mixing board pre amps

[fprod south]

I've only been homerecording for about 2 years (not including my 4 track cassette experiences) but I've recorded sporadically at semi pro studios for about 12-13 years. I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to what the engineers were doing, but it seemed to me they always used the pre amps from the mixing boards rather than outboard pre amps.

Do you really get that much improvement in sound quality from a good outboard pre amp?

For pre amps I just use the built in ones on the digi 001, a sm pr8 (bottom of the line pre amp strip) or the built in ones on my friend's Tascam mixer.

I'm obviously missing something here (or am I?). I don't know of anyone that has a good preamp I can borrow, so hopefully someone can give me some insight.

What's wrong with mixing board pre amps?

 

[eeldip]

not much wrong with mixer pres

if you have an amazing mixing board.

but most of us dont. so that is where outboard pres come in. also pres come in different flavors, while mixing boards typically have only one flavor.

however, there is a degree of marketing hype attached to outboard pres at this time. if you have a somewhat decent mixer you arent going to get a very dramatic improvement with outboard gear unless you start looking at some pretty fancy stuff.
RNP at minimum.

you can, however, get some more flavors of sounds using cheaper outboard gear (meek boxes come to mind here). but will this will improve your sound if you have a decent collection of mics? yea, but- mic choice will give you the most dramatic tonal variance. mic pres may help, but they may just complicate things.

glad to hear that you are questioning the status quo.

 

[fprod south]

Re: not much wrong with mixer pres

also pres come in different flavors

Thanks eeldip. The "flavor" is another thing I don't get. As much work as I put into getting a good sound out of my fingers, guitar, and amp, I'd rather the "flavor" of the mic and the pre amp just be "plain". I understand that mics have hyped frequencies, and I've done some reading, but I still feel pretty ignorant on this.

 

[pundit]

...What's wrong with mixing board pre amps?

In a even a modern $50,000 console the budget for the micpre components could be under $10 per channel.

So it stands to reason both in logical terms and from experience that, with a few exceptions, a $500 outboard pre will most likely perform better than pres in a $50,000 board.

Do the math on a 48 input console.

If the manufacturer of a $50,000 48 channel board did budget $500 per pre....

$500 X 48 = $24,000.

That leaves only $26,000 for the rest of the console.

EQ, auxillaries, metering, patchbays, automation, P&G faders, leather rest pads, solid oak end pieces etc.

So while a $1000,000 console may have $24,000 worth of micpre's, a $50,000 console will not!

The reality is unless you are using a classic Neve, API or Neotek console etc, good quality outboard pre's will make the biggest improvement to your sound after the mic itself. Of course many expensive highly regarded custom outboard pres are, in fact, modelled on Neve and API style preamps amongst others.

Of course it depends how many tracks you need to record simultaneously. You may still need to use the consoles own pres if you have to record many track at once. However the outboard pres should always be used for most crucial tracks. ie vocals, acoustic guitars etc!

Of course if we all knew back then, what we all know now, we would have bought up a bunch of early '70's Neve consoles when they were relatively cheap and put the mic pre's and EQ's into a 1RU rack and sold them off for a fuckin' absolute fortune today!....Sound familiar?

 

[fprod south]

Re: Re: mixing board pre amps

good quality outboard pre's will make the biggest improvement to your sound after the mic itself.

Sorry - I'm in an inquisitive mood tonight. What is the quality improvement? Is it more accurate recording? Less noise? Flavor? I'm trying to picture what the improvement will be without having to shovel out the cash.

And still, I swear the recording engineers always plugged into the console. And one of the engineers I worked with was a hot shot who recorded big names. Is my memory goofy? Maybe it was a Neve or something like that. If I'd had known I'd be recording myself I would have paid more attention.

 

[pundit]

Re: Re: Re: mixing board pre amps

What is the quality improvement? Is it more accurate recording? Less noise? Flavor?

All of the above!

Just as with mics, you can have very accurate uncolored pres that would be more suitable for recording say classical music where accurate reproduction is generally considered paramount.

Here low noise, when recording quiet instruments at a distance, is also important.

Other pres do have varying 'flavors'. The earlier transformer coupled Neves are reknown for their big gutsy sound and musical EQ stages. The class AB modules tend to have a bit more agressive edge when pushed hard... great for rock 'n roll... guitars, drums vocals etc. The much sought after Neve 1073's are also transformer coupled but are full class A and sound wonderful on vocals with a good mic a little high end EQ boost.

No Mackie 'fizz' here!

Some say the Neve sound is due to the iron in the transformers.. others say because of the class A operation and others claim it's the 'distortion' causing tantalum capacitors in the signal path. Nevertheless, whatever it is... it WORKS!

A couple of different pre's will give you some variety in your recording. Bear in mind that certain pres will suit some mics better than others. Also remember that the mic will make the most difference in your recording closely followed by your preamp.

The differences between pres tends to be more subtle than the differences between mics, but as your ears become more 'tuned' those differences will begin to become more obvious.

Cheers

BTW I forgot to mention tube preamps, they offer a different kind of sonic variation yet again!

 

[pundit]

Just to add to the above, the job of a microphone preamplifier is to amplify the very low output of most microphones (usually only a few millivolts) up to line level. ie the nominal signal level of most bits of audio gear after the mic preamplifier... tape decks, FX units, compressors etc.

The preamp generally requires about 40 to 60db of gain to achieve this... which is really quite a lot of amplification.

Here lies the problem, apart from any unwanted noise and distortion generated by the mic itself, the preamp also will produce degrees of it's own noise and distortion and, it is this noise and distortion that will be amplified along with the mic signal.

So while at very low levels these undesirable characteristics may not be a problem but, in order to get a useable microphone signal at the input of our recorder, we have dragged up the dirt as well.

Signals that began their life already at line level are not such a problem as they didn't require the same level of gain increase as mic level signals.

So sonic variations in preamps, do indeed, play apart in the final sound.

 

[fprod south]

Wow - thanks for all the info pundit.

 

[Chris Tondreau]

Re: Re: not much wrong with mixer pres

The "flavor" is another thing I don't get. As much work as I put into getting a good sound out of my fingers, guitar, and amp, I'd rather the "flavor" of the mic and the pre amp just be "plain".

Here's an analogy..... If you are the most beautiful person on earth, and everyone else thinks so too, then you would be best presented in your most "plain" state. (perhaps naked, but please, don't show us.... ) However, most of us are not the most beautiful person on earth. We wear clothes that make us look slimmer, or we go to tanning salons, or we work out.... anything we can think of that will make us look our best. (unless you're like most musicians, and then you probably can't be bothered with any of that stuff, but the analogy still suffices...)

These "character" mics and mic pres can make an otherwise "average" person, and make them look about 15 pounds slimmer, give them a tan, some muscle definition, maybe some waxing, a new hairstyle, you get the idea.

Not accurate, but something that makes you look good -or even better - nonetheless.

Chris

 

[littledog]

OUTSTANDING analogy, Chris! I take back all that other stuff I said about you...

 

[fprod south]

Ok Chris, that makes sense. Thanks for the analogy. And I do need to start working out again.

So I'm understanding that pre amps are used almost as a subtle effect - you are trying to change the tone for the better. You don't just buy a "better pre amp", you buy a pre amp that will serve a certain purpose.

I guess I'd still rather have the "plain" flavor because it seems if you're trying to flavor the tone with the preamp, you'd want to have a few different pre amps to choose from. Using your analogy - some people need to gain weight, some people need to lose weight. My budget just isn't going to allow for weight loss and weight gain. You come to my house you better look good.

I also think, as a guitarist, I should be working on my tone to the point that I want it to be captured accurrately, not enhanced. I suppose it can always sound just a little bit better though.

Thanks.

 

[Chris Tondreau]

EXXXXXXXXACTLY!! Of course, you can do additional "primping" of your sound with EQ, effects, compression, etc. The "character" of all the expensive stuff is exactly what people pay the big bucks for - and why they like to have a collection of stuff rather than a one-tool-does-all-jobs kind of thing. Just like you said...






Thanks littledog!

Chris

 

[DJL]

I guess I'd still rather have the "plain" flavor because it seems if you're trying to flavor the tone with the preamp, you'd want to have a few different pre amps to choose from.
Thanks.

Rather than using the word "plain" you should be using the word "transparent". But, your understanding is correct.

 

[fprod south]

Rather than using the word "plain" you should be using the word "transparent". But, your understanding is correct.

I know. I was just getting carried away with the analogies.
I just thought people were going after better transparency more often than different character as they were buying new outboard pre amps.

 

[cavedog101]

wow! you guys are simply A-Mazin...that was such a beautiful and relativly short-winded yet thorough explanation, i had to step back and take a breath...fprod south, my friend, you have no idea how many trees have died making up the number of pages in the number of books that have been writen on just this subject....and here you've gotten one of the best if not THE best quick tutorial i've ever read....pundit, eel, chris,...MaGnifique!....did anyone mention the reason there are so many mic pres these days as opposed to say the 70's and early 80's? its not like the technology hasnt been around for 40 years...before the 'many moods of mic preamps' became all the rage, we had the many moods of sound compression and prior to that the many moods of equalization...my take on todays mic-pre craze is two fold...first the advent of digital technology...okay so this may inflame someone but i'm old and just dont care,..digital just doesnt sound the same(see i didnt say as good as)and so the mic pres give that particular order of clear distortion to the recording to give it life...since each pre has its own 'characteristic', engineers have found that its easier to get a 'bigger' sound using pres of different colors goin in thereby using less eq,compresion and other artifacts n the signal chain...makes it much easier to mix...which is precisely the second point to this....man i wish i could ask such pertinent questions and get that kinda response....peace all ya'lls

 

[fprod south]

I did get some awesome answers, didn't I?

cavedog,
While I believe you that many pages in books have been written - the books I've read seem to have left outboard pre-amps out. That was part of why I was confused.
Very good point about the different colors of preamps becoming more popular with digital recording. That makes a lot of sense. Also might explain why they always plugged into the console at studios I've worked in. In the studios I've worked in it's always been reel to reel.

 

[darwin]

One thing that I have read about in several places is that the implementation of quality preamps gives a more "three dimensional" sound of the entire mix. It is almost to the point where, on a good monitoring system, it seems as if one could grab the individual instruments with one's hands. I suspect that this is even more true with a variety of quality preamps like using some Neve, API, Avalon, Manley, etc. Of course, I have yet to experience this YET (it should be within my grasp within a year), so I can't comment from personal experience.

Also, in theory, the use of high-end preamps should aid in lowering the overall noise floor of the mix. This means that your finished product should sound relatively louder because less of your headroom is occupied by useless noise and more of it is occupied by instrument sound.

 

[SteveE9C6]

Until a week ago I recorded all tracks thru the pres on my Mackie 8 buss. Last week I bought a Langevin DVC, a mic pre with a built in optical limiter. These list for $2k. There is nothing subtle about the difference in these pres. The Mackies sound dull and lifeless compared to the Langevin. The improvement in recording and sound quality was dramatic.

 

[TexRoadkill]

Also, in theory, the use of high-end preamps should aid in lowering the overall noise floor of the mix. This means that your finished product should sound relatively louder because less of your headroom is occupied by useless noise and more of it is occupied by instrument sound.

Sorta and no. Not all expensive preamps are quiet because some people like the type of dirt and character they add to the signal. A low noise floor means you can have more dynamic range but it does not mean the final product will sound any louder. If anything it allows the final product to be more quiet.

Digital mixing is probably the reason that outboard pre's have become so popular. If you mix on an analog desk then you have already invested in a bunch of pre's so it's a little harder to stomach the extra expense.

 

[toby.I.]

Re: Re: mixing board pre amps

In a even a modern $50,000 console the budget for the micpre components could be under $10 per channel.

So it stands to reason both in logical terms and from experience that, with a few exceptions, a $500 outboard pre will most likely perform better than pres in a $50,000 board.

Do the math on a 48 input console.

If the manufacturer of a $50,000 48 channel board did budget $500 per pre....

$500 X 48 = $24,000.

That leaves only $26,000 for the rest of the console.

EQ, auxillaries, metering, patchbays, automation, P&G faders, leather rest pads, solid oak end pieces etc.

So while a $1000,000 console may have $24,000 worth of micpre's, a $50,000 console will not!



-so if a 50,000 dollar console spends 10dollars on components per channel how much on a a fucking 500 dollar pre?? not much. you have to spend over about a grand on a pre to get op amps that you can but for a few dollars each. the problem is when boards spend a hundredth of that on the op amps( which most non-pro consoles do).