Okay, I've been reading and I'm ready to ask questoins...

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcktdg
  • Start date Start date
R

rcktdg

New member
I started doing research on mic pre's a little while ago and there are a few things I would like to get cleared up before I start drawing a bead on my target.

Major infuences seem to be API and Neve. Many companies restore, refurb of knock off these designs in their own products. I'm sure this is old hat to many but those are some generic statements about things I have observed.

First question: Knobs...
Part A...
Some pre's seem to have an eq on board (I think the 1073 and the like) while others appear to have only a trim pot or single knob to control the output (Some API's seem this way). Is there a difference in application? With the single knob models is it necessary (SOP) to use another eq module to shape it. Alternatively are these little buggars simply tone monsters and things just sound great when run through them? (eq? we don't need no stinking eq)

Part B...
Are there major departures in design when it comes to pre's with and without eq that might dictate application?

Second question: Recycling...
If I only have 4 pre's can I go back and run other tracks through the pre's after the fact and gain the same effect? I am doing all of this on a DAW so I might have to jack around with timing for all the routing. I'm using a DM24 which can record direct without passing through the pre's in the mixer. I think I can get back out in a similar fashion. Is this a waste of time? Will the DA AD conversion hurt more than any reprocessing?

My studio is for personal experimentation more than anything else. Primarily I am recording your basic organic rock/roots music. I have a really nice collection of instruments to work with and equally matched players to operate them. My engineering skills are clearly the weakest link in the chain so far.

My mic collection is growing to be reasonably complete within a month or so. Pre's are my next big target.

I know I am really a beginner and getting all kinds of expensive gear might seem excessive but this is where I'm headed and it's my MO at this point. It's not an obsession with spending money it's that I've learned if you want the sound of P90's through an AC30 you're best off starting with that combination and refine from there. You get what you pay for.

Thank's so much for reading all this. Cheers. RD
 
rcktdg said:
I started doing research on mic pre's a little while ago and there are a few things I would like to get cleared up before I start drawing a bead on my target.

Major infuences seem to be API and Neve. Many companies restore, refurb of knock off these designs in their own products. I'm sure this is old hat to many but those are some generic statements about things I have observed.

First question: Knobs...
Part A...
Some pre's seem to have an eq on board (I think the 1073 and the like) while others appear to have only a trim pot or single knob to control the output (Some API's seem this way). Is there a difference in application? With the single knob models is it necessary (SOP) to use another eq module to shape it. Alternatively are these little buggars simply tone monsters and things just sound great when run through them? (eq? we don't need no stinking eq)

Part B...
Are there major departures in design when it comes to pre's with and without eq that might dictate application?

Second question: Recycling...
If I only have 4 pre's can I go back and run other tracks through the pre's after the fact and gain the same effect? I am doing all of this on a DAW so I might have to jack around with timing for all the routing. I'm using a DM24 which can record direct without passing through the pre's in the mixer. I think I can get back out in a similar fashion. Is this a waste of time? Will the DA AD conversion hurt more than any reprocessing?

My studio is for personal experimentation more than anything else. Primarily I am recording your basic organic rock/roots music. I have a really nice collection of instruments to work with and equally matched players to operate them. My engineering skills are clearly the weakest link in the chain so far.

My mic collection is growing to be reasonably complete within a month or so. Pre's are my next big target.

I know I am really a beginner and getting all kinds of expensive gear might seem excessive but this is where I'm headed and it's my MO at this point. It's not an obsession with spending money it's that I've learned if you want the sound of P90's through an AC30 you're best off starting with that combination and refine from there. You get what you pay for.

Thank's so much for reading all this. Cheers. RD
Click to expand...

A mic pre-amp is just an amplifier. There can be no EQ, or EQ, compression, expansion or a number of other modules incorperated in the design. These are just for ease of use as the proper way to use a good mic pre is to bypass the mixing board channel and go directly to your recorder. In reality, no designer is great at designing everything, so, some designers concentrate on what they do best. A great mic-pre usually will only be a pre-amp and will leave you to buy the best EQ, compressor etc. to add to your sound chain. Budget stuff adds these convienences. However, each part is a compromise. In the end, the budget stuff works OK for the home hobbiest. There are exceptions, like the DMP3 and the RNP, RNC where the budget designer took the approach of putting all of the $$ into a truly great pre-amp, compressor etc.
 
I'll take the second part here...

rcktdg said:
Second question: Recycling...
If I only have 4 pre's can I go back and run other tracks through the pre's after the fact and gain the same effect? I am doing all of this on a DAW so I might have to jack around with timing for all the routing. I'm using a DM24 which can record direct without passing through the pre's in the mixer. I think I can get back out in a similar fashion. Is this a waste of time? Will the DA AD conversion hurt more than any reprocessing?
Click to expand...

Sure you can do that, you can do anything. Remember though, the original mic preamplification is still a part of the signal. The difference is a preamp "electrifies" a mic in a sense and you are going to get the best flavor so to speak by recording right from your voice to the mic through the preamp. While you can use a nice pre to "warm up" (add colorful distortion) to a prerecorded signal after the fact the end result will be something new and very different from a direct recording from the source. You will always be limited by the frecuency response of the original preamp/mic combo.

I wouldn't fret too much about one generation of AD/DA on a signal, the benifit of the processing you will be diong should be obvious and far greater than the very slight loss of the extra conversion. If you doubt that try to send a signal (keeping signal optimal) out and back to your DAW and A/B the two sounds. That is what home recording is all about, experimentation. I dare you to find the copy in a blind test...you won't.
 
rcktdg said:
My studio is for personal experimentation more than anything else . . .

I've learned if you want the sound of P90's through an AC30 you're best off starting with that combination and refine from there.
Click to expand...

That's funny, because I've always learned that you should learn how to play the guitar first, but that's just me.

I'm trying to do you a favor -- not trying to be negative. Learn what the fuck you're doing before you invest this kind of scratch. Simple test: If you have to ask questions about knobs, then you're not ready to plunk down that kind of dough on mic pres. And I'm not even getting in to this (gasp!) "recycling" thing, as you call it.

How much do you know about room accoustics?

Go down to the studio building and display forum and absorb all you can . . . ask questions . . . read books on the subject. Then plunk several grand down on sound treatment before you do anything else (although you might even get by with less if you know what you're doing) IF you are indeed serious about all of this. But save the expensive mic pres for another day. If you have to have something that you'll at least keep around even after you outgrow them, then pick up a soundcraft board or maybe a Sytek 4-channel. At least those will hold their value while you learn what the fuck you're doing and address the more important areas of your signal chain.

Only trying to help. Sorry if I'm being harsh or negative.
 
Chessrock...

I play guitar exclusively for a living. I have done so for more than a decade and I've been playing for 26 years. When I say I want the sound of a p90 through an ac30 I know EXACTLY what the fuck I'm talking about and I know EXACTLY what to do with it.

The only other gainful employment I've had during the last decade has been freelance designing and building electronic and mechanical control systems for everything from automated fountains to museum installations and amusement parks. The crazy thing is that it all came about because I designed and built my own control system to be able to use my old amps with new stuff and to be able to switch the unswitched when switching is needed.

I spent most of 2002 in the studio building forum. The last 11 months have been spent building my studio from an empty warehouse. My first goal was to just get the place sound proof enough to keep from alerting the world of my presence. Once I figured that out I moved to the accoustic and mechanical properties of the space and began to design with that in mind.

Is it a traditional studio? No. Do I have a traditional control room isolated from everything else? No, it's self engineered. It's not practical to have one at this point. Did I design with the possibility of one? Yes.

So far everything about this place has evolved very organically. I am a lucky man, but I make my luck by working hard at creating oportunities for it.

As for my word choice: Knobs. Aint dat wut day arre? Should I say "potentiometer fitted with a shaft mounted adjustment collar". The reason I asked is because is because I've seen so many different configurations...
http://www.brentaverill.com/1073/
http://www.brentaverill.com/rak_mods/
and then...
http://www.apiaudio.com/512.htm
http://chandlerlimited.com/tg2.html
As we can both see there are many adjustment collars fitted to many potentiometer shafts (K.N.O.B.S. for short) with some very easy to see and others not. To your experienced eyes I am sure it's obvious what they are and what they do. To mine they are not.

My choice of console was dictated by how it could interface with what I already had and was familiar with. I looked at quite a few analog consoles and a soundcraft was among them. Given the same budget, the pre's on any board I could buy were not compelling enough to outweigh the potential flexibility of what I have with a digital console in my opinion. I have always believed that outboard pre's would be part of the system and the board I have interfaces with them easily by going straight from the input to the DAC.

Recycling... I was kind of inspired by a flyer in my mailbox from waste management. "Why throw those perfectly good performances away? Recycle them through your outboard pre!" Their ad copy read a little differently but it said the same stuff except it was plastic bottles and such. Maybe "serial reprocessing" or (GASP) "re-recording".

Shit, I fucking feel like Eliza Doolittle here. I ask seemingly simple, honest questions and you essentially say "don't quit yer day job, Bubba", "Thar be Dragoons thar". If this is your version of help then don't do me any favors.

Wow! happy 100th post to me. It was everything I wanted it to be. Cheers, RD
 
Last edited:
acorec and Jake-owa

Thanks for the answers and observations. Perhaps I approached this with a bit too much of a Li'l Abner sensibility.

When it comes to guitar amps (my main source of audio circuit design info) there are radical differences in the tone circuits that ultimately have a huge impact on the character of the sound. Mashall amps have very subtle eq's while fender's are extreme. This has to do with the gain structures in the amp. I figured there might be some similarities in mic pre's.

Is there a fender, marshall, vox kind of differentiation to this stuff. Those three makes are hardly the only sounds around but it covers a lot of territory and each is distinctive.

How does Neve differ from API with respect to what I have described? Is it apples and oranges?

Sorry for bumbling through this, rest assured I will learn my way eventually. RD
 
Well, for what its worth rcktdg:
I call them knobs too! ;)

Some pre's seem to have an eq on board (I think the 1073 and the like) while others appear to have only a trim pot or single knob to control the output (Some API's seem this way). Is there a difference in application?
Click to expand...
No difference in application, really, just a difference in hardware.
I use a pair of Audix 35102's (Racked by Brent) which are VERY similar to the Neve 33114's. Both have on-board Eq, and the Eq points are exactly the same on each model.

Both were actually made for broadcasting, specifically the BBS, and they dictated the Eq points. Thats why the Eq points are the same. (Just a little history there)

The onboard Eq allows you to really shape your sound, or make up for any room discrepencies before the signal hits the recording medium.

These on-board Eq's, in units like you've mentioned, are VERY musical, and extremely useful. They are not "tone monsters". They are parametric eq's with very specific frequency adjustment points and curves. Be prepared to spend some time with them learning how to get the best from them. Except for a few instances, when I'm shopping for a mic pre now-a-days, I wont consider it unless it has on-board Eq.

I also have a pair of API 312's (again, racked by Brent Averill), and I JUST got these, so I haven't had much of a chance to try them out, but my initial observation is that they are, again, VERY musical. These have no on-board Eq. All I can say about them at this point is that they seem slightly more detailed in the high mids and lows.

If you're shopping around at Brent Averill Enterprises, it'd be hard to go wrong with anything he has. I am convinced that everything these guys do is golden! Their units are high quality, and hold their resale value, plus, Brent and his guys are great to deal with and very knowledgeable about their products.

I have 6 outboard mic pre's, and 4 of them are racked by Brent.
 
I think the marshall vs fender guitar amp analogy is pretty close. Those differences I think are generally more extreme than the differences between different preamp designs. Even though Chess was a little over the top in his newbie bashing - I mean this is still a home recording site right? - he brought up a really important point. In general, the most important parts of the recording chain for tracking are, in order: player -> instrument/amp -> room -> mic -> preamp -> a/d. Seems like you've got the first two taken care of and you're working on the room treatment and mic selection. The differences in preamps really are subtle at first until you really start to know what you're listening for. It really does take experience to say which one is better for a given application. Why not try buying or renting a couple and see what you like. There are about a thousand threads on this site and others that recommend some good ones.

As for the recycling thing - I assume you are talking about plugging your mic straight into the recorder and recording it with no preamplification to start. Then you want to send it back out to a preamp to amplify the signal and then send it back to the recorder. Personally, I wouldn't do this. The level of the original signal will usually be so low (depending on the mic and source) that you won't be using enough bits in the a/d conversion. So, the original signal when spat back out will likely be considerably degraded. If you have a reasonably strong signal to start with, I'd agree that the extra conversion is probably not a big deal. I'm still not exactly sure why you'd want to do this though. Why not just pick a preamp and get the sound recorded how you want to begin with.
 
Michael Jones said:


Both were actually made for broadcasting, specifically the BBS, and they dictated the Eq points. Thats why the Eq points are the same. (Just a little history there).
Click to expand...

I didn't realize the BBC called out those specs. I wonder how they determined what the points should be.

Originally posted by Michael Jones
These on-board Eq's, in units like you've mentioned, are VERY musical, and extremely useful... Except for a few instances, when I'm shopping for a mic pre now-a-days, I wont consider it unless it has on-board Eq.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the thing I sort of opinion I want to hear. Do you think you will need go supplement the 312's with eq of some kind before it goes to your recording medium or will you deal with it while mixing?

Originally posted by Michael Jones
If you're shopping around at Brent Averill Enterprises, it'd be hard to go wrong with anything he has.
Click to expand...

I have seen and heard the name tossed around from time to time and it was one of the first sites I found when I started searching. I'm kind of local to his shop so I figured I would start locally and then look out from there if necessary.

Thanks, RD
 
Hey RCKTDG,


I stand corrected. From your first post, you kinda' sounded clueless, then you kinda' let loose with that second one, and it's obvious now where you're at in the grand scheme of things.

My mistake -- I apologize.


Keep in mind that we get a lot of newbs around here who haven't the slightest idea what they're doing and figure all they have to do is throw money at a good mic and a good pre and everything else will fall in to place.

I was merely throwing out a litmus test to see if you fell in to that category, and it appears you've passed. :D Just remember that had you actually been a clueless newbie, I would have been doing you a favor, and it's better to err on the side of over-caution.
 
chessrock said:
Keep in mind that we get a lot of newbs around here who haven't the slightest idea what they're doing and figure all they have to do is throw money at a good mic and a good pre and everything else will fall in to place.
Click to expand...

My personal opinion is somewhat different. I think that a lot of newbie issues would be solved by having a single really good mic and a great mic pre. Saves from the inevitable. The good pro stuff (when used correctly) gets you about 90 - 95 there. The remaining difference to nirvana being the skill of the engineering. At least this applies to recording. Mixing may be a bit different, because there are a lot more considerations.

Put it this way, I'd rather have a great mic pre and single U47 or a Telefunken Elam 251 as my only mic any day than a whole bunch of lesser mics and assorted prosumer mic pres. Great gear gets you "there" without much fuss.

When I started out, I used commercial studios having really great gear. When I decided to build a project studio (1st version was my spare bedroom), things were so much difficult because I had to suffer some of that time fighting gear to sound great rather than just having a really great minimalist recording chain. Plus, the amount of stuff that I had to get (mic, monitors, instruments, etc) forced me to spread myself thinner than if I would have just saved for one good mic and one great pre, rather than fooling around with Behringer. I did rent the good stuff for critical recordings and I did gain greater skill by having to work so hard, but I think that things would be different if I would have just bought once the first time. Just a different take.
 
Rev E said:
My personal opinion is somewhat different. I think that a lot of newbie issues would be solved by having a single really good mic and a great mic pre. Saves from the inevitable. The good pro stuff (when used correctly) gets you about 90 - 95 there. The remaining difference to nirvana being the skill of the engineering. At least this applies to recording. Mixing may be a bit different, because there are a lot more considerations.

Put it this way, I'd rather have a great mic pre and single U47 or a Telefunken Elam 251 as my only mic any day than a whole bunch of lesser mics and assorted prosumer mic pres. Great gear gets you "there" without much fuss.

When I started out, I used commercial studios having really great gear. When I decided to build a project studio (1st version was my spare bedroom), things were so much difficult because I had to suffer some of that time fighting gear to sound great rather than just having a really great minimalist recording chain. Plus, the amount of stuff that I had to get (mic, monitors, instruments, etc) forced me to spread myself thinner than if I would have just saved for one good mic and one great pre, rather than fooling around with Behringer. I did rent the good stuff for critical recordings and I did gain greater skill by having to work so hard, but I think that things would be different if I would have just bought once the first time. Just a different take.
Click to expand...

Ahmen. I was making a point in another thread about why everyone is so enamoured by the cheap ass stuff that gets you 10% of the way there. The best way to really build a studio is get the best quality equipment you can. All these chinese rebranded mics and mic pres with too many functions for $100 aren't going to get you anywhere but frustrated. These newbies won't listen to someone like me who has spent 20 years recording and way too many $$ in useless junk that I sold at a loss. Buy brand name stuff and do not try to go on a one stop shopping spree to Guitar Center. It will only end up in loss of $$ and frustration.
 
rcktdg said:
I didn't realize the BBC called out those specs. I wonder how they determined what the points should be.
Click to expand...
They're smart! :p
Seriously though, I'm sure it was "old school" audio engineers that worked for the BBS, and they KNEW exactly what they wanted. Then they said: "If you want to build consoles for us, here's the spec's." That's why you find the same Eq points on the 2 different makes (Audix, and Neve) of modules.

rcktdg said:

This is exactly the thing I sort of opinion I want to hear. Do you think you will need go supplement the 312's with eq of some kind before it goes to your recording medium or will you deal with it while mixing?
Click to expand...
You know, the only way I can truthfully answer that is to say: "It depends."
My take on using Eq is that it should be used for only 2 reasons:
1.) To make up for sonic discrepencies of the recording environment at specific frequencies.
2.) Use it to obtain a pleasing sound only when trying to achieving that same sound with very small adjustments in mic placement is time prohibitive.
I would like to have the luxury of having a parametric Eq on the API's; But it adds at least $500 - $1000 per channel, to the chain. I use Nuendo recording software, and it's parametric Eq is VERY good, usuable, and makes a plausable recording, but, I gotta tell ya, from fooling around with the ones I have on the Audix's, there ain't nothing that can touch a GOOD outboard, parametric Eq.

If you want to hear the difference between EQ and no EQ on those Audix Modules, go here:
http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=1656&alid=-1
And Listen to the files called
SM81EQA
and
M81sanseq

Those are 2 short recordings of a 7'-2" Boston Grand Piano using a pair of Shure SM81's set in a wide stereo pattern, and a pair of Audix 35102 mic pres. (Same mics, same mic pres, same set up, same room, same instrument, same day) ;)

rcktdg said:
Thanks, RD
Click to expand...
Hope that all helps, bud.
 
Last edited:
acorec said:
Buy brand name stuff and do not try to go on a one stop shopping spree to Guitar Center. It will only end up in loss of $$ and frustration.
Click to expand...

Which is not to say that there isn't anything of value at places like guitar center. It's just that most of it is ...well ... junk. You've got to know what you're looking for. There's also a lot of stuff that's "good for the price" and there are mixed results with that stuff. The great stuff, in my experience, doesn't require a whole lot of fussing to get "that sound." Turn it on and you're generally there. Oh, if I could have the past back.
 
Rev E said:
My personal opinion is somewhat different. I think that a lot of newbie issues would be solved by having a single really good mic and a great mic pre.
Click to expand...

I can kind of agree with you, to an extent.

Especially about the "one good mic" thing -- if you're a solo artist doing a track-at-a-time, and provided your mic is fairly neutral so as not to create gobs of mud and/or goop as you layer all of those tracks with the same mic. A lot of them, no matter how good they are, can make a mix sound like a ball of mush or fingernails on a chalkboard if you layer like 20 with it. That's not good.

Secondly, although I like the idea of having a good mic pre to start with -- wouldn't we all? -- you're not going to hear the subtle nuances and/or sonic advantages it brings to the table if a great percentage of what you are capturing with it are things like flutter echo, phasy early reflections, and room modes.

Nor are you going to be able to appreciate what either bring to the table if you're monitoring in a tiny, untreated room with Radio Shack speakers coming out of your computer. :D

Then there's the quality of the instruments (are you strumming a Martin or a Gantage), how well it's maintained, technique of the player, etc. etc. These all have so much more bearing on the final product than whether you're using an Avalon or an Audio Buddy.
 
Firsr, I've bought *lots* of stuff at Guitar Center, that isn't junk, including my Avalon, and a B.L.U.E. Kiwi. As far as pres, I prefer plain vanilla to channel strips often, and here's why. A channel strip is a pre with EQ and a compressor. You can't use that compressor to compress anything that didn't go through *that* pre. A good clean pre can be run through any compressor or EQ you want to use. As far as EQ goes, it can be applied at any point in the signal chain that suits you, but I prefer later to sooner. Get the sound you want by having the right mic in the right place as much as possible. Then make whatever adjustments you have to at mixdown.
I believe that any channel worth having is worth having 2 of, to facilitate stereo recording. Re-amping is a common technique, but to benefit from it, you need a real clean dry track, which requires a preamp. Usually re-amping is done with a DI track run into a very clean preamp, then from the board to the guitar amp of choice. This lengthens the signal chain, and increases your noise floor unless the entire signal chain is *very* quiet.
I absolutely don't believe that great preamps and great mics are wasted on newbies, they're just wasted on stupid assholes. You can learn how to record just as well with an Avalon as you can with a DMP3, and it will sound better, too. The problem is, high end gear will reveal the weaknesses of other parts of your signal chain, especially the often neglected room. As far as "we don't need no stinkin' EQ", well, yes we do. But- If you have recorded a great musician with a great instrument in a great room with a great mic (in the right place) through great cables, into a great preamp, making it sound good is usually rather easy.
So don't let the people talk you into buying cheap gear just for your learning curve. Just don't blow the whole wad on a short list of great gear that doesn't leave you enough for the peripherals.
I would recommend 2 high quality clean channels, and 2 high quality colored channels to start, and a selection of mics ranging from dirt-cheap to a wicked main vocal mic. What the hell- you only live once. If you've got the money, spend it. You'll never find it that hard to sell great gear if you don't like it.-Richie
 
Richard Monroe said:
Firsr, I've bought *lots* of stuff at Guitar Center, that isn't junk, including my Avalon, and a B.L.U.E. Kiwi. As far as pres, I prefer plain vanilla to channel strips often, and here's why. A channel strip is a pre with EQ and a compressor. You can't use that compressor to compress anything that didn't go through *that* pre. A good clean pre can be run through any compressor or EQ you want to use. As far as EQ goes, it can be applied at any point in the signal chain that suits you, but I prefer later to sooner. Get the sound you want by having the right mic in the right place as much as possible. Then make whatever adjustments you have to at mixdown.
I believe that any channel worth having is worth having 2 of, to facilitate stereo recording. Re-amping is a common technique, but to benefit from it, you need a real clean dry track, which requires a preamp. Usually re-amping is done with a DI track run into a very clean preamp, then from the board to the guitar amp of choice. This lengthens the signal chain, and increases your noise floor unless the entire signal chain is *very* quiet.
I absolutely don't believe that great preamps and great mics are wasted on newbies, they're just wasted on stupid assholes. You can learn how to record just as well with an Avalon as you can with a DMP3, and it will sound better, too. The problem is, high end gear will reveal the weaknesses of other parts of your signal chain, especially the often neglected room. As far as "we don't need no stinkin' EQ", well, yes we do. But- If you have recorded a great musician with a great instrument in a great room with a great mic (in the right place) through great cables, into a great preamp, making it sound good is usually rather easy.
So don't let the people talk you into buying cheap gear just for your learning curve. Just don't blow the whole wad on a short list of great gear that doesn't leave you enough for the peripherals.
I would recommend 2 high quality clean channels, and 2 high quality colored channels to start, and a selection of mics ranging from dirt-cheap to a wicked main vocal mic. What the hell- you only live once. If you've got the money, spend it. You'll never find it that hard to sell great gear if you don't like it.-Richie
Click to expand...

I did not mean that Guitar Center sold only junk. When you bought your stuff there, did you buy everything all at once? I was talking about some of the newbies who want to record TODAY. They take a small budget, like $1000 and buy every cheap thing they can get to build a studio. They hook it all up and the endless questions start. In the end, they take a beating on trade ins for the right stuff. I see people do it at GC all the time. I tried to set them straight , but the will not listen. I see some of them returning stuff because it is junk and have to pay more for what I advised them at the beginning.
 
Actually, I started by plunking down several thousand for a pair of axes. Then I spent 8 months spec'ing gear. I did one package deal at GC for about $5000, with another $4000 or so at various on-line sources. I later did a $5000 upgrade at GC also, adding the Avalon, the Kiwi, and C414B-ULS. I've simply developed a relationship with a local retailer, and they make a point to let me know about closeouts and deal on the things they can. There is a long list of deals I've gotten that way.- 6 Kiwi quad cables, $19 each, used once for a drum shootout. AKG C2000B $99. A pair of Oktava MC012's, $140. My Avalon AD 2022 $2100. I've gotten substantial deals on pop filters, Road Ready cases, AKG D690- $36., you name it.
Actually, Andy Ryder at the Natick, Mass. GC was instrumental in charting out patching options and made crucial gear suggestions that were mostly right. He made no attempt to sell me useless crap, and often suggested a good piece of used gear in place of an inferior new one for more money. I will buy whatever I can buy there, unless they don't handle it., just because it keeps the deals coming..
I stand by the statement that it isn't inherently wrong for a relative beginner to have good gear. (Why son, in my day, we recorded with the power amps we salvaged from the jukebox when the bar burned down, etc....)
There are lots of fools who will spend too little money on all the wrong gear, and salesmen who will spoon feed it to them. One of the great advantages of high end gear for a beginner is knowing that *you* are the fuckup. When you have a B.L.U.E. Kiwi plugged into an Avalon, you know that if it sucked, it wasn't the mic or the pre. It was the room, or mic placement, or poor gain structure, or maybe the source (you) sucked. Good equipment makes it harder to fall into the trap of blaming the tools. Yeah, that old Neumann really sucked. It must have been that Fearn pre? I don't think so. I think some days I just suck, and the Avalon captures it perfectly.-Richie
 
Chessrock, others

Chessrock,

No problem. It just caught me a bit by surprise. In the meantime I sold everthing on ebay, rented my room to a yoga class and bought a riding lawn mower. Shit, and I passed the litmus test. I haven't shipped anything so what if I get some bad feedback, right!

I have metted out my fair share of tough love before. Sometimes that's what it takes.

THanks for all of the interesting replies. I have arrived at the conclusion that I will have to comit on some level, either by renting or just biting the bullet.

My comfort zone would be improved by some point of reference. In my life if someone says 59' Bassman I know what it sounds like: fat middle, saggy low end and some bite on top. If they say black super I think tightened much of the sagging bottom with a beefier OP transformer and the top is more detailed. I love the sound of both but would prefer my super to my bassman if I had to choose.

I think my bassman has a higher pinnacle when it's at it's best in it's element but the super has a wider range. It can hang in there with the bassman on anything where I don't feel the same about the reverse. It comes down to note separation. I think the super is more clear even when it's being pushed.

I would like my first pre's to be like my super: Flexable but with a strong enough voice to stand on it's own. I would like to pick up some specialty stuff later.

Cheers, RD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top