E
ecc83
Well-known member
#They will not listen, they are not listening still. Perhaps they never will???#
Dave.
#They will not listen, they are not listening still. Perhaps they never will???#
Dave.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
If anyone wants to check out a serious preamp shootout of 33 preamps done by industry audio engineers....they should get the 3D Audio Preamp CD: 3D Audio Preamp CD
The most revealing comments came from Lynn Fuston, who hosted the shootout.
That test done here Well, could *you* hear the difference? Could you?? was not very scientific at all.
It was kinda like asking a bunch of people off the street to smell different brands of ground coffee, and then pick out which were the cheap to expensive grounds.
How many of those people really even knew what they were listening for?
How did each of them define what makes a "sound" expensive or cheap sounding, all based on some cheesy spoken-word file....and each person probably had a different idea in their head how a cheap or expensive pre should sound.
They could have just recorded "1-2-3.....Testing" and then blown into the mic a couple of times....same result.
The most revealing comments came from Lynn Fuston, who hosted the shootout.
That test done here Well, could *you* hear the difference? Could you?? was not very scientific at all.
It was kinda like asking a bunch of people off the street to smell different brands of ground coffee, and then pick out which were the cheap to expensive grounds.
How many of those people really even knew what they were listening for?
How did each of them define what makes a "sound" expensive or cheap sounding, all based on some cheesy spoken-word file....and each person probably had a different idea in their head how a cheap or expensive pre should sound.
They could have just recorded "1-2-3.....Testing" and then blown into the mic a couple of times....same result.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
ah ..... the one I liked best ( admittedly in a very unscientific comparison) was the ART MPA .... cool, I might can afford one of them.
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
This discussion intrigues me. It always has. I have tons of preamps (I'm a cheap gear whore)--but not a single one cost me over $300 per channel (and most were way less!). And my go-to workhorse pre's are in a 25-year-old 32-channel board that cost me $500 used! That's less than $16 a channel! Only once in all my years of acquiring shabby-chic gear have I ever said, "Wow! That preamp sounds better!" And I may have just gotten over a cold that day--because now, I don't think I could tell it from any of my others.
Anyway, here's the deal: I'm about to take possession of a new mic and preamp. (The mic is a vintage RCA 77D, probably worth $4000. The pre is a UA 6176, worth about $2500). And no, I'm not buying them. I'm taking over the voice-over work of a local company, and as part of the deal, they're giving me the equipment in their vocal booth because a) they don't know what it's worth, and b) they really don't care.
Never mind the mic--it's a specialized vocal mic--and I don't sing. But the arrival of that preamp presents an opportunity. I'd like to create a listening test. I've seen (and heard) all the tests of a simple one track recording with different preamps. Folks can never tell which preamp was $50 and which was $2500. But then the purists always come back with the same response: "The difference is in the stacking! You stack a dozen or even 24 tracks and then the difference will be obvious!" But I've never seen anyone stack a couple dozen tracks in a preamp shootout. So I will.
If you guys know my studio, you know it's a custom-designed and built, well treated space. I've got tons of instruments, and tons of mics. The limitation is this: everything has to be single tracked: I'm only getting one channel of the UA, so I can't exactly record a drum kit. Beyond that, the sky's the limit. Acoustic guitar, electric guitar (various guitars and amps), congas, bongos, uke, mandolin, harmonica, bass. And all kinds of microphones--ribbons, condensers, dynamics, tubes--from no-names to RE20s and C414s and lots in between.
Oh yeah--I almost forgot. I have a very nice isolated XLR splitter. So there won't even be any variance in the performance. Every track will be played once. Then the same exact performance will go to both preamps with all other variables being exactly the same.
So my challenge to you is this: Help me design the A/B test. How many tracks do you want to hear "stacked?" What instruments? Raw as possible? Or processed with the usual suspects--EQ, comp, reverb?
Throw out some suggestions and I'll track a tune. Ribbon on high gain lead; tube LDC on mandolin; SDC on acoustic; dynamic on bass amp...whatever! Help me come up with a complex, real-world recording scenario, and I'll record it and present it as captured by the killer preamp and a cheapie. We should have fun observing the differences (or not observing the differences, as the case may be).
And as far as the pre's go--you know what the high end one will be. But I've got so many cheapies (150 channels!), maybe you wanna let me know what you'd like to hear in the shootout. Here are the low-brow choices:
Behringer "live" preamps (from a couple different mixers)
mid-90's TASCAM M-2600 mixer
early 2000's TASCAM 1804s
ART MPA Gold
TNC Neve 73-ish clones
mid 80's Yamaha
mid 80's Sunn
Behringer ADA-8000
M-Audio Octanes (think DMP3)
Symetrix 202
A lot of these are fairly obscure, so I would think the test might be most valuable with either the Octane (because the DMP3 is so touted as a great low-budget pre) or the Behringer ADA-8000 (because Behringer is so very despised--but this piece is in tons of studios anyway!). But let me know what you think.
I promise to be fair. I've got no dog in this fight. On the one hand, I'd love for that UA preamp to blow my mind--cuz hey, I'm getting it free and that would make it one killer deal! On the other hand, I'd love for the cheapies to do just as well--cuz hey, I've got tons of that crap, and it would mean I've done okay!
So help me design the test--give me your thoughts on instruments and tracks, and which cheap-ass pre I should use. Tell me what you wanna hear, and I'll write and record a tune. Then we'll see what's what.
Anyway, here's the deal: I'm about to take possession of a new mic and preamp. (The mic is a vintage RCA 77D, probably worth $4000. The pre is a UA 6176, worth about $2500). And no, I'm not buying them. I'm taking over the voice-over work of a local company, and as part of the deal, they're giving me the equipment in their vocal booth because a) they don't know what it's worth, and b) they really don't care.
Never mind the mic--it's a specialized vocal mic--and I don't sing. But the arrival of that preamp presents an opportunity. I'd like to create a listening test. I've seen (and heard) all the tests of a simple one track recording with different preamps. Folks can never tell which preamp was $50 and which was $2500. But then the purists always come back with the same response: "The difference is in the stacking! You stack a dozen or even 24 tracks and then the difference will be obvious!" But I've never seen anyone stack a couple dozen tracks in a preamp shootout. So I will.
If you guys know my studio, you know it's a custom-designed and built, well treated space. I've got tons of instruments, and tons of mics. The limitation is this: everything has to be single tracked: I'm only getting one channel of the UA, so I can't exactly record a drum kit. Beyond that, the sky's the limit. Acoustic guitar, electric guitar (various guitars and amps), congas, bongos, uke, mandolin, harmonica, bass. And all kinds of microphones--ribbons, condensers, dynamics, tubes--from no-names to RE20s and C414s and lots in between.
Oh yeah--I almost forgot. I have a very nice isolated XLR splitter. So there won't even be any variance in the performance. Every track will be played once. Then the same exact performance will go to both preamps with all other variables being exactly the same.
So my challenge to you is this: Help me design the A/B test. How many tracks do you want to hear "stacked?" What instruments? Raw as possible? Or processed with the usual suspects--EQ, comp, reverb?
Throw out some suggestions and I'll track a tune. Ribbon on high gain lead; tube LDC on mandolin; SDC on acoustic; dynamic on bass amp...whatever! Help me come up with a complex, real-world recording scenario, and I'll record it and present it as captured by the killer preamp and a cheapie. We should have fun observing the differences (or not observing the differences, as the case may be).
And as far as the pre's go--you know what the high end one will be. But I've got so many cheapies (150 channels!), maybe you wanna let me know what you'd like to hear in the shootout. Here are the low-brow choices:
Behringer "live" preamps (from a couple different mixers)
mid-90's TASCAM M-2600 mixer
early 2000's TASCAM 1804s
ART MPA Gold
TNC Neve 73-ish clones
mid 80's Yamaha
mid 80's Sunn
Behringer ADA-8000
M-Audio Octanes (think DMP3)
Symetrix 202
A lot of these are fairly obscure, so I would think the test might be most valuable with either the Octane (because the DMP3 is so touted as a great low-budget pre) or the Behringer ADA-8000 (because Behringer is so very despised--but this piece is in tons of studios anyway!). But let me know what you think.
I promise to be fair. I've got no dog in this fight. On the one hand, I'd love for that UA preamp to blow my mind--cuz hey, I'm getting it free and that would make it one killer deal! On the other hand, I'd love for the cheapies to do just as well--cuz hey, I've got tons of that crap, and it would mean I've done okay!
So help me design the test--give me your thoughts on instruments and tracks, and which cheap-ass pre I should use. Tell me what you wanna hear, and I'll write and record a tune. Then we'll see what's what.
Last edited:
witzendoz
Senior Member
It is not a preamp, you cannot plug a mic in one end and connect the other to a line level input which is what a mic pre does, it is a gain boost, Sweetwater are wrong to say it's a preamp, cloud lifter do not call it a preamp anywhere. Cloudlifter CL-1 | Cloud Microphones | "Elevate Your Sound"
Alan.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
It may work out that way....and then it may not at all, but I don't think that would automatically prove the UA is inferior.
I know you have a bunch of other pres, and your tracks usually sound good, so those other pres are working for you. The UA, to you, may just fit right in there with them tone/sound-wise and nothing more outstanding...though that doesn't necessarily paint a clear picture which is "better" or more valuable in your recording sessions.
Often, in a shootout, the pre or mic that has that crisp/clear top-end, and fat but not tubby low-end will stand out and appear to be the better one in a basic A/B/C/D shootout...but then during various sessions, you might prefer the one that had the softer top-end and/or maybe fuller low end or bolder mids....etc
I have a bunch of decent pres, and I've done the A/B/C/D thing, and the most that I could ascertain was that they all sounded...different.
Comparing them purely by their dollar cost per preamp channel...the most expensive one is not the one I use the most, but I know why it is a little more expensive than the others, and when I do use it for the right situation, it shines.
I think that was the point being made in that quote I posted from the 3D Audio Preamp shootout....that you need a bunch of preamps, as opposed to looking for that one "perfect/best" preamp, like some newbs tend to do when shopping for gear....and often they feel underwhelmed, because of great expectations.
AFA your shootout...have fun, post up the clips, it should be interesting....but it will still be 100% subjective in the end when folks pick their faves....I'm sure you know.
In the clips that John Watkins posted, I liked the sound of the Avalon the most, because it was a little more meatier, but the ART MPA was very nice sounding...and the UA was a surprise next to them, but the UA has that fat/thick/woolly sound, and I'm sure on some other sources, it could very well be the best choice instead of the Avalon or MPA.
Lots of mics...lots of pres....that's the ticket.
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
It may work out that way....and then it may not at all, but I don't think that would automatically prove the UA is inferior.
I know you have a bunch of other pres, and your tracks usually sound good, so those other pres are working for you. The UA, to you, may just fit right in there with them tone/sound-wise and nothing more outstanding...though that doesn't necessarily paint a clear picture which is "better" or more valuable in your recording sessions.
Often, in a shootout, the pre or mic that has that crisp/clear top-end, and fat but not tubby low-end will stand out and appear to be the better one in a basic A/B/C/D shootout...but then during various sessions, you might prefer the one that had the softer top-end and/or maybe fuller low end or bolder mids....etc
I have a bunch of decent pres, and I've done the A/B/C/D thing, and the most that I could ascertain was that they all sounded...different.
Comparing them purely by their dollar cost per preamp channel...the most expensive one is not the one I use the most, but I know why it is a little more expensive than the others, and when I do use it for the right situation, it shines.
I think that was the point being made in that quote I posted from the 3D Audio Preamp shootout....that you need a bunch of preamps, as opposed to looking for that one "perfect/best" preamp, like some newbs tend to do when shopping for gear....and often they feel underwhelmed, because of great expectations.
AFA you shootout...have fun, post up the clips, it should be interesting....but it will still be 100% subjective in the end when folks pick their faves....I'm sure you know.
In the clips that John Watkins posted, I liked the sound of the Avalon the most, because it was a little more meatier, but the ART MPA was very nice sounding...and the UA was a surprise next to them, but the UA has that fat/thick/woolly sound, and I'm sure on some other sources, it could very well be the best choice instead of the Avalon or MPA.
Lots of mics...lots of pres....that's the ticket.
Already you're dismissing the value of my proposition. You're suggesting that the outcome is so subjective that is doesn't matter. If that's the case, then preamps don't matter. After all, nothing is more subjective than the listener.
I'm proposing a controlled test, with no variables anywhere in the process except for the preamp. Surely if there's a difference between a $16 preamp and a $2500 preamp, such a test would expose that difference. I'm even proposing a multi-track test--one with numerous tracks that let the beauty of the high-end preamp or the crap of the low-end preamp--become evident.
And yet, without even hearing the test, it sounds to me like you're already saying that the difference is somewhere in between non-existent and negligible. You could do your credibility a favor and at least wait until I post the files.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I don't think I was dismissing anything at all...I think I said "have fun, post up the clips, it should be interesting".
The point I was making is that any mic/pre combination can sound different from source to source, and different to each listener.
I may prefer darker sounding tones and you may prefer bright ones....if there's a pre that's darker and one that's brighter sounding....the choices we make will be subjective and possibly biased by our individual tastes.
That doesn't in any way suggest that the gear you choose, and use, almost "doesn't matter"...as was stated earlier....quite the opposite, it matters a LOT, but it will matter differently to each person.
I mean, from a purely scientific "measurement" and comparison, you might end up showing which preamp is generally darker and which is brighter...fatter, thinner....etc..etc.....but it will prove little AFA which is "better", or which is the better choice in an actual recording session.
The A/B/C/D comparisons may best serve as an initial guide to preamp choice for a given purpose, but not much more...and again, that 3D Audio Preamp shootout which compared 33 mic preamps kinda' came to that same conclusion...and why the view was that "you need many preamps", depending on your overall recording needs.
The point I was making is that any mic/pre combination can sound different from source to source, and different to each listener.
I may prefer darker sounding tones and you may prefer bright ones....if there's a pre that's darker and one that's brighter sounding....the choices we make will be subjective and possibly biased by our individual tastes.
That doesn't in any way suggest that the gear you choose, and use, almost "doesn't matter"...as was stated earlier....quite the opposite, it matters a LOT, but it will matter differently to each person.
I mean, from a purely scientific "measurement" and comparison, you might end up showing which preamp is generally darker and which is brighter...fatter, thinner....etc..etc.....but it will prove little AFA which is "better", or which is the better choice in an actual recording session.
The A/B/C/D comparisons may best serve as an initial guide to preamp choice for a given purpose, but not much more...and again, that 3D Audio Preamp shootout which compared 33 mic preamps kinda' came to that same conclusion...and why the view was that "you need many preamps", depending on your overall recording needs.
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
My mistake. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I look forward to your opinion on the A/B test that I post.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
You have an ambitious goal if you are going to simultaneously test a lot of mics AND a lot of pres...and you have your work cut out for you!
Maybe start off with one mic, one source, then A/B/C different pres.
Then maybe just switch the source....same mic, then A/B/C different pres.
Then finally (if you still have the energy and motivation) repeat the sources but with different mic(s), and again A/B/C different pres.
I wouldn't add any processing...keep it source(s), mic(S) and pre(s)...otherwise you end up with too many variables.
When you say "stacking" are you talking about using the same mic/pre combo on a lot of tracks in a mix...or are you just taking about how any track "sits" within the mix?
I think that's a key consideration in mic/pre selection...how does any one track sit in the mix.
You often hear people talk about how a certain mic or chain just makes tracks fall into place and/or "pop out" on a mix, whereas some other combinations maybe be great on their own, but when the track is put in the mix, the combination didn't do much for the track other than to "document/capture" the signal...which most will do well in their optimium operating range.
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
No, it's one high-end preamp (the UA) vs. one low-end preamp. I've opened that choice up to the group, but I'll choose if no consensus is apparent. Beyond that, I'm open open to suggestions on what mic should go with what instrument, but in any case they'll stay the same. In other words, the only variable between the two tracks will be the preamp.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Oh...got it.
I guess when you mentioned you had a lot of pres....I thought you were going to compare a whole bunch of pres.
Hmmm...that's an interesting approach. The UA against just one, chosen pre.
I don't know what the other pre should be.....?
Maybe first A/B/C a few of them, and pick the best out of what you consider the low-end pres...and then put that up agains the UA....????
I dunno.....
I guess when you mentioned you had a lot of pres....I thought you were going to compare a whole bunch of pres.
Hmmm...that's an interesting approach. The UA against just one, chosen pre.
I don't know what the other pre should be.....?
Maybe first A/B/C a few of them, and pick the best out of what you consider the low-end pres...and then put that up agains the UA....????
I dunno.....
Chili
Site Moderator
I would suggest the Behringer mixer pre's. Bottom end stuff. Let's see how the extremes compare.
WhiteStrat
Don't stare at the eye.
Yep, I'm inclined to agree. The extreme comparison could be most interesting--whether they're indistinguishable or apparently different.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
another ditto for this
Chili
Site Moderator
I'm wondering, too, if we will see a staggering difference. I am doubtful.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
I've heard so much excellent stuff recorded with cheap gear and terrible stuff recorded with great gear that I just have to think the most important thing is the experience/abilities of the 'engineer' and the performance by a significant amount.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
Don't forget to factor in the amount of gain when you perform your tests (though how you do that I don't know).
I say this because I own 4 Behringer ADA8000s which I use pretty much exclusively for live work. As long as I stick to mics and sources with a good high output I have no problem with the pre amps. However, if I ever have to turn the pre amps above about 3/4 of the max level, suddenly noise becomes a real problem--even one channel up this high produces a noticeable hiss--imagine what all 32 channels could do!
(For live work I have specific things I know are safe to use the ADA8000s for so it's not a big problem.)
Now a serious question: earlier somebody used the phrase "blown away" in reference to a pre amp. Has anyone actually heard a pre amp so good and so different from the norm that you felt "blown away"?
I've been blown away by a great performance. I've been pleasantly impressed by a good microphone or a set of acoustics. However, the most I've heard from a pre amp is a subtle improvement when everything else is good. I guess even the word "improvement" is subjective--what I've heard is a subtle colouration that works well on a particular combination of voice (or other source) and microphone. Now, if everything else in the chain is great, then that subtle improvement can be worthwhile--but if the voice or the mic or the room acoustics are less than perfect, a pre amp isn't going to fix them and your money is likely better spent on other areas. (Though I don't know how I could have spent money to improve my daughter's voice when I recorded her!)
If there's a pre amp that is really, truly in the "blow you away' category, I'd love to listen to it.
I say this because I own 4 Behringer ADA8000s which I use pretty much exclusively for live work. As long as I stick to mics and sources with a good high output I have no problem with the pre amps. However, if I ever have to turn the pre amps above about 3/4 of the max level, suddenly noise becomes a real problem--even one channel up this high produces a noticeable hiss--imagine what all 32 channels could do!
(For live work I have specific things I know are safe to use the ADA8000s for so it's not a big problem.)
Now a serious question: earlier somebody used the phrase "blown away" in reference to a pre amp. Has anyone actually heard a pre amp so good and so different from the norm that you felt "blown away"?
I've been blown away by a great performance. I've been pleasantly impressed by a good microphone or a set of acoustics. However, the most I've heard from a pre amp is a subtle improvement when everything else is good. I guess even the word "improvement" is subjective--what I've heard is a subtle colouration that works well on a particular combination of voice (or other source) and microphone. Now, if everything else in the chain is great, then that subtle improvement can be worthwhile--but if the voice or the mic or the room acoustics are less than perfect, a pre amp isn't going to fix them and your money is likely better spent on other areas. (Though I don't know how I could have spent money to improve my daughter's voice when I recorded her!)
If there's a pre amp that is really, truly in the "blow you away' category, I'd love to listen to it.
Chili
Site Moderator
Well, we know Bob/WhiteStrat has the chops to put out a good performance. And he's got a good ear for mixing. Whatever preamp he uses, it'll sound good.
E
ecc83
Well-known member
Morning Bobbsy,
Re the Behringer gain pots (I know we have had "words" re Berries before!).
This, as I am sure you know, is where the money gets spent on better equipment. It is in fact virtually impossible to have a continuous gain pot that covers more than a range of about 40dB without severe "cramping" of the adjustment at the high gain end. Thus the noise from such preamps when they cram 60dB of gain into one stage tends to leap out with the minutest movement of the control.
The solution is a switched gain control but 12way Grayhill switches are not cheap. Or split the gain over two stages which again of course adds cost. But as you have pointed out, this is has no effect on the basic "sound" of the pre amp at modest gains.
This cramping effect is one reason why so many AI's, which only have one gain pot, have limited gains. They have to strike a balance between noise and overload. I have read that the earlier Focusrite 2i2 was a bit "hot" and prone to overload.
Dave. (and all right then! The CL1 is a "pre-preamp"! The guts are still the same!)
Re the Behringer gain pots (I know we have had "words" re Berries before!).
This, as I am sure you know, is where the money gets spent on better equipment. It is in fact virtually impossible to have a continuous gain pot that covers more than a range of about 40dB without severe "cramping" of the adjustment at the high gain end. Thus the noise from such preamps when they cram 60dB of gain into one stage tends to leap out with the minutest movement of the control.
The solution is a switched gain control but 12way Grayhill switches are not cheap. Or split the gain over two stages which again of course adds cost. But as you have pointed out, this is has no effect on the basic "sound" of the pre amp at modest gains.
This cramping effect is one reason why so many AI's, which only have one gain pot, have limited gains. They have to strike a balance between noise and overload. I have read that the earlier Focusrite 2i2 was a bit "hot" and prone to overload.
Dave. (and all right then! The CL1 is a "pre-preamp"! The guts are still the same!)