Mic vs preamps - TheListeningSessions.com

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeadPoet
  • Start date Start date
DeadPoet

DeadPoet

carpe diem
Hi y'all,

Just spent an hour listening closely to sessions 1, 3 and 5 from TLS.com.. Very interesting !!

Differences between mics are easy to hear, but I have trouble hearing a diff between the preamps.. Is it me or is that waaaaay harder to hear ? For example session 3 has different pre's on a bass, but with the same DI. Isn't the DI more important to the sound than the pre after it ??

Sure I heard the difference between eg. the behringer or M-audio and API after comparing it a dozen times, but only when I *knew* which was which. Doing a blind test it would be very difficult to point out which, expecially de diff. between the API ones and the RNP (must be a compliment to the guys at FMR eh ;) )

Anyone else experiencing this ?


Herwig
 
Yes Exactly!

I guess it shows that when it comes to neutral or low color pres that after a certain level of build they are a lot more invisable as to its own signature. I am sure where it makes more difference is when you start layering 10 to 20 tracks and the cumulative effect of the electronics will start to show.

In the Listening test we only heard a solo instrument or voice.
(Understandably so)
 
The resolution [or lack thereof] of the 'distribution method' has a lot to do with the inability of the differences to really stand out.

If you did the same comparisons "live", you'd have little to no trouble hearing the differences. Back in '98 we did a mic pre comparison CD, what we found was that sonic differences that were immediately apparent "in the room" where much more subtle when transfered to CD.

I think there were several factors in play there... not the least of which were the A/D converters we used when making the "master"... yet the fact of the matter remained that the differences that were as apparent as night and day "in the room" really didn't make it to CD as well as they should have.

The tonal and textural differences of the pre's employed in a "solo" setting aren't as great as the cumulative effects, nor the juxtaposition of different units within the context of a multitrack recording.

In a multitrack environment, you can employ the tone and texture of different pre-amps to really highlight and separate the emotional qualities of the sounds you're recording.
 
Fletcher said:
The resolution [or lack thereof] of the 'distribution method' has a lot to do with the inability of the differences to really stand out.

If you did the same comparisons "live", you'd have little to no trouble hearing the differences. Back in '98 we did a mic pre comparison CD, what we found was that sonic differences that were immediately apparent "in the room" where much more subtle when transfered to CD.

I think there were several factors in play there... not the least of which were the A/D converters we used when making the "master"... yet the fact of the matter remained that the differences that were as apparent as night and day "in the room" really didn't make it to CD as well as they should have.

The tonal and textural differences of the pre's employed in a "solo" setting aren't as great as the cumulative effects, nor the juxtaposition of different units within the context of a multitrack recording.
In a multitrack environment, you can employ the tone and texture of different pre-amps to really highlight and separate the emotional qualities of the sounds you're recording.
Click to expand...

Yes. What people do not understand is that 16 bits (CD quality) are not enough to represent volume changes. As the dynamic range of the recorded material increases, the resolution decreases. On a CD (16 bit), the recorded material sounds closer to the original as the dynamic range decreases. That is why engineers compress the music on mixing and mastering. If the recorded material stays in a relatively narrow dynamic range, it sounds pretty close to the original. Listening to the recorded material in the analog domain, or with 24 bit, the real sound comes through with much more detail. The dynamic range is much better represented (no compression) and it is easier to tell the difference between one mic/pre and another. 24 bit recording gives you much more detail and allows more dynamic range in your recordings. I wish CD were 24 bits. But, the industry jumped the gun to make the bucks, and painted themselves into a corner as usual. For rock music, which has limited dynamic range anyway, the CD 16 bit format is OK. For classical, which has super wide dynamic range, CD 16 bit format is horrible.
 
Thanks so much for this link. I'm new to this stuff and am in the process of shopping for a condenser for vocals. I agree also that you can hear the difference in the mics but not the preamps. It was also interesting to hear that some of the less expensive mics (in my opinion) sound better than the more expensive ones.
 
Fletcher said:
If you did the same comparisons "live", you'd have little to no trouble hearing the differences. Back in '98 we did a mic pre comparison CD, what we found was that sonic differences that were immediately apparent "in the room" where much more subtle when transfered to CD.
Click to expand...

But since all the work we record is more or less ment to end up on CD one way or another, one can ask what reasons there is to pay for a preamp that sounds good only if you visit the band as they record, but not on CD ?
 
Stefan Elmblad said:
But since all the work we record is more or less ment to end up on CD one way or another, one can ask what reasons there is to pay for a preamp that sounds good only if you visit the band as they record, but not on CD ?
Click to expand...

Read Fletcher`s post one more time, and you`ll understand.....
 
when i do pre comparisons in my studio i can really hear the difference, although on some instruments it can be tough. my mixer pres have a strange way of sounding like my earthworks pres on snare with a 57... but not similar at all with bass drum and any mic in my collection.

another thing to consider is that when you do "live" comparisons the placebo effect is going to be heightened. more invested in the process etc...

downloading samples, for all its disadvantages, is pretty good for creating a level playing field. you can set them all up in itunes and have it play random. not look at the screen. then when you hear something you like you can look at the file name... pretty cool...
 
eeldip said:
another thing to consider is that when you do "live" comparisons the placebo effect is going to be heightened. more invested in the process etc...
Click to expand...

Very true. Sadly, I find this to be the case, at least to a small degree, when I'm doing it double-blind.

I'm not saying that I can't hear differences, but suddenly it becomes so much more difficult when it's done that way. My expectations based on the name and/or brand do play at least a very small role.

Still, I have to say that after the tracks start piling up, it becomes a lot easier. And you can say "well, if it all winds up on CD anyway . . . " But there was a time when 1/8" tape was the most common medium for the final product, but that didn't mean you could just record all of the individual tracks to 1/8" tape because "that's where it ends up anyway." :D

One of these days Steve (aka - Ozraves) and I are going to have to come out with our own version of the listening sessions where we record entire songs using various different mic pres, and see what we come up with. I'm game if Steve is.
 
yeah i agree that the cumulative effect is the issue here. i've been using an RNP and an NTK for a bunch of tracks (up to about 18-20), and even with a 'good' set up like that i can hear some stuff a 'better' set up would eliminate.

i was also wondering if switching up pre's would make a difference. in isolation the RNP and NTK, or NT5's usually sound the best. but would it sound better for the entire mix if i switch pre's and mics just for some tonal and frequency variety?
 
I think you could benefit from using a more neutral mic or two on some of those tracks.

20-tracks worth of a colorful tube mic is your problem. :D
 
Stefan Elmblad said:
But since all the work we record is more or less ment to end up on CD one way or another, one can ask what reasons there is to pay for a preamp that sounds good only if you visit the band as they record, but not on CD ?
Click to expand...

An interesting point. The main differences between the pre-amps don't show up in an acapella "download" or "CD" presentation as being as significant as they are in a "live" presentation.

This doesn't mean that their associated characters won't net you different tones and textures as you blend them together in the production process... it just means that as 'stand alone' / 'single source' presentations their differences aren't as obvious as they are in a "pre recorded" environment.

In the testing we did, I directly fault our use of a woefully inadequate A/D converter to get to the final presentation. When dealing with things like "MP-3"s of these presentations... you're definitely looking at a seriously flawed delivery method.

The fact of the matter is that the differences in the tone and texture of the pre amps will indeed make a difference in a contextual relationship [how the various tones work and play together in the context of a multi-tracked production], though they may be very subtle when judged on an acapella 'downloaded' basis.
 
Fletcher said:
An interesting point. The main differences between the pre-amps don't show up in an acapella "download" or "CD" presentation as being as significant as they are in a "live" presentation.

This doesn't mean that their associated characters won't net you different tones and textures as you blend them together in the production process... it just means that as 'stand alone' / 'single source' presentations their differences aren't as obvious as they are in a "pre recorded" environment.

In the testing we did, I directly fault our use of a woefully inadequate A/D converter to get to the final presentation. When dealing with things like "MP-3"s of these presentations... you're definitely looking at a seriously flawed delivery method.

The fact of the matter is that the differences in the tone and texture of the pre amps will indeed make a difference in a contextual relationship [how the various tones work and play together in the context of a multi-tracked production], though they may be very subtle when judged on an acapella 'downloaded' basis.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself..........
 
This is a great thread. I've never thought about using different pre's to actually separate sounds of different instruments. I never quite thought of it in that context. Cool.
 
:D Way off topic now, but LD: Shure ksm32, AT4050, Blue baby bottle. SD: anything by earthworks. And most dynamics are going to be colorful to a degree, and most ribbons are hailed for their more natural sound in a lot of cases.
 
willovercome said:
so what's a decent uncolored mic, LD and SD and dynamic?
Click to expand...

LD's I haven't tried the KSM32..but I now the KSM44 is very nice and nicer than the AT4050 its "clearer" and more "even"..I find the Baby Bottle to be very nice also but slightly"hyped" in the mids{very nice guitar amp mic!}.SD's Earthworks is a good bet..for a little less cash about 275.00 a Shure SM81 is pretty flat..YMMV..Dynamics..I think Chessrock said it already..



Don
 
To me ...I find that I have to "tune my ears" as it were to hear slight nuances in things like mic pres..Starting with as transparent I can get.. then moveing on to the "more colorful" and "less defined" ect. My "auditory" memorey is too short and can be fooled too easily:D..I think you gotta experience the gear in person there are too many factors..like..I gotta hear the source with my own ears ect.




Don
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top