Mic pres: Spend $200 or $2,000 ? ? ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chessrock
  • Start date Start date
Alan Hyatt: "Most could not tell the difference between the mic pre that cost $500 to the one that was $3000.00."

Mark H.: "I could! I could!"

Alan Hyatt: "Shut up, Mark!"


:-)
 
Hi Mark,

In the original MP-2 and 4 stuff that I've been building since the early '90's I don't use pots at all.

The circuit is a simple gain stage (a discrete opamp) with the ground leg of the feedback variable to control the overall gain.

This value ranges from about 6 ohms to about 1.8K for the lowest required gain. The problem is at the 6 ohm end of the scale, where contact resistance and intermittance caused be no end of problems. I'd bought 50 custom made 2K reverse log taper conductive plastic pots for the gain control. I believe I've replaced them all by now.

I use 24 position goldplated Elma switches in the MP-2/4 now, with a printed circuit board attached with 1206 size surface mount resistors. This gives me very repeatable and accurate gains, and zero failures.

In the MP-2NV the gain switch is a triple decked gold-plated Greyhill, and the pot is a Clarostat conductive plastic 25K. But and it's a big but, the pot is in a high level portion of the circuit, not where it can have 50db of gain unmasking all the crap it's generating.

I've had to send P & G's back because of 3% distortion generated in the pot!

Wouldn't have ever thought that would 've happened. It was in a broadcast mixer I built, couldn't understand why one input channel was two orders of magnitude out of speck.

I agree, pot's aren't always the best thing, but frankly we need them in some places.
 
Dan Kennedy said:
I don't believe in magic cables. I do believe that cables can change the sound. I also believe that if a cable does change the sound of a piece of equipment that that piece has some serious design problems, intended or not.

My cables are magic...good music goes in....and bad music comes out..ta da......;)

Hey Dan, have you ever been to the mastering engineers web board? There is pretty good thread on cables there. It sorta poked at Ludwigs $30,000/10ft cables. The funny thing I got out of it was that lamp cord wire with copper (no 50/50 steel) was recommended up to the 10ft length. As long as the connections were good, they should work for most monitoring situations. No scientific, double blindfold test for the most part though. They even talked about using "welding cable", but the difficulties in stepping down to a reasonable diameter for interfaces make it beyond the novice.

Im in anti preamp mode righ now...my md8 mic/line input on channel 2 went bye bye...

Peace,
Dennis
 
Sytek 4 Channels for less than a Grand

Due to overstock, Sytek was selling their 4 Channel pre, the MPX-4Aii, for $785 plus shipping. I talked to Mike Stoica at Sytek this morning and they are apparently moving to a more factory direct sales scenario, although some dealers will continue to carry their stuff. They are in the process of manufacturing a new lot of these preamps and the price should be around $960 I believe if you order from the factory.

That would be 4 quality channels of pres for less than $250 a channel. They even have a Burr Brown option.

I think it would be worth checking out as I am totally happy with my Sytelk Pres.

And no, I do not work for the company or have any financial ties to it ;)


Cheers,

Bryan
 
alanhyatt said:
Most could not tell the difference between the mic pre that cost $500 to the one that was $3000.00.

No disrespect to any of the pres used, but given the right application, the proper gain stages, and a good room, the results are hard to tell apart.

I too have heard good things about the Syteks. But based on what Alan is saying (in his quote above) . . . as well as some of the comments Mark has made . . . doesn't $1,000 seem like overkill when you can get the 4 pres on a Mackie 1202 board for $300?

I guess what I'm saying is that you don't really see a significant step up in quality untill you get in to the kind of stuff Mark's company is crankin' out. After all, and I mean no disrespect to GR, but why would someone fork out $1,500 for two of your channels if they are such an insignificant part of the recording chain as you and Alan seem to suggest?

And Bryan -- how did you ever get a hold of the guys at Sytek? I didn't even think they were around anymore. I've called the number on their web site (disconnected) and I've never gotten an email back from them. They need some serious help over there.
 
contact for Sytek

Chessrock,

Here's the number where you can reach Mike at Sytek:

847-277-7710

Maybe they have moved or something and have not updated the site.

The site is kind of cruddy to boot.

Anyway, they are still around and I am sure the Mike will get you any information you need.

Cheers

Bryan
 
chessrock said:
Based on what Alan is saying. as well as some of the comments Mark has made . . . doesn't $1,000 seem like overkill when you can get the 4 pres on a Mackie 1202 board for $300?

I guess what I'm saying is that you don't really see a significant step up in quality untill you get in to the kind of stuff Mark's company is crankin' out. After all, and I mean no disrespect to GR, but why would someone fork out $1,500 for two of your channels if they are such an insignificant part of the recording chain as you and Alan seem to suggest?
No disrespect to you, but there are situations where a better preamp can make a significant performance difference. Microphone loading: an SM57 sounds just "ok" thru a Mackie, but really shines thru a Great River, because the GR is less sensitive to microphone loading. It has a ton of usable gain for ribbon mics without adding noise - a difficult feat for most preamps. And it's designed to avoid changes in sound due to component aging.

The GR MP-2 is among the "world-class" preamplifiers, at a very resonable price. It adds no color of its own and is among the most transparent preamps made. It's really in a different league than the preamps we've been discussing here.

You also forgot to mention Alan's other statement:

"I think for those that can afford the best, and have the knowledge and gear to support it, companies like Dan's make great gear. I would love to add a Great River to my collection. I know Dan bought one of my mics, and I respect his gear quite a bit. I have used his products in sessions, but do not own one yet, but they are one hell of a mic pre."

Alan makes preamps, but would like one of Dans. Mark McQuilkin is coming out with the RNMP, but he also own's a GR.

We're really talking apples and oranges here.
 
Hey Harvey...We totally agree!! :D

I still think there are many great low costing products out there, and there are just as many bad ones, but every situation calls for something different, and having one of Dan's and other fine brands is always a plus.

Alan Hyatt
 
Wow, When I heard that the makers of some of the best mike pres were in this forum.

I was thinking "Mud ,will be flung tonight."

But It seems as though everyone is at a tea party, While I was hoping for a battle royal.

I am curious about Alans new tube pre. How close are we to getting one in my hot little hands.

As for the Great River, Im probubly going to have to wait for Behringer to reverse engineer one and sell it for $199.99:(
 
Harvey Gerst said:
No disrespect to you, but there are situations where a better preamp can make a significant performance difference. Microphone loading: an SM57 sounds just "ok" thru a Mackie, but really shines thru a Great River, because the GR is less sensitive to microphone loading. It has a ton of usable gain for ribbon mics without adding noise - a difficult feat for most preamps. And it's designed to avoid changes in sound due to component aging.

He he. :) :) I'm sorry. I was trying to bait someone in to saying that. Those are the kinds of things I'm looking for, and it's awfully tough when you got guys like Sonusman talking about ART's and Dan downplaying the significance of pres. :) So just how, then, does the loading issue affect the sound of a 57, for example? Maybe I should start another thread and call it: "How does preamp input impedence affect mic loading, etc.?"

This stuff is fun to talk about. I must be turning in to a dork :(
 
Dan sez:

"But now that I'm rambling, another thing I feel very strongly about is that it is more important to good recordings to have good source material than good preamps. The song, the players, the arrangement, the room, and the vibe are all _way_ more important than the mic preamps."

Thank you, Dan. I totally agree. If the musical magic exists in a nice room, with good sounding sources, I'm sure you'd be able to capture it with a Mackie and some imagination.

What you are saying, in effect, to us home recording junkies is: get the source working, get the song well written, get some talented players in there. Don't worry so much if you don't have that Great River or comparable pre because you can still make great recordings if you have something of quality to record in the first place.

Most of my "advances" as an engineer have been based on learning how to use the equipment at my disposal. The more I learn, the better the result. This is not to say that high end gear is not useful or desirable, because it is both of these things. The operator needs to have an understanding of the gear, though--whether its a Mackie pre or a Great River. I think experience is more important than anything. That, and being able to think creatively to achieve a desired result.

I think that those of us who exist in home recording land are all too willing to jump at the next hyped product as if it could suddenly cure all our ills, when it won't. Yet, a U87 and a GR pre in the hands of an experienced engineer would probably get a superior result.

My philosophy is to make things sound as good as I can with what i have. I figure it like this: I'm not making recordings for audiophiles but for people who will hear the music on boom boxes, car radios, computer speakers and inexpensive home stereos for the most part. People respond to the performance and to the energy. I'm not that concerned about the guy who says "I dunno. It might be a great track, but I keep wishing you would have cut that guitar with a half DB of boost at 3.5K. It sounds flat on my Magnaplanars!"

Of course, I still want more high end goodies. Doesn't everybody? Anyway, Dan, welcome aboard. I'm enjoying your opinions and input.
 
Thanks, Dan, for your reply regarding pots, parts and some of the issues of volume control you've dealt with, both in the Great River mic preamps and other custom applications.

By the way, Chessrock was mixing up our first names in some of his comments -- in two of his posts, where he mentions "Mark," he actually means "Dan." I think he got it right on the last one, though. :-)

I do hear differences among preamps (and other source components), and it does make a difference to me as a listener. While I agree that getting the non-equipment aspects right in the first place is more important, I cannot count the number of great performances I've listened to that were badly recorded.

On the other hand, I admire artists like Scottish singer-songwriter Martin Stephenson, who recorded an entire album quite credibly on a portable MiniDisc recorder that he threw into his gig bag with a mic and took to an old stone church in the highlands that had a perfect acoustic for his voice and guitar. The resulting CD was gorgeous.

As a complete newcomer to recording, I am delighted to hear more "amateurs" making excellent recordings, even while some major studios continue to release over-produced, artificial-sounding and muddy recordings. I think some of the younger musicians and recordists on these forums will be true leaders in years to come.

Again, thank you for your participation and willingness to share your knowledge.

With kind regards,

Mark H.
 
Mark H---When we consider that pro studios use pro gear (they do, don't they?) and we hear lousy recordings coming out of them, I can only conclude that there is something amiss in the engineering department. I just heard a new record by a legendary guitarist which sounded like they put blankets between the source and the mics. The playing was great and so were the arrangements, but it sounded like everything from 2k up was rolled off in the mix. I just went away shaking my head. If I would have been footing the bill for the studio time, I would have been demanding something more for my money. While I am all in favor of getting the best we can afford, it seems to serve no purpose in the hands of unskilled engineers. To master the art, one needs to master everything involved. Thats all I'm saying. This particular record could have used state of the art gear, but it would be very hard to tell.
 
Kinda funny, true story. (I don't think I've ever told this to anyone before.)

In the late 60s, some guy (a friend of a friend of a friend) calls me and needs a favor. He needs about an hours worth of music recorded for a freebie documentary he's involved in. He comes over to my little apartment and I drag out my Superscope stereo recorder (this was before they were known as Sony) and I hook up a couple of Capps 2001 condenser mics (the very first low cost condenser mics for the consumer market).

Turns out he doesn't play, so I grab my guitar and I lay down about an hour of music on this little reel to reel at 7.5 ips, mostly bossa nova and samba stuff. He also has some stuff on tape he recorded, of a nice sounding guitarist, recorded very badly, which I fix up a bit, and he leaves, after thanking me for saving his ass.

It's about one year later, and my best friend is into scuba diving, and he drags me to this underwater film festival at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. After about 2 hours worth of watching 10,000 multi-colored fish swim around in slow motion, I'm getting bored as hell. I go out to the concession stand in the lobby, cuz all this water stuff is making me thirsty.

I'm standing around in the lobby trying to figure out a way to not go back inside, when my friend comes out and says the main feature is about to start, and he dashes back inside. I'm looking around for the exits, but I remember we came in his car. So I lite up one last cigarette before having to go inside.

The music coming from inside is kinda pleasant, and I'm thinking, "Gee, that sounds familiar". I suddenly realize "Holy shit, that's me!!" and I race inside in time to see the last of the opening credits.

Sure enough, there's the guy's name, and a credit for music by Larindo Almeda, a very popular Brazilian guitarist in the 60's. That's who that track I fixed sounded like, but this guy only used a few minutes of Almeda - most of the movie was me playing.

This now gives me a reason to sit and watch the movie ("Water Wonderland", by Stanton Waterman), and to tell you the truth, the track sounded damn good, and it was just me, sitting cross-legged on the floor, playing my guitar directly to tape, in the center of a tiny apartment living room.

The music worked, the tracks fit the movie nicely, and I never saw the guy ever again, so I'll remain forever uncredited for that soundtrack, but it sure was interesting hearing myself back on the big screen.

Oh, and the main reason for telling you guys this story is that it just shows that you don't always need a lot of gear to get a good recording.

A few years later, I had moved up to a Concertone recorder (15ips, 10-1/2" reels, same two Capps mics) and I was recording jazz sessions with people like Ornette Coleman, Freddie Gruber, Charlie Hayden, Paul Horn, and Bob Durrow. Those tapes were lost over numerous moves, but they were as good as anything the majors were putting out at the time.

That same setup also worked great for recording pipe organs. Turns out a guy on the East Coast had the same setup I did (Concertone/Capps) and he was recording a lot of the same kinds of music I was. His name was George Massenburg, and he went on to become one of the most famous engineer/producers in the world.

I've been in enough situations where I've seen the really great engineers do amazing recordings with just barely enough equipment to even get a sound to tape.

I found some tapes I did over 40 years ago that I'm talking with a major label about releasing. They were done with a pair of EV 664 mics into a Roberts 2 track at 7-1/2 ips, and the sound is still amazing. No reverbs, no compressors, no eqs, no mixers, just two mics and a portable tape recorder.
 
That was a great story Harvey. It's great to hear stuff like that to squash my gear acquisition syndrome and remind me that I have still not yet tapped the potential of the equipment I do have. Equipment can become obsolete, knowing what to do with it does not.
 
darrin_h2000 said:
I am curious about Alans new tube pre. How close are we to getting one in my hot little hands.

Actually, we are very close. Just some last minute tweaking. It came out better than we had hoped for, and the price has come down as well. The final pricing will be released soon, but we should be receiving them here the end of May.

Alan Hyatt
PMI Audio Group
 
Harvey--I loved your post! That puts it all into perspective. Learn to use what we have. I had a Sony 2 track and just about wore it out back in the 60's. Always wanted one of those Roberts decks, but they were a bit too much money for me as a teenager. Anyway, some of those old recordings still sound pretty good. No special mics, preamps, verbs or comps. If I ever see an old Roberts at a garage sale, I'm buying one!
 
Crawdad,

Good point. Recording quality seems to go through cycles. An acquaintance I met online awhile back was trying unsuccessfully to sell his mint-condition $8500 DPA mic/pre stereo set for the give-away price of $3,000, and the two most interesting comments I got on this board were that super flat and completely accurate mics with neutral, ultra-clean dedicated pres going direct to tape without processing were... boring! Dig that -- reality is boring!

It seems that a lot of engineers would rather "pump up" everything and offer surreal sound than accurately capture a great performance by carefully placing mics by ear and trusting a single pair of near-perfect omnis and the sonics of the venue itself to provide a great recording. There's no "right" or "wrong" here, just a very interesting difference of opinions.

As one who loves and collects recordings of cello music, I've long cursed the fact that Yo-Yo Ma signed with Columbia instead of London. Classical music performances in the 1980s recorded by Columbia are among the most horrible sounding digital recordings ever made. Deutsche Gramophone in the 1970s reached the point where I think they pointed a different microphone at every instrument in the orchestra, while the engineer read the score and "brought out" the instrument that had the melody line at the moment.

Classical recordings are beginning to move away from this "over-cooked" style again and have regained some coherence and clarity. Sony's purchase of Columbia and the use of its "Super Bit Mapping" on old and new recordings alike breathed new life into an otherwise sterile label. London seemed to get it right more often than not, even while other labels were producing some terrible digital recordings. Smaller labels also emerged to show how it could be done. Some of the very best sounding classical CDs are simply very careful transfers of older analog recordings of the type that Harvey described making.

I mentioned the article in the April issue of Stereophile about the engineer Roy DuNann, whose early stereophonic jazz recordings from the late 50s have been re-discovered as sonic treasures and are being released by JVC Japan on their XRCD premium label for $30 a pop. When the interviewer finally located the now-anonymous 81 year old DuNann, asking him what led to the incredible, timeless sonic purity and life-like presence of his recordings, he laughed and said he simply had to do everything on the cheap in those days.

His boss had him set up a "recording studio" in the shipping room of their small suite of business offices, with boxes stacked everywhere and little room to work. Du Nann was experimenting with some Telefunken and Austrian AKG's that his boss picked up in Europe. DuNann thought, why attenuate the output of these new high-output mics, only to then amplify the signal again? So he ran the output of the likes of U47s and C12s through a "console" of at most 8 rotary attenuators and sent the signal direct to tape. Because of having to do things on the cheap, relying on his skill as an engineer rather than a lot of expensive equipment, Roy DuNann produced early stereo recordings that are still considered world-class 45 years later.

I understand that recording pop and rock is very different from recording classical or even jazz, so while it may sound like I'm praising sonic purity and two-channel simplicity and putting down multi-miking, heavy use of EQ, reverb, compression, DSP plug-ins and all the rest, there is a place for all of it, and great recordings can come from either approach or a careful mix of the two.

But it's back to your point and Dan's, that it all begins with a good performance in a good venue with the right energy, and then relies on the skills of a talented engineer, and ONLY then does the quality of the equipment being used really get tested and eventually heard by the person who purchases the recording. Without the right engineer, apparently even major labels can get it "wrong," despite half-a-million dollar consoles and all the best equipment in the world.

Mark H.
 
Harvey,

To have your guitar playing (and recording) attributed in the credits of a movie to Laurindo Almeida is one of those rare and wonderful compliments that acknowledges your work without giving your ego a chance to do the wrong things with it. What a delightful story! Thank you for sharing it.

A few of my photos have been used without attribution (with my permission, of course), and there's a wistfulness to seeing them show up in unexpected places. I still long to want people to know I took them, but in less needy moments I'm just glad they like them.

Do you still play? Have you considered doing an album of your own work? In an interview with Martin Stephenson, he noted that he was able to produce "The Church and the Minidisc" for about 1000 pounds, including the post-production mastering, finalizing and printing at a facility in London (recording the album cost him maybe 50 pounds total). His fans bought out the run of 1000 CDs within a year or two. He contrasted that with the enormous studio costs in Hollywood he would incur in a single day back when he was signed to a major label.

I would love to buy a CD of your work -- what do you think?

With kind regards,

Mark H.
 
Mark--Great points! And a wonderful story about Roy DuNann.

When I was around twelve, I got interested in guitar and in tape recorders. My dad bought a Voice of Music reel to reel that had a second powered speaker, which allowed me to do sound on sound. Wow! Two tracks! It was so much fun to create music and hear it back.

Well, the guitar bug and the recording bug have been with me almost 40 years now and I still love playing guitar and recording. That magical feeling of playing back a track and hearing it for the first time still excites and amazes me. The technology has surely grown, as well as all the gear that has filled up my studio. When I work on something and get it just right, its so satisfying--just like it has been for years. So when I hear old two track stories, I just remember how it once was for me and smile.

Once in a while, I put on some old Sun records, just to remind me what its all about. By todays standards, those recordings are technically inferior, but the performances and the creative way they used three tracks to capture the musicians still knocks me out. I figure that with all the gear and options I have today, if I'm not able to get a decent recording then my song sucks or my performance is dismal. I'd rather have an 8 track studio and an endless line of talented people to record than a 48 track studio and a slew of hacks!

I'm rambling--sorry--but I am passionate about recording! Whether its direct to two track or state of the art. Did you ever hear that Joe Jackson record that was recorded with a pair of Neumanns as overheads? I think they miced the kic and voice separate, but it sure did sound great. Oops...I'm still rambling--better go!
 
Back
Top