How important are microphone preamps to a home studio?

[Fishmed]

Some mic's are sensitive to pre's re their sound quality, others aren't.

57 to a high end transformer-input pre... yes. But try this: on ac gtr compare a cheap mic like a V67, 603, B1, etc. to a Schoeps MK4 or 41 going into a cheap pre like a Mackie VLZ. Then plug the same mic's into a high end pre, like a Great River. In my own tests the Schoeps sounded noticeably better with the Mackie than the lesser quality mic's did with the high end pre.

I have not tried the Schoeps or the Great River, but I do understand that some mic work better or worse than with various mic pres, so your point is well taken. From my experience going from a VERY good set of mic pres to crappy ones, using the same mics, that there was a VERY noticable difference in the quailty of the mix. I would rather have one great mic pre and choose which mic to use over having one great mic and have to choose the pre.

At the end of the day it is all a balancing act.

 

[XLR]

I would respectfully edit that to state "Some mic's are less sensitive to pre's than others re their sound quality".

Yep. .

 

[snow lizard]

Different preamps will make more or less difference depending on the mic, the loudness, the source and so on. I think the mic is more important than the pre in general. Mic positioning even more so. Room acoustics is another factor.

The budget preamps will still amplify a mic signal to line level. You're probably dealing with issues like less headroom, a smaller sweet spot when finding your best gain structure, or it might tend to add noise as you crank the gain up. Some of these problems might be reduced by not overcooking the gain structure.

Dynamic mics in general and ribbons in particular can sound quite different through different preamps. In part because you have to push the pre harder, and also from differences in output impedence from the mic vs. input impedence to the pre. There are a few preamps that let you switch the load impedence for this reason. It acts as a kind of weirdass tone control. There are some newer designs of ribbon mics that don't really respond to these changes. The phantom powered Royer R 122 comes to mind.

You might not hear as much difference with condensers. It's more subtle. Plus, you're typically adding less gain to get to line level.

So how important is the pre overall? It really depends on the goal. If you don't have a room or a mic collection that could really benefit or an ambition to make records instead of demos and you aren't getting any horrible problems like severe lack of gain or excessive noise, there's bigger changes that can be made before the pre.

If I had a chain like a KSM 27 and a US 122, the biggest problem might be having a good condenser that picks up too much of a bad room. The solution might be to treat the room, or switch to a dynamic mic in an effort to lose the room sound. That might be more effective for my goals than running a Great River into a Tascam in the bedroom.

So it's kind of application specific, really. YMMV.


sl

 

[XLR]

At the end of the day it is all a balancing act.

Ain't that the truth?

 

[The Axis]

Once that is done you need to amplify that signal, hence the weak link.

Am I making sense or full of shit?

Bad pre = bad sound no matter what the mic picked up.

Good pre = the ability to amplify whatever the mic is picking whether it's good or bad.

What you said make THEORETICAL sense.
But as a practical matter, even the cheapest preamps have the ability to accurately amplify the signal of nearly any microphone with a fidelity that is far beyond the ability of even the greatest audiophiles to distinguish.

Why is this ?

Over the past 40 years, the developments in the semiconductor industry have ben driven by communications and instrumentation equipment requirements that so vastly exceed the requirements of strictly audio, that really, really accurate components are widely available all over the world DIRT CHEAP.

If you buy something that is so cheap or has been neglected to the point that it has a scratchy pot or something, that is different. But those defects could occur in any equipment.

Why are microphones different ?
Microphones are an electro-mechanical assembly that is subject to a lot of trade-offs in design due to the vibratory physics involved. It is somehwat of an art to both design and build a microphone. Hence, the market is much smaller and the prices relatively high. It requires touch-labor to build small quantities of microphones. Every design, and even every unit, might sound a bit different. This is measureable and repeatable.

Don't believe it ?
Buy whatever preamp you like.

Maybe you LIKE the sound of a preamp that artificially boosts the mid band, (or whatever) like the old designs of XXX in 1962 (or whatever), but if you want a preamp that will aaccurately amplify the signals from your microphone, the cheapest M-Audio preamp will be superior to the "classic" design.

 

[Big Daddy]

OK so help me her y'all.

I'm going to buy a Roland 2400.

I do not want to rely on the pres in that unit.

Do I use some pre's more like a DI and hook them into the line level to improve the sound or is there a way to bypass the pre and go directly into whatever part sends the signal from analog to digital so that I can use the tone controls. If I am not mistaken the workstations tone controls are digital and not part of the analog section.

This is were my inexperience is, I think I know how things are supposed to sound. It's in the actual doing that I am basically clueless.

I know how to use EQ and compression and effect, although I am rusty and have forgotten a lot.

It's the getting my concepts into an actual recording.

So am I stuck with the Roland pres and DI boxes or can I bypass them. Does having a great pre even matter with the Roland because the pres suck and so does the way it records? I know it has it limitations, I just want to maximize what it can do.

Would using a great river or summit or UA pre as a line amplifier then into the Roland pre be worth the expense of buy superior pres?

I have a SOLO 610 and that into my behringer board into my porto studio seems to make a BIG difference. We all know how bad that stuff is...LOL.

 

[XLR]

Bad pre = bad sound no matter what the mic picked up.

Semantics aside, that's just not true. A great sounding source tends to sound great regardless of the chain. Less great or more great, depending.

 

[Big Daddy]

You make sense Axis.

A lot of sense but does that actually transfer over to the final mix?

Or by having those rich harmonics give you more to work with.

I always felt it's easier to have more of something good and in a passive way cut it that have to boost it or add it after the fact.

This is so true of amp building. It's better to have more gain in the pre and control it with changes to the values of certain components. But their is a saturation point when you need to cut it somewhere else. But, it's a terrible sound if you need to add something by adding and extra gain stage because the design sucks. This the difference between an amp designed in the 1960's and it's later versions with master volumes and poor components not to mention terrible workmanship that requires capacitors to limit oscillations thus cutting highs, now you need to bring them back some how and you need another gain stage. So the end result is a crappy buzzy compressed resonable facsimile of the 1960's version of that amp.

I build my versions of that 60's amp.

So does having too much good sound as in harmonic richness not noise or distortion and pairing it down a better thing than just having what you have. Which would be just a good clean uncolored sound.

 

[chessrock]

Semantics aside, that's just not true. A great sounding source tends to sound great regardless of the chain. Less great or more great, depending.

Yup.

Great source + great accoustics + great technique + acceptabe/average mic pre = really hard to mess up.

All of the above + shitty pre = making things difficult on yourself

All of the above + great pre = Covering your bases ... not a bad idea; can't hurt


You guys = making way too much out of the whole mic pre business. It's one component in the signal chain among many. Get over it.


.

 

[Big Daddy]

You guys = making way too much out of the whole mic pre business. It's one component in the signal chain among many. Get over it.


.

A true statement to glorify mediocrity if ever I heard one.

Sorry don't buy it, but since I don't record anything really yet I guess I don't know any better.

I can use some opinions on that Roland pre thing. Seriously.....

 

[chessrock]

Mediocrity is pointing at your gear as the culprit ... or thinking that spending money on something is the answer.

Greatness is owning up to your responsibility; holding yourself responsible for getting good sound ... rather than pointing at the gear as either the scapegoat or as the panacea.

.

 

[Big Daddy]

No, that's called making excuses for being lazy or incompetent.

Some times spending money is the answer.

For instance I had to spring for better mics and more compressors, bigger subs to get better paying jobs. Those crown power amps were expensive!!!

At that point I was exceeding the quality of my equipment and needed to upgrade to take the next step.

I guess I'll start my own thread about the pres and the Roland 2400. Better yet I'll call Roland again......

 

[Todzilla]

Some mic's are sensitive to pre's re their sound quality, others aren't.

57 to a high end transformer-input pre... yes. But try this: on ac gtr compare a cheap mic like a V67, 603, B1, etc. to a Schoeps MK4 or 41 going into a cheap pre like a Mackie VLZ. Then plug the same mic's into a high end pre, like a Great River. In my own tests the Schoeps sounded noticeably better with the Mackie than the lesser quality mic's did with the high end pre.

That's my experience as well, but I'm by no means an expert.

My preamps are: Demeter HM1 - the closest thing I have to a boutique pre; borrowed API 512s; Mackie pre-VLZ pres; MOTU 896HD pres; Art TubeMP

My mics: Neumann U89; 2 X Crown CM700s; AKG112; buncha dynamics (SM57, 58 and Audix equivs).

The Neumann was a huge leap and it even sounds great in my crappy ass Mackie and MOTU pres. Can tell more of a diff between API and rest than between Demeter and mutt pres. And even the API difference isn't big until mixdown.

 

[Fishmed]

Semantics aside, that's just not true. A great sounding source tends to sound great regardless of the chain. Less great or more great, depending.

I will have to disagree. If the mic pre degrades the signal, there is not much you can do to recover the loss details of the source.

When I mean "crappy" preamps, I am not referring to the price, just the quality it produces. There are some inexpensive ones out there that will do the job. I feel that having a good pre amp first will give you a better descision on what mic to use for the application.

There are some mic pres that will make just about any recordings sound bad.

 

[dgatwood]

Over the past 40 years, the developments in the semiconductor industry have ben driven by communications and instrumentation equipment requirements that so vastly exceed the requirements of strictly audio, that really, really accurate components are widely available all over the world DIRT CHEAP.

Yes and no. While the silicon may be cheap, most manufacturers still manage to screw things up by using cheap outboard components like electrolytic caps in the signal path, cheap power supplies with inadequate filtering, etc.

 

[leddy]

Most definitely, the mic pre is more important the mic

What you said make THEORETICAL sense.
But as a practical matter, even the cheapest preamps have the ability to accurately amplify the signal of nearly any microphone with a fidelity that is far beyond the ability of even the greatest audiophiles to distinguish.

I find it really hard to imagine anyone would believe either of these extremes.

 

[Fishmed]

I find it really hard to imagine anyone would believe either of these extremes.

Just curious, why are my thoughts extreme?

 

[leddy]

Just curious, why are my thoughts extreme?

Perhaps I need clarification on your point. Are you saying that having a Great River or DMP3 will have more of an impact on the sound than deciding between subtle mic differences such as, say Earthworks, Avenson or DPA, etc., or are you saying the mic pre choice will have more of an impact than something more drastic like say, an Earthworks omni or a figure 8 ribbon?

If it's the later, then your point is rather extreme, IMO.

 

[XLR]

...If the mic pre degrades the signal, there is not much you can do to recover the loss details of the source... There are some mic pres that will make just about any recordings sound bad.

What specific pre's do you think will degrade a great source/room/well-placed-mic into something that's bad sounding?

 

[Fishmed]

Perhaps I need clarification on your point. Are you saying that having a Great River or DMP3 will have more of an impact on the sound than deciding between subtle mic differences such as, say Earthworks, Avenson or DPA, etc., or are you saying the mic pre choice will have more of an impact than something more drastic like say, an Earthworks omni or a figure 8 ribbon?

If it's the later, then your point is rather extreme, IMO.

Here is my story that I am basing my opinions on. I have had the older Mackies, then a Hill mixer, Presonus M80 (the original model) not bad but nothing special, then I went to an MCI 400 series board with one channel having a John Hardy upgrade. I used the MCI for several years until I just got tired of dumping money into to it to keep it going. I “downgraded” to a Behringer DDX 3216 to reclaim studio space and for the “Bells and Whistles”. As digital mixers go, it has done a good job, I did not think that I would take a BIG downturn in the mic pre. I did not realize how bad they were until a past client who I record on the MCI came in to do some demo work. She complained how her vocals sounded. Everything was pretty much the same here except the mic pres.

I went back to my old recordings of her and it was a day and night difference between the two. Then I started to listen to other recordings I had done pre Behringer and I was just stunned how far back I had taken my productions by scaling down on my mic pre. Looking back at several projects I did on the Behringer, I now know why they were difficult to mix; in the past, mixes came together with much more ease. My mic closet is about the same if not better now, but the overall mix quality degraded. The mic pres on the Behringer left the mixes with a haze, sort of like driving your car with a layer of Vaseline on your windshield. You can kind of see what is there, but everything kind of blends together; no true definition. Once the source goes to tape with this haze, there is not much you can do to restore the definition of what was being recorded. The funny thing is that I would never REALLY fully understood the importance of a good mic pre had I not gone through my experience with the Behringer.