How important is mic pre-amp?

[pkmusic]

How important is a mic pre-amp if using phantom power?
(I apologize if this question sounds stupid)

 

[Track Rat]

Phantom power or not, they're pretty important. Obviously if you're using an true externally biased condensor, you want to make sure it can provide the rated voltage. With electret type mics, it's not much of an issue as it's only powering the mic's preamp.

 

[ChuckU]

Y'know what? I'd like to get into this a little more, actually.

Preamp this and preamp that. I'm using the preamps in my Mackie 1202's and I'm perfectly satisfied. Crystal clear. Transparent as they say. I don't know what will improve or what kind of 'color' - a word that comes up a lot - I want/need for my recordings at this stage. Simply, I don't know what I'm missing.
I was a skeptic about monitors until I got a pair (the Yorkvilles, and it was Track Rat that pushed me over the edge. Thanks, man).
So I imagine a preamp is gonna be one of those things that I won't know what I'm now missing until I get one. That's how it was with monitors.

The difference may be that in much of the discussions I've scanned thru, the pros say effectively "If you're not spending $500 per channel on a mic pre, you're better off with the Mackies or something low end solid state (Audio Buddy,DMP3)"

So, the Studio Projects or the ART PRO MPA - the stuff in between, is it all junk?

Or are they analogous to the fact that my Yorkvilles are not Genelecs, but they are better than Bose bookshelves for monitoring? If that's the case, then the preamps are maybe not a bad idea. Because I got a tremendous lift from my monitors, which I would assume are condsidered middle of the road.

I can also say the same for mics. My Marshalls are not Neumanns, but, yet again have supplied me with an audible improvement in my recordings.

 

[Robert D]

While I don't think that going from Mackie pre's to most of the lower end standalon pre's will give the same boost (pun intended) to your audio quality that switching from bookshelves to monitors did, I do think that everyone who records should have 2 or 3 different flavours of mic pre, just as they should have 2 or three different mics (Min). The factors that determine the sound you capture, excluding source and placement, are (in order of thier impact on the sound) Mic, Preamp, and Converters. Having 3 mics and 1 type of preamp gives you 3 possible sounds (again simplifying by omitting multipatterns, rooms, and placement).
But having 3 mics, and 3 different pre's gives you 9 possible sounds, which can range from bright and crisp to dark and round.
When trying to emote differing moods and textures of music, bright and crisp all the time doesn't cut it.
Regards, RD

 

[Track Rat]

Exactly. Mackie pre's aren't bad by a long shot. They are pretty clean for sure. Some preamps have a "color" like Joe Meek, some of the HHB stuff, etc. Just my opinion but I think it's easier to mix when I use different pre's and try to match the pre with the source sonicly than running everything through the same preamp.

 

[ChuckU]

Good points. Robert, I appreciate that you actually read my post as I put a lot of thought into the pre/monitor analogy. Your comments make sense. Enough that maybe I'll go down to Guitar Center and bring a couple home and try them out. Actually record with them, as I see no other way to make an intelligent decision. I'm just afraid of the slippery slope that may lie ahead.

 

[Michael Jones]

I have a Yamaha O1V that has pres in it. They're - ok, kinda like plain white bread. And thay don't have much gain either. Plus, if I use it's pre's, the signal goes through the O1V's converters which aren't as good as my out-board converters.

I had an audio buddy once. POS! It worked for about 20 minutes, then quit all together. I got my money back and never went down that road again!

I also have the ART PRO MPA. In my opinion, this is a pretty good pre. It has tubes, but it's a "starved plate" design, not a true tube pre. It sounds really good as long as you don't over-drive it.

Then I ended up getting a racked pair of Audix 35102's from Brent Averill. (Similar to Calrec's)
I had no idea what I was missing until I hooked that puppy up!
A nice preamp will really bring out the sonic potential of your mics.

I'm saving up for some more pres. Man-oh-man-oh-man, you think microphone addiction is bad, try mic-preamp addiction!

 

[dcptnsdcvd]

so the "right" mic pre could very drastically improve your recordings??

does each type of mic (dynamic, cardioid, L or S diaphram) have the "right" mic pre??

does price dictate a mic pre's performance or quality??

 

[chessrock]

so the "right" mic pre could very drastically improve your recordings??

From my experience the "right pre" will make a difference. Not nearly as much of a difference as the "right mic," though.

does each type of mic (dynamic, cardioid, L or S diaphram) have the "right" mic pre??

Not really. Some work better with certain mics, there's no doubt, but it's not one of those things you can really know without trying it . . . and a lot of it depends on the application.

Here's an example: Small diaphragm condensers tend to be quicker and more accurate . . . not as warm . . . somewhat more detailed and responsive to transients (like drums).

Large-diaphragm dyamics, on the other hand, tend to exhibit just the opposite characteristics. Less detail, but warmer, not as quick, etc.

Preamps are much the same. Solid state pres, for example tend to be more accurate and responsive to transients. Some solid state pres even moreso, and a lot of it has to do with what is called it's slew rate . Faster slew rate will tend to make it more responsive to transients, and thus will have greater capability to produce drums more accurately, for example.

Most tube pres (and different types of solid state pres) will tend to respond slower, will sound warmer, bigger, etc.

But a lot depends on the design, also. Just keep in mind that blanket statements can be misleading.

So when matching mic with pre, you might consider what would make the best match, depending on the sound you are after. If total accuracy is your goal, then a small-diaphragm condenser teamed with a fast solid-state pre might be a good match. If big and warm are your goals, then a large-diaph dynamic teamed with a good tube pre might be a good match.

does price dictate a mic pre's performance or quality??

Unfortunately, this seems to be the case most of the time.

A lot of it depends, though, on what your definitions of performance and quality are. If superior specifications (low noise, low distortion, etc.) and accuracy are your goals, then luckily, price is much less of a factor.

You can spend $200 for a pre that has superior specs and will amplify the mic signal more accurately than a lot of pres costing $2000.

However, if your goal is to get a particular type of flattering tone that will help add character, sheen, warmth, or any other type of enhancement to the mic's amplified signal, then I'm afraid that simply can't be accomplished for less than, say, $1000 or more . . . although there are always exceptions if you look hard enough.

 

[pkmusic]

Right pre-amp

I have an AKG C4000B mic. I would like a big and warm sound. Which tube preamps would be great matches for my C4000B? Price range $200-$1000.

 

[darrin_h2000]

If I had a thousand to spend on a pre I would get the MP1NV by great river, Its not tube but will be warm.

As a matter of fact Im making this one my next goal as far as equipment is conserned.

What do you think Chess?, Aww whats the use, he hates everything.

 

[powderfinger]

i think the mic is much more important than the pre........even the berhinger pres (which would probably be considered pretty low end) give me some pretty nice clean and clear recording.......a great pre might help take a recording over the top, but it's the last part of my setup that i plan on upgrading

 

[chessrock]

What do you think Chess?, Aww whats the use, he hates everything.

You must be mistaking me for Cyan Jaguar.

 

[crawdad]

I am starting to think that a great mic is more important than the preamp. I think the musical or vocal performance is more important than the preamp. Any pre that gives you clean reproduction is more than adequate.

Lets face it. You don't make records to impress engineers and audiophiles. You make records to communicate emotionally with listeners. They don't care or know if you used an Audio Buddy or a Great River. I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm sure the Great River IS better. Question is, are you a home recording type or are you trying to make a living as a studio owner who has to impress clients?

After listening to a recent post of the RNP and a comparison of the Audio Buddy vs the VTB-1, I'm convinced I could get the same results with the cheap pre-s I have. Oh, man, I can feel the flames coming! Sorry, but thats my perception of the whole issue.

The difference is not huge, its small. Small costs a lot of extra money. For some, it is worth it. For most who are recording at home for fun, its definitely not worth it. You'll be disappointed.

But--yes, you need a mic pre just to get the levels up on your mic and to deliver the phantom sdo you can record the performance.

 

[Richard Monroe]

Well, pre's are essential, whether they're the pre's in your Behrenger, or your Neve. The Mackie's pre's aren't bad, you need to go up the food chain quite a bit to do better, starting somewhere around Grace 101. That will significantly improve on a mixer's pre's. Joemeek won't necessarily improve the sound, it will change it-better for some things. I'm in the middle of the road. I use a Joemeek twinQcs and a DBX386, which complement each other quite well. Frankly, I've heard the Mackie's pres, and they seem fairly clean to me. I would think a Joemeek would complement them well, and add a different kind of sonic option.- Richie