S
sbcgroup2
New member
I agree. The difference between my API's and Behringer is light years. Definitely worth the money, especially for guitar sounds....