Pre's vs Mic's

  • Thread starter Thread starter boulty
  • Start date Start date
I'll clarify, and to answer the initial question: for someone with intro gear, buying a high end mic or pre is equal in terms of improvement. They are tools that serve different ends. If you want to learn about these ends, buy these tools.

Get the best pro gear if/when you can. It's makes a difference. But it's a subtle one that impresses audiophiles more than it does music fans (who, if you've got something musical to say, will check you out on their iPod--not their big fancy studio refs). If you've got cheap gear, a better mic will improve your settup. So will a better pre. Build it up as you go. Buy both in equal measure. In the mean time, record and play and write and do with what you have because this is a Brave New World of tech where we can all afford shit that sounds just great if learned how to use properly. Trust your ears and use the gear you can afford because it will do just fine for those serious about improving their sound. AND: buy what appeals to you after research: if it inspires you to play/write/record more, great. Your investment has a value, but it's small compared to the time/energy/learning-time investment that will help you recognize the small gain begotten by better gear.
 
There's another point that should be made. We're living in an age when the difference between a $200 mic pre and a $1200 one is still audible, but it's much less than it was 10 or 20 years ago. If you're good enough that the only thing holding you back from a great recording is that last little 1% improvement that a $1200 mic pre will get you, then go for it. But I think it's to your advantage, long term, to learn on the cheap stuff. Push it as hard as you can, go as far as possible. Nothing makes me feel better than having a mastering engineer (Matt at SAE, to be exact) say, "Did you just say you recorded this on your laptop?"

$5000 worth of gear today is going to be more transparent, and less noisy than $50,000 was 20 years ago. And no amount of money would have bought the level of fidelity possible in a $2500 pro tools rig back in 1965.

Yes, the high end Neumann mic is better than a Studio Projects B1, but I'd be willing to bet that most of us, maybe even all of us, couldn't tell the difference if we were blindfolded.

http://www.recording.org/e-mag/article_110.shtml

I think too many of us try to buy the sound, when it's really our lack of skill that is holding us back. Learn how to use compression, and even a cheap-o Behringer will sound really good.

The best drumkit in the world won't make much of a difference, until I learn to play.
 
johnsuitcase said:
I think too many of us try to buy the sound, when it's really our lack of skill that is holding us back. Learn how to use compression, and even a cheap-o Behringer will sound really good.

The best drumkit in the world won't make much of a difference, until I learn to play.
Click to expand...
Word.

You think Jimi Hendrix would have sounded lousy if he was playing a cheap chinese fender copy? :cool:
 
well, i'm always going to be learning and practicing with the gear and room(s) I have available to me at the moment. It's going to be a while before I can actually afford anything high end and until then I'm not just gonna sit around on my arse doing nothing.

incase anyone fancies hearing something I recently recorded there is this clip: anæmic - Comfortable Silence

one of the main things I really want to know is that well, I see alot of people on here saying that there is not much point in purchasing the midrange stuff and am better to just save up for that extra amount. Should I take the plunge and purchase something like an RNP and MD421 which I can just about afford right now or should I keep saving up and grab a great river/never portico/chandler/etc. in a few months.
 
johnsuitcase said:
If you're good enough that the only thing holding you back from a great recording is that last little 1% improvement that a $1200 mic pre will get you, then go for it.
Click to expand...


I think that pretty much sums it up.

And I mean no offense to anyone on the board, specifically, but most people at this level have so many deficiencies in their room accoustics, monitoring environment, quality of source, and just plain experience-deriven skills ... that the added quality from a good mic pre is going to be mostly wasted.

.
 
your mp3 has a solid sound.

I would say, yes, buy the RNP and some well regarded mid level stuff. Your style is very produced and, arguabley, is affected by effects more than, say, the color of the room. You'll like what the good mid level gear has to offer considering what you're already doing with what you've got. Plus, something like the RNP will always be useful to you, even when you buy the $2,000 pre to end the mental pangs of wondering how green the grass is "up there". (for a bit, anyways.)

In fact, even the cheap stuff will remain useful. Just buy as you go and build when you can. It's all useful in the right hands. But, again, being one who is moving up the gear chain, I'm enjoying the mid level stage and see the improvement over the bottom level in terms of raw fidelity. I'm a fan of FMR, but there are other in the range that are worth while. Almost everyone will agree, however, that the RNComp will make you a happy camper, especially with all that dynamic rock music you crazy kids are storking up. Buy one of those whatever you do.
 
chessrock said:
I think that pretty much sums it up.

And I mean no offense to anyone on the board, specifically, but most people at this level have so many deficiencies in their room accoustics, monitoring environment, quality of source, and just plain experience-deriven skills ... that the added quality from a good mic pre is going to be mostly wasted.

.
Click to expand...

All true, but it is the good mics and preamps that give us the wood. And the wood is, afterall, what most of us are really after. :D
 
tdukex said:
All true, but it is the good mics and preamps that give us the wood. And the wood is, afterall, what most of us are really after. :D
Click to expand...

Can you explain what the "wood" is please? Is it a technical recording term? How can I get some "wood"? Is it hard?

Thankyou so much
 
I think there are two answers to this question depending on your background.

As an engineer, I think you tend to see a long line of average talent sprinkled with a few gems. In this scenario it would lead you to recommend that practice, talent, sound source, whatever, relating to human expertise is the real key to a top level recording, and it is. You will also probably point out room mechanics, monitoring etc as being one of the more important aspects of a top notch sound etc.

As a musician the approach to quality is the sound alone. Most of us want to plug in a mic, do a vocal and maybe guitar, but have it sound like a keeper track immediately. Then we are inspired to build around that. The problem is, as an inspiration point, if the sound is subpar (which it usually is with Chinese mics and Presonus preamps) then the desire to continue creating goes downward quickly. However, in my own experience, if the scratch tracks start out with a high level of quality, then I want to continue on with the creative process. I have found that excitement in the creative process is paramount to finishing a project.

So, from a creative inspiration point of view, I think musicians need to invest highly in the preamps and mics, however more so with preamps. This comes closer to ensuring a level of quality that enhances the creative process vs. stifling it.

Swinging back to the engineer’s seat for a moment, there are times I sit in front of the board amazed in wonder that the band did not practice more prior to showing up and knowing that no matter what preamp or mic I put out there, it's just going to be a record of crap. :D
 
Middleman said:
So, from a creative inspiration point of view, I think musicians need to invest highly in the preamps and mics, however more so with preamps. This comes closer to ensuring a level of quality that enhances the creative process vs. stifling it.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that as a musician you should invest in mics and preamps? Whatever. If you're a musician, you need to invest in better instruments and better upkeep / maintanance of said instruments. You should also invest in private lessons, practice, etc.

What happens 99 times out of a 100 is the musician doesn't realize that his or her instrument doesn't record well ... or that they don't know how to track it properly. They then assume they must need better mics and preamps. And I'm not saying they're a bunch of dumbasses or anything -- although many are -- but it's that general backward logic, coupled with the believe that they can "do everything on their own" that causes the lack of inspiration and quality product. Not anything recording gear-related.
 
Chessrock is right. Musicians don't need to worry about the best pres at all. What a misguided use of resources!

As far as the mics/pres debate goes, I believe mics make a bigger difference, and I don't see how anyone can really deny this. A/B a $50 MXL and a Soundelux through any pre and then A/B that Soundelux through a Mackie pre and a Hardy pre. The difference between the mics will be night and day, while the difference between the pres will be late-morning and early-afternoon, so to speak. Pres are important, and I would never recommend doing any serious recording with something less than, say, a DMP3. However if you have to make a choice between bitchin' pres and bitchin' mics, choose the bitchin' mic. Hopefully you can have both!
 
About the only high-end gear I have in my studio is 3 channels of API-312ish clone preamps.
I use them when I can "just because" but I can tell you that, when paired up with my all-cheap-Chinese mic arsenal, those preamps don't make a single jot of difference over my Mackie 1604 VLZ (which isn't really as bad as people around here make Mackie's sound... I've done some "nearly-label-ready" stuff on it).
So, I get a pretty darn good sound anyway, especially considering the mics I have to work with, but the preamp really doesn't seem to help at all. Maybe makes things slightly easier to EQ when it comes mix time. The 312s actually share a similar character with Mackie pres, though; they're both biggest in the mids.

I would definitely say go in this order:
1) Upgrade talent
2) Upgrade instruments
3) Upgrade room
4) Upgrade mics
5) Upgrade converters, monitors
6) Upgrade preamps
 
Gotta agree with Cominginsecond. A great mic through a so-so pre sounds better to me than a so-so mic through a great pre. And while a great pre can make a 57 sound a lot better, it can also make a hyped chinese mic sound worse than ever. It's been said that "a Grace 101 will bring out every detail of your mic, whether you want to hear them or not".

RD
 
Quantagee said:
So, what you are saying is that a good mic and a good room and good monitors and good sound sources = a good recording with different mics?

How is that possible? I can record outside if I want and that removes the room. But, I still get non-professional recordings though I have a good sound source. I have the best mics (Behringer and Studio Projects B1s) and I still have a hard time with pro sound. It was only when I bought my new pre-amps that I made a good recording. This was outside too. I will move everything inside to my room and test your theory. Maybe I will have all the eggcrates I need by then. I am excited with all the iformation I get from this great BBS. It is looking better than Harmony Central (I have many friends there).
Click to expand...

This guy is soooo off the wall he HAS to be pulling our leg....... :)

I love the "since I'm recording outside I'm removing the room from the equation" bit - that's positively inspired!
 
chessrock said:
So you're saying that as a musician you should invest in mics and preamps? Whatever. If you're a musician, you need to invest in better instruments and better upkeep / maintanance of said instruments. You should also invest in private lessons, practice, etc.

What happens 99 times out of a 100 is the musician doesn't realize that his or her instrument doesn't record well ... or that they don't know how to track it properly. They then assume they must need better mics and preamps. And I'm not saying they're a bunch of dumbasses or anything -- although many are -- but it's that general backward logic, coupled with the believe that they can "do everything on their own" that causes the lack of inspiration and quality product. Not anything recording gear-related.
Click to expand...

I think what you are saying here is musicians should make music and forget about learning to record. I don't buy this for a well rounded professional, which is the goal of many here by the way. This undermines the whole purpose of homerecording which is rather ludicrous given that it is such an explosive market right now.

Yes, I am saying that if a musician wants to learn about recording and making professional sounds, they need to get outside of their instrument and learn why great performances sometimes don't sound good when recorded.
Also, I agree, beginning musicians need to invest in their art and lessons etc. But after you have spent 10 years plus on the art and want to expand your horizons, this does not apply.

Where I live, many of these guys don't need any more lessons by and large but are close to or in the Biz. So, they are looking to put together project studios for creative and selling purposes. Lower standards in gear just don't cut it. This is homerecording too by the way. I don't think we need to equate homerecording with just people starting out. This is too narrow a view.

If anyone here has produced an album that had significant sales and used a bank of low end preamps, this will be the exception. If you read Bobby Owsinski's book, the Recording Engineers Handbook, it is basically a long list of experiences by people who shaped the industry and the gear chain never mentions a preamp under $1000.

If this is a hobby for some, then sure, put your money in mics and not preamps. If you’re serious about what you are doing taking the opposite strategy.

I don't buy the theory that an expensive preamp is only slightly better than a low end preamp. If that is your experience, you need to upgrade your converters or your monitors. In the case of "Clone" APIs, I would say they cannot be that good if they sound similar to Mackie pres. The APIs I have used walk all over the Mackies. Once again, if you can't hear the difference then you may have other issues.

I have owned a lot, too painful to think about, low end gear through the years and my experience is that better preamps make better recordings.
 
Middleman said:
I think what you are saying here is musicians should make music and forget about learning to record. I don't buy this for a well rounded professional, which is the goal of many here by the way. This undermines the whole purpose of homerecording which is rather ludicrous given that it is such an explosive market right now.

Yes, I am saying that if a musician wants to learn about recording and making professional sounds, they need to get outside of their instrument and learn why great performances sometimes don't sound good when recorded.
Also, I agree, beginning musicians need to invest in their art and lessons etc. But after you have spent 10 years plus on the art and want to expand your horizons, this does not apply.

Where I live, many of these guys don't need any more lessons by and large but are close to or in the Biz. So, they are looking to put together project studios for creative and selling purposes. Lower standards in gear just don't cut it. This is homerecording too by the way. I don't think we need to equate homerecording with just people starting out. This is too narrow a view.

If anyone here has produced an album that had significant sales and used a bank of low end preamps, this will be the exception. If you read Bobby Owsinski's book, the Recording Engineers Handbook, it is basically a long list of experiences by people who shaped the industry and the gear chain never mentions a preamp under $1000.

If this is a hobby for some, then sure, put your money in mics and not preamps. If you’re serious about what you are doing taking the opposite strategy.

I don't buy the theory that an expensive preamp is only slightly better than a low end preamp. If that is your experience, you need to upgrade your converters or your monitors. In the case of "Clone" APIs, I would say they cannot be that good if they sound similar to Mackie pres. The APIs I have used walk all over the Mackies. Once again, if you can't hear the difference then you may have other issues.

I have owned a lot, too painful to think about, low end gear through the years and my experience is that better preamps make better recordings.
Click to expand...

Good post!
 
Middleman said:
I don't buy the theory that an expensive preamp is only slightly better than a low end preamp. If that is your experience, you need to upgrade your converters or your monitors.
Click to expand...
Converters, makes sense. But monitors? The idea is that the end listener should be able to hear something better, too, and they're not investing thousands in monitors. They're listening on their iPods and car stereos. IMO, if I buy something and the difference is not audible on either of those, then it's not worth it.
BTW I'm using an EMU 1212m as well as a MOTU 1224 for my converters. Monitors are Yorkville YSM1p's.
One of the API-ish pres is an older OSA with an original API 2520 and API output transformer, and Jensen input transformer. So it should sound exactly the same as the newer 312s. The other two are self-made with Cinemag transformers and a 2520-like circuit as opamp.

In the case of "Clone" APIs, I would say they cannot be that good if they sound similar to Mackie pres. The APIs I have used walk all over the Mackies. Once again, if you can't hear the difference then you may have other issues.
Click to expand...

I have heard so many people say this but no one had ever heard or offered a DIRECT blind ABX to prove it. When I first got my OSA I thought it walked all over the Mackies, too, until I did an ABX and was unable to tell the difference.
IMHO there are a helluva lot of psychological tricks involved in the sound of gear, and nobody seems willing to yell the emporer has no clothes. It is incredibly difficult for even me to be this honest about it, especially considering I invested much of my own time and effort (and money) into building two of these, but I think being objective is very important.
 
See, now you've got me thinking I need to upgrade my mic pre's! So, if you were on a budget, and were tracking drums, bass,and guitars simultaneously, then adding vocals, what would you do?

I can't afford 10 APIs, but I wonder if a mix where only the vocals are going through a high end pre and everything else is through my presonus and behringer stuff is going to sound all wacky, like a karaoke tape or something.

I think that yes, most of the stuff out there on major labels was recorded through very expensive mic pre's, but I know a lot of local studios that have high end pre's and Neumanns and their recordings sound like crap.

If you're a musician who's looking to record release quality stuff at home, you're up against it. The learning curve on engineering is pretty steep, no matter what gear you have to play with. There is no perfect setup that will make every vocal sound perfect, or every acoustic guitar sound immaculate.

I recorded these tracks on Cubase, using a MOTU 828 and Behringer ADA 8000, with a few Presonus BlueTube pres. I use some plug-ins, nothing that isn't free, though.

Give a listen, and tell me what difference an API would have made:

http://suitcaserecordings.com/demoreels.html

I'm serious, I want to improve my recordings (as do we all), but if I drop $1200 on a mic pre, it better make a serious improvement.

Thanks, don't mean to sound combative!
:)
 
Middleman said:
I think what you are saying here is musicians should make music and forget about learning to record.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. I think he's saying that musicians should be MORE concerned about "fixing it at the source" and that means "playing better on instruments that are better suited for recording" than anything else.

Largely, in my experience, there's a FAR bigger gap between someone who can play the music versus someone who can just play the notes. give me someone who can play the MUSIC anyday. it's the musician (and all things involved with said musician) that makes the biggest difference in recording.

with less accomplished musicians, oftentimes your job is to make them sound better. but you get a good musician in a good sounding room, and really, what you should be doing is trying to do is to get out of the way and NOT screw up their sound. i know who i'd rather record. :D

Middleman said:
If you read Bobby Owsinski's book, the Recording Engineers Handbook, it is basically a long list of experiences by people who shaped the industry and the gear chain never mentions a preamp under $1000.
Click to expand...

That's a good book (useful if not just for the delay chart in the back), and you're right, it doesn't. However, if you read Howard Massey's book (Behind the Glass) which is essentially a LOT more of the "same".....you see QUITE a few of those world-class engineer/producers interviewed who mention Mackie boards as being "very nice" and "excellent" (their words, not mine). So......maybe we're missing something here? or maybe, after all, it's the skills and not the gear? :D

Middleman said:
and my experience is that better preamps make better recordings.
Click to expand...

Of course they do--all upgrades should make a positive/beneficial difference. But it's not nearly as large of a difference as "better musicians make better recordings". that's what i'm sayin, and i'm stickin to it. :p


cheers,
wade
 
bleyrad said:
About the only high-end gear I have in my studio is 3 channels of API-312ish clone preamps.
I use them when I can "just because" but I can tell you that, when paired up with my all-cheap-Chinese mic arsenal, those preamps don't make a single jot of difference over my Mackie 1604 VLZ (which isn't really as bad as people around here make Mackie's sound... I've done some "nearly-label-ready" stuff on it).
So, I get a pretty darn good sound anyway, especially considering the mics I have to work with, but the preamp really doesn't seem to help at all. Maybe makes things slightly easier to EQ when it comes mix time. The 312s actually share a similar character with Mackie pres, though; they're both biggest in the mids.

I would definitely say go in this order:
1) Upgrade talent
2) Upgrade instruments
3) Upgrade room
4) Upgrade mics
5) Upgrade converters, monitors
6) Upgrade preamps
Click to expand...

You need better monitors or a properly treated mointoring facility. The difference between APIs and Mackies are night and day. I get a big difference between my pre-amps with the same mic and I use it to my advantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top