More variety of preamps better?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theboy
  • Start date Start date
T

theboy

New member
Howdy.

Just been thinkin a few things over in my mind. Would it be a better idea to use more preamps that are different on a recording than one type for all instruments. I mean, will using one preamp for pretty much every channel start to build up similar sounds and frequencies muddying up the recording?

I use the Mackie Onyx pres on my 400f which I find definately very good but if im using them for evcery input, is that going to wield recordings that arent as clean (maybe a bad word, i mean seperate sounding instruments) as if each channel (or a wider variety of channels) used other pre amps?

I dont know if ive worded this very well... If i havent, let me know and ill try again.

Thanks again.
Ian
 
For some reason, it seems like I've heard this question a lot lately. And in some ways you have a point. If you use the same chain for everything, the characteristics of that chain will be noticeable. That's why people think that something has "that SSL sound" or "that Neve sound." And yes, Mackies have their own sound too. Varying your mics is going to make a bigger difference than varying your pres (which I'm sure you're well aware of). But, based on the fact that plenty of records are recorded through console pres as opposed to external units, I'm sure you'll be fine in the sense that I don't think that it will cause a problem. However, if you do want to expand your possibilities, a few different flavors to choose from wouldn't hurt.

But, my advice is that if you do go the route of buying a new pre, you shouldn't skimp on it. If you do it, do it right. Go with something like a Great River, Chandler, or something else of similar quality. Don't waste your money on "budget" preamps. And speaking of which, if you did own something like a Great River, what I would probably do would be to track drums or anything else that needs multiple mics with my most important track going through the Great River, and all others going through the Mackie. And then, once I got to the things that typically only need one channel (bass, vox, etc.) I would use my Great River.

But, back to your question, I don't think that you're going to have bad results by tracking everything through that one board assuming that you know what you're doing as an engineer.
 
why thank you all kindly. Looks like a nicer pre amp it is. Now if only money werent such a big issue...
 
Cheers for them. Quite surprised by the ART one especially. I'm coming into a little money soon (and not just xmas, selling off some old gear, depressing seeing how much you lose, but anyhow) and im trying to work out how to best spend the money. I'm guessing room treatment is high up on the to do list.

THanks again
 
theboy said:
I'm guessing room treatment is high up on the to do list.
Click to expand...

I would say probably near the top, if not at the very top. Especially for recording acoustic instruments.

If you're recording rock or something, and are close mic'ing an amp, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

But generally it's always important to have a good sounding room no matter what you're recording.

I'm currently getting my room treated, and it sucks spending money on wood/insulation when I could be buying new gear.
 
all the same pre works great. using different pres just gives you some additional tools to shade with...shading that can be accomplished by mics, placement, eq, what have you...but you know when it's as easy as plug and play, why not go for variety?

you can take advantage of different pres even on the low $ level. like, get a rolls for your electic guitar tracks and an aphex 107 to smooth out your "spitty" 603's for overheads. they can help differentiate tracks from the mackie pre'd tracks too.

laters...

Mike
 
if your like me you're trying to use the same pre as much as possible........
because you only really have one good pair of pre's. :rolleyes:
 
The Onyx pres are really "clean," so I don't know if that would be a problem (depending on what you're running into them.
That said I have a couple of slightly higher ticket pres that I like to use for character/color.
 
we used to do it in reverse. the clean stuff would be $$$...the dirty stuff was the 50 buck bellari/art somone found. :eek:

MIke
 
ndycus1 said:
For some reason, it seems like I've heard this question a lot lately. And in some ways you have a point. If you use the same chain for everything, the characteristics of that chain will be noticeable. That's why people think that something has "that SSL sound" or "that Neve sound."
Click to expand...

I tend to go that route when mixing, instead of tracking (by the way, the SSL E and G preamps are just about the worst sounding pre I've ever heard in my life, avoid those at all costs...)

I tend to track different instruments through specific preamps because I like the sonic qualities that they have.

For example, drum overheads through a Great River, and so on.
 
theboy said:
Howdy.

Just been thinkin a few things over in my mind. Would it be a better idea to use more preamps that are different on a recording than one type for all instruments. I mean, will using one preamp for pretty much every channel start to build up similar sounds and frequencies muddying up the recording?

I use the Mackie Onyx pres on my 400f which I find definately very good but if im using them for evcery input, is that going to wield recordings that arent as clean (maybe a bad word, i mean seperate sounding instruments) as if each channel (or a wider variety of channels) used other pre amps?

I dont know if ive worded this very well... If i havent, let me know and ill try again.

Thanks again.
Ian
Click to expand...


Well that could be one way to think about it, but not quite nessessarily so. I don't think you'd find yourself swapping out pre amps as much you would something else. Like a microphone or type of outboard gear.

The preamp is part of the chain, and yes it helps define a sound, but how do I word it...it gets a little funkier than all that.

Cause then you'd have to think of the summing amp in that board, the actual I/O strip itself, basically everything the signal goes through before reaching your ears.

So for me personally, I wouldn't say that more variety of preamps is technically better. But then again, that's where EQing, mics, mic placement and your ambient environment comes into play.

I think of a preamp more as something that sets up the foundation from which to mix on. So if maybe after all is said and done with drums, guitars and bass, and the only thing left are vocals, you can select a pre based on what you need from that particular mix. In the end, hopefully getting the vocal to sit as squarely in the mix as possible with as little alterations as possible. Of course, if you have different pres to play with.

Maybe even investing in a good pre just for vocals and lead stuff may help diversify your mix a little.

Hopefully that makes a little sense.
 
I like variety in preamps, myself. However, I don't find that as being as high on the list of importance as variety in, say, microphones or EQs. With a variety in mics and with good mic technique, one can get a perfectly good production out of a row of identical but halfway decent board pres.

That said, I am a strong advocate of the "one or two channels of gold" idea that I believe was advocated elsewhere by Sonic Al and others. In other words, I'm fine with a row of 16 or 24 or48 identical board pres, but I'd give my left lung to be able to augment the production with at least one, and preferably two, channels of top-shelf preamp going straight into top-shelf conversion (assuming I'm recording to digital) and nothing else. One or two channels ultra-short, high-quality chian for vocals and/or acoutic instruments, etc. to be able to catch lightning in a bottle and root the mix around it can make all the difference in the world.

G.
 
theboy said:
Howdy.

Just been thinkin a few things over in my mind. Would it be a better idea to use more preamps that are different on a recording than one type for all instruments. I mean, will using one preamp for pretty much every channel start to build up similar sounds and frequencies muddying up the recording?

I use the Mackie Onyx pres on my 400f which I find definately very good but if im using them for evcery input, is that going to wield recordings that arent as clean (maybe a bad word, i mean seperate sounding instruments) as if each channel (or a wider variety of channels) used other pre amps?

I dont know if ive worded this very well... If i havent, let me know and ill try again.

Thanks again.
Ian
Click to expand...

Using different pre-amps avoids stackup problems using the same pre-amp over many tracks. Unless you are using avalons. api's, cranesongs etc., changing pre-amps every few tracks keeps the anomolies to a minimum. This is not to say that the whole mix will not sound muddy etc. because of the limitations of cheaper pres, but you will not have a severe tonal shift of the same pre amp "sound" spred all over the mix. The more tracks, the worse it can be. If you HAVE any of the above mentioned high-end pre-amps, use them more often for vovals, guitars, drums etc. Use the low end for non-critical tracks.
 
I agree with Glen, although not his avatar.

Anyways I would like to add. The Gt Brick is a great stand alone mic pre for mic'ing a bass amp IMO. I recently had great results with a Senn. 421 and the brick on an old ampeg bass cab. The brick seems to come through very clear. Though the brick I hate on dynamic mics using other sources (guitar cabs , acoustic drums). I have yet to try it on a LDC mic for acoustic guitar or vocals.

I use my allen heath mix wizard pre's for drums and they rock for now. Though I am looking to get either a DAV or API four channel mic pre pending my christmas bonus.

So I would say yes, it is better to have versital pre's. But on the other hand it is very possible to track using the same pre's with variety of mic's and come up with a kick butt mix.
 
Ford Van said:
Listen to any of these:

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/Audio/FordBrothers

All Mackie pre's.

or

http://www.phoenixlightandsound.com/Audio/HeavyBrothers

Almost all ART Dual MP pre's. Every main instrument and part used it.
Click to expand...

I like the recordings. Done well, but I can hear those pre-amps well. They stack up and squeeze the nasty upper midrange "honk".

Mackie pre-amps were not very good. The ART tracks were better, but kind'a suffer from the same syndrome.

Great job with limited equipment shows experience over equipment, but you just can't fix what you can't fix with lower end stuff.
 
gcapel said:
I agree with Glen, although not his avatar.
Click to expand...
Fair enough :). Now the question is whether you're from Eastern Wisconsin, New Orleans, San Diego or Indy. Or maybe one of those trash talkers from Minnesota? :D Just curious is all...

But back to topic. It's an esoteric thing, and one which falls lower on the list than some far more important things like converter quality, monitroing chain, etc., but there is no question in my mind that, different mic/pre pairings yield different sounds. This is especially relevant when one does move up at least one step in preamp quality. An AT4040 sounds different through an Avalon than it does through a Brick. Same thing with a V69, but in a different way. Two mics, two pres, and four noticably different sounds; its rather like having 4 different microphones. There are some mics that just plain don't fit a particular singer's voice "right" until you happen to match it with the right pre, yet that pre with a different mic will not be the same either.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Or maybe one of those trash talkers from Minnesota?
Click to expand...

Da Bears will return to the gutter soon enough :rolleyes: .

At least you didn't have a Packers avatar....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top