Preamp that will give more clarity and sheen

  • Thread starter Thread starter highriser
  • Start date Start date
Tim Gillett said:
Dont worry about the mic or the pre. They're probably fine.
Click to expand...

Hi Tim, while I respect your knowledge and advice, I think there IS something wrong with the gear. Possibly the interface. It has no user controllable EQ but every recording made with it seems to kill the highs from around 4kHz upwards, not brick wall fashion but in a taper so that nothing above about 7kHz gets out alive. I trust the Focusrite Scarlett as long as this particular one is working properly. It just looks suspicious in this case. The backing tracks have no such attentuation and it would be safe to assume that they are being exported from the same DAW. Something is killing the highs on the way in and from the OPs information, that points to the interface

Update: Since the interface has now been used on another computer with good results, it knocks out the interface as the culprit. Now to figure out why Cubase (or the laptop running it) is attenuating the highs out of Adam's vocal tracks
 
Last edited:
Thanks Tim I appreciate the advice
 
Last edited:
GuitarLegend said:
Hi Tim, while I respect your knowledge and advice, I think there IS something wrong with the gear. Possibly the interface. It has no user controllable EQ but every recording made with it seems to kill the highs from around 4kHz upwards, not brick wall fashion but in a taper so that nothing above about 7kHz gets out alive. I trust the Focusrite Scarlett as long as this particular one is working properly. It just looks suspicious in this case. The backing tracks have no such attentuation and it would be safe to assume that they are being exported from the same DAW. Something is killing the highs on the way in and from the OPs information, that points to the interface
Click to expand...

Sure. Maybe you're right. I'll have another listen.

I see you live in Perth, WA . Do I know you?

Cheers Tim
 
highriser said:
The issue is I need to go for options that I can audition first the adk and SE's are not available to rent at long n mquade near me I don't want to buy without trying it first.
Click to expand...

I understand....but man, I've bought a ton of gear without first auditioning it, including some pricey stuff, and have had maybe just a couple of real regrets....but that's what eBay is for. :D
 
miroslav said:
I understand....but man, I've bought a ton of gear without first auditioning it, including some pricey stuff, and have had maybe just a couple of real regrets....but that's what eBay is for. :D
Click to expand...

Ok. So I need to choose hamburg or Vienna. After hearing my voice which do you think I'll benefit from the most?
 
Highriser,

I'm not sure if you quite understood what I was saying. I'll have another stab..

I think by your words you are concerned that if the voice doesnt sound almost correctly EQ'ed - on the way in - you will have lost something for good which cant be brought back later.

Not so. Mid range modern mics, pre's and recorders have excellent dynamic range and can handle EQ later on without any objectionable increase in noise etc - provided the track was captured reasonably cleanly. Same reason why it's not necessary to try to get as close as possible to just under clipping when tracking. There should normally be oodles of safety margin in the gear.

But if you want to, just EQ your voice on the way in. An EQ will have far better range, flexibility and precision than you could hope to get by gambling on microphone A,B,C or X having those settings, which it's unlikely it would have. Just a simple bass and treble control may be all you need. But those simple controls are also available in even basic recording software, so you can do it live or later.

A mic is just a tool, not a marriage partner.

Cheers,
Tim
 
Tim Gillett said:
Highriser,

I'm not sure if you quite understood what I was saying. I'll have another stab..

I think by your words you are concerned that if the voice doesnt sound almost correctly EQ'ed - on the way in - you will have lost something for good which cant be brought back later.

Not so. Mid range modern mics, pre's and recorders have excellent dynamic range and can handle EQ later on without any objectionable increase in noise etc - provided the track was captured reasonably cleanly. Same reason why it's not necessary to try to get as close as possible to just under clipping when tracking. There should normally be oodles of safety margin in the gear.

But if you want to, just EQ your voice on the way in. An EQ will have far better range, flexibility and precision than you could hope to get by gambling on microphone A,B,C or X having those settings, which it's unlikely it would have. Just a simple bass and treble control may be all you need. But those simple controls are also available in even basic recording software, so you can do it live or later.

A mic is just a tool, not a marriage partner.

Cheers,
Tim
Click to expand...

Totally agree with Tim, all this CAN be done. You still have a problem that you can either try to find a remedy for, or as Tim points out, patch up later.

I would personally like to get a good audio track to work with first, then apply any enhancements you prefer. Its your call
 
Which preamp?

Might I also suggest the DBX286S. Blew me away.
According to the DBX website the 286A has been discontinued.
Regards
 
You might, but I don't think the preamp is the issue here really.
 
Tim Gillett said:
the engineer who knows what he's doing can make any artist sound fine using such a mic.
Click to expand...

Again Tim nails it. I just clicked the icon to add to Tim's reputation, and got this message: "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Tim Gillett again."

LOL, but Tim so deserves it. :D

--Ethan
 
Ethan Winer said:
Again Tim nails it. I just clicked the icon to add to Tim's reputation, and got this message: "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Tim Gillett again."

LOL, but Tim so deserves it. :D

--Ethan
Click to expand...

I repped him for you Ethan. :)
 
jimmys69 said:
You might, but I don't think the preamp is the issue here really.
Click to expand...

The other thread has revealed that the interface (ie the preamp) seems to work fine on another computer. Something in Cubase or the laptop running it is doing the attenuating
 
I agree that you can pick up a lot of decent mics and end up with some kind of decent sound....but this notion that any decent mic can be EQ'd to perfection, and made to sound like some other specific mic, after that fact, is just not so.
Sure, you can try and force it to come close to what you are trying to get...but it's not the same as getting the right sound with the right mic from the start.
Some will say it is...but it ain't just about EQ'ing for the specific frequency response of a mic that you see on a chart.

There's a reason most studios and engineers have mike lockers full of all kinds of mics...and they will sometimes spend the first portion of a session auditioning mics on vocalists/instruments to find that perfect combination...they don't just grab any old decent mic and then fix it later in the mix.

The other thing...what price range are we looking at for decent mics?
Sure, these days the low-middlin' range has seen a LOT of new makes/models...and I agree, most kinda' sound about equal in quality (many are probably built using the same make capsules), but if you step up into some upper-scale mics, then you hear some serious improvements and differences. Often it's small quality bumps (you pay a lot to gain an extra 10%)....but that IS what differentiates a mic sounding "pretty good, and I can almost EQ it to where I like it" VS a mic that just sounds "great, and I don't have to touch a thing" and it's THE mic for that task.
 
He installed Reaper and things sound different.
I doubt that Cubase would by default do anything to the tracks...so it might be that something was changed/adjusted/added AFA processing, and then forgotten...and it was affecting all new tracks....???
I bet if he can't find it, and just reinstalls Cubase, everything goes back to normal and sounds the same as with Reaper.
 
Ok, I found the other thread. There should be absolutely no reason why DAW would change the sound of a mic, unless there is something in the input chain that was different.

I haven't read the other thread in depth, but from the last posts, I feel there was something else missed. Changing to Reaper would not affect the sound of the mic. The fact that it seemed to, makes me think there is another variable of issue here...

Other Thread
 
jimmys69 said:
Ok, I found the other thread. There should be absolutely no reason why DAW would change the sound of a mic, unless there is something in the input chain that was different.

I haven't read the other thread in depth, but from the last posts, I feel there was something else missed. Changing to Reaper would not affect the sound of the mic. The fact that it seemed to, makes me think there is another variable of issue here...

Other Thread
Click to expand...

Changing to Reaper didn't change the sound of the mic, nobody said it did. But there was nothing wrong with Adam's voice, the mic or the interface. It didn't leave much else to look at except the DAW or the computer it was running on. Since Reaper works fine in the computer, the problem had to be in Cubase (the former DAW). As yet we don't know what it was, just THAT it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top