Harvey we have waited long enough !

  • Thread starter Thread starter smellyfuzz
  • Start date Start date
smellyfuzz

smellyfuzz

New member
Hey Harvey,

Not to sound ungrateful for all your endless hours of time
auditioning mics, writing reports, advising on set up, sound
& manufacturing, but...

WE NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT CHEEP MIC PRE-AMPS !

Your Great River is WAY, WAY out of our budget (mine anyway).

You once wrote that cheep pre-amps color the sound,
would you maybe consider finding us an alternative.

PLEASE !

Love,

Sean
 
Gidge,

Do these M-Audio mic preamps [that you put the link to] sound any good? And if so, what do they remind you of? I have a couple of ART units which are just so-so IMHO. Vintechs they're not! Thanks for any information you can provide.
 
Most preamps color the sound, very few precisely resembling a wire with gain, not even the Great River. The problem with most of the cheap, home studio marketed preamps is they come up with a cheap design that is roughly "warm" or has a bit of breakup so it can sound "tubey" (never mind you that great tube pres can give crystal clean sparkle) which impresses a newbie as having a sound, where transparency wouldn't sell so much to that market. (I've heard of people returning RNC compressors because they couldn't hear it pumping, to give a notion of the problem.) The bonus of a transparent preamp is you aren't overdoing a particular flavor of coloration if you do 16 channels all through the same preamp, where it can be overwhelming and detrimental to have cheap pre coloration on all tracks. (Think of your favorite spice. Would you like every dish you eat at every meal to be liberally seasoned with it?) It isn't always that the pres are entirely bad or without merit, it's just that the market they are sold to typically has one preamp, and that one isn't typically ideal for multitrack use.

So, for a first best, and for the time being only, preamp, we want one that will handle a variety of microphones in a fairly neutral manner, so that you are amplifying the character of the source and the microphone, and not leaving an indelible stamp. The warm, fuzzy stuff is generally easier to do, since elements such as slow rise time and bad transient response contribute to that sound, and alter the tone that comes in. The Mackie pre's will do better for this sort of transparency than any under $500 preamp on the market that I know of. (I'd recomend the Mackie boards, except the eq and summing blow.) The best current budget contenders for transparency would be the Grace 101 (list $599 or is it $699 per single channel unit) and the 4 channel Sytek MP-4ai, which seems to go for $1200 at most, under $1000 if you look around. The Grace is probably closer to a wire with gain, and has a DI to boot, but the cost for channel might strain the newbie's budget or perception of what things should cost. The Sytek isn't absolutely transparent, and you can max the headroom out, but it is pretty clean and detailed and is a definite step up from most cheaper gear. The RNMP, the dark horse canidate, hasn't made a public appearance to let it be known where it stands. Indications are that it might have some color, but some units with a colored tone stack better than others in multitracked applications, which I'd imagine would be the case if it does have a sound to it.

Now I did notice on the Indian Trail website that Harvey has an Audio Buddy preamp, which is about as cheap as they come, but I have no idea of his impression or what use it is put to. I am a bit curious, but I hold out no great hope.

Bear
 
Hi Bear,

Ya know what I do with the TubePACs? I run them with the LED light set to the very first green [clean] light and leave the warm lights [yellow] out of the whole scene. I bet the TubePACS might sound much better without the tube in it? I really dig those Vintechs 1272 pres... those rock my world. I've heard good things about the Grace unit also. Thanks!:)
 
Mackie has been replaced by soundcraft's M-series mixers as having the best sounding pres in the $500 range.
The same pres found on the ghost.
Also the EQ smokes mackie bec its -----actually usable and good
sounding.(Im trying to get the word out...this must be my 4th post on this topic.)
Not that mackie is bad,,,
 
Davisound's reputation is growing. With the TB-6 you can get four channels for $650. The Microphone Forum Moderator has three Davisound pieces (TB-1, TB-3, TB-8), and he loves them. There are a couple of other people on this Board who have recently ordered TB-6s. We're waiting to hear their impressions.

http://www.davisound.com/
 
Hopefully ole Harv is testing out the RNMP as we speak, and that, my friends, is all we should burden him with for now. This is much awaited, and an accurate and in depth review is to come, I'm sure. Got it yet, Harvey?
 
The M-Audio Audio Buddy seems very transparent for the money.I have an Art Tube MP and I think it sounds awful except maybe as an effect.I have heard the Audio Buddy's pres compare favorably with Mackies VLZ Pro series pres and I have read post from people who have both an Audio Buddy and a VLZ Pro and they prefered the Audio Buddy.I havent heard the DMP3 but I was looking at it in their website and it looks very interesting.
 
Nope, not yet. I'm gonna call Mark and see if I can go down there and help, but it's always hard getting out an anticipated product. It was much easier for him to get the RNC out, since nobody was waiting for it or even knew about it.

For the most part, I don't have a lot of outboard preamps. I think I have a total of four, but they're all "very good" preamps (or at least, "very expensive" preamps). The RNMP will be number five. They don't get used all that often, either; I usually use the board's mic preamps for 95% of the sound I record.

I often use these outboard preamps as DI boxes for basses or guitars, and occasionally, for very critical vocals. "Critical vocals" are things like soft ballads with sparse arrangements, where the vocal is all by itself, way out in front of the music, and I want a really pristine sound to cut through.

For male rock vocals, my typical technique is to run the vocal thru a SansAmp TRI-O.D. box and add a touch of distortion (usually the "Tweed" setting, which adds a nice gritty tone to the vocals).

With so many of the new lower-cost mics available, adding so many interesting colors, I just really don't find it all that necessary to have a ton of outboard preamps lying around.

For the record, my main vocal mics (the ones I reach for first) are:

Condensers: MXL-V67G, MXL-V77, Neumann TLM-103
Ribbons: RCA 77-DX, RCA 44-BX
Dynamics: Shure SM-7, Beyer Soundstar MK-II

For whatever it's worth, the Shure SM-7 usually beats out most of the other mics for typical vocals. When it doesn't sound right, one of the other mics (listed above) will usually work fine. I'll also adjust the tone with compressors, using the RNC (for clean), or the dbx 166 or the Drawmer 1960 (both for a darker texture).

My outboard preamps are:

Great River MP-2 (in the small studio)
Great River MP-2NV (in the big studio)
Drawmer 1960 (in the small studio)
Millinia Media STT-1 Origin (in the big studio)
and soon (I hope), the FMR Audio RNMP

I do own a Rolls mic pre, but that's at Great River being modified (for about the last two years now), but it will get done whenever Dan Kennedy gets around to it.
 
I've been on the phone with the UK distributors of the M-Audio (and midiman) range.

They told me they have no pricing information until after NAMM.

They'r gonna go in and blow charlie (Behringer) out of the water! :D

d
 
So Harvey,

Let me get this straight...

In contrary to what I have been told in the past...

Are you saying that the uses of an out board pre-amp "may"
not be necessary.

That the pre-amp in my Tascam M-520 might do just fine for
say, hard/soft rock recordings?

AND, do you know of any links that might explain how to (if any)
calibrate consoles ?

Sean
 
Harvey, what kind of pres are in your consoles? Also, are you now trying to deny that you have an m-Audio "Audio Buddy?" :) What's that thing sound like? Two channels for 70 bucks could come in handy I suppose.

Slackmaster 2000
 
Looks like he has an MCI console. Not a slouch by any means at all! You cannot compare the pre's on many "budget" console to the ones on an MCI. It is just not fair.

Ed
 
sonusman said:
Looks like he has an MCI console. Not a slouch by any means at all! You cannot compare the pre's on many "budget" console to the ones on an MCI. It is just not fair.

Ed
Click to expand...

out of curiosity....seeing that the MCI goes for about 10 times the cost of a Ghost new, Ed, how would you compare the MCI 600 series pres to the Soundcraft....(seeing that you can get an MCI for just a tad more than a Ghost nowadays)?
 
I can only compare based upon what I have heard from the MCI consoles. I haven't worked on one. A studio in town here had one and much of the work that came out of there sounded very good. I would give the MCI a bit of an edge.

Ed
 
I just thought I'd throw a few things in here since I've got a little bit of experience with cheap pres. My first pre was the ART MP. I got my first condenser and my board(Alesis 1622:( ) didn't have phantom power so I bought it. I thought it sounded fine when I was trying to write stuff...nothing more than 2 or 3 tracks. But when I recorded some friends' songs with a full band with the MP and the board, I wasn't too impressed. Everything sounded dull and lifeless.

Then I started working at a classical/jazz radio station. Once a month they would record a live concert. The board they used for the location stuff was a Soundcraft Ghost. It was pretty impressive sounding. And the EQ was actually useful.

While I was working there I bought a used Behringer Ultragain off of Ebay for $75. It didn't have a ton of gain to it, but I liked the sound of it better than the ART MP. It wasn't one of the tube models and I thought it sounded clearer than the MP. However, it was nothing compared to the Ghost.

A little later I bought the Presonus BlueTube (when it first came out). I didn't think it was too bad until you turn the knobs up too far. After that it gets pretty noisy.

Then I went to work at a video production house that had a Mackie 24-4 and a 1202. These were both pre-VLZ models. I thought they sounded pretty good. Very clear and they had a "presence" to them. When the situation presented itself, I attempted to use the EQ and was extremely dissappointed.

I remember Ed talking (writing, whatever) about the ART and his Ghost 2 or 3 years ago and he liked the ART for some things. I now understand what he was talking about. I like the Mackie pres...for some things. I like the Ultragain pres...for some things. I like the BlueTube...for some things. I like the ART for some things. They all imprint their own character on the sound in some way.

In my opinion, the Ghost was the best. The Mackie was second. Everything else was a toss up. That's just talking about the pres. As far as mixers go, the Ghost beats the Mackie easily just because of the EQ.

I know I've been pretty long-winded with this post, but I just thought I'd throw out what I think about what I've used.
 
Bear, Baldguy, Pilgrum, and anyone else who knows:

If the mackie EQ sucks, couldn't you just leave everything at the center detents and get the pure VLZ preamp sound?

And how is the "summing" subpar? Do you mean that once you mix signals together they are colored/distorted somehow? Seems this would be an easy thing to do w/o affecting the signal. What if just used the inserts to go straight to your recorder- no mixing, but you'd get a pure signal right?

If you use the inserts and leave the eq at center(actually, I assume the insert is pre-EQ), then how would the mackie rate?
 
ap said:
Bear, Baldguy, Pilgrum, and anyone else who knows:

>If the mackie EQ sucks, couldn't you just leave everything at the >center detents and get the pure VLZ preamp sound?

I can't remember if the inserts are pre-eq. If they are, take the insert out to your storage medium. Otherwise, leave those puppies at center

>And how is the "summing" subpar? Do you mean that once you >mix signals together they are colored/distorted somehow? >Seems this would be an easy thing to do w/o affecting the >signal. What if just used the inserts to go straight to your >recorder- no mixing, but you'd get a pure signal right?

Summing stages are possibly harder to design well than preamp stages. Mackies trade off headroom for low noise. If you want headroom, it gets noisy, if you want quiet, you lose headroom. And the summing stage gets no particular tonal benefit from being maxed out.

>If you use the inserts and leave the eq at center(actually, I >assume the insert is pre-EQ), then how would the mackie rate?
Click to expand...

Pretty usable. I think it's a great value as a set of affordable mic pres. While it has plenty of useful features, everything else the board does with audio strikes me as utility grade, or in the case of the eq, worse. If you have one, I'd suggest keeping it until there are qualities of it that you can hear yourself which are pissing you off. Unless you have the cash and see a great deal on a pro board sooner.

Bear
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top