T
tdukex
Man of the Muse
Ed, when you say Pro MP do you mean Pro MPA, the dual mic pre? If so, how does your 797 Audio CR998 sound through it?
sonusman
Banned
I don't have that mic. But the ADK TC-51 sounds pretty good through it! And the 4033 and 4050 and 414 and U87's all sound pretty good through it. And a SM-57 micing a guitar cabinet is just devine through it! 
Ed
Ed
T
tdukex
Man of the Muse
Oh, I thought you had one of the CR998s.
You are speaking of this mic pre, though: http://www.8thstreet.com/product.asp?ProductCode=1455&Category=Audio_Processors
Have you tried the Pro MPA on acoustic guitar and/or piano with small condensers like the MC012?
I'm asking because I'm considering a Peavey VMP2 or FMR RNP purchase in the next year to be used mainly stereo micing guitar and piano and some voice. Thanks for any input you have.
You are speaking of this mic pre, though: http://www.8thstreet.com/product.asp?ProductCode=1455&Category=Audio_Processors
Have you tried the Pro MPA on acoustic guitar and/or piano with small condensers like the MC012?
I'm asking because I'm considering a Peavey VMP2 or FMR RNP purchase in the next year to be used mainly stereo micing guitar and piano and some voice. Thanks for any input you have.
sonusman
Banned
Well, that price is $150 LESS than they were 6 years ago.
The studio has the Pro MPA, I have a Dual MP that I have had for about 6 years now. I have used it on most of my recordings. All types of mic's. All types of applications. I haven't used it on a acoustic piano, mainly because I haven't tracked an acoustic piano for many years unfortunately...
It is a nice preamp.
Ed
The studio has the Pro MPA, I have a Dual MP that I have had for about 6 years now. I have used it on most of my recordings. All types of mic's. All types of applications. I haven't used it on a acoustic piano, mainly because I haven't tracked an acoustic piano for many years unfortunately...
It is a nice preamp.
Ed
T
tdukex
Man of the Muse
Thanks, Ed. Don't be such a stranger.
M
MAC2
Member
Wow...I'm kinda surprised on how this thread has grown since my last visit! Sure do appreciate everyone's comments.
Keith: Your latest reply makes a lot of sense. BTW, I went back to Mindprint's site and discovered there are some "professional" endorsements on their products, only one for the DTC at this point however.
geekgurl: If you here of another Neve clearance sale clue us in on it PLEASE!
Ed: Always glad to hear your take on things....thanks!!
tdukex: Thanks for the link to the Pro MPA...definitely something else to consider.
Sure do appreciate everyone's comments.Keith: Your latest reply makes a lot of sense. BTW, I went back to Mindprint's site and discovered there are some "professional" endorsements on their products, only one for the DTC at this point however.
geekgurl: If you here of another Neve clearance sale clue us in on it PLEASE!
Ed: Always glad to hear your take on things....thanks!!
tdukex: Thanks for the link to the Pro MPA...definitely something else to consider.
Michael Jones
New member
I have that Pro MPA too. They have come down in price a lot.
I'll agree with ed's assesment, in general. It sounds good with some mics, not so good with others.
It is a toob design, but if not driven too hard, it sounds really good. Drive it too hard though, and you end up with "bumble bees in tin foil" due to the tubes kicking in.
I'll agree with ed's assesment, in general. It sounds good with some mics, not so good with others.
It is a toob design, but if not driven too hard, it sounds really good. Drive it too hard though, and you end up with "bumble bees in tin foil" due to the tubes kicking in.
D
Dot
New member
One thing I never see people discuss on these boards is how much "space" in the soundfield a preamp takes up in order to have your ear accurately define a particular instrument or voice. People wonder how you can hear every instrument clearly on a well-recorded song – even if it's through a shitty little speaker. Well, a lot of the secret is in the mic pres.
Take the stereo field and within it place a sound – let's say an acoustic guitar. Now, how much space is that taking up? Well, if it's an inexpensive preamp, it might "sound good" just on that one track, but we have to add a lot more tracks in there to make a complete stereo mix of a song.
Let's make our stereo field the size of a dollar. Now, that guitar through a cheap pre might take up the size of a quarter. So, how may quarters could you lay on a dollar before you started running out of room? Not even 18. Try it yourself.
On that same dollar, how many heads from a straightpin could you fit? My guess is a couple of hundred.
When you listen to an individual acoustic guitar track that's well-miked running through a really high-quality preamp – the sound of the guitar will take up about as much space as the head on a pin.
I'm currently testing quite a few of the mic pres available – we've got John Hardy M1, Great River MP-1NV, Vintech 1272, Grace 101, Speck MicPre 5.O, Dan Alexander Dual Class A, Brent Averill 1272 and API and we've got Buzz Audio, Summit and more on the way.
The one thing all these pres have in common is that they focus the origin of a given sound in a very small and tightly-focused space within the soundstage.
Now, if you take a "decent" pre like an HHB or the M-Audio, ART or a Presonus and compare them to some of the pro pres listed above – what you'll hear is that the "lesser" pres almost sound like they're swimming with a chorus effect. They are considerably less defined than their pro counterparts. And this starts to add up as you add tracks into the mix. All those parts take up so much space and by the time you're ready to mix you wonder why – with all you try w/ EQ and rolling this off and moving that over – you can't get a clear mix that sounds like it was professionally recorded.
On the other hand, with well-recorded tracks with good pres, you can basically throw up the faders and the song is 95% there.
Then comes something that – to me – is even more important than EQ for instruments sitting in the right place in the mix – and that's panning.And it's a lot easier to pan a specific sound if you can easily pin-point in the stereo field just exactly where that sound is positioned. A great pre will show you, whereas a less-than-stellar pre will confuse your ears because the sound is literally taking up a less-defined area.
This is one of the reasons people need to invest in the front-end and not worry about having the DAW du jour. Almost any DAW made in the last five years will sound like any other DAW. There is very little difference – if at all – between the sonic performance of something like a Roland 880 and a full-blown Pro Tools rig.
Investing in the front-end is investing. Spending money on computer-based audio is the disposable trash of our age right now. There are $100,000 Sony digital multi-tracks made just a few years ago that are literally worth next to nothing now.
People think nothing of spending $5K - $10K on some new DAW-in-a-box. Two years from now it won't be worth $1K.
BUT...
If you buy any of those pro pres I listed, they will still be worth nearly as much as you payed for them in five or ten years – and some of them will actually appreciate in value.
Expensive $1000 mic pres are not expensive. It's a fact.
Sample rates are switching and rising a mile a minute. 96K today and 192 tomorrow. It's all meant to be disposable.
Hang on to your recording medium – whatever you use. Jumping to the next great DAW will not improve your sound nearly as much as a serious front-end. Not even close.
[ rant over ] : )
--------------
Dan Richards
Digital Pro Sound
Take the stereo field and within it place a sound – let's say an acoustic guitar. Now, how much space is that taking up? Well, if it's an inexpensive preamp, it might "sound good" just on that one track, but we have to add a lot more tracks in there to make a complete stereo mix of a song.
Let's make our stereo field the size of a dollar. Now, that guitar through a cheap pre might take up the size of a quarter. So, how may quarters could you lay on a dollar before you started running out of room? Not even 18. Try it yourself.
On that same dollar, how many heads from a straightpin could you fit? My guess is a couple of hundred.
When you listen to an individual acoustic guitar track that's well-miked running through a really high-quality preamp – the sound of the guitar will take up about as much space as the head on a pin.
I'm currently testing quite a few of the mic pres available – we've got John Hardy M1, Great River MP-1NV, Vintech 1272, Grace 101, Speck MicPre 5.O, Dan Alexander Dual Class A, Brent Averill 1272 and API and we've got Buzz Audio, Summit and more on the way.
The one thing all these pres have in common is that they focus the origin of a given sound in a very small and tightly-focused space within the soundstage.
Now, if you take a "decent" pre like an HHB or the M-Audio, ART or a Presonus and compare them to some of the pro pres listed above – what you'll hear is that the "lesser" pres almost sound like they're swimming with a chorus effect. They are considerably less defined than their pro counterparts. And this starts to add up as you add tracks into the mix. All those parts take up so much space and by the time you're ready to mix you wonder why – with all you try w/ EQ and rolling this off and moving that over – you can't get a clear mix that sounds like it was professionally recorded.
On the other hand, with well-recorded tracks with good pres, you can basically throw up the faders and the song is 95% there.
Then comes something that – to me – is even more important than EQ for instruments sitting in the right place in the mix – and that's panning.And it's a lot easier to pan a specific sound if you can easily pin-point in the stereo field just exactly where that sound is positioned. A great pre will show you, whereas a less-than-stellar pre will confuse your ears because the sound is literally taking up a less-defined area.
This is one of the reasons people need to invest in the front-end and not worry about having the DAW du jour. Almost any DAW made in the last five years will sound like any other DAW. There is very little difference – if at all – between the sonic performance of something like a Roland 880 and a full-blown Pro Tools rig.
Investing in the front-end is investing. Spending money on computer-based audio is the disposable trash of our age right now. There are $100,000 Sony digital multi-tracks made just a few years ago that are literally worth next to nothing now.
People think nothing of spending $5K - $10K on some new DAW-in-a-box. Two years from now it won't be worth $1K.
BUT...
If you buy any of those pro pres I listed, they will still be worth nearly as much as you payed for them in five or ten years – and some of them will actually appreciate in value.
Expensive $1000 mic pres are not expensive. It's a fact.
Sample rates are switching and rising a mile a minute. 96K today and 192 tomorrow. It's all meant to be disposable.
Hang on to your recording medium – whatever you use. Jumping to the next great DAW will not improve your sound nearly as much as a serious front-end. Not even close.
[ rant over ] : )
--------------
Dan Richards
Digital Pro Sound
Last edited:
C
chessrock
Banned
Nice "rant," Dot. Some very good, solid descriptions you used there. I've been critical of some of your reviews in the past, but I'm eating my words right now.
That's the kind of descriptive language I think we can all visualize and understand, and I wish more reviewers / writers, etc would use those kinds of descriptions. It's something we can actually sink our teeth in to and easily digest.
I like to think of it as "focus." The more focused the sound, the less space it will hog up in the mix, and the more it will hold it's own as other things get crammed in and the mix gets more crowded.
Compression helps, but there's more to it, obviously, than dynamics.
I can definitely see where the mic pre can play a role, but about 90% of it is going to be the mic (and obviously the mic technique and instrument itself). I've always found that one mic can have a lot more focus than another mic . . . while a mic pre will often have just a hair more focus than another. But it's that last hair that you can squeeze out that often makes a world of difference as the tracks start adding up.
Some very good, solid descriptions you used there. I've been critical of some of your reviews in the past, but I'm eating my words right now. That's the kind of descriptive language I think we can all visualize and understand, and I wish more reviewers / writers, etc would use those kinds of descriptions. It's something we can actually sink our teeth in to and easily digest.
I like to think of it as "focus." The more focused the sound, the less space it will hog up in the mix, and the more it will hold it's own as other things get crammed in and the mix gets more crowded.
Compression helps, but there's more to it, obviously, than dynamics.
I can definitely see where the mic pre can play a role, but about 90% of it is going to be the mic (and obviously the mic technique and instrument itself). I've always found that one mic can have a lot more focus than another mic . . . while a mic pre will often have just a hair more focus than another. But it's that last hair that you can squeeze out that often makes a world of difference as the tracks start adding up.
M
MAC2
Member
Dan: Thanks for your take on the subject. You express a good point about "investing" in a good front end vs. the "DAW-d'jour". At the present time I agree that most "consumer" digital recording methods/programs are not going to be all that much different from each other quality-wise. (Although I've been told that "pro" systems such as pro-tools, sonic solutions, etc. use a much larger "word" and that the "consumer gear" just can't do the math) I've come to the conclusion that good mics (and micing techniques
) and good mic-pre's can have a bigger positive impact on the sound quality. Even at a smaller bit depth I'm betting that something recorded with a good mic and a Neve (for example) is going to sound better and closer to a "pro" result.
My main interest in a unit like the DTC is that it has features that enable it to fulfill roles both as a mic-pre and as a mastering tool...I haven't seen any high end mic-pre's with spdif I/O's (or EQ AND comp/limiter capabilities)....it would appear that you'd have to buy another piece of gear to use the high end mic-pre's in a mastering role (and have at least two of them to achieve stereo...and all that starts to get out of my practical price range!) Or would you even have to bother mastering if you used a good mic pre to start with? If my reasoning is wrong...by all means please set me straight! Like everyone else here I'm just trying to do the research to get the most bang for the buck. I've got some questions in with Mindprint and am waiting to see how they're answered.
) and good mic-pre's can have a bigger positive impact on the sound quality. Even at a smaller bit depth I'm betting that something recorded with a good mic and a Neve (for example) is going to sound better and closer to a "pro" result. My main interest in a unit like the DTC is that it has features that enable it to fulfill roles both as a mic-pre and as a mastering tool...I haven't seen any high end mic-pre's with spdif I/O's (or EQ AND comp/limiter capabilities)....it would appear that you'd have to buy another piece of gear to use the high end mic-pre's in a mastering role (and have at least two of them to achieve stereo...and all that starts to get out of my practical price range!) Or would you even have to bother mastering if you used a good mic pre to start with? If my reasoning is wrong...by all means please set me straight! Like everyone else here I'm just trying to do the research to get the most bang for the buck. I've got some questions in with Mindprint and am waiting to see how they're answered.
G
geekgurl
New member
Hey Dot:
Werd on everything you said. I couldn't believe the clarity I found after jettisonning the PreSonus BlueTube for the Neve ... it was more than just "a type of sound" ... that's what I was trying to convey when I said "clean yet fat and buttery" ... it has character, but it's not muddy in any way.
But Dot, I'm wondering, with "clean" pres, where you just want something to stay out of the way, have you noticed the same sort of sonic space being taken up by lesser-quality pres? Seems that the muddiness would be less severe than with lesser-quality "coloring" pres.
As for the Neve thing, I feel remiss in not getting back to all you who are envious of my $600 Neve purchase. You have to keep in mind, this is a single channel: Dan Alexander no longer sells single-channel units, but you can get the same Class A pre (like Dot's demoing -- tell me how it fares in comparison, OK, Dot??) in a two-channel unit. When I talked to Dan months ago he quoted me $1350 for two channels.
That's only $625 a channel! So my "deal" wasn't all that special.
Find him at www.danalexanderaudio.com ... the dude's in Berkeley, in the SF Bay Area. He's a very patient explainer too.
Werd on everything you said. I couldn't believe the clarity I found after jettisonning the PreSonus BlueTube for the Neve ... it was more than just "a type of sound" ... that's what I was trying to convey when I said "clean yet fat and buttery" ... it has character, but it's not muddy in any way.
But Dot, I'm wondering, with "clean" pres, where you just want something to stay out of the way, have you noticed the same sort of sonic space being taken up by lesser-quality pres? Seems that the muddiness would be less severe than with lesser-quality "coloring" pres.
As for the Neve thing, I feel remiss in not getting back to all you who are envious of my $600 Neve purchase. You have to keep in mind, this is a single channel: Dan Alexander no longer sells single-channel units, but you can get the same Class A pre (like Dot's demoing -- tell me how it fares in comparison, OK, Dot??) in a two-channel unit. When I talked to Dan months ago he quoted me $1350 for two channels.
That's only $625 a channel! So my "deal" wasn't all that special.
Find him at www.danalexanderaudio.com ... the dude's in Berkeley, in the SF Bay Area. He's a very patient explainer too.
J
jet-rocker
New member
Yup
Seems like Dot may be growing a brain under that thick skull. lol. I know, I know. Play nice.
Good post Dot.
-Jett
Seems like Dot may be growing a brain under that thick skull. lol. I know, I know. Play nice.
Good post Dot.
-Jett
C
chessrock
Banned
geekgurl said:
Dense, yet maintaining focus?
sonusman
Banned
Dot said:
Hmmmmmmmm....okay Dan. Class A pre's all the way right?
Okay. Which song enjoyed all class A pre's, and which used a well known "cheap" preamp between these?
Your guesses should prove to be very entertaining to me at least, as people's guesses always are when I throw my work at them and ask them to tell me which "enjoyed" the "sonic superiorority" of classA preamps.
Again, I think this whole preamp deal is totally and thoroughly overrated. I have said this before and will say it over and over and over again. All the hype surround preamp's and it's "vital" role in good sound production is complete BS!!!
Do I like using different preamps for different usages? You bet! I like the subtle difference in color. But you know, if all's I had was a stupid little Mackie to use as pre's, I would manage to figure out how to get the best possible sounds I could with it, and I am willing to bet that the result of that work wouldn't be a whole lot different in the end than if I used a bunch of Class A's.
Go ahead folks. Spend your big bucks on preamps and sweat whether you got the "best" overall one available. In time, you will realize all's that you did was purchase yet another subtle color.
Myself, I will put money into a nice big variety of mics and good instruments.
Ed
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
I don't have a lot of experience with exotic pres but I wanted to try one out so I picked up an Avalon 737(?) at GC last week. I recorded some female vocals on it and played with the compressor on some acoustic guitar tracks.
I'm in the middle of a move and my setup right now is pretty haphazard to say the least but I have to admit that I wasn't all that impressed. I won't say the avalon sounds bad by any means but I figured at $2000 that I should have an ear to ear grin and a woody but it just wasn't the case. The EQ was pretty smooth but I never use more than some high pass and maybe a slight cut in the mids somewhere. The compressor was nice but once again there was simply no wow factor.
I'd like to try some different pres in the near future but as of now there is now way in hell I would pay 2 grand for that avalon.
I'm in the middle of a move and my setup right now is pretty haphazard to say the least but I have to admit that I wasn't all that impressed. I won't say the avalon sounds bad by any means but I figured at $2000 that I should have an ear to ear grin and a woody but it just wasn't the case. The EQ was pretty smooth but I never use more than some high pass and maybe a slight cut in the mids somewhere. The compressor was nice but once again there was simply no wow factor.
I'd like to try some different pres in the near future but as of now there is now way in hell I would pay 2 grand for that avalon.
B
Bowisc
New member
At most probably one of those tracks is using a high-end pre. Sounds like Mackie/ART/Audio Buddy gear.
Bowisc
Bowisc
sonusman
Banned
Actually, all but one of those has classA's all over on it. Which one is ALL "cheap" pre's?
Ed
Ed
Hard2Hear
New member
B
Bowisc
New member
sonusman said:
'... Brothers". I hear some '57's in there. Nice job.
I'm working on a project that was done on a BR8... the guy did a great job of really maximizing his gear.
Bowisc
sonusman
Banned
Actaully, that song has some Focusrite Red, Demeter, Telefunken pre's on it.
Try again.
One song out of that group used nothing but low dollar pre's.
Ed
Try again.
One song out of that group used nothing but low dollar pre's.
Ed