"Pro" mic-pre's vs. Mindprint DTC?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MAC2
  • Start date Start date
The preamp, while certainly having different sounds and colours, does NOT make the "warm, thick, xxxxxxx" sound you are looking for. If you place a mic infront of a kick drum and run the cable back to a micpre, monitor it,and don;t like the sound. Just changing to a better pre amp isn't going to make it sounds better You can't get that "thud" you are looking for, then use a Focusrite THUDmaster, it will make all kicks sound the same. I think sometimes we forget what we are hearing. When the source sucks, the sound sucks. say you have $1000 for gear, Get the SM57, and AKG 414 (or other decent multipattern LD) and a $100 all round preamp. If you can't capture a nice sound with that, then its the source's problem. S/N, headroom, gain settings, and the player make he difference. If you are looking to make drums sound triggered or sampled, then trigger or sample them.
 
Brothers and Porterhouse sound well-done. Omega sounds a bit cheap.Couldn't get Waited to play and SkyBlue crashed my computer.

I'm not saying people need to stock up on tons of great pres, I'm saying that even one can make a difference. I don't own all these pres, some are on loan to me for review. There are some great pres that clock in under $1K. The JH M1, GR MP-1NV, the 101 and Averill single channels.

On the 737, I'm not a big fan. In fact most of the pres I really like are the boutique pres made by small companies. You can call the company up and often have the designer answer the phone.

-----------
Dan Richards
Digital Pro Sound
 
Thanks for the challenge Ed! Cool post! The sound I like (and what geekgurl would call "clean yet fat and buttery") I hear in the Porterhouse tune....PLEASE don't tell me that was the one with the cheap mic pres!:eek: (and if that is the one with the "cheap" pres...what were they?) From what I heard (and I did listen to all the tunes) I'd bet either "Sky Blue Mind" or "Omega" has the less than class A's.

I'm not sure I understand Dan's analogy though....I always thought of it like a bunch of trees (individual tracks)....I can accomplish the same height (volume/gain) but not a nice big fat trunk (?). I surmised that the "thickness" or "fatness" of a track was the result of using class A pre's....'cause I hear that thick warm sound on proffessionally produced recordings (including yours!) and that's the type of equipment they're workin' with. I do appreciate your point of view....so if a class A mic-pre is just for another color how else do you accomplish that "fatness" and warmth?
 
Porterhouse used ALL ART Dual MP's and a TL Audio Classic for the overheads.

Sky Blue Mind used Mackies on the drums and a Focusrite Red on almost everything else.

Omega had Drawmers, Oram's, Focusrite's, and the Pro MPA here and there (on the toms as I remember...).

Heavy Brothers used all ART Dual on drums except the overheads which were the TL Audio Classic. ART on Bass, guitars, hammand B3, and voice. The other parts used some the other pre's mentioned.

Just goes to show....

Now, let's talk about the REAL differences in those recordings.

Porterhouse, The Heavy Brothers, and the Sky Blue Mind were all mixed on a Ghost console to DAT tape.

Omega and Waited were mixed on a Yamaha O2R to a Masterlink, but they "enjoyed" the most classA pre's of all the songs.

I just did a test tonite with an acoustic guitar to check out a newer Bellari preamp thingy that looks a hell of a lot like the ART MP single unit. We used a 4033 through Monster Studio Pro 1000 to it, then to a ORAM MWS, a Drawmer 1960, then to the ART Pro MP. Three engineers in the room. We all agreed that the Drawmer offered the best overall tonality, but it sort of lacked depth, but would have been the best pre for like folk music because of the sort of gerthy sound it had. The ART had a much more depth, and with just a hair of cut eq at 177Hz, sounded a whole lot like the Drawmer in the low end, but still had a bit more "sparkle" to the sound. The Oram sounded, well, like you would expect an acoustic in a 80's tune to sound. Not a lot of body, about the same depth as the Drawmer, but a top end that would cut through a dense rock mix well enough IF the acoustic wasn't all that important. The Bellari made the guitar sound like it was a foot farther away from the mic than any of the others.

That was just one mic placement, on one guitar, for one type of performance. I am SURE that any of the pre's could have worked out just fine in any type of production with a little mic placement, and possibly, a different mic to better match the preamp. So while that little experiment meant virtually nothing in the realm of things, it did show me again that the preamps didn't contribute anything to the sound that couldn't be overcome with good engineering work. None of you have to take my word for that, but all three engineers agreed that none of the pre's sounded all that much better than the others on this guitar (a VERY nice Takamine) using that mic.

I am NOT saying don't buy a quality preamp. Rather, I am saying that you cannot possibly rule out preamps that don't cost an arm and a leg as possible good choices. Sweating a preamp purchase is almost silly these days. I would sweat mic purchases MUCH more than a preamp purchase. So many nice pre's available that sound great for half what the class A's cost.

Again, no one preamp is going to define your production. Great production is possible on Mackie's if the engineer learns his mics, his tracking room, his monitors and control room. The most important thing is to KNOW what you are hearing when you hear it, and have an idea of how to use your mics and mic placement to achieve what will work for the song. THAT takes skill and experience. When you get that skill and experience, you will find yourself using whatever pre is available and not really worrying about it.

Ed
 
Oh...Waited used POD's on the guitar and bass. I figure THAT contributed more to the cheesy sound than anything else. I am NO fan of the POD! Trying to work around those crappy guitar sounds made me do many things to the drums and vocals that I would rather forget that I had to do. Oh, and Omega had POD guitars too....:(

Ed
 
Hard2Hear said:
Tex-
Thats very interesting, as I've been thinking about that pre. What style of music was it, and can you describe your vocalist and the mics you used? Did you return it?

I've been using a Focusrite Red7 and ISA110 and just don't care for the sound on my singer's voice.

Thanks,
H2H
Click to expand...

I was using a C1. I guess the singer would be closer to a Jewel type of voice than anything. Like I said, it didn't sound bad by any means. Just not amazing. I'd like to try it on guitar if I get a chance this weekend. I have a feeling it might really shine there.
 
A couple of points about the "value" of a high quality preamp:

1) Can you get a good sound using cheap preamps? Sure! But it might take a lot more work, especially at mixdown.

2) Those very subtle differences become less subtle on lead vocal tracks, since the human ear is far more sensitive to variations in the human voice than, say, a tambourine.

3) A high quality preamp may also have more headroom, and be more forgiving (i.e. more musical) when and if it gets close to the headroom limit.

4) Just as you might not want to use the same mic or the same compressor on everything, you might not want to use the same preamp. (For a detailed debate on this, maybe you can find the long and lengthy discourse between Ethan Winer and myself a few months ago.)

4) I don't particularly care if anyone can identify which particular recording you used cheap preamps on, since they were all different recordings. We have no way of knowing if the "perfectly acceptable" cheap preamp tune would have sounded a level or two better with better preamps. The more interesting test would be to use mic splitters so that the SAME performance could be compared through both cheap and expensive preamps. And even better would be to hear the "raw" mix, before you started futzing with it, since you may have spent more time futzing the cheap tracks.

That's sort of how I choose a critical recording chain: let the vocalist try different mic and preamp combinations singing the same section of a song through each (attempting to duplicate the performance as much as possiblw, of course.) If the vocalist has a clear preference when listening back "blindfolded", that's good enough for me.
 
sonusman, you're preaching to the choir here. I'm not making any statements that less expensive and less accurate mic pre-amps don't have their place in recordings. Even the humble ART MP is known as a pretty decent bass DI.

I'm more interested in pointing out that really good pres are tools that may not be as "expensive" as they appear considering that they generally hold their value while computer-based equipment depreciates every time you blink your eyes. Same is true of mics, and I would agree with you on the importance of good mics.

But you can't discount the worth of great mic pres, or you wouldn't be using them. If there was really nothing to it, everyone would just use Mackies and ART on everything.
 
Sometimes Dot, the choir contains the biggest sinners! ;)

I agree with your point too.

Ed
 
Cheap and expensive pres both can get you to where you want to go, but one just makes it a an easier ride. I'll pass on the cavalier pres and save for the cadillac.
 
Ed: Thanks for posting those tunes....just had to keep Heavy Brothers and Porterhouse ;) The "sound" on Porterhouse is the type of sound I'm after.....You mentioned those were ART Dual MP's....if you get a chance I'd be interested to know what else was in the chain and what mic(s)

Kristian: Thanks for a clear and concise answer!
 
Porterhouse (and The Heavy Brothers incidently) where recorded in a basement.

RE 27 on kick ART pre
SM 57 on snare top and bottom and toms ART pre's
4033 for overheads TL Audio Classic pre's

Bass was DI'ed using ART and mic'ed with a C1000S through a ART.

Keys were a mixture of mic'ed via amps and DI'ed, depending upon the sound that was needed. Usually SM 57 for micing, sometimes the C1000S. ART ALWAYS for the pre.

Percussion was 4033 to ART.

Recorded to Type1 ADAT's .

The Heavy Brothers stuff was much the same thing, but mixed via a different console (DDA). Soundcraft Ghost console used on Porterhouse. THB was mastered at a big mastering studio in town and I mastered Porterhouse. I don't care for the mastering job on THB which is why I started mastering my own stuff almost always now.

Ed
 
Ed: I hope you don't mind but I came up with a couple more questions....I've read nothing but bad reviews of ART equipment (the only good review being the Porterhouse recording)...how big a role would you say the Ghost console played in the chain? Also, when you DI an instrument and mic the cab do you combine the signals to a stereo channel or use two mono inputs?....What did you use to master the Porterhouse tune?
 
Hmmmmm...bad reviews.

I remember the NT1, the Aphex 107 pre, and most digitech products getting "killer" reviews in the past. Maybe ART just doesn't spend enough money in advertising to rate the "advertiser" good reviews or something.

I was tipped off to the ART preamp several years ago by a local vendor that pretty much supplies all the top end gear for local studios. The owner does some consultant work for JBL, Alesis, digitech, and is an authorized "system designer" for many dolby, dbx, etc... theatre systems. Locally, his opinion about most things audio are considered "in the know". He pushed me towards the ART preamp and I have not regretted using the product on most things. I have had the benefit of putting it against most classA pre's that are in wide use, and it usually fares VERY well.

I cannot account for other peoples taste concerning preamps, but I do know this. The "modern" sound tends to sound more "crispy" to my ears, and if that is the type of production you are after, well, I suppose the ART might not be what you want. Then again, I have had little trouble getting it to sound "crispy" too on certain things.

So, I say forget the reviews. Use YOUR OWN ears to decide. I used mine, and I find the ART to be in the game for an excellent preamp choice compared to ANY other preamp. Just my opinion. Most of the best work I have done used the ART. I find myself "tweaking" the sound far less (this is in response to an earlier statement concerning how much I have to tweak tracks). I am quite happy and comfortable using the ART. Is it the preamp for EVERYTHING? No. Certainly other preamps win out over it on certain applications. But, you have heard now some productions where the ART was the main preamp used for everything, and those productions sound very nice. They sound as good as many productions I have worked on, heard, etc...that used "better?" preamps.

The Ghost console did indeed make a difference in overall production sound between those mixes. Compared to a Yamaha O2R, the Ghost is just a wonderful console. So, indeed, the Ghost does make a difference as I stated above.

I made that point because preamp selection becomes a very subjective point. When you start thinking about many other parts of the signal chain, preamps in my opinion rank behind mic selections, monitors, control acoustics, consoles in the pecking order.

Few around this bbs are prepared to compare fairly the benefits of a classA preamp when they have many other parts of their audio chain that need drastic improvements. I have enjoyed in the past some great control rooms, with good monitoring to make my observations about preamps. The fact is, preamps are just another shade of tonal color. A Neve WILL NOT make your productions killer just because it is a NEVE. Compared to possibly a Peavey preamp, well, I will take the NEVE any day. But compared to many other lower cost preamps, the NEVE doesn't always offer the "best" sound for a particular instrument. If a NEVE was all I had to use, I would make the best of it just like I make the best use of an ART.

My point all along is that people get all hung up and stressed out about buying the "right" preamp, and usually start discounting many great lower cost alternatives. Such a shame. Many do this when they have other parts of the signal chain that need improving, and become so convinced that they need a high dollar preamp. In the end, they don't wind up making any better sounding recordings with these high dollar preamps than many people do with "lesser" preamps. That is my point. Don't stress a preamp purchase all that much! There are only different colors. No one preamp is the solution for everything. Buy what looks good to you and start saving your pennies for your next preamp choice. You WILL later on find out that you will want other colors available.

Ed
 
chessrock said:


Ah ha! And that, my friends, brings us full circle to the DTC.

http://www.mindprint.com/english/dtc.htm

Buy what looks good. :D Man, is that one good-looking piece of gear, or what?
Click to expand...

That's why I like my Meek VC1Q so much. My recordings still suck, but my preamp looks so very cool while recoding--especially with the blue compressor light glowing.:D

And let's face it, the ART Pro MPA does look double cool.:p
 
I remember way back that sonusman said the ART Pro MPA was a good preamp, but that was after he was already using the ART dual MP. And I think the preamp he mostly talks about is the ART dual MP. pretty impressive for the little bugger. Shame they are selling that TPS system instead of the dual MP. I bought that TPS system when it came out to give it a try. It was about the cheapest feeling piece of gear ever. And it didn't really sound much different then my mackie pres. It just sounded like you were adding weird EQ when changing the tube settings.
 
I love my Art Tube MP. I have no idea why people bash it so feverishly. I'm sure QC varies a lot on that thing, so I must have gotten one of the good ones. It's just a great DI. It has this thing about it on bass guitar and keys. Very nice, smooth tone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top