How to objectively judge a preamp

  • Thread starter Thread starter wheelema
  • Start date Start date
wheelema

wheelema

Boner-obo
I have a Yamaha i88X (which is generally acclaimed to have good preamps) and a Alesis IO2 (which is generally acclaimed to have so-so to poor preamps). The only mic I have is a Shure SM2B. I am recording voice over (M/F), vocals (M/F), guitar (direct and cab), and clarinet. Next on the mic lust list is a Stephenson small condensor (for the clarinet) and a large condensor/ribbon (TBD). Note that the IO2 can drive the Shure, which is more than I can say for an old Mackie board I had access to.

I am recording using Sony Soundforge 8.

Is there some technology/methodology to judge between these two preamps, or must I (and everyone else) rely on the subjective abilities of our hearing? Which, at 51, ain't what it used to be.
 
Specifications can only tell you so much about the gear... You're right, it's
in the listening... Can anyone decribing a sunset really come close to the actual reality of the view? It's hard to aticulate such a subjective topic as percieved quality to the senses... you really have to experience it...

If you don't trust your ears, then you have to rely on others... such as the fine folks in this forum...
 
I can't say that it'll work for everyone, but this is how I do it:

I'll decide which ones I'll have a look at by checking out their specs and looking around on the internet for general opinions about them (although, with most pieces of gear I've checked out I almost get as many people who say its crap as there are people who say it's great).

When I actually test them I'll set up one mic (for whatever sources you're getting it for) and get it to sound good on a preamp that's familiar to me. Then I'll turn each preamp on without plugging anything into it. I turn the gain/vol up to the max and listen for noise.

I then plug the mic into each pre (including the familiar one I set up first) and record same thing a couple of times through each and A/B them all. This gives me an idea of if I actually need the new one, and then how the choices of new ones differ from each other. Differences will mostly be subtle, so in your case it might help to have someone there to help, but I actually think you'll be fine. You've been doing this for a while, so your ear is probably trained to look for what you want. Anyway, I then listen to each and compare them in terms of clarity, how "big" something recorded with them seems, muddiness, noise (again), etc. The right preamp will just have that "something" that the other ones don't have, or not have of as much.

I then pick the one that is most pleasing to me considering everything.

So yes, it basically comes down to picking the one that doesn't sound shittier than the rest. Top notch advice! :D
 
If you really want objectivity, you measure their frequency responses (or impulse responses in the time domain) and compare. The thing is that how do you determine whether a difference between the two corresponds to better. The whole premise of music and recording is "If it sounds right, it is right". There is no place for "If the frequency response looks like this, then it is the best" (being a scientist, i would love for such to be the case, but it ain't). If you don't trust your ears, find someone with good ears that you trust and ask them. You could even post clips here on the forum and I am sure some people would be more than willing to give you some feedback.
 
the only way to truly be objective (by definition) would be to not listen to any of them before you buy them, otherwise you will be impose a subjective judgment as to which one(s) sound better than the other(s).
you could use some pre-established measure for what is better like specs-- e.g. thd, dynamic range, etc., but pres with impressive specs don't always sound better. price would be another measure, but that is often distorted (more expensive doesn't always equal better).
point is: listen and make a subjective decision based on what you like better!
 
wheelema said:
Is there some technology/methodology to judge between these two preamps, or must I (and everyone else) rely on the subjective abilities of our hearing? Which, at 51, ain't what it used to be.
Click to expand...

If you look at spec's, pres with higher distrotion (THD) will be more collored sounding, and if you want something to have more depth (3Dness) to it, get something with a transformer.

Asking questions is always a good thing. The folks over at the GearSlutz forum are quite helpfull too,
 
Or to listen to all of them *before* you buy them! I would consider that the preferred method.

Basically, listen to the preamps and buy whichever you like better. Whichever works better on your voice if that's what you are recording, or your instrument, or whatever you think you will be recording the most with that preamp.

Also, if anyone or any studio in your area is using that particular preamp, get their opinion on it. I do pay attention to what other professionals in the field are using, especially if I know them personally. Message boards not so much, although message boards are sometimes good for finding out about lesser known gear. In my case that was the DAV Electronics BG-1 preamp, which I now own and love.

But in my opinion there's really no way to "objectively" judge a preamp, since even in an A/B test the decision will ultimately come down to "I like this one better". Specs can't tell you that.
 
wheelema said:
I have a Yamaha i88X (which is generally acclaimed to have good preamps) and a Alesis IO2 (which is generally acclaimed to have so-so to poor preamps). The only mic I have is a Shure SM2B. I am recording voice over (M/F), vocals (M/F), guitar (direct and cab), and clarinet. Next on the mic lust list is a Stephenson small condensor (for the clarinet) and a large condensor/ribbon (TBD). Note that the IO2 can drive the Shure, which is more than I can say for an old Mackie board I had access to.

I am recording using Sony Soundforge 8.

Is there some technology/methodology to judge between these two preamps, or must I (and everyone else) rely on the subjective abilities of our hearing? Which, at 51, ain't what it used to be.
Click to expand...

The way to judge, objectively, any pre-amp is to record a whole song. Do the best you can for every individual track.

Next, I know of no mixing console that is subjective. They don't care what pre-amp was used and can't tell the difference either.
BUT, they CAN provide you an objective mix of the quality of the pre-amp in question.

Recording a single track with ANY pre-amp, it would take a pretty great soundperson to tell you how good a low end one is from a high end one. The real tell tale sign that your pre-amps suck is in the mix. A crappy pre-amp will shove everything into the same frequency spectrums, muddy the bass and add the same sonic artifacts to every track.

I always advocate doing a full mix of a song to see how good the pre-amp is for WHAT I AM DOING.

Some high end pre-amps don't work for some artists and some low end pre-amps don't work for other artists. That is a subjective thing, but the mixing board don't care. If you can't mix a recording and get a well balanced sound, without rolling the EQ all over creation, you probably have a pre-amp you will not get along with.

And good rooms, good mics and a good monitoring system is a must because if they are seriously out of whack, the best pre-amp in the world will not make you happy.
 
MCI2424 said:
Recording a single track with ANY pre-amp, it would take a pretty great soundperson to tell you how good a low end one is from a high end one. The real tell tale sign that your pre-amps suck is in the mix. A crappy pre-amp will shove everything into the same frequency spectrums, muddy the bass and add the same sonic artifacts to every track.

....

If you can't mix a recording and get a well balanced sound, without rolling the EQ all over creation, you probably have a pre-amp you will not get along with.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. Some pre amps are so bad that when it comes to the mix, NO amount of EQ can fix it. You simply cannot add detail back into a recording; if you don’t get it going to tape, you’re not going to have it coming from tape.
 
Apples and Oranges- I respectfully disagree with TDukX (sorry, I thought it was a cool spelling). There *is* objectivity, but it only takes you so far. Noise, for instance, is a measureable quantity, and we all agree it's bad, at least those of us with a clue. Reliability and build quality are *somewhat* measureable, and anybody can count features, I/O's, A/D conversion, etc.
The problem is, none of that will tell you if it sounds good to *you*, or any particular listener. My best short advice is this- Go for a preamp that most folks think is respectable. Get 2 matching, clean, channels, and add the color you want later with pres chosen for that. The 2 channels will be a boon for stereo recording, and a host of other applications. I mostly use a Joemeek twinQ and an Avalon AD2022. You might hate my pres. Objectively, they don't make much noise.
To the original poster, buck up, lad. I have >90% hearing loss in my left ear, and the right ear ain't so good either. My father was a master gunsmith- I was a rocker in my younger days- I'm more electric/acoustic folkie/neopsychedelic in my old age. I just turned 54, and found it quite empowering that my hearing is about the same as Phil Specter's (he's looney, yeah, but there's your "wall of sound". Mixed mono-no can hear in headphones- deaf in one ear.)
You can actually get pretty good at mixing-by-the-numbers with one ear. I think I'll leave mastering to folks with better ears than mine. That's why God gave you eyes. If you don't hear so well, become very familiar with level indicaters.-Richie
 
MCI2424 said:
The way to judge, objectively, any pre-amp is to record a whole song. Do the best you can for every individual track.

Next, I know of no mixing console that is subjective. They don't care what pre-amp was used and can't tell the difference either.
BUT, they CAN provide you an objective mix of the quality of the pre-amp in question.

Recording a single track with ANY pre-amp, it would take a pretty great soundperson to tell you how good a low end one is from a high end one. The real tell tale sign that your pre-amps suck is in the mix. A crappy pre-amp will shove everything into the same frequency spectrums, muddy the bass and add the same sonic artifacts to every track.

I always advocate doing a full mix of a song to see how good the pre-amp is for WHAT I AM DOING.
Click to expand...

I am beginning to see the wisdom of these comments. For the past few years I have used the much loved (for a budget pre) DMP3. I decided to add some channels to record drums, so I added a Presonus Digimax FS.

My initial impression of these pres was that the DMP3 kicked the Digimax pres into the dust. The DMP3 tracks sounded richer to my ear. The Digimax tracks sounded smaller and more mid-rangey.

But now, after working with both preamps, I am noticing that the DMP3 gives me an undesireable build up in the low mids when used on multiple tracks. And conversely, the Digimax tracks seem to mix better because they are smaller sounding and more controlled over the various frequencies.
 
omtayslick said:
I am beginning to see the wisdom of these comments. For the past few years I have used the much loved (for a budget pre) DMP3. I decided to add some channels to record drums, so I added a Presonus Digimax FS.

My initial impression of these pres was that the DMP3 kicked the Digimax pres into the dust. The DMP3 tracks sounded richer to my ear. The Digimax tracks sounded smaller and more mid-rangey.

But now, after working with both preamps, I am noticing that the DMP3 gives me an undesireable build up in the low mids when used on multiple tracks. And conversely, the Digimax tracks seem to mix better because they are smaller sounding and more controlled over the various frequencies.
Click to expand...

Once you start using higher end mic pres, your eyes will open even more. When your ears are used to the lower end stuff, that is the bubble you live in. Once you break out of it and use better quality gear, you begin to live in a new world. After several years of using the higher end stuff, then going back to work with less quality gear, you can then truly appreciate the value of quality mic pres. This is one of those epiphanies you have to experience for yourself, and sometimes you have to take a leap of faith to save money and buy your first quality mic pre. Many times you end up chasing your tail switching one low end mic pre for another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top