Pre Amps? Worth it or a waste of $$

[chessrock]

I see these preamps like Focusrite and Avalon selling for big bucks, but can you really hear a difference? Or is it so minimal.

There are differences, but yea, they do tend to be minimal for the most part. And yea, their relative importance to the rest of the signal chain tends to be way exaggerated and overblown.

That said, I suppose it's always a good idea to use the best stuff you can get your hands on, and that includes mic pres.

A firend of mine a major studio thinks that preamps are like a fad ...

He's probably not too far off.

 

[HapiCmpur]

Keep in mind that upgrading your preamps will probably next lead to upgrading converters and it just heads up the line from there.

D'oh!!!

Aahh yes, and without knowing what your mic locker looks like I'd have no idea where to send you in your quest for improvement.

Mic locker? Did you say mic locker? Uh...maybe I better just slip out the back door. I don't have a mic locker, War. In fact, I don't even have a mic closet. I've got a mic shelf, though, and it holds exactly two microphones -- a Beta 58A and a KSM27.

Also, if you're doing home demo stuff and already happy with the sound why bother dropping the coin?

Really now, my friend, do you know anyone in this forum who is happy with his sound -- or at least happy enough that he's not always on the lookout for (usually expensive) ways of improving it? C'mon, man. I got the bug!

I often wonder how many guys who ask "what preamp for recording guitar?" would be better served dropping a grand on two or three amps for more flavors of actual sound rather than what they're running a mic through.

That's exactly what I'm wrestling with. When I ask myself if I could make a big improvement in, say, my vocals, the answer is yes (of course), but that raises the next question: where would I get the most bang for the buck? New mic, new cable, new pre, voice lessons...where?

I know you can't answer that for me. I'm just trying to learn how you and other guys in this forum make that kind of a decision for yourselves.

I'm a big believer in having 2 great channels minimum. Great preamps, great cables, great converters. The reason I feel this way is because after drum recording 99% of everything we do is one or two channels at a time (guitars, vocals, keys, bass, percussion, etc) so having those 2 great channels really adds up over the course of a project.

That's makes perfect sense and is good advice. Thanks for the insight.

IMO pretty much anything from the Brick on up will give you a much better sound than your yamaha pre's.

The Brick looks intriguing, jonnyc, and it's even in my price range. I'll try to get up close and personal with one sometime soon. Thanks.

 

[Warhead]

Mic locker? Did you say mic locker? Uh...maybe I better just slip out the back door. I don't have a mic locker, War. In fact, I don't even have a mic closet. I've got a mic shelf, though, and it holds exactly two microphones -- a Beta 58A and a KSM27.

Locker is just a term...not many folks I know have an actual "locker" although I know guys with a "closet" full of mics!! When you start getting in the 2 dozen minimum mic collection it starts to feel like a locker!

With 2 mics, don't start looking at preamps. I'd work on collecting more mics at this point if you just gotta spend some money (you have the bug you say...). Which again begs the question, what do you mic up in the studio with crap results? Acoustic instruments? Voice? Amps? Drums?

You gotta figure out the weakness first, don't waste the "bug" on an arbitrary purchase!!!

War

 

[mrface2112]

Really now, my friend, do you know anyone in this forum who is happy with his sound -- or at least happy enough that he's not always on the lookout for (usually expensive) ways of improving it? C'mon, man. I got the bug!

i'm generally quite happy with the sound i get on the recordings i make. i'm not using anything out of this world, either.....mackie sr24*4 board, a couple "lower-end" outboard pres and some basic mics you see mentioned all the time around here. and i record in a really shitty sounding unfinished basement. for me, it's more about learning to maximize what i've got, rather than throwing money at what you percieve "the problem" to be. for instance, i've gotten some great acoustic guitar tracks out of that mackie board, a pair of MXL 603's and a cheap symetrix compressor.

that said, i'm always on the lookout for a "different flavor". i always keep a couple hundred pesos stashed away "just in case" something comes across that i've been looking for. while i try to target everything i buy to be "an improvement", but more often than not (and certainly not until i drop ~$500 per channel), it ends up being a different flavor rather than an "astounding improvement". and sometimes, all that's required is a different spice. at the same time, i try not to buy any "known garbage", too.

When I ask myself if I could make a big improvement in, say, my vocals, the answer is yes (of course), but that raises the next question: where would I get the most bang for the buck? New mic, new cable, new pre, voice lessons...where?

Voice lessons, hands down. you could make a killer sounding recording with $10K worth of uber-pro gear in a pro tuned room.....but if it's a crappily sung vocal, and it'll still be a shit vocal. The FIRST thing to shore up is the source. once the source sounds as good as it possibly can, then address the rest of it, starting at the mic and working backwards to the recorder. this goes for anything, be it vocals, guitars, drums, etc. garbage in, garbage out.

i'm still trying to learn that, too.

I know you can't answer that for me. I'm just trying to learn how you and other guys in this forum make that kind of a decision for yourselves.

experience, mainly. many years of recording crap. or of recording good stuff and trying to make it not sound like crap b/c we're still honing our skills. it's like anything in life.....no one was born with the ability for sexin like Peter North--that's a learned skill. same for this. i cringe at my first recordings. 5 years from now i'll cringe at the recordings i'm making now that i think are pretty good.

The Brick looks intriguing, jonnyc, and it's even in my price range. I'll try to get up close and personal with one sometime soon. Thanks.

no experience with the Brick here.....but i just picked up a used M-Audio Tampa, and at first blush (and with a very limited run on some vocals this weekend) i really like how it sounds. you might want to check one of those out, too. it's in the same price range.

like i said....they're all just colors in our palate.....a painter can't paint with just blue. and a cook can't create a stew with just garlic. i wouldn't want to record a full band with just a VTB-1.


cheers,
wade

 

[Robert D]

My take on this?.... yes, there is a certain amount of fad involved, and a tendency to overstate the difference between a Mackie quality pre and a (insert your high end pre here). Yes, there's a difference that educated ears listening to fine monitoring equipment in good rooms can hear, but it's probably lost on most consumer ears. For reference, go to thelisteningsessions.com, and you can hear (some may not hear) the difference between mic pres in session 1 (including Mackies), and then listen to the major difference in sound between mics in session 5. To me at least, this comparison should instantly answer the question "what should I upgrade first, my mics or my pres?"
At some point in a given recording setup's evolution, it's time to get the world class preamps, but I just don't think it's the answer to most recording problems, except where gamer sound card pres are being used. The best way to find out for sure is to rent a great preamp and record some tracks with it in your studio with your mics and equipment, and record the same tracks with your current pres. That's an A/B test that will tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

-RD

 

[Warhead]

.....no one was born with the ability for sexin like Peter North--that's a learned skill.

I saw a t-shirt once that said "Pete's the Man" with a picture of Pete's face in mid..uh "launch". haha

War

 

[bleyrad]

Yeah, go listen to the Listening Sessions stuff, it's a real eye-opener.
First of all, most people here would be hard-pressed to hear differences between many of the tested preamp tests except maybe on ADAMS or something. Basically the differences come down to very slight tonality changes. Nothing an EQ can't do, except that some have more extended highs and/or lows (but this does NOT appear related to the price of the pre!). I know lots of people here are going to argue with that, but to those people, I pose a challenge: do a mix, then track your lead vox at once through both a Neve and a Mackie. Now do a double-blind A/B/X of this track in the mix, on regular consumer-level speakers (the end result). If you can tell which is which, you are way more man than I.

Secondly, the differences that are apparent aren't always the obvious conclusion. For example, I prefered the sound of the Mackie to the API on all vocals for the Listening Sessions samples. The top-end is more open and extended on the Mackie. It sounds like 12Khz+ is lost on the API, although the midrange is indeed punchy and prominent, as API-lovers say. Again, this is SO easy to achieve with an EQ. For real. Again, others here will dispute that, but there are ways to test it.

This jives similarly with my experiences. I've been using a Mackie for years, and recently got 3 channels of API clones. In no circumstance is one obviously better than the other. As soon as I do a real blind test, I can't tell you which is which unless I listened beforehand. I'd love to have obvious justification for spending a lot of money (which I think is a big reason a lot of people will defend expensive pres to the death), but I have to be honest with what I'm hearing. Preamp differences are really very subtle, and more expensive is not necessarily better. In many cases a less expensive option that is better-suited tonally to the source will sound better than just reaching for a way more expensive pre.

 

[Chris Shaeffer]

Hmm... I suppose I've never done a real blind test, so you might be right. And the differences are subtle, that's true.

What seems to me, though, is that there IS an obvious difference in a mix with 24 tracks of OK preamps vs. a mix of 24 tracks with really good preamps. Its like a layer of dust on your windows that you never really noticed until you wiped it off. Its pretty subjective, though, as are all things musical.

I think your point about EQ is pretty valid. You can change freq. response of a pre to match the sound you want, but you can't clean it up quite as easily.

Anyway, a good discussion. Music is incredibly subjective so you really can only trust your own ears.

-C

 

[cavedog101]

Excellent views by all. Particularly Chris' view about the layer of dust. True!

To really understand the direction that mic pres have come, one must look back on the growth of pro gear. In the far distant past when recording engineers were just that....engineers, most of the amplifiers(mic pres are amplifiers) were built by hand by the engineering departments of the major studios ran by the record companies themselves. The goal was to achieve as clear a sound as was technically possible. Now its evolved, because of the digital age, to the flavour-du-jour. Its not just clarity but its become attitude and warmth, two attributes of the long-ago-ages missing in digital recordings.

So its not really a 'fad' but simply technology running with the needs towards some end.

I'm old enough to remember a lot of hours spent on a very hot to the touch console searching for that perfect blend of tones and smelling that tape shedding away clarity on every pass. This is a big issue with staying in the analog realm these days. Maintainence. Why did those huge consoles require so much? Because at the voltages present inside they litterally ate themselves from the inside out.

My take on the need for high-end pres is two-fold. And seemingly direct opposites. On one hand, you have to ask yourself what your goals are in operating recording gear. If its clean demos and such, then most Mackies and pres at this level will do.Used within the parameters of their specs, a decent and patient engineer can achieve quite good recordings this way.

On the other hand, If you are making records and need the highest quality recording you can make, then first spend your money on the environment and the critical listening areas. Its only when you achieve some sort of control over these and at the source ,will the high-end mic pre be a benefit and a relative value for the dollar.

Its really quite telling what a great recording environment and mid-level gear can do. On the other side, the high-end in a high-end environment is the utopia we all strive to achieve. And like all great things, the work to get there makes the prize sweeter and more completely realized.


Personally, I list the micpre's down the need list behind Song, song structure, performance,environment,and mics. Then the pres,processing,conversion etc...And when I say environment, I am including monitors as a large piece to that puzzle.

 

[Blade_Jones]

A firend of mine a major studio thinks that preamps are like a fad ...

The studio he works at DOES have top of the line mixers so maybe that's why he's not hearing a difference with pre-amps.
With regards to a TLM-103 and the ATM-3035, I own both and we sat down and tested both with vocals and could NOT tell the difference. The only difference that I can tell is $800.00

One question for all you pre-amp fans.... How do you master using an analog preamp (like a Focusrite mixMaster) from the computer, through the preamp, and back to the computer? With WaveLab mix downs are done internally. Can it all be done at once (within the computer) or do you have to mixdown onto a DAT first?

 

[xstatic]

Testing of mic pre's is quite a bit more difficult than testing mic's. With mic's there is an obvious difference. With pre's, it is more subtle until it is used in context. I remember when I first got my Chandler TG2. Instantly I started comparing it to my D&R console preamps. The difference was not as big as I thought it would be and I was starting to worry about whether or not I had just wasted $1800. 3 days later though I started using it in a tracking session though. The songs I used it on were mostly complete. It only took about 5 minutes for all of my worries to go away and I knew that I was going to keep the Chandler and be very happy about it. Mics are great for changing overall tone, but preamps to me really help to enhance things like energy, clatrity and ower. That is something that nothing but the greatest of EQ's can actually acheive. Personally, it seems easier to me to use an EQ and make 2 mics sound closer to each other than two preamps (assuming the 2 mics each have a wide enough frequency response). I buy preamps for character and flavor, not a change a sound radically. I do believe that a good engineer with a talented band can make good recordings with cheap preamps, but on the same token, it could be done with cheap mics too. In the end, I do certainly believe that mics should be the first thing that you get locked up when considering the signal chain. I always work from front to back (from source to recorder). Monitoring however is the exception to that rule. However, a truly powerful setup requires a good signal chain from start to stop. There are certainly those here that don't seem to place too much importance on preamps and constantly tout the importance of mics. I can certainly see that logic and even agree with some of it, mics are extremely important. However, I find it very shortsighted to so drastically play down the rest of the signal chain. Recording is about balance. You will always only be as good as your weakest link. I would never consider buying a $2500 mic just to run it through a $10 preamp that would greatly limit the capabilities of my nice new mic

 

[Dot]

Here's an article I wrote that attempts to give an idea about the difference in sound using quality preamps.

http://www.studioreviews.com/pre.htm

I don't think anyone is in need of better preamps until they've reached the level where they can demonstrate the ability to make good recordings with inexpensive gear.

 

[Jtt]

Oh, boy that article again, do the graphs make it trew............ Actually Dot you've gotten much, much better over time..... (much better than me I'm sure), but that article while a pleasant read--feels a little too much like astrology.

J

 

[sweetnubs]

a can of worms my friend, a can of worms. The most important part is the source sounding good to you in your room, everything else is secondary. I use expensive pre's primarly because there is a difference but also to rule out that the pre is not the problem in my signal chain. If my source sounds good in a room, I have good pres, good mics, a good tape deck (or converters), good monitors and a good console then the only mitigating factor is the engineer. If your recordings still suck after all of this then the problem is you! What is a slight difference to one person is a large difference to another. My own personal philosphy is if you can hear a difference it is large. Especially when you get into large multitracking sessions. The crap piles up. Small problems become large problems. However with saying that I have made excellent recordings using mackie pres. (yech!) This however I beleive is a result of using excellent mics and years of experience. I know what mic to put on an instrument in combination with the proper pre to get the desired sound. Experience is essential, you learn how to work a room and how mics respond to various sized rooms only through years of doing this. I feel still only somewhat comfortable working in unfamiliar rooms after years of doing this. Basic physics knowledge helps you to learn how to work rooms: i.e. phasing, polar response patterns of mics, first reflections, transients, room modes, etc. I cannot stress enough the problem with poor sound is the engineer not micing properly in relation to the room and the instrument and how the room and instrument interact. Think of the room and the instrument as the same thing, as they are. The idea is how much or how little room do you want? How to eliminate the poor sounding properties of a room or instrument or minimize them. simple example: room sounds like crap? close mic then add 'verb later. No don't add shitty lexicon pcm-91 'verb you can get a killer Emt plate for the same price. See? However that is not as good as just recording the source in a good room but will do in a pinch. Anyhow i digress: get a good pre then at least you know that's not the problem. It could be a compressed cable, or a bad cap in the board, or you're getting a strong first reflection causing phasing, or the diaphragm of the mic is dirty, or your noise reduction needs to be re-aligned, or you forgot to track delay after adding plug-in and you are getting phasing, dirty contact point in the patch bay . . . .awwww shit.