Best Mic Pre under $300 Poll..

[junplugged]

kazoo sounds pretty good thru a brick

 

[jmorris]

Mackie Onyx

Its not on the list but I think the Onyx preamp( which I have just switched to from my old Octopre's) are freak'in great for the money. Look at a 1640 mixer with 16 mic pres for 900-1000 bucks. Thats a bit over 50 bucks a piece.Thats under 300 right

 

[Roguetitan]

ART Tube MP Studio Mic Preamp
30 bucks at MF. hell ya it is good or I wouldnt use it.

 

[Beck]

Beck, this sounds like something I am VERY interested in; but the last link isn't working for me.....and on the second link, some things are unclear to a less experienced builder...like how exactly does he power the tube filaments with filtered dc instead of ac (i'm assuming the last link has more specific information on that)? I'm gonna go to that forum on the last link, and search for it.

Thanks for the info and the links. I am definitely gonna try one of those PAIA pres.

edit: just found the topic on that third link and it explains everything well. I'm ordering the kit tomorrow! thanks again Beck!

Sorry, I just noticed this reply.

http://www.tapeop.com/magazine/bonuspdfs/paiamicpremods.pdf

There is a not so well known typo in this mod. C21 and C22 should be 33uf not 10uf.

 

[Igor Alexander]

I weighed in with "Don't be cheap..." because I have a cheep pre amp and am now looking to upgrade. I have a PreSonus Blue Tube, which I bought after hearing the ART and Bellari tube pres. Those suck worse than the Blue Tube. Actually, in the beginning, I liked the Blue Tube and sometimes I still get a cool sound using it ... even a clean, warm sound. But it's touchy; it's too easy to distort the signal using it. Also, it's easy to get a "canned" sound. These are things, I'm afraid, you're going to get with cheaper tube no matter what; and even when I hit it just right, it won't ever open up the sound the way pres that actually drive the tube do. Still, of the ones I tried, BT was the most workable.

If tube's not important (which in this price range in probably isn't), you can go with Mackie's new XDRs. But if you just need phantom power, depending on your input's abilities (like, does it have a preamp you're trying to bypass?), you may get the same results as just plugging directly in or using a DI/phantom box. Considering a 1202 VLZ mixer goes for, what, $400 (??), maybe you should even look into Davisound, Grace, the Peavey VMP (tube) or PreSonus MP20 for a bit more money. Never tried any of these; just heard other people liked them, so you'll have to test-drive on your own.

It also basically depends on how critical your own ears are ... I started out thinking the difference between the BT and other tube pres was going to be negligible in the final mix based on what I heard in trying it out ("yeah, it's $1,200, but is it really $1,050 better?"). Now, my ears are much more fine-tuned and the differences are important to me. But maybe not to everyone. And maybe you have better recording/mixing/micing techniques and gear than I and can get a bona fide killer sound out of cheaper gear. So many variables.

For low-budget home recording, I would avoid anything that tended to color the sound, like tube preamps, unless I was deliberately trying to create special effects.

 

[Igor Alexander]

Again, you're building a toolkit with which you hope to capture or create great sounds. Do you want to cut corners? Or do you want to go with the tried and true -- if unfortunately a bit more financially painful?

So Mr. Jones needs a car so he can drive to work and back. Does he buy a Rolls Royce, even though it's financially quite painful for him to do so, or does he "cut corners" and buy the $20,000 Toyota? Does it make any sense for Mr. Jones to drive a Rolls Royce to work?

It's all about compromise, always. I've heard high-end mic preamps and some of them can make an SM57 sound like a capacitor microphone, but for home recording purposes, the preamps in my Mackie mixer are more than adequate and I can't justify spending more than that for what basically amounts to a hobby. I find it ridiculous that people who are recording music in their bedrooms or basements are spending (or are being urged to spend) thousands of dollars on boutique mic pres when they could be using that money on something far more useful like pressing CDs and sending them out to radio stations, buying that nice guitar amp or piano that they've had their eye on, etc.

Once you start taking a "no compromise" approach to your home studio, where do you draw the line? Since you're already spending $800 per mic preamp, why not upgrade to mics that cost $1000 or more? And while you're at it, why not spend $10,000 on a high-end desktop mixer? You could spend another $10,000 on outboard EQ and signal processors, $10,000 on ADC/DACs, and on and on it goes. Where does it end? And at what point do you start to get diminishing returns on your investment? Is the difference in sound, that to most of your listeners will be so subtle as to be imperceptible, really worth the extra $700 you paid for a boutique preamp over the Mackie or the M-Audio?

These days, you can do more, better, with $3000 worth of gear than you could 12 years ago with $15,000 worth of gear. Smart consumers will take advantage of this situation and be grateful for the extra $12,000 left over in their pockets to go towards a home, a car, a vacation, their kids' education, etc.

 

[Fishmed]

For low-budget home recording, I would avoid anything that tended to color the sound, like tube preamps, unless I was deliberately trying to create special effects.

+1

At this price level, let your mics add the characteristics.

The Symetrix 202 or 302 is a great mic pre, and what makes it better is that as you get an extra $350, you can have Jim Williams at Audio Upgrades upgrade it. Man, talk about clean.

 

[IloveJesus]

I've got you all beat. I running straight into the laptop and getting the kind of sound you'd expect from it. But sometimes it sounds alright.

I'm more about the song than anything else, but I do need to work with some more stuff.

I have a phantom powerbox for my condensors.

I hardly ever pay more than a hundred bucks for anything, and believe me, buddy, it shows.

 

[juan162]

The best advice I've gleaned from the HomeRecording forum is that it is not the gear, but the ear! Don't get me wrong, I would love to have all the high end gear that some have on this forum. However, I know I can make greater improvements in my recordings by becoming better at recording, not by owning the best equipment. I'd be willing to bet all the money I have that Harvey Gerst can make a much better recording than I can if he were given my equipment, and the same recording situation.

This does not mean I will not upgrade my equipment, but I do have a budget and if I can't make a quality recording within my budget I would sooner fault my abilities before I faulted the equipment I am using. Just my 2 cents,

Juan

 

[Fishmed]

The best advice I've gleaned from the HomeRecording forum is that it is not the gear, but the ear! Don't get me wrong, I would love to have all the high end gear that some have on this forum. However, I know I can make greater improvements in my recordings by becoming better at recording, not by owning the best equipment. I'd be willing to bet all the money I have that Harvey Gerst can make a much better recording than I can if he were given my equipment, and the same recording situation.

This does not mean I will not upgrade my equipment, but I do have a budget and if I can't make a quality recording within my budget I would sooner fault my abilities before I faulted the equipment I am using. Just my 2 cents,

Juan

I wrote in another thread awhile back about this concept. From my experience, your ears are limited to the quality of your gear. Without having used “Better” gear, your ears will not know what to listen for. Once you have used “Better” gear for awhile then come back to low end gear, you will have the knowledge of what the sounds SHOULD sound like, and if you are experienced enough, you will know how to get there with that gear.

An experienced engineer will have the knowledge to squeeze the most out of low end gear. A less experience engineer might not have that ability to use that gear the same way, but once they start using “Better” gear, that gear may not make that person a better engineer, but it does remove the “inherent” barriers that come with the lower quality equipment.

 

[pohaku]

+1

At this price level, let your mics add the characteristics.

The Symetrix 202 or 302 is a great mic pre, and what makes it better is that as you get an extra $350, you can have Jim Williams at Audio Upgrades upgrade it. Man, talk about clean.

Those are nice (SX202). A couple years ago they were in demand as a high quality basic and inexpensive mic pre. There is a mod thread on rec.audio.pro that describes the mod in some detail for those who are so inclined. I still have 2 of them (unmodded). I understand that the 302 used different chips and isn't subject to modding like the 202.

 

[Fishmed]

Those are nice (SX202). A couple years ago they were in demand as a high quality basic and inexpensive mic pre. There is a mod thread on rec.audio.pro that describes the mod in some detail for those who are so inclined. I still have 2 of them (unmodded). I understand that the 302 used different chips and isn't subject to modding like the 202.

Thanks, I did not know that the 302 where that different from the 202.

 

[hipskind]

The best advice I've gleaned from the HomeRecording forum is that it is not the gear, but the ear! Don't get me wrong, I would love to have all the high end gear that some have on this forum. However, I know I can make greater improvements in my recordings by becoming better at recording, not by owning the best equipment. I'd be willing to bet all the money I have that Harvey Gerst can make a much better recording than I can if he were given my equipment, and the same recording situation.

This does not mean I will not upgrade my equipment, but I do have a budget and if I can't make a quality recording within my budget I would sooner fault my abilities before I faulted the equipment I am using. Just my 2 cents,

Juan

Great post Juan!

At this point I have a Focusrite Platinum Octopre ($100/channel) along with the 4 built-in pres on my 002R. I'd love to go out and get an API 3124 ($600/chan), but I'm in the process of buying a home, so it's obviously not high on the priority list. And besides, I've been able to create drum tracks that I think really sound quite good! And I'm still fairly new at the self-engineering game, so I know they can only get better the more experience I gain. When I eventually get the API (or something comparable, who knows?) it will only be the icing on the cake. You still should be able to attain a relatively good sound on gear that isn't ultra-high-end; in fact, in some ways I believe it's probably best to LEARN to get good sound before you make any huge investments.

-Tom Hipskind

 

[juan162]

An experienced engineer will have the knowledge to squeeze the most out of low end gear. A less experience engineer might not have that ability to use that gear the same way, but once they start using “Better” gear, that gear may not make that person a better engineer, but it does remove the “inherent” barriers that come with the lower quality equipment.

I have no answer for that, since I've never used high end gear. While I can't afford high end gear, some people have posted about renting high end gear. If the opportunity presents itself, and it's not too expensive to rent, I would definitely think about giving it a go.

As a side note, I used to be a very good trumpet player. I started on a Bundy student trumpet and moved up to a Bach Strad that I absolutely loved the sound of. I sounded better on the Bach, but it definitely didn't make me a better player. I don't know if this is comparable to recording, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

Juan

 

[Fishmed]

I have no answer for that, since I've never used high end gear. While I can't afford high end gear, some people have posted about renting high end gear. If the opportunity presents itself, and it's not too expensive to rent, I would definitely think about giving it a go.

As a side note, I used to be a very good trumpet player. I started on a Bundy student trumpet and moved up to a Bach Strad that I absolutely loved the sound of. I sounded better on the Bach, but it definitely didn't make me a better player. I don't know if this is comparable to recording, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

Juan

I understand where you are coming from, but it is almost apples and oranges. As a performer, you basically have one tool, your instrument. As an engineer you can have many tools to choose from.

Before I get too far into my post, I agree with all other posts that song and music performance comes first, and this is where the apples and oranges come to play. If you have bad music and/or performance then it does not matter how good the musician’s instrument is, the engineer’s experience, or for that matter his equipment; the outcome is going to be a pile of C-R-A-P. The engineer may be able to polish it a bit, but it will still stink.

Since you have brought it up as a musician, I will try to relate it to you in “instrument” terminology. Say a novice piano player has a poorly designed piano where one or two keys may just sound plain bad, enough to distract from the music. The musician may know how to play the piece of music, but because of the limitations of his instrument and knowledge, he does not know how to get around it. Now let’s say he is placed on a VERY nice piano and plays the same piece of music, his skill may not have gotten better, but his performance does. Bring in the experienced piano player, of course he smokes the novice on the nice piano, no contest, but on the poorly designed piano, with his musical knowledge, the expert can restructure his chords to avoid the bad key(s).

With recording equipment, it is very much the same. A novice on poorly built gear may not have the knowledge on how to circumvent the shortcomings of his gear, whereas an experienced engineer will. If the novice is then placed on the BETTER gear, his skills may not get better overnight, but there will be some improvement just because the inherent barriers that exist in the poor gear are removed. From my experience, the more important thing is having “CLEANER” sounding equipment should help your ears learn better. If your gear has a “haze/dullness”, it will limit the full potential of your work. After you have worked on better gear for an extended amount of time, you can quickly realize the limitations and avoid the things that do the most harm on poorly designed equipment. Sure an experienced engineer can do a great job on poorly designed equipment, but he may have to work harder to get a good mix than if he was using better gear.

 

[juan162]

If your gear has a “haze/dullness”, it will limit the full potential of your work. After you have worked on better gear for an extended amount of time, you can quickly realize the limitations and avoid the things that do the most harm on poorly designed equipment. Sure an experienced engineer can do a great job on poorly designed equipment, but he may have to work harder to get a good mix than if he was using better gear.

I hear what you're saying and I appreciate the well thought out post. While I can't afford to upgrade everything in my set up, if I were to start purchasing high quality gear, what would be the first upgrade, and how much more do I have to pay if I want to hear a difference. Will I even hear a significant difference if I only upgrade one part of my signal chain?

Juan

 

[jmorris]

For under 300 bucks it a hard choice, as I posted before the better option is a console with good pre's

 

[jmorris]

So Mr. Jones needs a car so he can drive to work and back. Does he buy a Rolls Royce, even though it's financially quite painful for him to do so, or does he "cut corners" and buy the $20,000 Toyota? Does it make any sense for Mr. Jones to drive a Rolls Royce to work?

It's all about compromise, always. I've heard high-end mic preamps and some of them can make an SM57 sound like a capacitor microphone, but for home recording purposes, the preamps in my Mackie mixer are more than adequate and I can't justify spending more than that for what basically amounts to a hobby. I find it ridiculous that people who are recording music in their bedrooms or basements are spending (or are being urged to spend) thousands of dollars on boutique mic pres when they could be using that money on something far more useful like pressing CDs and sending them out to radio stations, buying that nice guitar amp or piano that they've had their eye on, etc.

Once you start taking a "no compromise" approach to your home studio, where do you draw the line? Since you're already spending $800 per mic preamp, why not upgrade to mics that cost $1000 or more? And while you're at it, why not spend $10,000 on a high-end desktop mixer? You could spend another $10,000 on outboard EQ and signal processors, $10,000 on ADC/DACs, and on and on it goes. Where does it end? And at what point do you start to get diminishing returns on your investment? Is the difference in sound, that to most of your listeners will be so subtle as to be imperceptible, really worth the extra $700 you paid for a boutique preamp over the Mackie or the M-Audio?

These days, you can do more, better, with $3000 worth of gear than you could 12 years ago with $15,000 worth of gear. Smart consumers will take advantage of this situation and be grateful for the extra $12,000 left over in their pockets to go towards a home, a car, a vacation, their kids' education, etc.

For me, always buy the highest quality you can, it retains its value and gives back. Lets see, my 1959 les paul standard purchased for 175 bucks...now 300,000....yeah, that was a good purchase. 1959 Gibson es 330 blonde purchased for 800, now 10,000. yeah good purchase. Point being go good! Without selling the home of course.

 

[Ridickolas]

To whoever is reading this looking for a good cheap pre, do not buy the Presonus TubePre, it is not worth it.

EDIT: I forgot to mention it does actually make a pretty good bass DI.

 

[jarrydee]

ok, i just started reading this thread 10 mins ago for the first time, and the question that came up to my mind is,
"are these pres under $500 really gonna make a noticeble difference to my ears compare to my Behringer mixer's pres??"

I have struggled with either getting a pre or not for a long time, and concluded with Grace 101 once I save up enough. This was backed up by a sweetwater salesman. He pretty much stopped me from buying anything under $500 at their store and told me to use my Behringer and wait until I can afford Grace 101.

Now, is this cool DMP3 really gonna be a jump (let's say a $200 jump) from my Behringer pres? Or is it just a huge jump for people who don't own ANY pre?

before you try to talk Behringer down, just let me say this real quick, I have faith in my mixer's pres JUST because everyone is talking them down, and most of all, they rob Mackie for the poor. lol

Save your money..I sold alomost all my lowend compressors,eq's,and preamps just to get my grace m101..and it is worth it..it sure blows away the pre's on my digi 003!!